Economistas questionam dimensão da influência angolana via Sonangol
O investimento angolano em empresas estratégicas portuguesas, através da petrolífera Sonangol, dá a Luanda capacidade de influenciar decisões em Lisboa, mais do que permitir a diversificação de activos externos, defendem economistas ouvidos pela agência Lusa.
Enquanto alguns vêem com preocupação a entrada de gestores angolanos ligados ao Estado na administração de empresas como a Galp ou o Millennium BCP, outros, como o gestor do programa angolano do Banco Mundial, Alberto Chueca, pensam que Luanda está principalmente interessada em ter uma palavra a dizer na gestão de grupos que têm importantes operações em Angola.
“Faria perfeito sentido que por detrás da decisão da Sonangol investir em empresas portugueses pudesse estar uma intenção estratégica de influenciar o tipo de decisões administrativas destas empresas em Angola”, disse à Lusa Alberto Chueca, que afirma ser “legítima” e de “todo o bom-senso” esta postura.
“Temos muitas dúvidas de que a Sonangol tenha qualquer intenção e/ou alavancagem para desempenhar um papel” de “influenciar a política doméstica em Lisboa”, adianta o responsável do Banco Mundial.
Ao contrário dos restantes economistas, Chueca faz questão de diferenciar o governo de Angola da Sonangol, que, enquanto empresa pública, “deve maximizar o lucro depois canalizado para o Estado de Angola”, pelo que “não há nada de errado em fazer investimentos fora de Angola e em diferentes sectores, assegurando que o racional económico é sólido e sensato”.
O comércio e os fluxos de investimento entre Portugal e Angola estarão em destaque na visita oficial de três dias que o ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros, Luís Amado, inicia quinta-feira à antiga colónia portuguesa.
“As relações comerciais são um aspecto importante da nossa relação. O incremento das trocas comerciais e do investimento (português) em Angola, como também de Angola em Portugal, é uma realidade que o poder político dos dois estados não pode ignorar”, afirmou terça-feira à noite o ministro Luís Amado.
Para o economista e ex-secretário de Estado das Finanças Nogueira Leite, a Sonangol “actua como um fundo soberano” do Estado angolano, mas são vários os investidores do género em Portugal, pelo que Angola não deve ser marginalizada.
Exemplo, disse à Lusa, é o do banco La Caixa, que tem por detrás o governo catalão.
É certo que Espanha é um país democrático que pertence a um bloco económico de que Portugal faz parte, mas ao mesmo tempo, salienta, “diz-se que a [empresa pública russa do sector energético] Gazprom vai entrar na Galp, e a Rússia não é propriamente uma democracia”.
“Temos de ser consistentes, e não pedir aos empresários que sejam políticos”, enquanto o primeiro-ministro e o Presidente da República se desdobram em apelo ao investimento angolano, afirmou o economista.
Mais céptico, um economista e professor universitário português que pediu anonimato, salienta que, com as participações na Galp ou Millennium, Angola passa a ter “capacidade de pressão” sobre as empresas e a economia portuguesa, que em casos limite pode até ser transformada em “poder de chantagem”.
Se “de repente, por razões políticas, Angola ameaçasse vender a sua participação” em empresas como a Galp ou o Millennium, tal poderia causar grande perturbação nos mercados de capitais, exemplifica o mesmo economista.
Embora levando em conta que a “relação financeira é também uma relação de poder”, o ex-ministro da Economia Daniel Bessa mostra-se bastante mais optimista em relação ao investimento angolano.
“Sou dos que entendem que só pode haver uma atitude a um tempo correcta e descomplexada para com o investimento angolano em Portugal. Como português, cidadão de um país com um défice da balança de transacções correntes da ordem dos 10% do PIB, com consequente défice de poupança interna, só posso sentir-me agradecido e lisonjeado por esta disponibilidade do Estado angolano para investir em Portugal”, adianta.
Para Bessa, o Estado português “não tem sequer o direito de interferir na escolha das entidades a quem os interesses privados portugueses entendem alienar os seus activos”, devendo deixar esse papel a estes agentes e aos reguladores. Isto, à excepção de “situações extremas” que, “em minha opinião, não se aplicam hoje ao Estado angolano”, frisa.
“Se isso nos constitui numa situação de alguma fragilidade… é a vida. Não se pode ter ‘sol na eira e chuva no nabal’, sendo dos livros que, nestas matérias, a relação de poder é sempre assimétrica, em benefício dos credores e dos investidores em geral”, afirma Bessa.
Para o economista e analista político angolano Justino Pinto de Andrade, a Sonangol “não é a mão directa” do Estado angolano.
A petrolífera “detém liberdade e maioridade”, e acaba por ser protagonista da “internacionalização” do país apenas porque é praticamente a única empresa com capacidade para tanto.
“Por outro lado, os investimentos da Sonangol em Portugal, e noutros mercados mais competitivos, permitem a Angola obter conhecimentos que não existem internamente”, disse à Lusa.
Manuel Alves da Rocha, economista e professor na Universidade Católica de Angola, também vê a Sonangol assumir-se como protagonista da “estratégia de internacionalização pela via financeira” delineada pelo governo - é o “instrumento mais poderoso” de Luanda nesta área.
Apesar de melhorias, Alves da Rocha afirma que “há ainda muito a fazer” no que diz respeito à transparência do sector petrolífero angolano.
“É consensual que há determinadas questões que devem constituir segredo de Estado, especialmente nesta área onde a concorrência dita regras, mas é também verdade que nem tudo pode ser segredo”, afirmou à Lusa.
Alemanha elege Angola como parceiro para desenvolvimento
A República da Alemanha acaba de eleger Angola como seu parceiro para o desenvolvimento. A informação foi avançada pelo Ministro-Adjunto do Primeiro-Ministro, Aguinaldo Jaime, em Frankfurt, onde terminou quarta-feira um fórum económico envolvendo cerca de 180 empresários e líderes associativos dos dois países.
A inclusão de Angola na lista é reconhecimento das reformas políticas e económicas que Angola está a efectuar, bem como da sustentabilidade e robustez da sua economia, segundo o ministro.
Poucos países do mundo fazem parte da selecta lista. Em África, constam países como o Egipto, Tunísia e Marrocos. Na zona Austral, apenas constam a África do Sul e a Nigéria. Para Aguinaldo Jaime, o reconhecimento da primeira economia da Europa encoraja ainda mais o Governo a prosseguir com as reformas em curso.
Quarta-feira, segundo e último dia do fórum, Aguinaldo Jaime explicou aos presentes os objectivos constantes do Programa do Governo, que busca a redução das importações, a diversificação da economia (para que o país não dependa apenas do petróleo e diamantes), o alcance da auto-suficiência alimentar, bem como tornar a economia angolana competitiva a ponto de ombrear com os gigantes da África Central e Austral.
Falando para uma plateia de mais de 180 empresários, líderes de associações e representantes do sector público e privado da Alemanha, o ministro-adjunto do Primeiro-Ministro voltou a manifestar aos empresários alemães as necessidades de investimento para Angola.
Explicou que Angola pretende colher da Alemanha a sua experiência em reerguer-se dos escombros, depois de vários anos de conflito.
O fórum de Frankfurt surgiu em resposta à visita efectuada em Dezembro do ano passado pelo ministro da Economia e Tecnologia da Alemanha, Michael Glos, que esteve em Luanda com uma delegação composta por dois influentes deputados do Parlamento alemão e mais de 50 homens de negócios.
Na altura, Michael Glos manifestou o desejo do seu país em investir principalmente nas áreas de energia e água, obras públicas, hotelaria, transportes e na construção de oleodutos e gasodutos.
Considerou Angola um parceiro de confiança, que sempre cumpriu com os compromissos económicos assumidos com o seu país.
O ministro alemão referia-se, fundamentalmente, ao facto de Angola ter renegociado, ainda em 2003, a dívida decorrente da sua relação com a extinta República Democrática Alemã (RDA).
Na altura, o país acabava de sair, havia apenas um ano, de uma guerra civil que durou 27 anos. A renegociação da dívida com a Alemanha, também membro do Clube de Paris, permitiu retomar o fluxo de comércio e investimento entre os dois países.
Os mais recentes foram dois acordos de financiamento, assinados em Dezembro do ano passado (um no valor de mil milhões de euros, com o Commerzbank, e outro, complementar, de 225 milhões de euros, com o Deutsche Bank).
No total, o Deutsche Bank já disponibilizou 900 milhões de euros e financiou mais de 50 projectos individuais. Os prazos de reembolso também têm sido alargados.
Além do ministro-adjunto do Primeiro-Ministro, a delegação angolana integrou, entre outros, representantes da Agência Nacional para o Investimento Privado (ANIP), do Ministério dos Petróleos, da Sonangol, da Endiama, do Banco Africano de Investimentos (BAI) e da Associação Industrial de Angola (AIA).
Minister of Assistance and Social Rentegration – Mr.João Baptista Kussumua
Deputy Ministers
Mr.Clarisse Matilde Munga Kaputu
Mr.Maria da Luz Cirilo Sá Magalhães
Mr.Mateus Miguel Ângelo “ General Vietname”
Av. Hoji ya Henda, 117
Minister’s office: 44 29 49
Chief of Staff: 34 14 60
National Bureau of Assistance and Social Promotion 44 03 70
National Infancy Bureau: 44 33 01
Minister of Family and Woman Promotion- Mrs.Cândida Celeste da Silva
Deputy Ministers
Mrs. Ana Paula do Sacramento Neto
Largo 4 de Fevereiro - Luanda
Minister’s Office - Tel.: 31 11 71 - fax: 31 00 57
Secretary: 31 04 09
e-mail:miniterio.mulher@netangola.com
Minister of Former Combatant and Veterans of War - Mr. Pedro Van-Dúnem
Justiça francesa volta a investigar riqueza de estadistas africanos
Caso José Eduardo dos Santos,
será tratado «mais tarde».
França - Angola será deixada de lado, no pedido de reabertura das investigações ao património de dirigentes africanos em França que quatro organizações não-governamentais (ONG) europeias vão apresentar à Justiça francesa.
Os promotores da exigência, que fizeram este anúncio a poucos dias da vista a Angola do presidente francês, Nicole Sarkosy admitiram que outros casos, como o do Presidente angolano, José Eduardo dos Santos, serão tratados «mais tarde».
William Bourdon, advogado e presidente da ONG francesa Sherpa, foi citado pela Lusa como tendo dito que o pedido vai dirigir-se, para já, aos casos de Denis Sassou-Nguesso, da República do Congo, e Omar Bongo, do Gabão, e respectivas famílias, em relação aos quais a investigação identificou mais património, no valor de vários milhões de euros. A Justiça francesa decidiu no final do ano passado decretar o encerramento das investigações lançadas três meses antes, alegando que o processo estava «insuficientemente caracterizado».
Os dados apurados não foram tornados públicos, mas as ONG Survie, Sherpa, Global Witness e Federação dos Congoleses na Diáspora dizem ter tido acesso a centenas de páginas que identificam negócios protagonizados pelas famílias de dirigentes do Gabão, Congo, Burkina Faso e Guiné-Equatorial.
O pedido de reabertura do processo, disse à Lusa William Bourdon, será entregue na Justiça francesa «dentro de algumas semanas».
Um dos argumentos para a necessidade de continuar as investigações é o facto de a França fazer parte da Convenção das Nações Unidas contra a Corrupção (UNCAC) e da Iniciativa para a Transparência nas Indústrias Extractivas.
A investigação policial foi lançada em Junho do ano passado, na sequência de um pedido das quatro ONG dirigido às famílias de dirigentes de Angola, Burkina Faso, Congo Brazaville, Guiné Equatorial e Gabão.
Estas alegam que a aquisição de bens no valor de muitos milhões de dólares não poderia ter sido feita apenas com os seus rendimentos oficiais.
O escândalo «Angolagate» asfixiou as relações entre Luanda e Paris há quase cinco anos podendo a vinda do estadista francês a Angola inaugurar uma nova era no relacionamento entre Angola e França conforme fonte diplomática gaulesa citada em Luanda que considera que Angola é um «parceiro indispensável».
O caso «Angolagate» esteve relacionado com a controvérsia judicial surgida de um negócio de armas verificado nos anos 90 durante a guerra civil, devido ao envolvimento de eminentes figuras francesas e angolanas.
Do lado francês, o protagonista foi o empresário franco-brasileiro, Pierre Falcone, alvo de um mandato de captura internacional, que Luanda tentou neutralizar nomeando-o como conselheiro na sua representação junto a UNESCO, em Paris.
Entre as autoridades angolanas que teriam lucrado do «affaire», foram apontados o próprio Eduardo dos Santos e alguns colaboradores mais chegados, entre os quais o ministro da Indústria Joaquim David, o antigo chefe da Casa Civil da Presidência da República.
Embora as autoridades gaulesas tivessem evocado publicamente a independência da sua justiça, a anulação deste caso judicial foi referida como tendo sido possível graças à pressão exercida por Luanda sobre Paris.
Dúvidas e (muitas) certezas sobre a saída de Capapinha - Eugénio Costa Almeida
“Kopelipa terá tido o mesmo destino”
Porto - A seu pedido – terá sido mesmo?!?!? –, e de acordo com um comunicado da Presidência da República de Angola, Job Pedro Castelo Capapinha deixou o cargo de Governador Provincial de Luanda por razões ainda não cabal e devidamente explicadas.
Terá sido a carta de Tchizé dos Santos ou as ligações à Igreja Maná que levaram à demissão do governador de Luanda?
E torna-se estranho porque ainda há dias mostrava uma força e pujança ilimitadas como provavam as suas palavras na tomada de posse de novos administradores municipais e comunais da cidade de Luanda, onde exigiu – teria sido por isso? – mais empenho no combate ao deteriorado saneamento básico que é uma mina para certos e pouco escrupulosos “fornecedores de água” que, não raras vezes, “foge” da capital, no arranjo das estradas municipais, na recolha do lixo e no reordenamento da venda ambulante, na conservação da iluminação pública e no combate ao banditismo, na proibição clara de ocupação ilegal de terrenos – será que desta vez as ONG’s conseguiram ter mais força que o poder central , ou teria sido que certos especuladores conseguiram correr com Capapinha? –, ou a exigência de informação correcta às populações das eternizadas e pouco claras obras públicas que se fazem na cidade e que muitas a estão a descaracterizar.
O que, realmente, espoletou esta saída? Terá sido a carta que se indica como sendo produzida por Tchizé dos Santos, uma das filhas do presidente Eduardo dos Santos? Terão sido as ligações à Igreja Maná?
Relembremos que a carta em questão criticava os”… ‘engraxadores’, ‘bajuladores’, os ‘Kotas Bosses’, e outros delinquentes do colarinho branco…” que pululam pelo país passando, não poucas vezes, por “cima de outros cidadãos, ricos ou pobres” no que a articulista considera ser o “dia-a-dia da batalha pelo ganha pão”.
Só que, como ela relembra, existem muitos “…’pseudo-novos-ricos’ angolanos esquecem as suas origens e querem passar por cima do seu vizinho que saiu do mesmo bairro e acham que têm direito a tudo na lei da força”.
E como recordamos casos como o de Kundi Pahiama, o todo poderoso Ministro da Defesa, que manda aviões às suas fazendas (ainda há quem ganhe o suficiente com a sua actividade governativa ao contrário do que lamenta o presidente Eduardo dos Santos) buscar cabeças de gado para a sua família e para os seus cães! e nunca para os pobres, porque desses não reza a história.
Ou terá sido por causa de uns 4’54” de uma canção rap reconhecida por “Xumuna - Trilha1 ‘Ze Du’” ou “Variada 2008”, onde o presidente é fortemente criticado – diria mais, tristemente enxovalhado e de uma forma muito pouco correcta e com ataques claramente racistas que não são apanágio dos angolanos, mesmo que contrários ao MPLA e suas órbitas, embora a denominação de “raça”, em vez de “sexo” nos Bilhete de Identidade não ajude – bem assim os que gravitam à sua volta e que “roubam milhões sem travões…” mas que permitiu fazer emergir, e muito rapidamente, imensos bajuladores gravitando à volta da Cidade Alta como castos abutres ou inocentes hienas.
Mas se Capapinha saiu de cena, Luanda não ficou desprotegida. Bem pelo contrário.
De acordo com o citado comunicado presidencial – mas por que raio um governo provincial, que pertence ao Poder Executivo e ao nível hierárquico do Governo Central e do Gabinete do Primeiro-ministro (mas existe mesmo um Primeiro-ministro?), embora na minha opinião devesse estar sob alçada de um Ministério do Interior ou da Administração do Território, está sob ordens e directrizes da presidência? – foi criado um Gabinete de Intervenção na província luandense que incorporará personalidades como Joaquim Reis Júnior, que o vai coordenar e era até agora secretário do Conselho de Ministros, Manuel Correia Victor, que ficará com a área económica, Manuel António, que supervisionará a área social, Afonso de Antas Miguel, que tomará conta do sector produtivo (qual?!) e representantes dos ministérios do Planeamento, das Finanças, das Obras Públicas, do urbanismo e Ambiente, da Administração do Território, da Energia e Águas, do Secretariado do Conselho de Ministros e do Gabinete de Reconstrução Nacional.
Ou seja, mais uns quantos, coitados que vão ter de fazer pela vida na duríssima batalha do ganha-pão. Realmente é preciso ser muito patriota para, como lamenta o senhor Presidente, não se conseguindo ganhar o suficiente pela via do serviço governativo, haver ainda quem queira ser membro de órgãos públicos e governativos.
Provavelmente pensam que conseguem aceder a um estatuto como o de Pahiama – ter fazendas e aviões para irem buscar cabeças de gado –, ou outros que além de Ministros – ou foram – são também gestores – leia-se, donos – de bancos e empresas piscatórias, pelo menos…
Mas segundo consta nos “mentideros” de Luanda não terá sido só Capapinha que foi exonerado.
Também o todo poderoso Kopelipa terá tido o mesmo destino – já é a segunda vez que se ouve falar em demissão ou, como aconteceu há poucos meses, na sua rápida desmentida detenção – embora ainda não confirmado, até porque há hora que escrevo estas linhas os principais portais noticiosos angolanos estão todos “out”; provavelmente foram todos comemorar o 4 de Fevereiro, Dia do início da Luta Armada, e esqueceram-se de deixar os servidores ligados…
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL
Second Hour of Post-Debate Analysis
Aired June 3, 2007 - 22:00 ET
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening again from St. Anslem College in New Hampshire, site of the second presidential debate in Campaign ‘08, eight candidates, arguably three frontrunners.
Iraq, of course, taking center stage on a weekend that has seen at least 14 Americans killed.
The evening, equal parts questioning from journalists, as well as audience members, some of whom have had family members in Iraq.
Tonight, we’ll be looking at all the angles, brining you some of the highlights, talking to players and getting analysis from political pros, insiders and our own correspondents, the best political team on television.
All that coming up. First, CNN’s Candy Crowley with the big picture.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Consistently third in national polls, John Edwards took it to them this evening, commending his top two rivals for voting against an Iraq spending bill and blasting them for failing to lead.
JOHN EDWARDS, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They went quietly to the floor of the Senate and cast the right vote. But there is a difference between leadership and legislate.
CROWLEY: It produced the first dust-up of the evening as Obama took exception.
BARACK OBAMA, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And I think, John, the fact is I opposed this war from the start. So you are about 4 1/2 years late on leadership on this issue. I think it’s important not to play politics on something as critical and as difficult as this.
CROWLEY: Running for the nomination of a fiercely anti-war party, Joe Biden was the odd man out, the only one to have voted in favor of the Iraq spending bill. Biden explained he could not in good conscience leave U.S. troops without funds.
Though refusing to be directly critical of his colleagues, Biden managed to get his point across?
JOE BIDEN, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I knew the right political vote, but some things are worth losing elections over. CROWLEY: Perched at the top of the pack, Clinton’s debate mission was to be frontrunner, stay above the fray. She had her sights set on the general election, not her Democratic colleagues.
HILLARY CLINTON, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major. I don’t want anybody in America to be confused
CROWLEY: Clinton and Edwards clashed only gently when he repeated his assertion that the War on Terror is nothing more than a bumper sticker.
EDWARDS: That’s exactly what it is. It’s a bumper sticker.
CROWLEY: She politely dissented.
CLINTON: I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists. I believe we are safer than we were. We are not yet safe enough.
CROWLEY: The group touched on immigration, the crisis in Darfur, health care, education and taxes.
But time and again, the war dominated the stage, as it has the campaign.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: And Candy Crowley joins us now, along with John King, Wolf Blitzer and John Roberts.
Candy, why is Senator Clinton trying to emphasize there’s not that much division betweens the folks on stage?
CROWLEY: Because she’s the front-runner. You don’t need to attack or go on the offense. You need to simply stay up there, put in a strong performance, which she did, and not raise any waves. You don’t need go on the assault. You just need to keep things calm.
She looks like the uniter of the party as opposed to a divider in a country that seems desperate for people to stop arguing. She can sit up there and seem like the uniter.
COOPER: John King, on the one hand, Senator Edwards, former Senator Edwards certainly was going on the attack against Senator Clinton, sometimes against Obama as well. At the same time, he would try to go for big picture, lofty ideas about honesty in politics. At one point, instead of talking about Darfur, he changed it to talking about moral leadership in the world.
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He’s trying to be, Anderson, the alternative to Hillary Clinton. In some ways, Senator Edwards’ early campaign strategy has been blocked or thwarted or made a lot more difficult by the emergence of Barack Obama as the celebrity candidate in this race and someone, early on, appears to be a significant challenger to the front-runner, Hillary Clinton. So Senator Edwards trying, if you will, to say, don’t forget me, I’m more of a presidential leader. I have better ideas and more experience.
That’s the take in the “Spin Room” tonight. The Hillary Clinton campaign coming in and saying she came in a front runner, they believe she leaves a front-runner.
In all the other campaigns saying there seems to be a competition between Obama and Edwards, to say I should be considered the leading alternative. Very interesting perspective here, Anderson.
COOPER: Wolf, when you were on the stage and there was that exchange between Senator Clinton and Obama, Senator Edwards attacking them both for lack of leadership, for not saying how they were going to vote on the funding for troops until the last minute, both seemed to want to jump in. What was it like? Was there clear tension between them?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Yes, there was tension. You could see it. I was a little surprised Senator Edwards really went after them so quickly.
I suspected he might hold back a little bit. He clearly had an agenda. He wanted to differentiate himself and distinguish himself from the two front runners, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. He pounced. And he pounced quickly. And they responded, obviously, as everyone suspected they would.
I suspect also, Anderson, we will see a lot more of that as this campaign gets going.
COOPER: Let’s play that John Edwards byte where he criticized them for what he termed lack of leadership. Well, we don’t have that. We’ll try to play that a little bit later on.
John Roberts, did any of so-called second tier candidates really break out tonight?
JOHN ROBERTS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I think that Bill Richardson did himself some favors tonight, even though James Carville said earlier this evening he didn’t think he was as strong as he has been in the past.
As we heard from one of the people who were in the audience tonight, trying to make up their minds who they’re going to vote for, they thought Richardson sounded like a real manager, which is the real strength of governors in these presidential campaigns.
Joe Biden, who was cited as being very strong, obviously was. Was he a little too angry? People do not like angry candidates. When he was talking, particularly about Darfur, he was bordering really on emotion that was getting toward anger.
But I think tonight, Anderson, one of the stand-out moments was when Barack Obama took that question about should English be the official language of the United States and he turned it into one of those out-of-the-box moments, as he did a few weeks ago on one of the Sunday shows when asked whether his children should benefit from affirmative action when going to college.
He said these are the questions that are designed to divide us. He had a real presidential moment there where he took a question that could be somewhat controversial, perhaps even explosive on stage like that, and he shaped it into a unifying moment where he stood up to say, this is what we think is best for the country.
Of course, Anderson, we’ll be discussing all of this tomorrow with a couple of the presidential candidates on “American Morning.” We look forward to having people with us as we do that tomorrow.
COOPER: Certainly do look forward to that.
John King, played some of the harshest criticism, not surprisingly, coming from James Carville and Dennis Kucinich. Dennis Kucinich basically blaming the war not just on President Bush, but Democrats.
KING: In fact, he said it was the Democrats war now, Anderson, something none of the other Democratic candidates want to hear. They want this to be a campaign against George W. Bush’s war. They want this make this a campaign against the leading Republican candidates, who all the other Democrats say largely support the president’s policy.
And, yes, you have Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel who are certainly not in the top tier, but who can influence the race because of their participation in these debates, saying the Democrats are now the leadership party in Congress. The Democrats have a chance to just cut off the funding and stop the war.
So if you’re Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, even though they are having a spirited debate about the war amongst themselves, it can be even more complicated when you have a Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel saying all these guys are spinning you or no being politically honest with you. They have the power to shut it off, especially those in United States Congress who have to cast the votes not only in recent history, but in the days and weeks ahead.
Having a Kucinich or a Gravel in the race, pressing them every single time, makes the war, already a complicated debate, all the more messy.
COOPER: John King live from the “Spin Room” where candidates and their supporters are trying to spin the story. That’s why we try to avoid it as much as possible.
Let’s go to Larry King, who’s on the stage of this hall.
Larry?
LARRY KING, CNN HOST: Thanks, Anderson.
Back with our panel of Wolf Blitzer, James Carville, J.C. Watts and Donna Brazile.
James, is Iraq the gorilla in the room?
JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, if it was, it should have pranced around the room a lot. We weren’t for the lack of discussion about it.
LARRY KING: I mean, is it “it”? If I had to pick an “it,” is it “it”?
CARVILLE: No. It’s a very important issue. But I bet you when it’s all said and done about this debate, the audience was just as attuned, maybe more tuned to a lot of domestic issues, healthcare and other things we talked about out here.
Always these kinds of issues drive voters more, particularly in Democratic primaries. So, yes, it’s a huge issue. By every poll, it’s a number one issue.
But it’s not “it” and it doesn’t loom over everything else to the fact these voters, I bet you, were really paying attention to these health care issues and deficit issues and stuff like that.
LARRY KING: Donna, it’s not the key to who wins or loses this primary?
DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIC: It will remain a very dominant issue in this presidential debate season, as well as this contest.
But I also agree with James, domestic issues. Democrats want to hear about the candidates’ position on health care, immigration.
One issue we touched on very lightly tonight, education. That’s a huge issue for this country, especially in light of the fact that Congress must reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act.
LARRY KING: How about poverty? J.C.?
J.C. WATTS: That’s the thing I take my hat off to John Edwards for. At least he’s talking about it. I don’t necessarily agree with his models and how he would deal with poverty. He’s one of the few candidates, on the Republican or Democrat side, is at least everyday you hear something from him about that.
Larry, concerning this war issue, I do believe it is “it.” I thought Senator Clinton tonight was very clever. John Edwards is taking a far left position on the war. Senator Clinton didn’t allow him to drag her into that far left theology.
She, I thought, smoothly navigated, in her space, where she was comfortable with the war, with some nuances, but again, she did not allow him to drag her to a far left position.
LARRY KING: Before we bring in the audience, Wolf, isn’t the party, though, far left on Iraq?
BLITZER: On Iraq, there are nuances. There are differences. We heard some of those distinctions today between Senator Biden, for example, some of the other Senators on why they voted for what they did.
I suspect — and I’d be interested with the rest of the panel, getting their thoughts. I suspect the eight Democrats here agree, more or less, on Iraq just as the ten Republicans, who will be debating Tuesday night, more or less, agree in support of President Bush’s policies on Iraq.
LARRY KING: I promised you a question or two from some members of the audience late at night in New Hampshire.
This is Carol Treme (ph). Right, Carol? What’s your question?
CAROL TREME (ph), AUDIENCE MEMBER: Research on early learning is shouting at us to invest in the early years. I was disappointed they didn’t speak that much about education.
“Time” magazine has focused on that this week. And I hope you all have read it. I’m interested in knowing who has looked at high- quality education and what their recommendations are in that department?
LARRY KING: James, you’ve been in the political business a long time. Is education ever to the forefront?
CARVILLE: People care about education, of course they do — schools.
LARRY KING: Why don’t they talk about it more?
CARVILLE: First of all, you will not find a lot of disagreement with Democrats over education. I think Senator Dodd is more into this early childhood learning and the childhood stuff. He has a career built up on these kinds of things.
I don’t think there’s a huge disagreement among Democrats on the question of education. I think most of them would have said we need to spend more obviously — early childhood education is enormously important, if you look at the effect Head Start has had, some of the pre-K. Some of these other programs are part of Democratic doctrine, if you will.
I think had it been brought up, I think you would have been pleased. I don’t think there’s a lot of difference on education among the candidates up there tonight.
LARRY KING: We have one more audience question from Tom Maloney — Tom?
TOM MALONEY, AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening. I was wondering if you thought Senator Clinton sort of played it safe tonight. I noticed she, more than anyone else, reverted to some anti-Bush language rather than focusing on establishing her own positions
LARRY KING: Donna? BRAZILE: No. I don’t think so. I thought Senator Clinton did a great job establishing her position, especially on Iraq, but she showed leadership especially on a very important issue that has come up on this debate. That is don’t ask, don’t tell.
So she could have avoided that question on gay civil union and some other issues. But she didn’t. She answered directly. I thought she was, by far, once again, a strong candidate.
LARRY KING: J.C., as a Republican, are you impressed with this Democratic group?
WATTS: I think the Democrats are a lot more stable at this time, in terms of, I think where they’re trending. I think Senator Clinton is, by far, the front-runner. I think she’s the person to beat.
On the Republican side, the candidates that actually announced, we don’t know who the candidate is going to be.
Then you have Fred Thompson with his shadow hovering over the field. It will be interesting to see where Fred Thompson — where his numbers will come from, who does he impact? Who’s the most vulnerable? I think it’s probably Rudy.
But, yes, I think the Democrats are a lot more focused and stable as to the way they’re trending right now.
LARRY KING: We’ll be back with more of our panel with Wolf Blitzer and Donna and Jim and J.C.
I’m Larry King. Let’s turn it over to Anderson Cooper.
Anderson?
COOPER: Larry, thanks.
We’ll have more raw politics ahead. We’ll also be joined by David Gergen, Jeffrey Tubin, Arianna Huffington and Mike Murphy, joining me next at St. Anslem College in Manchester, New Hampshire. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I want to end by saying Barry Goldwater once said you don’t have to be straight to shoot straight. I think he was right. And I believe we should open up our military.
BIDEN: Let me tell you something. Nobody asked anybody else whether they’re gay in those holes, those foxholes, number one. Number two, our allies, the British, the French, all our major allies, gays openly serve. I don’t know the last time an American soldier said to a backup from a Brit, “Hey, by the way, let me check, are you gay? Are you straight?” This is ridiculous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Senators Clinton and Biden, Senator Biden, especially fiery tonight.
Joining me now to look at that, the politics at who won and lost, Arianna Huffington, editor in chief of the huffingtonpost.com; Republican Strategist Mike Murphy; and former presidential advisor David Gergen and CNN’s Jeffrey Tubin.
Arianna, we just heard Clinton and Biden talking about don’t ask, don’t tell policy. Did either candidate gain or lose points for their answer regarding gays in the military?
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, EDITOR IN CHIEF, HUFFINGTONPOST.COM: No. I think Hillary Clinton would have gained even more points if she had said, yes, her husband’s administration had made a mistake.
There’s nothing wrong with occasionally admitting you or your husband made a mistake.
But I think a more significant point on this is what the Obama campaign failed to do tonight. I was downstairs in the spin court, “Spin Room”, listening to David Axelrod, Obama’s chief media strategist, spinning the press. And he said there is sequential. There’s a long time to go, a long time before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. That’s not a good strategy for the Obama campaign.
They’re running a front-runner campaign. He missed a lot of opportunities tonight to challenge her.
Today, we had a major story on the cover of the “New York Times” magazine about Hillary’s Iraq policy, about the fact she had not read the national intelligence estimate, about the fact she made claims by al Qaeda and Saddam that were not backed by intelligence, about the Levin Amendment.
These were all opportunities that Obama could have taken and challenged her. Because he’s slipping in the national polls. She’s gaining in the national polls. He won’t overtake her simply being the way he was tonight.
COOPER: David Gergen, why wouldn’t Obama go after Hillary Clinton on those issues? As Arianna said, they are front and center in the news right now?
DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR: That’s an interesting question, Anderson. I kept wondering, his instincts seem to be that as a consensus builder. Every time a question came up, he was the one that wanted to see how we could find — make sense in the middle of all the people on the stage.
I’m not sure it’s part of his character to go after, in that traditional fashion, to go after the front-runner. I think Arianna has a good point. His instincts may be in conflict with what a candidate would normally do in his position. JEFFREY TUBIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: If you look at his history, he has not had a tough big election. He won a Democratic primary against an opponent embroiled in a sex scandal. He won his general election against a joke of a candidate who lived in Maryland. He’s never had to come from behind in a serious race.
Here, he’s behind. He’s got to figure out how to get support from somewhere. It’s tough to do that unless you do some comparative or, in other words, negative attacks of someone else.
COOPER: Certainly independence is very important in this race in New Hampshire. But several of the candidates, the second tier candidates, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, even John Edwards clearly trying to appeal to the left wing of the Democratic Party.
I just want to play some of what Kucinich had to say — some of the criticism of his fellow Democrats. Let’s play that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DENNIS KUCINICH, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This war belongs to the Democratic Party because the Democrats were put in charge by the people in the last elections, with the thought they were going to end the war. They haven’t. They have to stop the funding.
And I certainly am urging all of my colleagues here, don’t give them any more money. The money’s in the pipeline right now, enough to bring the troops home. Let’s end the war and let’s make this a productive evening.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Arianna, clearly that plays well to the anti-war movement within the Democratic Party. My sense is a lot of people on that stage wished Kucinich and Gravel weren’t there at all.
HUFFINGTON: You know, Anderson, I really don’t think this is just the left wing or anti-war wing of the Democratic Party. As we know, this is like a 70 percent of the American people generally, who want to see the troops coming home. This is not a left-right issue.
I think where Kucinich made an interesting differentiation between himself and the rest of the Democratic Party and rest of the candidates was when he talked about peace, because the strength of the Democratic Party right now is not in talking about peace, but talking about security, in talking about what is going to make us more secure, in talking about the fact that this president has made us less secure by invading Iraq.
And that was a moment when Hillary Clinton, at the beginning, said we are safer now than we were before 9/11. That’s very arguable. That was another opportunity that Obama missed, to say, we are not safer, we are less safe on so many grounds, where there’s more anti- American feeling. The Iraq war has become a huge recruiting tool for al Qaeda. We are not spending the money protecting our borders. So that’s really where Democrats are strong. Talking about peace, that’s not really where the country and where the election is going to be.
MIKE MURPHY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: The truth is Kucinich is completely irrelevant to this process, unless he performs a miracle on stage. I disagree with this idea somebody is supposed to attack Hillary Clinton to get ahead.
There are two points I think are important. One is the anti- Hillary vote is big enough to win. The question is how do you consolidate it. People either like her or don’t like her. Trying to attack her in a multi-way campaign puts you at some risk. And attacking is not Obama’s natural thing.
But I think the alternate truth — and this might sound a little contrarian — but I think most of the campaign advisors, if you look at it enough, will tell you this, this debate was about one thing, it wasn’t about the voters. It’s too early for the voters. Eighty-five percent of the primary voters decide next January, in the last two or three weeks of the campaign.
This debate was about money, keeping the donor base interest and alive, to raise the money to fund the campaign at the end of the year, where the actual voters, even in these early states, get connected.
Media buzz creates money and finance, a good performance donors are watching on a network like this creates finance and power. So believe it or not, this thing had less to do with the voters, I believe, than all the trappings did.
It did have local television support in New Hampshire, an incremental thing. Fundamentally, it’s still an inside game and this is the beginning of a very, very long process.
Nobody will make a big move in a debate like this that’s going to put the race away, because for the voters, it hasn’t even started yet.
COOPER: David?
GERGEN: Here we are — all of us come up here in January, for the primaries. Here we are with a sense in the room tonight the vote is about to take place within a couple weeks. And it’s June. It’s summer. It’s really strange.
So I’m not sure the old rules that Mike’s talking about will pertain. People may make up their minds earlier.
COOPER: Up next, back with more with Larry King, questions from the audience, politics, raw, retail and happening tonight from New Hampshire right here on CNN. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) EDWARDS: I think one difference we do have is I think I was wrong. I should never have voted for this war. This goes to the issue of Senator Obama raised a few minutes ago. He deserves credit for being against this war from the beginning. He was right, I was wrong.
And I think it is important for anybody who seeks to be the next president of the United States, given the dishonesty we’ve been faced with over the last several years, to be honest to the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LARRY KING: We’re back. Half hour to go on this special edition, following the debate.
At the top of the hour, we’ll have a full news package for you. Other things happened in the world today, I might gather.
And then at midnight eastern, 9:00 Pacific, the complete debate, so adroitly handled by Wolf Blitzer will be repeated. And this program, too, the whole four-hour package will be repeated.
Our panel is Wolf Blitzer, James Carville, J.C. Watts and Donna Brazile. We have some questions from the audience. This is Joe Turcott (ph).
Joe?
QUESTION: Hi, my name’s Joe.
I am actually a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. One thing I did notice that all the candidates like to throw around the Iraqi war ball, and nobody wanted to look at how exactly they wanted to bring the troops home and when. They all want to say, I’m bringing them home first. No, I’m bringing them home first. But nobody wanted to say how and where they were going and what’s going to happen afterwards.
KING: Joe, a question for you, do you want them to come home. Do you want them out now?
QUESTION: Am I out now?
KING: No, do you want them out now?
QUESTION: Yes. I do. I want all of my brothers and sisters home now.
KING: Home now. But you say it wasn’t explicit tonight — Donna.
BRAZILE: Well, first of all, thank you for your service to our country.
Look, the Democrats believe it’s time to bring home our troops. They tried to do that in a supplemental bill that the president vetoed. They tried repeatedly last year with various amendments. So, I think, you can rest assured, that if it was up to a Democratic Congress, they would bring the troops home.
Unfortunately, as Senator Biden pointed out, we don’t have the votes to override the president’s veto.
KING: Jim.
CARVILLE: Yes, I think that most of them have been fairly specific. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, both said they would leave us a contingent in Iraq, maybe in Kurdistan to deal with Al Qaeda they come in. Democrats voted to have a specific timetable to withdraw the troops. I think 50 Senate Democrats, or maybe 48 Senate Democrats, plus two Republicans voted for that, and the president vetoed that.
Under the Constitution, if you can’t get to it — 50 is not 67. They were forced to come back and compromise and set the benchmark opposed to the timetable. But there has been a plan that and it has passed the House also. There was some specificity there.
BLITZER: They all have various positions. For example, the two candidates on the ends, Senator Gravel and Congressman Kucinich say get them out right away, within 30 or 60 days. Governor Richardson says he wants them all out by the end of this year. Most of the others, they have put forward the end of March of next year, most combat troops, there would be a residual force left fight Al Qaeda and to do some other things. They do have some fairly specific targets of when they would try to get the troops out.
KING: J.C.
WATTS: Joe, I, too, thank you for your service. I think you will agree that when evil people say they will do evil things to the United States of America, you better have people in the White House and in the Congress that will take them seriously. I do believe this president has taken seriously that threat.
I think the cause has been noble, the cause has been right. I think the execution has often been — been very poor.
I think in terms of bringing the troops home, I think Republicans and Democrats both want to see the troops come home. How do we do that? That’s the issue. I think we should have benchmarks. I have often said if you’re not keeping score, it’s just practice. We need to know how we’re progressing. I think a date certain, which is what the president said, I think gives the upper hand to the enemy.
KING: Dan Forbes, you have a question.
QUESTION: I was surprised that the candidates, who voted to authorize the — to give President Bush the authorization to go to war seemed genuinely stunned that used it so quickly. It seemed like with the rhetoric coming out of the White House and the build-up of the troops, that was exactly what he intended to do prior to the authorization. I’m just wondering what you folks think?
KING: James, were you surprised? CARVILLE: Well, I was kind of shocked that 236 U.N. inspectors in Iraq for 90 days. Against people — some people thought, what’s the purpose of going to war? Obviously, the inspections are going forward, the U.N. inspectors asked for more time. They would have been able to draw a definitive conclusion.
The truth of the matter is, that it would have been a great foreign policy victory for President Bush had he allowed the U.N. inspectors to remain in. And he could have said, look, as a result of this authorization, look what we did, we would have prevented the war, prevented all of the utter, absolute disaster that this war has been.
I do think there was some people that were surprised he was so — so intent on going to war no matter what. By the way, there were two stories in “The Washington Post” where the CIA was having second doubts. At the time we went to war, there were many people who doubted whether we would find WMD, many smart people, Hans Blix, for sure and the CIA. Yeah, some people were kind of shocked and it was a really dumb thing he did to kick them out to go to war.
KING: We’ll be back with our panel. Right now, back to the room where they spin things, Anderson Cooper — Anderson.
COOPER: Larry, coming up, what the bloggers are saying about tonight. That is coming up next on our program as we continue the coverage of tonight’s debates. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT SPALDING, WMUR POLITICAL DIRECTOR: If you are elected president, how, if at all, would you use former President Bill Clinton in your administration?
MIKE GRAVEL (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: How would I use him? I’d send him as a roving ambassador around the world. He could take his wife with him, who would still be in the Senate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Former Senator Mike Gravel who, along with Republican Ron Paul, gets his share of buzz on the blogs. Probably not so much tonight. CNN’s Jacki Schechner has been surfing and joins us now to find out what she’s finding out online — Jacqui.
JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Anderson. Good to see you.
Before we hit performance, I just want to tell you the talk of the online community tonight was Chris Dodd’s talk clock. This was a very clever thing put together by his online team, that calculated how much time each candidate got. Senator Barack Obama came in tops with 16 minutes and Senator Hillary Clinton at 14.26; and our own Wolf Blitzer at 13 minutes and 24 seconds. Now as for reaction on line, Senator Clinton doesn’t have a lot of following in the blogosphere. They’re not big fans. But tonight they did give credit where credit was due. You can see that John Edwards, Barack Obama, and then Clinton coming in with 17 percent of the vote. This is an unscientific straw poll over at DailyKOS.come, the top liberal blog. But 17 percent is actually a lot for woman who comes in behind, “I don’t have any clue”, in the monthly straw polls, the DailyKos holds. So, she did a good job tonight we’re seeing a similar thing over at MyDD.com, another one of the top liberal blogs. They gave it to Edwards, with Obama in second and then Clinton coming in third.
Now, they’re saying things in the comments section that her performance was superior. There was also talk about her being “hot tonight”.
I will tell you, Anderson, the little clip about her talking about Dick Cheney not being the right man to send abroad for diplomacy has already gotten hundreds of views on YouTube. That might be the quote of the night — Anderson.
How popular is Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel online? I imagine some of their barbs scored pretty high.
SCHECHNER: One of the things people noticed Gravel seemed to be off to the side. He was marginalized in some regard. The humor factor was still there, something that came up last time. And people were honed in on performance which is surprising because a lot of times the blogs, like to pick up on humor.
I think tonight, in particular, they were very focused how the front runners were doing. Time came up a lot. I have to go back to that. But that was a big thing. People saw a lot more from Clinton and Obama and Edwards than they did from some of the other candidates. It was definitely noticed.
COOPER: Jacki Schechner online. Jacki, thanks.
SCHECHNER: Sure.
We’ll have a lot more from our panel. Arianna Huffington and Mike Murphy, Republican strategist, David Gergen, former presidential advisor, and analyst Jeffrey Toobin, as well. We’ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Is it time, Senator Dodd, as Congressman Charlie Rangel recommends to bring back the military draft.
SEN. CHRIS DODD (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don’t think so. I joined the Peace Corps in the 1960s. People asked me, why did I join the Peace Corps? I did it because an American president asked me. He asked a generation of us to be something larger than ourselves.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Some final thoughts tonight from our team. Arianna Huffington, Mike Murphy, David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin.
David Gergen, let me start off with you. Independents are important. They can vote in either primary. Who reached out to independents tonight?
GERGEN: I thought Hillary Clinton did more so than any other candidate, with the possible exception of Barack Obama. John Edwards was playing more to the left. She was looking more like a general candidate tonight.
This is a very, very important state for her. We all know around February 5th, we have the big bonanza of primaries. She’s likely to do very well here unless she stumbles in the primaries before that. She may lose Iowa. She’s stuck out there. She needs to win New Hampshire to have some momentum going into that Big Tuesday. This is a big state for her. If she were to lose Iowa and New Hampshire, her balloon could get punctured and get blown wide open.
Her performance here tonight, which was — I agree with Jeff — I think it was one of her finest nights tonight. It could solidify her lead, her position here in New Hampshire, among independents and could help her win the nomination of the party
TOOBIN: When you talk about independents, one of the things that struck me tonight, especially on domestic issues, this is a more liberal party than we have had in a long time. You have all the candidates agree that gays should server in the military, an issue on which Hillary Clinton’s husband was blown out of the water by bipartisan opposition.
You have all the opposed to English as the official language. You had discussions of universal coverage of healthcare; you had tax increases back on the table. This is a more liberal party than it used to be. It may be that the country’s moving in that direction, but that’s a risk they’re taking.
COOPER: Arianna, is that just more liberal for this primary season? And then when the general election comes around we’re going to hear a different tune?
HUFFINGTON: I don’t know about that, Anderson. But I do know this is a much more liberal country. Just look at all the polls. I think that’s partly because of the last six years of George Bush and his administration, and what has happened to this country since then.
Also, we have to be careful when we look at what independents are looking for. Independents, in very large majorities, are looking for the troops to come home. This is a very huge issue.
Again, back in the spin room, David Axelrod is saying they do not agree, the Obama camp does not agree with Joe Biden, unless you have 67 senators and therefore a veto-proof majority, you can concede, there is nothing you can do without the president on your side, about Iraq. So that will continue to be a big issue when it comes to appealing to independents.
MURPHY: I take a different take on the independents, thing, Anderson. I think this was a lurch to the left. There was irony in it with Hillary Clinton, the presumed front-runner of the Democratic Party, now being part of a move to the left. And ban some of the things her husband did to create a centrist Democratic coalition that won some elections.
I heard tax and spend. I heard a more liberal policy on gays in the military, universal healthcare, of course, English first. And I think primaries naturally have that but we definitely got that today and I think that bodes well for the Republicans. The biggest mistake we can make tonight is to think politics is static. Everything happening right now would be what voters make their decision on in October of next year.
We don’t know what the war situation will be. Everything can change. These fundamental left/right issues, when they move left, they lose the middle of the country and lose elections.
TOOBIN: Hillary Clinton wants Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel on this stage. For one thing, they diffuse the situation. It’s more time for them essentially wasted. Also, she gets to define herself by what she’s not. She can say, I’m for withdrawing from Iraq but I’m not like Dennis Kucinich. They really serve a purpose for her. The bigger the debate and the longer they’re there, the better for her.
GERGEN: Yes, but Mike Murphy makes a good point how far the party has moved, and you did Jeffrey, on domestic issues. But on foreign policy issues, she was pretty tough tonight on a variety of issues like Afghanistan and Pakistan, and where we go from here on Iran and those sort of things.
I thought this party was much more articulate on the non-Iraq part of foreign policy than it has been in a long time. They’re not very good on Iraq. But on other issues, this is a tougher foreign policy crowd. They’re a little more conservative than they used to be.
COOPER: David Gergen, Arianna Huffington, Mike Murphy, Jeffrey Toobin, appreciate your expertise tonight. Thanks very much.
We’ll have a lot more in RAW POLITICS as we continue our coverage in moments ahead. Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11 and I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda. I believe we are safer than we were, we are not yet safe enough.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Senator Clinton’s response to Senator Edwards, saying that the war on terror is a bumper sticker slogan. By this point, you have seen most of the runs and hits and errors. Something you don’t always see, including why all the candidates tonight were literally on thin ice. RAW POLITICS from CNN’s Tom Foreman.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Political theater looking for an audience. Before you make a speech, you have to make an entrance. That’s what all the candidates wanted. First rule of showbiz, first rule of RAW POLITICS.
(VOICE OVER): John Edwards showed up with a big smile. Barack Obama with a big security team and Dennis Kucinich with a big — well, a tall wife. Mainly, he’s short. That’s why he and Hillary Clinton stood on boxes to make them about the same height as the others. It must have worked because they all jumped down on President Bush with equal force.
CLINTON: This is George Bush’s war.
OBAMA: We live in a more dangerous world, not a less dangerous world.
BIDEN: We’ve not been told the truth about this war from the beginning.
RICHARDSON: I would shut down Guantanamo.
EDWARDS: We have to reestablish trust between the American people and the president.
FOREMAN: But hold on, RAW POLITICS insiders have to note that a couple of the players underlined the very divisions that many Democratic strategists fear can undermine their pick in the general election.
KUCINICH: This war has been based on lies.
FOREMAN: Kucinich pointed out some of his fellow Democrats helped the president in the drumbeat for war at the outset; and Mike Gravel echoed the theme.
GRAVEL: Four of these people here will say that it’s George Bush’s war. It was facilitated by the Democrats.
FOREMAN: As if the president doesn’t have enough trouble, former speaker of the House and possible Republican candidate Newt Gingrich was pounding on the prez this morning, too.
NEWT GINGRICH, FMR. SPEAKER: The government is not functioning. It’s not getting the job done.
But the Newtster still won’t say if he’s going to run. The Republicans knew the storm was coming so they’re hitting back in Massachusetts and New Hampshire with a new radio ad, a Desert Storm that smacks front runners Clinton and Obama and Edwards for promising support to the troops, then voting against the recent funding bill.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why the sudden about face? Is politics more important than our troops in harm’s way?
FOREMAN: And just because it’s interesting, the debate tonight took place in a converted hockey arena, with CNN setting up our whole shebang over a sheet of ice which remained underneath the floor.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOREMAN: Maybe that’s why even when the conversation got heated from time to time, the cooler heads always seemed to prevail — Anderson.
COOPER: They certainly do. Tom, thanks very much for that RAW POLITICS. And when we come back, some final thoughts from Larry King.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I think it is important to leave. And I think, John, the fact is, is that I’ve opposed this war from the start. So, you’re about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue. And I think it’s important not to play politics on something that is as critical and as difficult as this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Probably one of the testier exchanges of this evening, Barack Obama, firing back at Senator Edwards — who had criticized.
KING: It’s nice to see.
COOPER: It’s nice to see, you like that?
KING: Testy, testy.
COOPER: Yeah?
KING: I’m supposed to close it all, formerly. By the way, if you missed nay of this, joined us late, at midnight tonight Eastern, we’ll repeat the whole debate and the two hour-follow up, as well.
But instead of just closing as we would, you know, one of those formal closes, it’s a special night. It’s Anderson Cooper’s birthday.
(LAUGHTER)
KING: And so let’s all join. OK? How about it?
COOPER: No, no, no.
KING: Happy birthday to you — All right, OK, that’s enough.
COOPER: All right. Thank you. Thank you very much.
KING: Congratulations.
COOPER: I appreciate it.
KING: Great working with you, Anderson.
COOPER: It was fun.
KING: See you Tuesday night.
COOPER: All right. Tuesday night we will be here, of course, the Republicans will be here as well. All 10 of them arrayed out on the stage. Be sure to catch AMERICAN MORNING for the most news in the morning. That’s tomorrow beginning at 6 a.m. Eastern. Join us again, here in New Hampshire.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: You’re going to want to see that debate, as well. Thanks very much once again to St. Anselm College here in Manchester. To our partners, WMUR and the “New Hampshire Union Leader.” Coverage on CNN continues now with my colleague, Anderson Cooper.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf, thanks very much. A traditional debate, Wolf Blitzer asking the questions. You see on the stage now, the candidates being joined by their spouses.
Senator John Edwards joined by his wife, Elizabeth. Senator Dodd joined by his wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd. Elizabeth Kucinich on the stage as well. Whitney Stewart Gravel, Michelle Obama is not present, nor is former President Bill Clinton.
Bill Richardson’s wife, Barbara Richardson is also on the stage. Soon candidates will be making their way to talk to some of the New Hampshire residents in the audience tonight.
A crowd of Democratic voters, also Independents. Independents forming a very important role here in New Hampshire. Polls here show Independents leaning toward the Democratic Party this time around, so a lot of candidates trying to appeal to Independents. Tonight, I’m going to be joined by Larry King in a moment.
Right now, let’s check in with our political correspondents, Candy Crowley and John King. John King, any surprises tonight?
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, I think the biggest surprise is these candidates will continue to go at each other over the Iraq war, it is the driving energy of the energy of the left of the Democratic Party right now.
So differences between the candidates about who could get the troops out faster. Who has been playing politics in their votes in the Senate. Clearly, all of the candidates realize that is where the energy in the party is. Differences with President Bush on so many of the domestic and other issues. But when it comes to the war, these candidates still have some debating to do amongst themselves.
J. KING: Candy Crowley, your first impression?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: My first impression was exactly that, that when it came to the war, these candidates have some real differences on how we got into the war, who voted for, who voted against it or said they were against it. Now, how we should get out and how quickly and what that would actually mean to Iraq. On the rest of the issues, you saw quite an amount of similarity between them. So it seems to me, just like the 2006 elections, 2008 is clearly being dominated by the war in Iraq and the differences among all these candidates.
COOPER: And yet John King, Senator Clinton, trying to really at one point saying there are very few differences between the candidates on Iraq.
She said the differences us are minor. John Edwards then jumping in and saying look, there are very real important differences and taking a swipe at Senator Clinton.
J. KING: And there you saw, Anderson, two different challenges for two different candidates.
Hillary Clinton is the front-runner right now. She would like to say, we all Democrats agree, we need to get the troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. We may differ on exactly how, but let’s put this aside and focus on George W. Bush and the agenda of the Republican Party.
If you’re John Edwards and you’re trying to knock down the front- runner, you want to say no, I’ve admitted my vote for the war was a mistake, it was wrong and now I say, don’t give the president the money for the war. I said that early on.
He’s trying to get Hillary Clinton into a box, if you will, because she does not say that vote was a mistake. Tonight, he was very aggressive in trying to say look, she voted against the funding in the last go around, but she and Senator Obama, according to Senator Edwards perspective, essentially snuck down to the floor at the last minute and cast their vote. Senator Edwards trying to say that is not presidential leadership. They should have given a speech to the American people and said this is why I’m going to cast this vote on this critical issue. So Hillary Clinton wants this issue to go away, Senator Edwards does not.
COOPER: John King, stand by. Larry King is on the stage with Senator Edwards wife, Elizabeth Edwards. Larry, let’s go to you.
LARRY KING, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks, Anderson. First, forget anything else, how are you feeling?
ELIZABETH EDWARDS, WIFE OF JOHN EDWARDS: I’m feeling great actually.
L. KING: You look great.
E. EDWARDS: Thanks. I’ve been doing campaign stuff and family stuff and staying busy, which I also think is the best medicine.
L. KING: Is that hard to do both? Live a life and getting better?
E. EDWARDS: Well, juggling family and campaigning, like juggling family and work is really hard.
L. KING: He was aggressive tonight, was he not?
E. EDWARDS: He was forthright. We have got a lot of candidates. The American people deserve to see the differences between them. And so he respects these people. But he wants to be forthright and honest about where they stand. You saw them being honest in a way that might have seemed critical and in a way that was also complimentary.
L. KING: Was that the plan? When you had dinner last might, did he say, I’m going to take it to them?
E. EDWARDS: I didn’t get to have dinner with him last night, Larry.
L. KING: Was he was going to take it to them?
E. EDWARDS: I don’t think he made a decision to take it to them. What he was doing was answering the questions honestly, which is what the American people deserve. Boy, they sure deserve it after all of these years of - my grandmother used to say the intention to deceive is the same as a lie. We’ve had a little bit of that. They deserved some honesty.
L. KING: Did you like the format?
E. EDWARDS: I liked the give-and-take. I thought Wolf did a great job and I thought it was really important. In fact, that’s been the thing that’s really been missing is for there to be give-and-take among the candidates. And so I thought that was really great.
L. KING: Did you like using members of the community?
E. EDWARDS: Always because these are issues Americans really care about. No offense to journalists, of course, you ask great questions, but the questions that really need to be answered are the questions that the American people have.
L. KING: Do you build up — when you get really involved in a campaign and you had it four years ago, where you get to dislike the other side?
E. EDWARDS: No. As a matter of fact, I was sitting next to Chris Dodd’s wife, Jackie, whom I admire immensely. When somebody gave an answer we didn’t think was entirely accurate, we would lean forward or back and say what was wrong with it.
It’s because we’re friends. I saw Barbara Richardson earlier. I met her on the campaign trail and like her. It’s kind of like anything, where you sometimes work with somebody and sometimes work against them, you’ve got to always have an open relationship with them.
L. KING: One other thing. How does New Hampshire look for your husband? E. EDWARDS: It looks great for john. It’s a state in which he has enormous respect. I think he’s talking about the issues that they care about. And New Hampshire, like Iowa, early states that are used to being early are very conscious of the issues. They want to know where you stand on things and John’s been forth right. I think that’s the key to winning their support.
L. KING: And you’ve absolutely taken over our hotel. Edwards dominates it.
E. EDWARDS: I hope our staff is well behaved.
L. KING: Thanks, Elizabeth. We’ll be back with lots more. Now, back to Anderson Cooper.
COOPER: I’m here with a spokesman for Senator Hillary Clinton, Representative Jim McGovern from Massachusetts. Thanks very much for being with us. You must be happy with how your candidate did tonight?
REP. JAMES MCGOVERN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I thought she did terrific. I thought she won, I thought she was well-informed, thoughtful, strong, decisive on all the major issues, but especially on the issue of ending the war in Iraq and bettering our statue of our country around the world. And I appreciated the fact that she stayed above the fray and didn’t get into a squabble on Iraq like some of the other candidates did.
COOPER: She did come under criticism though both in the press and on the stage tonight for not reading the National Intelligence Estimate, this 90-page report. She said it was the most important vote of her life when she authorized the president to go to war. If it was so important, why wouldn’t she have read that report?
MCGOVERN: What she focused on tonight was the fact that the fact that we need not just the Democratic Party in bringing this war to Iraq to a close, but she also is trying to unify the country. This war is a tragedy fought in the United States Congress. And I’m with Hillary Clinton, if this war is not ended by the time she becomes president, then when she is president, she’ll end this war.
COOPER: I just want to play for our viewers, one moment from this debate involving Senator Clinton. Let’s listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN EDWARDS (D), PRSEIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did not say anything about how they were going to vote until they appeared on the floor of the Senate, voted, they were among the last people to vote.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: That was Senator Edwards criticizing Senator Clinton for not saying how she was going to vote in this last roundabout, whether or not she was going to fund the troops or not. Why did she wait until the last minute? MCGOVERN: Senator Clinton voted the right way. She voted to hold George Bush accountable. She voted to protect our troops by voting to hold the president accountable and bringing our troops home.
COOPER: Her critics say the fact she waited until the last minute and played this game of chicken with Obama is a sign she’s not a leader, she’s a follower.
MCGOVERN: I think that’s crazy. But let me go back to - let me use Senator Clinton’s example. What she did tonight was she tried to unite everybody on stage around the fact that we all want this war in Iraq to come to an end.
That’s what all Democrats should do because one of those eight Democrats up there is going to become the next president of the United States hopefully and it’s important that we stay together and not get into these little petty battles.
I’m with Senator Clinton because I believe she’s going to end the war in Iraq. There’s no way in hell I’d be with her if I thought otherwise and I think she’s the strongest person with the most experience to be able to do that and that’s what I think most of the American people think, too.
COOPER: Is there a danger for her in being so far out front this early. Clearly, John Edwards was focusing on her, some of the second tier candidates as well. Do you have concerns that she basically has a target on her back now?
MCGOVERN: It’s always a hazardous position to be the front- runner. Having said that, what I have seen in her campaign is her incredible support building and building.
The more people get to interact with her, the more people get to meet her, whether it’s in New Hampshire, Iowa, people gravitate toward her candidacy, not just because of her personality, but because they are listening to her and they’re responding in a positive way to her message.
This is a woman who can not only be a good president, but a great president of the United States and she can help rebuild American stature around the world which George Bush has totally trashed.
COOPER: Congressman McGovern, thanks very much, appreciate your time. Let’s go back to Larry.
L. KING: It’s the Anderson and Larry show. Larry back on stage, Anderson over there.
And with me now is David Axelrod, one of Senator Barack Obama’s chief political advisors. The senator is standing right here, looks in good form. How did he do? Wait a minute. How did he do? You’re going to say he did poorly, right?
DAVID AXELROD, OBAMA MEDIA STRATEGIST: No Larry, I’m thrilled with how he did. I think people saw the Barack Obama that so many across America are responding to.
He made a strong case on Iraq, why we have to end that war, a war he opposed from the beginning because it’s making us less safe and destroying our alliances around the world.
He talked about the need to reduce healthcare costs for people, which is an enormous problem and his plan to do it. I think he showed a kind of civility that we need in our politics when he confronted the issue of immigration, and that we need to solve some of these big problems without tearing each other apart as a country and I think people are hungry for that.
L. KING: Did you like the format?
AXELROD: I thought it was fine, I thought it was great. Obviously I think it was a more conversational debate than the last one that the candidates participated in. I think that’s helpful. I think it’s good to get some interchange going in. So, I think that was very positive.
L. KING: Do you like the sitting down and having residents participate?
AXELROD: I think it’s always good to have people actually participating in the process as part of these debates. So all in all, I think it was great evening.
L. KING: How’s he going to do here in New Hampshire?
AXELROD: Great. I think he’s going to do really well. I mean, we’re drawing tremendous crowds here and more than that, people are volunteering. We made tens and tens of thousands of calls, 9,000 doors knocked on at a recent canvas. I mean, there is a sense of investment in this candidacy as a real vehicle for change and I think people sense that here in New Hampshire.
L. KING: Thanks, David.
AXELROD: OK, Larry, good to see you.
L. KING: David Axelrod, one of the chief political advisers to Barack Obama. We’ll be back in a couple of minutes with Senator Joe Biden of Delaware - Anderson?
COOPER: Larry, thanks very much. We’ll also be talking to Governor Richardson as well.
But right now, let’s go to Wolf. Wolf, from your perspective, unique vantage point, how did it seem?
BLITZER: I thought they were all prepared. Clearly, they did their homework.
You know they’re all sort of - you could tell, because I was very close to them, they’re all sort of frustrated that the don’t get enough time to really make their points. They all want more time. Even though we give them two hours without commercial interruption, as you know, Anderson, it goes very, very quickly.
Some of these candidates are bound to feel that they’re not going to get an opportunity to make their points as robustly as they would like. On the whole, I thought it went well.
My goal was to make sure that viewers out there, the potential voters have a little better sense of who these eight individuals are. And I think they do. I think they learned something about all eight of them and if they did, then I think we accomplished our goal.
COOPER: Wolf, there were certainly some fireworks early on, Senator Edwards critical both of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, saying that they didn’t exhibit leadership in terms of voting for the funding bill for the troops. Senator Obama firing back saying it was four and a half years ago that you didn’t exhibit leadership. Were you surprised that it got that sort of testy that early on?
BLITZER: No, because as this campaign is going on, they all have to fight for their respective positions. I knew that if we just focused in on what their thoughts were about the Bush administration or Republicans, then they would all basically agree.
What I tried to do was find those areas where I suspected they would disagree amongst themselves and let them get into a little discussion on that hoping that some of the undecided voters out there would have a better sense, a better opportunity to differentiate between these candidates.
I was a little surprised at the beginning, you’re right, Anderson, they came out as feisty, shall we say, as they did. I suspect the next debate, it’s even going to get more intense.
COOPER: Certainly some of the harshest criticism came from former Senator Mike Gravel as well as Congressman Dennis Kucinich basically at one point blaming the Democrats, as well as the Bush administration for this war.
BLITZER: Right, and I suspected they would. They have been outspoken, both Congressman Kucinich, former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska.
And they’re basically trying to distinguish themselves as unique among all of these eight Democratic candidates. And they minced no words at all, while some of the other candidates are trying to be diplomatic, trying to be polite. They have no such inhibitions. And they’re going to go right for the jugular. They’ve done it earlier and they’re going to continue doing it down the road and they certainly did it tonight.
COOPER: Over the next two hours, we’re going to have continuing conversations with many of the candidates you saw on the stage tonight as well as the best political team in the business.
We have Paul Begala, James Carville, J.C. Watts, a whole host. John King of course, Larry king, Candy Crowley, Arianna Huffington is standing by. Former presidential advisor, David Gergen, Republican strategist Mike Murphy — a whole host of people to talk to. We’ll take a short break and we’ll be right back live from New Hampshire.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J. EDWARDS: I think one difference we do have is I think I was wrong. I should never have voted for this war. And this goes to the issue Senator Obama raised a few minutes ago. He deserves credit for being against this war from the beginning. He was right, I was wrong.
And I think it was important for anybody who seeks to be the next president of the United States, given the dishonesty that we’ve been faced with over the last several years, to be honest to the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: And we are back, joined live now here in New Hampshire with Governor Bill Richardson from New Mexico. How do you think you did?
GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), NEW MEXICO: I did well. I was a little concerned that I didn’t get the main difference between me and the other candidates.
That is, I take all the troops out by the end of this calendar year, leaving no residual forces. I was hoping to get that in.
But on the whole, I believe all the issues that were touched on: immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, Darfur, that I have the most experience. I have the record on all of these issues.
COOPER: For a man who’s concerned about genocide in Darfur, how can you take all the troops out of Iraq? Are you concerned about what would happen if that happened?
RICHARDSON: Well, there is a civil war in Iraq now. There is enormous turmoil.
What I believe should happen is we cannot rebuild Iraq, we cannot start the tough diplomacy to rebuild Iraq and America’s interests until all our troops get out. Seven more died today. They are today targets, our troops.
I believe what we need to do is withdraw our forces, use the leverage of that withdrawal to get a diplomatic solution, a compromise of the three religious groups, an all Muslim peacekeeping force, donor conference to rebuild Iraq, but staying there and leaving our troops vulnerable, targets on their back isn’t going to work.
COOPER: Isn’t that a change in your position? In your book, you spoke about the importance of staying there.
RICHARDSON: Well, my point is that it’s critically important that we work hard diplomatically.
When I was involved early on, I was a governor in New Mexico. I wish I had pushed for more diplomacy. But now because of the incompetence of the administration, there are no weapons of mass destruction, it’s a sectarian conflict.
We have got 3,300 Americans dead and thousands of Iraqis dying, the policy’s not working.
So what we need to do is refocus — our Iraqi obsession has cost us in not paying more attention to international terrorism, nuclear proliferators, global climate change, the Darfurs of the world. It’s best for us to withdraw as quickly as we can with a plan.
COOPER: You also said on the stage tonight that it is possible to improve healthcare, to get universal coverage without raising taxes. How is that possible?
RICHARDSON: Well, it’s very possible. First of all, we spent $2.2 trillion on our healthcare system, 31 percent of it goes to inefficiencies.
The first thing you do is shift that to direct care. The war in Iraq, $100 billion we would save to make that happen.
Under my plan, everybody shares in healthcare costs. Costs would go down, the worker, the employee, the federal government, the state government.
You don’t need a new tax to finance a system that right now is $2.2 trillion with no prevention policies, and with a lack of computerized records.
I believe we can do it. We shouldn’t have every solution with a new tax.
COOPER: Governor Richardson, I appreciate your time, thank you.
RICHARDSON: Thank you.
COOPER: Larry King is with Senator Biden — Larry.
L. KING: Thanks, Anderson. We’re with Senator Joe Biden, the candidate for the 2008 — did you like this debate tonight?
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: Well actually, I did. It was better than before. But I wish we would have one like 90 minute debate on Iraq and 90 minute debate on health care and 90 minute debate on each of these things so you get beyond sort of the sound byes. Now we get did get beyond this time. I thought Wolf did a real good job.
L. KING: He sure did.
BIDEN: And so I thought this was better in the sense that people could get a fuller picture of us in this debate than the last. I hope we get to the point where we have real serious 90-minute debates like we had two hours here on a single subject.
L. KING: Do you like the fact that we’re going to have a whole bunch of primaries in a bunch?
BIDEN: Well, you know, I think that’s going to ironically make the early primaries even more important.
I think you’re going to — inadvertently, it’s going to increase the value of winning in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, because no one is going to enough money - even all this talk about money, to campaign in 21 states to have 100 million people total.
You know, $20 million left over won’t do that. So I think it’s going to really put a higher premium on the free media. You’re going to have whoever of us wins New Hampshire on your show, it’s going to be every show, and it’s going to generate a lot of contributions.
So I think it would be a shame if we took the retail politics out of becoming president. Then it’s all just money. And Larry, you’ve been covering this a long time. The money in this campaign is obscene. I mean, it’s just obscene.
L. KING: How much have you raised?
BIDEN: We will have raised, counting everything, probably $12, $13 million. But that counts over the period since I’ve ran last time. We raised last time about $4 million. I think we’ll do well this time. Nothing compared to 25, $30 million a quarter.
L. KING: Always good seeing you, Joe.
BIDEN: Good seeing you, Larry, thanks for having me, I hope I’m back.
L. KING: Senator Joe Biden in New Hampshire. Back to Anderson.
COOPER: Chris Dodd from the great state of Connecticut. Good to see you. How you feel about tonight? Do you feel you’re able to separate yourself from the other candidates?
SEN. CHRIS DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: The fact I had three minutes in the first hour makes it a little difficult to make all the points you’d like on the critical issues. But, it’s good do this. And obviously I appreciate the people in the audience, the questions that were asked. Sorry we can’t get more in education, it’s a big issue. You can’t do everything, I realize that. There’s a lot of attention on the Iraq war, obviously.
COOPER: At this point in the race, how do you try to start to break out?
DODD: Events like this, you get a chance to. You get at least as much time to express yourself on these issues.
And so we’ll keep at it. We’re doing well and we’ll keep meeting with the people here in New Hampshire and Iowa. I’m on the road all the time, having these town hall meetings or house parties as they call them. You keep doing it. It’s seven or eight months today from the first caucus of the first primary. An awful lot of time between the first ballots we cast and people in these states don’t like to be told by outsiders who’s going to win them. They get to make that choice themselves.
COOPER: Senator Clinton on the stage tonight tried to repeatedly say there is not that much difference between the candidates on the stage on the issue of Iraq. Is there a great difference between you and the others?
DODD: We’ll see as time unfolds here. Obviously there was a while ago, we talked about being against the supplemental.
I hear them putting a time certain upon our redeployment, which I’m a great advocate of. We’ll be offering that again in a couple of weeks on the defense authorization bill.
My hope is the people who were supportive a few weeks ago in the supplemental continue to be supportive.
That’s the only way this is really going to change in my view, to change that mission here and Iraqis assuming responsibility and taking over control.
I was just, Anderson, at the Walter Reed Hospital with some kids from Connecticut who were injured and I asked them questions about it. They said, look we go in, we clean out an area, we take a month and half to do it and to use their words, an hour and a half after we’re done and leave, it’s right back to where it was.
People know where the ammo dumps are, they know where the IEDs are and they won’t even tell us. When 50 percent of the Iraqi people think it’s OK to kill Americans and 75 percent think we’re the source of their chaos and we’re consuming $2 billion a week, $8 billion a month, a chance of mission is necessary. There are many casualties in this war, not the least of which is our moral standing in the world and our ability to influence other events because of our preoccupation in staying out there, so we need to change this.
COOPER: Senator Clinton apparently did not read the National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize the war, nor did Senator Edwards. Did you have an opportunity to?
DODD: Yes I did and I didn’t, and again, I’ve said so early on - like them, I was confronted with an awful lot of briefings on the Foreign Relations Committee, met with a lot of people. I’ve since looked at it.
Would my vote have changed? Probably not. I have expressed regret over the vote, would love to have it back. You can’t, it’s not the first mistake I’ve ever made. It won’t be the last.
I think the senator point - someone made the point earlier that it’s a very legitimate question and we have a responsibility to answer it. I think it’s also probably more so the question, what do you do from here on out to bring this to closure? So I accept the question, I accept the responsibility for the vote. I’ve called it a mistake.
Two things people in public life never like to say. One, I made a mistake and two, I don’t know. And a little more frequency of those words might increase some of the credibility of those of us seeking public office.
COOPER: That would be rare. Senator Dodd, appreciate it, thank you for your time.
When we come back, we’re going to take you to the spin room, pretty aptly named unfortunately. We’ll also talk to our panel of experts, Arianna Huffington from the “Huffington Post.” We’ll also talk to Mike Murphy, Republican strategist, David Gergen, former advisor to both Republican and Democratic presidents, as well as Candy Crowley, John King, and others. We’ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think it’s important, particularly, to point out, this is George Bush’s war. He is responsible for this war. He started the war, he mismanaged the war, he escalated the war, and he refuses to end the war.
And what we are trying to do, whether it is by speaking out from the outside or working and casting votes that actually make a difference from the inside, we are trying to end the war. And each of us has made that very clear.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LARRY KING, HOST: We’re back for the next hour-and-a-half. Anderson and I will be moderating rating two different panels in our post election debate coverage from here in Manchester, New Hampshire.
And my panel consists of Wolf Blitzer, who moderated the debates tonight. He is also the anchor of “LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER” and host of “THE SITUATION ROOM” daily. And upstairs they will be coming down to join us shortly because we have got logistics there, is James Carville, our Democratic strategist; and CNN political contributor J.C. Watts, a Republican strategist, former U.S. congressman, former great football star and CNN — we never that out; and CNN political contributor, Donna Brazile, Democratic strategist, CNN political contributor. She was campaign manager for Gore- Lieberman in 2000.
I don’t think I need this hand-held mike anymore because I do have a microphone on the tie.
Wolf, well, first, I must compliment you, you did a great job tonight and the candidates we talked to all said so.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you, thank you very much.
KING: Did you like the format?
BLITZER: I liked the format because it was a little flexible. We didn’t have those 60-second lights, the 30-second lights, the red, the yellow. We tried to have a little flexibility to let the candidates go a little bit longer, if necessary, even though we gave them good ground rules going in, you know, 60 seconds for an initial questions, 30 seconds for a response, but, you know, we wanted to be flexible and let the viewers out there, the potential voters have a chance to differentiate between these various candidates.
KING: James Carville, what if anything surprised you tonight?
JAMES CARVILLE, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I don’t think I was surprised by anything. I predicted that Senator Edwards would be the most aggressive. I think he clearly was. I think Senator Clinton, if anything, got a little better than the first debate.
I think Senator Obama’s game was up. I think he did better than he did in the first debate. Probably Governor Richardson didn’t do as well as I’ve seen him do in the past, and Senator Biden had another good night.
KING: J.C. Watts, what did you — what, if anything, surprised you?
J.C. WATTS, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: I don’t think there was any surprises. I thought — we talked earlier in the evening about those who would be trying to break out. I don’t think there was anyone that broke out, with the possible exception of Joe Biden.
I thought Joe had a very good command of the issues. I thought he made a very good point in terms of supporting the supplemental appropriation for the troops. I thought he gave a very good explanation, a sound, truthful explanation. But we’ll see what happens and see if he gets a bump out of that.
But Senator Clinton went in as a frontrunner, coming out as a frontrunner, did nothing to hurt herself. I thought she might have even made some points tonight.
KING: And Donna Brazile, what do you think?
DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, first of all, we finally got around talking about issues that a great deal of Americans care about. We talked about immigration, we talked about education and health care reform.
I think the Democrats came across tonight as smart, intelligent on these issues. They offered real solutions about problems that face this country. Of course, I thought that Joe Biden was on fire.
He came in tonight knowing that he had to move a little bit of — move a little but up front on the second tier and I think he did himself very well. Senator Obama also understood that this was his moment tonight and he came ready and prepared to engage the other opponents. And he did a great job.
But Senator Edwards, I also believe, came out looking very smart. He was bold. He talked about his distinctions, the differences with the other candidates. Overall, I thought all of the top tier candidates did well and Joe Biden in the second tier.
KING: Wolf, did Senator Edwards’ aggressiveness surprise you?
BLITZER: It did at the beginning. He came out pretty feisty right away, he wanted to distinguish himself — differentiate himself from Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. And he made it clear that he’s in this to fight and he is not going to go after Republicans and President Bush. When necessary, he is going to go after his Democratic rivals.
KING: Was it hard to balance fair time for everybody?
BLITZER: Yes. Yes, it was very hard, because everybody thinks they want to get — they deserve more time and you try to give everybody — weave them all in. And some of them were complaining to me that they weren’t getting enough time.
But you do the best you can. And the good thing about this kind of stuff, there will be more debates down the road and everybody sort of hopefully will equal out over time.
KING: James Carville, is New Hampshire, with the whole realm of things, still important?
CARVILLE: Well, it’s important for the simple reason that all these candidates come here. And that’s what makes it important. If it wasn’t important, you wouldn’t see every candidate come here again and again and again. And they are going to continue to do that. So that is going to continue to make it important.
And I think this debate was by far the best of any of the debates that has been on so far. And let’s remember that WMUR, our partner, put this on. So this debate is going to have some real importance in the state of New Hampshire.
And it is going to be interesting to see its impact. It’s impact in New Hampshire will probably be larger than its national impact.
KING: J.C., you agree?
WATTS: Yes, I agree. New Hampshire is — every vote is important, Larry. And I think — Wolf, by the way, I think you did a great job with eight candidates, eight egos and personalities on the stage, trying to keep that thing going in a pretty good direction. I thought you did a pretty good job there.
But, yes, every state is important, every vote is important. It’s early, everybody is trying to position themselves. I thought all the candidates — it was interesting, Larry, I thought all the candidates were kind of appealing to the anti-war constituency, but with their own little nuances. I thought Senator Clinton definitely took responsibility for her vote, but in a nuanced way, when she said that, you know, President Bush misused his authority. So — but yes, every vote — every state is important.
KING: Thanks, J.C. And now, J.C. Watts and Donna Brazile and James Carville will come down from their upper perch to the stage perch and join Wolf and I for more still to come.
Also still to come, Anderson Cooper and the spin room, lots more to go on our RAW POLITICS, post debate coverage from New Hampshire. I’m Larry King. Anderson Cooper is coming back. We are all here for another hour and 24 minutes. Don’t go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Ladies and gentlemen, you’re going to end this war when you elect a Democratic president. You need 67 votes to end this war. I love these guys who tell you they’re going to stop the war. Let me tell you straight up the truth. The truth off the matter is the only one that has emboldened the enemy has been George Bush by his policies, not us funding the war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: That was Senator Joe Biden a few moments ago, giving his fellow lawmakers a civics lesson. Right now the spinners are spinning. We’ll try to cut through the noise. Helping us tonight, Arianna Huffington, founder of the huffingtonpost.com; GOP strategist Mike Murphy; former presidential adviser David Gergen; and CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
David, clearly, Iraq the topic of the evening, a very heated exchange early on between Edwards, Clinton and Obama.
DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Well, they were all trying to — the people who were not the frontrunners were trying to differentiate themselves in order to break out with a liberal pack. I mean, this hall tonight was surrounded by the base of the Democratic Party. Lots and lots of activists out there with signs against the war.
And they’re trying to appeal to them about where they go. But I thought the most striking thing was how Hillary Clinton did not want to differentiate herself from other Democrats. What she wanted to do was be the uniter within the party and say, our real differences are not with each other but are with George W. Bush and the Republicans, who are going to be here on Tuesday night on another CNN debate.
I must say, at the end of the day, I thought that while all the candidates were pretty interesting, it was Hillary Clinton’s night. I thought she won this debate. COOPER: Arianna Huffington, Hillary Clinton repeatedly saying that there were not that many differences between the candidates on the stage, Senator Edwards taking issue with that. Let’s listen in to what Senator Clinton had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: We have had an administration that doesn’t believe in diplomacy. They have every so often Condi Rice go around the world and show up somewhere and make a speech and occasionally, they even send Dick Cheney. That’s hardly diplomatic, in my view.
(LAUGHTER)
CLINTON: So from what I would say…
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Clearly trying to get a laugh there, but trying to also stay above…
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, HUFFINGTONPOST.COM: It did.
COOPER: … the fray earlier on. Did she do that and did Edwards score any points by trying to show differences?
HUFFINGTON: I also thought it was Hillary Clinton’s night. She came clearly determined not let her position on Iraq and the objections of the others get in the way. She presented herself as a uniter within the party. She had a sense of humor. She was charming.
She got a great laugh with her Goldwater line about shooting straight. And I thought it was her best performance. And if the others, if Obama and Edwards want to really take her on on Iraq, they have to be much more aggressive about it and much more clear and armed with the facts.
So when she says, well, I didn’t read the NIE report and I didn’t actually believe that we were going to go to war, thought this was a vote to continue the diplomacy, they could have pointed out that she did not vote for the Levin amendment that actually made it clear that the president had to continue diplomatic efforts before he went to war.
But short of doing that, they actually allowed her the floor and she was very successful in what she set out to do.
COOPER: Mike Murphy, Republican strategist, do you agree with that?
MIKE MURPHY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I agree with part of it. I think Hillary clearly had the strategy of taking the war away as a wedge issue within the Democratic primary, between sort of a right wing on the war and a left wing, blur all that, everybody is anti-war, change the channel, take the threat away.
She tried it rhetorically. There’s a whole lot of campaign yet to happen. And we’ll see if that strategy is a success. I thought when she was talking, she was doing pretty well. Her problem is all her non-verbal communication.
You watch her with the sound turned off, all the reaction shots, all the time she was looking at somebody else, it was bad. And I think she has got to learn to control that to be more effective on television.
So I don’t really give anybody the win. I thought she had a few highlights and a few problems. I thought Obama was strong and polished like he always is, a little better than last time. And I thought in the second half particularly, when he got off the attack and got a little wonkier, I thought John Edwards did a good job tonight.
So I think the big three all did well. Biden, you can see a glimpse of what made him such a star 20 years ago when he was the fresh new face in the Democratic Party before he got in some trouble. He showed a little of that tonight in the second tier. He probably had the best night. But still the second tier.
COOPER: Jeff, were you surprised at how contentious the candidates were relatively early on, on the issue of Iraq, John Edwards clearly saying that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did not show leadership in waiting until the last minute to say how they were going to vote on funding the continuation of the war?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN ANALYST: I think Edwards understood, he’s behind in this race. He has got to attack the frontrunner. And he went after Hillary Clinton and to a certain extent, Barack Obama.
But I thought Hillary really demolished him in this debate. I mean, I thought this was Hillary Clinton’s best night as a public figure. On issue after issue, she was dominant. And Barack Obama I think had a weak night.
I think he did not recognize, as John Edwards did, that he’s behind. And he made no effort to engage Hillary Clinton on the issues, so she was successful in saying, look, we’re all in this together. And as the frontrunner, that’s a win for her.
COOPER: The only real jab that Barack Obama had was against John Edwards when he said to John Edwards, you’re about four-and-a-half years late on leadership, because he voted to authorize the president to go to war.
GERGEN: Well, that is right. And I thought it was the best line that Obama had tonight. And it was very — he showed how sharp he is on his feet. But what surprised me about Barack Obama tonight was how hesitant he is about policy.
You know, he — he stumbles a little bit. It’s not as if he has a smooth, fluid argument about policy. Where he shines is when he shows his empathy, his understanding what life is like for a lot of hard-pressed Americans. On that, he is terrific.
But on policy, she is a much better debater right now than he is on the policy issues. I think Jeff was right. On issue after issue, she really captured — and there was a moment there when Wolf put those hypotheticals to her, sort of about 45 minutes in, and put them to all of the different (INAUDIBLE), she took charge of the debate, all the rest of the candidates watched her, she just took charge.
TOOBIN: She was sitting in the middle and she was basically telling Wolf, we will answer these questions, we won’t answer those questions, and she looked presidential
COOPER: Let’s play one of those exchanges, where first Wolf Blitzer asked Dennis Kucinich about Osama bin Laden, that if he had 20 minutes’ notice and he knew where bin Laden was, would he fire a hellfire missile if there would be civilian casualties, Kucinich said, no, Wolf.
Asked for a show of hands, let’s show what happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Declared war on us, killed 3,000 people. And under existing law, including international law, when you have got a military target like bin Laden, you take him out. And if you have 20 minutes, you do it swiftly and surely. And it’s unfortunate that I think during the initial push into Afghanistan, that we let him slip away.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, that was Obama’s response. Later, when asked for a show of hands, there was a lot of quibbling, which seemed to play into Republican hands, Republicans defining the Democrats as kind of wishy-washy on terror.
TOOBIN: Well, certainly Obama saw that opening. He saw Kucinich said, I wouldn’t kill Osama bin Laden. That was batting practice.
COOPER: Well, I think everybody wanted to answer that question.
TOOBIN: They all want to kill Osama bin Laden. I don’t think there is any…
COOPER: But when they had the opportunity to raise their hands and just say, would they launch the missiles, there was a lot of sort of kibitzing about it.
TOOBIN: Joe Biden sounded like a real adult all night. And he said, look, you know what, it depends on the number of civilian casualties, if it’s two, that’s one thing. If it’s 10,000 civilian casualties, maybe that’s something else. So I think the fighting over — the quibbling was probably defensible.
GERGEN: I agree with that. But what impressed me was that she then stepped forward in the midst of the quibbling to say, look, Wolf, we’re just not going to answer these kind of hypotheticals. We’re just not going to do it. She did that twice. And all the rest of these guys on the stage sort of looked to her for leadership.
COOPER: Mike Murphy, Republican strategist, from a Republican’s perspective, did you see that sort of kibitzing over whether or not they would fire a Hellfire missile at Osama bin Laden?
MURPHY: No. I thought it was a real bad night. And looking beyond the Democratic primary, which is kind of a bash Bush contest, get us out of the war, peace at any price world, and into the general election where the Democrats have the problem, they have got to carry a state that John Kerry or Al Gore didn’t. They have got to grow their pie.
And when I saw the — kind of the neurotic moment, where they are all worried about — is that on un-PC to be able to — it was a very, very defining moment. I think hurt them, just generally. I think Obama was the one guy who kind of took that moment to score there.
The other moment was the English first thing, when they all raised their hands. That’s a cutting issue in the real world and they are going to hear more about that one as the nominee.
TOOBIN: Another…
HUFFINGTON: Actually, I don’t really…
TOOBIN: … Republican opening in this debate was the number…
COOPER: Sorry, go ahead, Jeffrey.
TOOBIN: … was the willingness to talk about raising taxes. Hillary Clinton talked about raising tax, John Edwards talked about it. That’s something the Republicans are certainly going to…
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Although, Arianna, Governor Richardson says you can have universal health care and not raise taxes.
HUFFINGTON: Yes, well, Governor Richardson — actually, Mike and I were doing the streaming online part of the debate. And we kept kind of counting how many times Governor Richardson would remind us that he’s a governor and actually walk us through his resume. That, at the end, became a weakness.
You know, he had to actually be able to stand up for what he’s doing right now on the stage rather than constantly presenting us with his resume. Also, in terms of Biden, I really felt that he was alternating between process — you know, senatorial process, quibbling, and then this testosterone explosion about Sudan, which was effective up to a point.
So with both him and with Richardson, there is the subtext that there was a second tier trying to break into the first tier. And I don’t think that happened tonight. MURPHY: Yes, it was a bad night for Richardson. Ever since his “Meet the Press” thing, he has been in a non-stop train wreck and tonight didn’t help him.
COOPER: But Joe Biden, David Gergen, certainly wanting to appear strong tonight.
GERGEN: He did. And I thought by and large, Biden had a very, very good night. There was one moment when he really became very heated over Darfur when I thought he would just be beyond where he wanted to be.
I did think, Anderson, if you look to the crowd overall, I think Mike Murphy has a point. There are some things here Republicans can pick up on, one is the “don’t ask don’t tell” and where they all are on that.
But I thought the bigger weakness, frankly, for the Democrats was they made it sound as if they can do all these wonderful things for the country and the only people who are going to have to pay any more taxes are people over $200,000 or $250,000 a year. And that simply — the numbers just don’t add up.
You can’t do all of these programs on health care and on energy and on the environment and simply — and say, we’re only going to ask for a sacrifice from people — I thought — Jeffrey, I did not think they were very candid about…
COOPER: Although they talked about being candid a lot.
GERGEN: They talked about being candid…
(CROSSTALK)
TOOBIN: They were very talkative about being candid.
GERGEN: It’s one thing to talk about being candid, another thing to actually put the numbers out there.
TOOBIN: Well, it’s shocking to see presidential candidates making promises that they can’t keep.
COOPER: I know.
TOOBIN: That may have never happened.
COOPER: We’ll be back, Jeffrey Toobin, David Gergen, Arianna Huffington, Mike Murphy. Up next, Larry King and “AMERICAN MORNING” anchor John Roberts, who has been talking to audience members about tonight’s debate and whether it has changed the way they plan to vote in this primary. I’ll be right back from New Hampshire.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D-NM), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There is a fundamental difference between my position and the position of my good friends here. I believe that it’s a civil war. I believe that there is sectarian conflict already. There is enormous turmoil.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
King: we’ll be back with our panel sometime shortly after the top of the hour. But right now, let’s go out to the campus quad, John Roberts, the co-host of CNN’s “AMERICAN MORNING” visiting with some interesting folk — John.
JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: You know, Larry, it’s all about the voters here in New Hampshire, and so we have gathered here tonight three audience members who were at the debate. One of them was a participant in the debate, asked one of the questions.
Carol Kilminster is an independent and she hasn’t decided yet whether to vote Republican or Democrat in this primary. An interesting thing about New Hampshire is independents are allowed to vote in either primary. They just have to declare for whichever one they are going to vote in.
And on the way back out, they become independent again and can vote for whoever they like in the general election.
Mo Qamarudeen is an independent. He has decided to vote Democratic, but he hasn’t quite yet decided who to vote for. We’ll find out if tonight’s debate changed his mind.
And Frank Cocchiarella is a Democrat who is still shopping around. And we’ll find out what he learned tonight.
But first of all, Moe, let’s start with you. Did anybody close the deal with you tonight?
MO QAMARUDEEN, VOTER: I think so, John.
ROBERTS: And who would that be?
QAMARUDEEN: Well, I’ve seen Hillary Clinton around town. And I got to attend one of the forums that Hillary was in — Mrs. Clinton was in.
ROBERTS: So what was it tonight that closed the deal?
QAMARUDEEN: I think when you get Hillary, you get Bill as well. Two for one deal. And I think that closed the deal for me.
ROBERTS: All right. Frank, anybody sway you over tonight or are you still looking?
FRANK COCCHIARELLA, VOTER: Well, I was a Barack fan and actually all top three candidates I was fairly interested in. But I was pretty impressed with Governor Richardson.
ROBERTS: Really?
COCCHIARELLA: Yes, surprisingly so.
ROBERTS: He’s starting to make a move here. Some polls have him at 9 percent, which is well back and forth, but still higher than people like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd.
COCCHIARELLA: What was interesting to, and probably why governors often do well, he seemed to be a problem-solver, practical ideas, just a good decision-maker, so it was pretty interesting.
ROBERTS: And what about you, Carol? You have voted Republican in past elections, you thought you were going to go Republican debate on Tuesday, but you ended up at the debate tonight. Have you decided whether or not you are going to cast your lot with the Republicans or the Democrats this year? Did anything that you saw tonight help sway you to one side or the other?
CAROL KILMINSTER, VOTER: No, not yet. I still haven’t made up my mind which party I would vote for in the general election. And being in New Hampshire, I plan to go to more of these kinds of events.
ROBERTS: Right. Who else have you seen you like, either Democrat or Republican?
KILMINSTER: I like John McCain, all the way back to 2000 I’ve liked him.
ROBERTS: He won here in 2000.
KILMINSTER: Yes, yes. And I, too, liked Bill Richardson tonight. I thought, again, he was very practical-minded and doesn’t have the jargon of the Washington responses.
ROBERTS: Right we saw a lot of back and forth, Frank. But did you get enough substance tonight or is it still for some of these candidates all about style.
COCCHIARELLA: I enjoyed being here and I thought it was more substance than I expected in having them have to intermingle little bit. But I’m definitely — what I like about New Hampshire is we are going to see a lot more of a lot of them over the next nine months. And so we don’t have to decide and there are going to be a lot more interesting things going on.
ROBERTS: You know, retail politics has always been important in New Hampshire, but the fact that you have got rock stars out there like Hillary Clinton, who always has Secret Service protection because of — she was a former first lady; Barack Obama now has it, and they are drawing huge crowds, is it the same as it used to be here in this state?
QAMARUDEEN: I’ve only lived in this state about 10 years. And I can just tell you what I’ve seen. And I think retail politics is the way of the future. And that’s what I think going forward, you will probably see a lot more of that. I was surprised more than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the others didn’t get Secret Service protection.
I thought that wasn’t quite fair but I guess the one that takes priority is the one that gets the protection. Well, people here in New Hampshire like to meet their candidates up close and personal. Thanks very much for being with us, folks.
We have got one sale here. We have got Mo Qamarudeen now saying Hillary Clinton for sure is his. The other two still out, still shopping, as they always do here in New Hampshire — Larry.
KING: Thank you, John. We’ll look for you tomorrow morning on “AMERICAN MORNING.”
We have got a full hour to go on RAW POLITICS. Anderson Cooper will be back with his panel and I’ll be back with my panel. We’ll also be talking with some folks here in the audience here in New Hampshire. That’s a full hour to go of RAW POLITICS.
And don’t forget, Tuesday night, the Republicans debate, there will be 10 of them. Wolf Blitzer will be anchoring that. And we’ll be following that as well with another edition of RAW POLITICS as well.
One personal program note, Jack Kevorkian is my special guest tomorrow night on “LARRY KING LIVE.”
Back with one hour to go of RAW POLITICS on this post election debate night here in New Hampshire. Don’t go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: This is a special edition of LOU DOBBS TONIGHT: America Votes 2008. Here again, Lou Dobbs.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back. It’s a special edition because we’re just about an hour away from the Democratic debates where the candidates, all eight of them for the Democratic presidential nomination.
We are here tonight at Sullivan Arena at Saint Alselm College, the location of both the Democratic and the Republican presidential debates. And tonight, as I said, it is the turn of the Democrats.
In just about an hour, those eight Democratic candidates take the stage with Wolf Blitzer. They’ll be stating and defending their positions on some of the critical issues facing this country.
We’ll have expert reporting from the very best political team on television including Candy Crowley, she’ll be with us tonight. John King, Bill Schneider will also be joining us from his perspective.
We’ll hear from political contributors and analysts and I assure you they are the very best.
The latest polls show that front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton is maintaining her strong lead over Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards, but Senator Clinton is vulnerable on the issue of Iraq, according to many political analysts. Bill Schneider is our senior political analyst and he has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): Hillary Clinton has the most to lose in the New Hampshire debate. She’s the frontrunner, nationally and in New Hampshire.
The most recent poll in New Hampshire shows Clinton with a double- digit lead over John Edwards and Barack Obama, with the other candidates in single digits.
New Hampshire is likely to be crucial for Clinton. Most polls show the New York senator facing a tough fight in Iowa. If she loses Iowa, she needs New Hampshire to do for her what it did for her husband in 1992 - make her the comeback kid.
The top issue among New Hampshire Democratic voters - Iraq. Watch for Obama and Edwards to try to score points with New Hampshire’s passionate anti-war constituency, and suggest that they are stronger anti-war candidates than Clinton.
JOHN EDWARDS, FORMER SENATOR: I will stand strongly and proudly against this president, because he’s wrong about this war.
SCHNEIDER: Obama is likely to target New Hampshire Independents, who can vote in the Democratic primary. They are intensely anti-war and anti-Bush. And they respond to a candidate who is new and different.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: So, I think that our best strategy in the coming months between now and September is to continue to build pressure, continue to ratchet up the pressure, for the sort of plan that I introduced.
SCHNEIDER: Clinton’s game plan? Not to let any hint of daylight come between them and her on Iraq.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDNETIAL CANDIDATE: If the president does not get us out of Iraq before the end of his term, when I am president, I will.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: Hillary Clinton’s secret weapon — women. Today’s “Washington Post”/ABC News poll shows Senator Clinton with a two to one lead over Barack Obama among Democratic women. It’s women who are giving her front-runner status and her lead in this race. Lou?
DOBBS: Bill, thank you very much. Bill Schneider, if you will, stay with us throughout this hour.
Candy Crowley now joins us and Candy, as we welcome you into the broadcast, let me ask you, is this now because she is the front- runner, we’ve heard a lot about the volatility and the high number of undecideds, but also the strength. Is this now Senator Clinton’s race simply to lose?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it is for the most. As you know these are snapshots and anything can happen in the polls in the next couple of months, but she’s been the steady front-runner for some time.
Certainly this debate tonight is hers to lose. She needs to be and will be, I’m sure, very cautious because what she needs to do tonight is not make any mistakes to in any way jeopardize that front- runner status.
As far as down the line, as you know, Lou, sometimes in these campaigns things can happen that jolt the numbers and you can see someone moving up or someone tumbling. But at the moment she has been the steady front-runner and for this month, anyway, it’s hers to lose.
DOBBS: Candy, thank you very much. And Candy Crowley will be with us throughout this hour as will.
We’re now back with Donna Brazile, James Carville and J.C. Watts. I want to go to the issue of Senator Clinton’s lead right now because Senator Obama had a terrific momentum that was building that seems to have stalled. I don’t know whether that’s true, but I’d like to hear your view, and what will be required for him to reassert and regain that momentum.
DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Look, Senator Obama has tremendous support out there, not just broad political support, but it’s time he closed the deal with voters.
People are excited about his message. He’s the change candidate, but they want to know if he has the real experience to lead this country. I believe tonight Senator Obama will prove to those skeptics out there that he knows how to win and he knows what to do to win.
DOBBS: Let me ask you this, Donna. What makes — what is it that makes him in your judgment, the change candidate?
BRAZILE: He’s new. He’s a fresh face, he’s a fresh voice. He’s a candidate of optimism and voters want to hear a candidate who talks about the future in a very passionate way. I think that’s why Senator Obama has such widespread appeal.
DOBBS: Do you agree that he is the change candidate?
JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think everything about him is different. I think in a year when voters are looking for something different. He’s a different color. He has a different name, a different kind of name, he talks differently and dresses differently.
The man literally comes up and almost shakes you and says I’m different. I think that’s a helpful thing to have in this year when people are craving that. Donna’s point is we know he’s different, I think what voters are looking for and it will take a while to decide this, is he deep enough? And that’s something that he’s going to have to show.
DOBBS: Can he demonstrate that here tonight on this stage behind us?
CARVILLE: He can help. I think it’s a little bit much to ask for someone — to be one of eight people in a two-hour debate.
DOBBS: I’m not above raising expectations.
CARVILLE: I’m not either, and as someone who is sympathetic to Senator Clinton, to be fair, I think he wants to very much take his game up a notch in the last debate, but, we need to repeat after ourselves six times. It’s only June.
DOBBS: Do you — you said earlier that you believed that Edwards tonight, at least as the focal point of what you think is the likely shift here, has that opportunity? He is amongst these candidates, the populist candidate. Do you think that is an appealing issue for many voters, that strategy and appealing strategy? CARVILLE: Could be. And what Senator Edwards doesn’t want to happen is that his fundraises or supporters, the people here’s trying to bring in to campaign saying John, we love you, but Hillary and Obama are sucking up the oxygen and we can’t see you come up.
He can’t in essence, lose contact. Whether he does it tonight or some time over the summer, I think he very much wants to re-establish himself and he can clearly say that he’s the only candidate that’s talking about poverty.
He’s had the most specific proposal on any number of things. I mean, I suspect he’s going to be looking to do that at some point and hopefully tonight so we can get something ginned up here.
DOBBS: J.C.? I’m sorry, let me ask you this, if I may and pardon me for interrupting you, but is it enough for any one of these candidates now — we’re looking at historically low ratings for President Bush. We’re looking at low and in some cases lower ratings for a Democratically-led Congress. Is it enough for these candidates to run against George W. Bush?
J.C. WATTS, CNN POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Well, I think in terms of running against Bush, I think when you hear all of the talking about Barack Obama, I think Senator Obama is a different candidate, but is he a change candidate? You know different and change could be two different things because am I going to offer the people the same old thing a different way.
DOBBS: Right.
WATTS: And I think that’s what he has to answer.
I think, you know, you talked about Senator Edwards, thank god that somebody is talking about the least of these. I applause Senator Edwards for doing that, however, I disagree with his models and the way he would do it, but I do give him a lot of credit for at least talking about it.
CARVILLE: I think an important exercise for the people at home tonight and particularly like high school students. If I was a civics teacher, I’d say mark down every time that President Bush’s name is mentioned in this Democratic debate and then Tuesday night, mark down every time it’s mentioned in the Republican debate.
I’ll bet you the name George W. Bush is uttered many, many more times tonight than you are going to see Tuesday night. That’s just my exercise for you civics students at home watching this political strategy 101.
WATTS: You know, James, Newt Gingrich mentioned in “New York Times” article in the first of the week in saying that how long…
DOBBS: J.C., if I may start to run…
WATTS: … is it going to be before Republicans start to run against the Bush name as well. DOBBS: We have just seen — we’re watching Senator Barack Obama arriving in a very large SUV there as he pulls up here to Saint Anselm.
BRAZILE: He has Secret Service protection, and that’s the car of choice for Secret Service.
DOBBS: I wouldn’t in any way make an environmental statement or judgment on that. It’s fascinating to see all these big, typically black SUVs and big vehicles. It’s become sort of the identifying vehicle of political candidates.
CARVILLE: But Donna is right that he has Secret Service protection and that thing has got a certain kind of — and I guarantee you that car gets two miles to the gallon because its windows probably weigh more than our car weighs.
DOBBS: Among the issues here, you’re talking about the environment, we’ve been reporting on trade and immigration.
Do you think any one of these candidates will be able or will decide or, spontaneously, one doubts spontaneously, but perhaps tonight to take on the issue of trade?
Talk about fast track authority with the president, reclaiming the right of the constitutional right of influence over trade policy, talking about what they’re going do specifically in terms of working men and women in this country.
BRAZILE: Well, that’s where Dennis Kucinich will likely come in, as you know he’s had a detailed plan on trade.
DOBBS: Sure.
BRAZILE: From day one. While he’s not considered a top contender, he has a very detailed proposal and labor standards and environmental standards and I think it’s probably one of the best comprehensive plans out there today.
CARVILLE: Break out issue again, potentially for Edwards. I mean, this might be the way Edwards comes up and says I’m sorry, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, but basically, it might be a place he looks to differentiate himself and Kucinich can say what he wants.
DOBBS: The senator and just moments ago.
WATTS: Secret Service is with him as well.
BRAZILE: That’s his wife, Elizabeth.
DOBBS: Arriving and handing off the umbrella and picking up the research notes and getting ready. And we’ll be back with our panel in just a moment. When we do come back, the underdogs in this campaign trail. You’ve just seen one of them. We’ll have a report on the uphill battle for those so-called second tier candidates. Is there a Cinderella candidate among these eight Democrats? Our panel of political analysts will be here to discuss what’s ahead for each of these candidates. We are now less than an hour away from the beginning of the Democratic debate held here in Manchester, New Hampshire. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Well, we’re now just about 45 minutes away from the beginning of tonight’s Democratic presidential debate. Eight Democrats competing for one nomination for the presidency, some names very familiar, of course, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, others trying to establish themselves on the national stage.
But as Candy Crowley now reports, the early front runners aren’t always a shoo-in for this nomination, giving the underdogs a reason to keep fighting and hope.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Hillary.
CLINTON: Hi, how are you?
CROWLEY voice-over): Upper tier candidates can’t shake all the hands that come their way. In the lower tier, you go looking for hands.
SEN JOSEPH BIDEN (D-DE), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Good to see you. Yeah. I remember you.
CROWLEY: It is politics at its most basic, face-to-face, voter- by- voter.
BIDEN: I’m Senator Biden, one of the 800 candidates running for president.
CROWLEY: There are tricks of the trade for the also runnings. First, if you can’t draw a crowd, go find one. On Memorial Day, Joe Biden took advantage of a breakfast gathering of veterans. Second, show up early and often. In January, Republican Tommy Thompson vowed to campaign in Iowa every weekend. And if they ask you, you should go.
DENNIS KUCINICH, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hello, New Hampshire!
CROWLEY: Saturday, the day before the debate, five candidates: Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel, underdogs all, all showed up at the invitation of the state Democratic Party Convention.
BIDEN: My fellow Democrats this war must end. This war must end.
(APPLAUSE)
CROWLEY: MIA from the event, Clinton, Obama, Edwards. The entire upper tier didn’t show, they didn’t have to.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hill-a-ry! Hill-a-ry!
CROWLEY: At the top of the field, you can get your people to come even when you don’t.
Down the ladder of the presidential campaign, it is hard to find oxygen, known in the trade as free media.
SEN. CHRIS DODD (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: People in New Hampshire don’t want to be told by pundits outside who’s going to win an election.
CROWLEY: Another rule of the underdogs.
DODD: Half measures won’t stop this president from continuing our involvement in Iraq’s civil war.
CROWLEY: If you can’t get free media, raise money and buy some.
The lower tier can be a lonely place, but not a hopeless one. Before he became a phenom on presidential trail, Howard Dean was known as “the little known governor from Vermont.” Long before he became president, Jimmy Carter traipsed through Iowa as “Jimmy who.”
GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don’t go to gyms with thousands of people. I go straight to the voters, to their homes, and that’s how I’m going to win in Iowa and New Hampshire.
CROWLEY: Anything could happen. The underdogs are banking on it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY: And one more rule for underdogs, Lou, when you’ve got a debate, try to seize the moment. It’s the biggest audience you’ve seen yet.
DOBBS: Indeed, Candy, thank you very much — Candy Crowley.
Back now with our panel, Donna Brazile, James Carville, J.C. Watts.
To what degree will, at all, if at all, these candidates be playing to this very important New Hampshire set of voters as well as to a national audience, Donna?
BRAZILE: New Hampshire is very, very important. Not just for momentum coming out of the Iowa caucuses, but, of course, this is a state that often doesn’t ratify the results of the Iowa caucuses, so this is a very important state given the fact that we have a huge mega primary on February 5th.
CARVILLE: Absolutely. As I said earlier the Channel 9 audience, this debate may - in some ways may be more important - Channel 9 being WMUR, the channel we’re in partnership with - to some extent may be just as important as our own national audience. It’s as important, believe me.
DOBBS: Those chairs down there are being filled by citizens of New Hampshire behind me and they’re going to be taking a lot out of the room as well as those images that we’re sending out of the room. So that could have some considerable impact — J.C.?
WATTS: A lot of these are the coffee shop people, Lou, that go to coffee in the morning or they will have coffee in their homes and talk to people. They will be that infrastructure that will spread the word.
I think it’s an interesting note to make. Candy talked about the top tier candidate, the top three. James made a point in our last segment when he talked about Dodd, Biden, Richardson - those guys are not going to do anything radical. So how do they break out without doing something radical? So I think the top tier, they’re going to be the winners. James Edwards - I mean, Senator Edwards, he can maybe do something a little different. Dennis Kucinich is going to be in this thing come hell or high water.
BRAZILE: And so will Mike Gravel.
CARVILLE: You know, we’re going to have a discussion here at some point, in the next couple of months about shouldn’t everybody be allowed in these debates? I mean, really we’ve got people here that we know are not going to be the Democratic nominee or Republican nominee for president and should they be out there taking space up when voters — who gets to play? Who’s in? Who’s out? But I mean, they can clearly vote some people off the island.
DOBBS: Let me be a little contrarian on this: isn’t there also some reason to suggest that these, as you call them second-tier candidates, also provide some cover for the first tier candidates so that they don’t have to get into some of the more uncomfortable issues and positions that they might have to be taken if they had more time?
CARVILLE: Well, exactly. Believe me, every candidate — every campaign has figured down how much time they’re going have. They have 120 minutes. They have eight candidates, they’ve got this much time to do this, this much time to respond. They’re going to guess how much time Wolf has. They know exactly and also, when some of the third-tier candidates and the fourth-tier candidates say kind of ridiculous things, it helps the front runners because it makes them look more presidential.
DOBBS: As Candy Crowley reported, though remember, there is the Governor Jimmy Carter who came back.
BRAZILE: Jimmy who?
CARVILLE: He wasn’t.
DOBBS: Thank you very much.
I want to point out that J.C. Watts and James Carville and Donna Brazile will be covering throughout this debate and we’ll be back with our post-debate analysis providing their expert eye view and ear to it all and we thank you very much for doing so in this hour.
Coming up next, Anderson Cooper joins me with a preview of tonight’s post-debate coverage. Millions of us just one paycheck away from financial disaster and that is far too many. We’ll have that report and I’ll be joined by the nation’s top political analysts again, what they’re looking for in this debate and what they say we should expect in the way of the unexpected. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: You know, I don’t know about you, but I love that music — that theme music that tells you something big is going on. We’re about 30 minutes from the start of tonight’s presidential debate, the Democrats taking the stage behind us.
Our coverage continues immediately after the debate tonight and Anderson Cooper is here with me now for a preview of what we can all expect — Anderson?
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: We’re going to be with Larry King and a whole host of spinners who are going to try to put their spin on it - no, we’re going to try to stay out of the spin room as much as possible.
I think what will be interesting is, as you’ve been talking about, is really how these candidates try to appeal to independent voters in New Hampshire. It’s such an important factor here and as we know, this year Independents seem to be breaking Democrats.
DOBBS: Absolutely. And as many as 70 percent in the most recent poll suggesting that they’re going to vote in the Democratic primary. Talking earlier with Ed Rollins, Republican strategist, he said the importance of that which frankly, I hadn’t considered is that voters tend to vote for the same candidate in the primary, if the candidate’s successful, in the general election. So it could have significant appeal. So you’re going to stay away from that spin room.
COOPER: I think so. I hope so, yeah. The one thing in politics that’s at least honest, they call it what it really is, the spin room where it’s nothing, but spin. So I tend to try to have actual conversations with people and not spin.
DOBBS: And you do a great job by doing so and tonight in this debate as you analyze it after these folks walk away, are you expecting to see a breakout performance here tonight?
COOPER: I don’t think so. I think some of the lower-tier candidates are certainly going to be trying to break away. I’m not sure how they can in this format given the amount of time they’re going to. Certainly for a leading candidate like Senator Clinton, I think you play it safe and try to not make mistakes at this point. But certainly I think you’re going to see efforts by some of the lower candidates to try to do it, but whether they’ll be able to, we’ll see.
DOBBS: Whether it is by contrary or perverse nature, I’m pulling for one of the second-tier candidates to come up with the wonderful moment.
COOPER: There should be a couple. Gravel had a few moments last time around, so we’ll see. I think some people were disappointed with Obama’s performance in the last debate and we’ll see how he comes out in this one. And John Edwards, some people say he’s slipping a little bit. Certainly if you look at poll numbers he seems to be slipping, so maybe he’ll try something.
DOBBS: All right, well it’s going to be fascinating. And we look forward to you leading us through it in the post-debate coverage. Anderson Cooper, thanks for being here.
COOPER: Thanks, Lou.
DOBBS: Coming up next, middle-class Americans and the challenge they are facing. Are these Democratic candidates listening? Will they speak to those issues and will they do something about it? John King will have a report on the power of those undecided voters and our distinguished panel of political analysts and strategists will be back here. We’re now just about a half hour away from the beginning of tonight’s Democratic presidential debate. Stay with us. We’re coming right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: This is a special edition of LOU DOBBS TONIGHT: America Votes: 2008. Here again, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: We’re now less than a half hour away from the beginning of tonight’s Democratic presidential debate. You see those chairs filling up with New Hampshire residents; 44 percent of whom are registered independents. They are revved up about this event. And I can assure you the candidates are revved up about getting their message out to not only Americans, all over the nation watching this broadcast tonight, but also to those New Hampshire residents, cantankerously and famously independent.
Millions of middle-class Americans are sadly living on the edge of financial disaster. Many have little to no savings and are often unable to pay for the most basic living necessities, despite being considered part of this nation’s middle class. Bill Tucker now has more on the sobering statistics of this nation’s middle class.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The assumption that in America each generation does better than the one before is being challenged. A Pew Charitable Trusts found working men today are making less money than their fathers a generation ago, 12 percent less. The Senate Finance Committee recently asked, can the middle class make ends meet? And the assessment was bleak.
ELIZABETH WARREN, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Today’s family has no savings and is spending money it doesn’t have.
TUCKER: Americans savings rate in April, a negative 1.3 percent. The president has acknowledged that the wealthy are taking home a bigger slice of the pie. GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The fact is that income inequality is real. It’s been rising for more than 25 years.
TUCKER: And, of course, today, Americans have fewer children, more cars, and bigger homes than a generation ago, but the value of their home, their biggest asset is declining. One gauge of home prices showing the first nationwide decline in 16 years.
TERRY LOEBS, MACROMARKETS: The vast majority of a consumer’s balance sheet is comprised of home equity, for most consumers in this country. And to the extent that they’re feeling poorer, they’re more inclined not to spend as much as they perhaps have in the past.
TUCKER: It may make some red-hot neighborhoods more affordable to new buyers, but it will hurt anyone looking to sell before retirement, or down size. At the same time, tuition prices are soaring according to the College Board, up 35 percent over the past five years. A UCLA study this spring found a college education, increasingly is the privilege of the rich, incoming college freshmen are more financially advantaged today than they had been at any point in the last 35 years.
(On camera): And then there’s the shock of filling up the gas tank. According to the Lundberg Survey, gasoline prices are up an average $1 per gallon so far this year. Bill Tucker, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: We’re closing in on the beginning of tonight’s Democratic presidential debate, now less than a half hour away. All of the candidates have now arrived, they’re here; they’re getting ready. And also here, and ready, our own distinguished panel, of political analysts, Ed Rollins, former White House political director, Republican strategist; Michael Goodwin from the “New York Daily News”; Pulitzer prize-winning columnist and Democratic strategist, Democratic National Committeeman Robert Zimmerman.
Ed, let me turn to you. The idea that these candidates can hold a debate tonight and not address those issues that are so critically important to our middle class, so important to working men and women, whether it is trade, whether it is skyrocketing public college — public university costs, whether it is soaring healthcare, are these the issues that are going to galvanize the prospective voters?
ED ROLLINS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Certainly in a state like New Hampshire, that has always been a barometer, as I said earlier, it’s a tax state, it’s a state that’s always had a lot of employment move out of it. And I think to a certain extent once you move away from the war, which everyone is concerned about, there is a lot of these middle class things that people are concerned about, here. A lot of Bostonians have moved to New Hampshire to get lower taxes.
DOBBS: Right.
ROLLINS: So I think these are critical issues. MICHAEL GOODWIN, “NEW YORK DAILY NEWS”: Right, look, all over the country I think people are feeling the squeeze. Income inequality is growing. Sometimes there’s a good side to that. A lot of people are really moving up, but there’s clearly a kind of a permanent underclass. And the middle is sinking down in many cases.
And I think that is a concern. But, obviously, these are not easy questions. And so I think the Democrats, if they’re going get beyond tonight, get beyond the platitudes, it will be interesting to see if they can do that.
DOBBS: Particularly the lower-tier candidates have to deal with those issues in your judgment?
GOODWIN: I think that would be a perfect opportunity for them to say something different. I think that one of the mistakes that candidates make like this, in this kind of group, is that they assume all Democratic voters are the same. Well, they’re not.
I mean, labor is one issue. We talked about immigration earlier. They have a different point of view than other groups. The candidates have to try to focus on the issue and not the groups.
ROBERT ZIMMERMAN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: But these issues with healthcare costs, issues of public education, issues of having a future as a young family, these are issues that will galvanize the electorate. And truly Democrats not only have to campaign on those issues, they’ve got to produce a record in this Congress that’s going to be — that’s going to demonstrate their commitment to it.
DOBBS: Right. But you know, interestingly too, though, Robert, as Michael is suggesting, this cuts at least two ways here. Most of these candidates voted against President Bush’s tax cuts, in this very — as Ed Rollins suggested — in this very tax-conscious state. That’s going to be a difficult road for some of them to follow, isn’t it?
ZIMMERMAN: Actually not, because most of the residents in this state didn’t benefit from the tax cuts that George Bush provided. It went to the top 1 percent earners. And the Democrats can’t be on the defensive over issues like tax cuts, because in terms of protecting the middle class –
DOBBS: Now, you know that a lot of people from New Hampshire are listening to you right now.
ZIMMERMAN: I hope they are, one of the benefits Democratic candidates have is that Karl Rove and George Bush have really so isolated the Republican Party from mainstream Republicans. You’ll see a lot of them supporting the Democrats.
ROLLINS: You’re hearing exactly what you are going to hear on the stage tonight. Basically –
ZIMMERMAN: These are some facts and statistics, Ed.
ROLLINS: Cutting taxes, letting you keep more of your money is wrong. Letting them spend your money is good and that’s the — let me just — you had your piece.
And that’s whether it’s the will to do, or the middle class, or what have you, the more of your tax dollars you get to keep to invest or spend, benefits the economy.
ZIMMERMAN: What happened, Ed, is the Bush administration didn’t cut taxes for the middle class. They just passed the tax burden down to state and local governments.
DOBBS: OK, so let’s get to that issue. We’re looking right now at a 33 percent approval rating, now five months into a new democratically led Congress. We are watching this Congress get hammered even more in these opinion polls than the previous Congress, which I think is historically one of the worst in terms of accomplishment — I think, I know.
What in the world does that is a about Democratic leadership? And how much is what this Congress accomplishes — democratically led — Congress accomplishes or doesn’t accomplish going play into the 2008 presidential election?
GOODWIN: I think quite a bit. I think right now we have a very impatient and somewhat unhappy electorate. And I think that the Democrats basically took Congress by beating up on George Bush. And don’t forget, coming down the stretch you had Republican corruption scandals, that sort of thing. I think the Democrats, presumably at some point, in the next two years will have a scandal of their own. And they can find themselves in the –
DOBBS: Now we’re projecting scandals?
(CROSS TALK)
ROLLINS: Always the optimist, Mike.
GOODWIN: No, but I think it’s just likely. It happens virtually in everybody Congress sooner or later.
DOBBS: Right.
GOODWIN: So they’ve got to produce while they still have the opportunity, but these are very complicated issues. I don’t mean to say they’re easy.
DOBBS: Let’s take complicated issues. These candidates tonight, Senator Clinton has to maintain her lead. Senator Obama has to regain what appears to be at least a paused momentum. Senator Edwards has to recharge his campaign because he is somewhat stalled, and in some cases slipping in the polls. For these three candidates, what do you expect here tonight?
ROLLINS: Well, I expect Obama to be more aggressive on Hillary. Edwards has been very anti-Clinton. He’s got his populist message. And the reality is Hillary basically is the only one who, today, looks like a states person. And her weakness is the war. She’s clearly got many positions on the war and she has to basically explain what she wants to do.
DOBBS: Before we continue that — and I want each of you to address that issue. But it is curious to me that Senator Clinton seems to me to have been straightforward, if I may say this. She has said she voted on an issue, the war, in an entirely different direction than she would have had she known — then — what we all know now. Why isn’t that a satisfactory response? Because it seems to me to be the one that is most commonsensical?
GOODWIN: And I think she’s absolutely right about that. That was the right vote at the time. And, obviously, based on what we know now, no one would have voted that way.
But I think what has happened also, Lou, is in the meantime, particularly this year since she announced that she was running for president, she’s taken basically a different position every month. She’s had five different positions. She was for and against withdrawal, she was for and against cutting off the funding, and for and against the timetables. So she’s been all over the lot this year. She wanted to cap the troops and then she dropped that idea.
So, I think what she needs to do tonight is be clear. What do you stand for? What do you believe about Iraq? What would you do as president about Iraq in full detail not just, I’ll end the war. Because she has said we need to keep many troops there for a long time.
DOBBS: Robert Zimmerman is about to bust a button on this one.
ZIMMERMAN: As you well documented, I’m a Hillary Clinton supporter and proud of it. But putting that aside, Democrat –
DOBBS: But you’re not a paid supporter in any way.
ZIMMERMAN: I’m not a paid supporter. I have no role in the campaign, just a supporter.
But the point here is for all these Democratic candidates they cannot be on the defensive in terms of discussing this war. Democrats are grappling with how to find the best choice out of this tragic situation that the Bush White House put us in the middle of. They’re doing their best, Republicans in the Congress are joining them, but the issue is Democrats can’t go into group therapy and try to debate a vote in 2002.
ROLLINS: It’s not exactly –
ZIMMERMAN: Let me just finish my point, Ed.
ROLLINS: Absolutely.
DOBBS: You two are so gracious to one another.
ZIMMERMAN: The point is here, the winner of this debate and the winner in next election will be the one that can outline how to move forward. That’s the challenge. ROLLINS: But the two front runners of this party, both sitting in the back in the shadows, as Senator Kennedy would say, waiting to be the last ones to vote to see whether Obama will vote yes, or whether Hillary will vote yes. To me, that’s not an act of courage for two people running for commander in chief.
DOBBS: It will be in the profiles of courage, perhaps, for the presidential nomination race 2008.
ZIMMERMAN: The profile in courage is having the courage to change this mission and George Bush could take a lesson from that.
DOBBS: I think we have you on record. We’re going to be back with more of Robert Zimmerman, on the record, and Michael Goodwin and Ed Rollins.
Coming up here next, there are plenty of votes up for grabs in New Hampshire and there will be for some time. This is a fiercely independent state. We’ll have a report on the undecided constituency, in one of this nation’s hottest political arenas, one of its most important. And, of course, we’ll have more with this panel of gracious and conservative, reserved –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Independent minded.
DOBBS: constrained, not conservative, panel of political experts. We’re less than 20 minutes away from the beginning of tonight’s Democratic presidential debate. We’re coming right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: We have just about a quarter hour before the beginning of tonight’s Democratic presidential debate. The small state of New Hampshire is a very big, very important stage for these presidential candidates. Traditionally, holding the first primaries for both the Democratic and Republican parties, it’s an early, important indicator of who just may win their party’s nomination. And as John King reports, the fight for New Hampshire is already in full swing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): George Bruno is a living, breathing, cliche and proud of it.
GEORGE BRUNO, HNEW HAMPSHIRE DEMOCRATIC ACTIVIST: I’m in no rush. I’m enjoying meeting the candidates. And I’m trying to be helpful to a number of the candidates. And the upcoming debate, I think, will be extremely useful.
CROWD CHANTING: Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!
KING: It’s all part of New Hampshire’s quadrennial legend, or myth, depending on your perspective. Presidential hopefuls spend months courting local activists, looking for endorsements, and more importantly, a network of grassroots supporters.
KATHLEEN SULLIVAN, FMR. N.H. DEMOCRATIC CHAIRWOMAN: I am not one who believes that endorsements matter that much in New Hampshire.
KING: Easy for her to say. Kathleen Sullivan recently stepped down as New Hampshire Democratic chairwoman. She led the party to huge gains here, and is considered the most influential Democratic activist yet to pick a presidential candidate.
SULLIVAN: Big fish in a small pond, I don’t know, maybe really little fish, really, in a big pond. I don’t know about that, but –
KING: Media attention and TV ads play more of a role now, but former Governor Jean Shaheen — who made her name as an activist back in 1984 when she helped Gary Hart to a stunning upset of former Vice President Walter Mondale — says the old-fashioned approach can still make a difference.
JEANNE SHAHEEN (D), FMR. N.H. GOVERNOR: If you have someone’s name who has a constituency, and who is willing to go out there and get that constituency fired up about the candidate, then it does make a difference.
KING: Which is why candidates they keep courting proven activists like Kathleen Sullivan and George Bruno.
BRUNO: We were on a campaign run, one day before he was president.
KING: Bruno was a big Bill Clinton guy here, back in 1992. He speaks fondly of Hillary Clinton, but — insert virtual here — says he’s on the fence and listening.
BRUNO: My cell phone rang and it was Senator Obama. And so I pulled the car off to the road and we had a 10 or 12-minute chat about foreign policy. It’s nice living in New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a good place to live.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: As you can see, Lou, the activists here enjoy this ritual. They certainly enjoy the courting. I was asking people over the last few days, if you had a list of the top 100 Democratic activists in the state about how many are still free agents, out there to still be recruited and courted by the candidate? They said maybe 50 or 60, so maybe tonight’s debate will help make up maybe a few minds, Lou.
DOBBS: As you go to a higher percentage. John, thank you very much. John King.
KING: Thank you.
DOBBS: We’re back now with our panel, Ed Rollins, Michael Goodwin and Robert Zimmerman.
The idea that this state is so important, that Iowa, later, will be important or they may switch it around. New Hampshire won’t like it much. But as this debate gets underway tonight, do you think that it’s going to be persuasive to New Hampshire voters? ROLLINS: New Hampshire voters are the most — first of all, everybody in New Hampshire has been a state senator, assemblyman, it’s the most active political state. I’ve never quite understood it. It’s nice to come here in June. Normally, you’re here in January. Hawaii has four electoral votes. I always thought there should be a Hawaii primary in January, and do this in June.
This is the earliest debate, ever, that I can remember. And also one of the longest debates. So I think there are a lot of people that will pay attention here and a lot of people may make up their mind, not across the country, but certainly in this state, they may start choosing right now.
DOBBS: At least one of the things that viewers, and New Hampshire voters, but across the country, viewers tonight for the most part will not be struggling to decide, do you think, whether or not they’re going to vote Republican or independent or Democrat in 2008. Is it likely that most of the people focusing here are Democrats?
GOODWIN: I would think so. I would think that they’re the ones with the most at stake in a debate like tonight. Republicans will have their debate Tuesday night. But I think that this is a wonderful system when you think about it, it’s long, it’s arduous, and it’s very difficult for the candidates, a lot of money, and crisscrossing.
But I think the fact that they have this entire year really to be heard on all these issues, we have this year to figure out where they stand. The voters have lots of opportunities to watch them, to see what they’re doing. Here in New Hampshire it’s still that retail (ph) of campaigning that matters. So I think it’s a wonderful process, if people pay attention and force the candidates to give real answers and not just platitudes.
ZIMMERMAN: That’s New Hampshire’s history, the retail politics, the scrutiny these voters, independents and Democrats give the Democratic candidates is the best type of Q&A that I’ve seen in American politics.
They do it in town hall meetings. They do it in neighborhoods. In fact, there’s a famous story of a woman saying, in an interview, I’m not sure about Bill Clinton he’s only been to my home three times to visit me.
They are tough and demanding it makes for a stronger candidate and a stronger nominee at the end.
ROLLINS: One time, Mo Udall, years ago when he was running against Carter, he said I met you four times, are you going to vote for me? She said, “I never vote for any of them. It just encourages them.”
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: Well, there’s some truth to that. The people of New Hampshire are very — they have a great deal of pride about their role in the process, for both parties. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think also, Lou, the fact that so many of them are independents. It forces the candidates to take a larger view. You can’t just appeal to a small group in New Hampshire. The independent vote is crucial across America. It’s a little bit different here, but I think basically when you speak to an independent voter in New Hampshire you could be speaking to one in Ohio or in Pennsylvania or in New Jersey.
DOBBS: Let me ask our leading Democrat and our leading Republican on this panel, how much you’re concerned about the fact that a state like New Hampshire, 44 percent registered independents, and we see a rising number of people identifying themselves as independents.
How much of a concern is that to you as a Democrat, Robert?
ZIMMERMAN: Well, what concerns me about it is that I come from a state where if you’re a registered Democrat you vote in the Democratic primary. And I worry about it breaking down the two-party system. As imperfect as it is, I think it is our strongest system. In New Hampshire their history — the role of the independent voter has forced the candidates to address a broad array of issues. And I think that’s significant.
DOBBS: Now, as a registered independent I have to say to you, it’s not the independent breaking down the two-party system, it’s the two parties, I would argue, breaking down the two-party system.
Ed, your perspective from the Republicans.
ROLLINS: It concerns me. Obviously, it means that my party is failing to attract moving away from them and becoming independents. And that’s what’s happening at this point in time. Somehow we have to get the independent vote back and that’s what cost us in 2006, if we don’t get them back, if we lose 60 percent of the independents in this presidential — there’s no way we can win.
ZIMMERMAN: New Hampshire is an interesting test, in a way, an interesting example. Because New Hampshire had a historic Democratic victory on the state and federal level in the 2006 election. It’s a very tough scrutinizing voter, and it’s going to require the candidates to really layout their programs.
GOODWIN: Well, I think also what happens, Lou, as the campaign moves on and as they move deeper into the system, deeper into other states, we have events, like Iraq, for example. Yesterday, the bust of the JFK terror plot. Those things, events are uncontrollable and unpredictable by definition. And they can upset the best plans in the state by state progression. So the candidates always have to have one eye on where they are, but another eye on the larger look at the whole nation as a whole.
ROLLINS: The other thing, you asked the other question, are New Hampshire voters going to be watching Democrats and Republicans. Every voter in this state will be talking about this debate tomorrow, Republican and Democrat. Every voter on Wednesday will be talking about the Republican. That’s just the way they are. This is their sport. Every four years they look forward to it, they participate, they watch it closely.
ZIMMERMAN: It’s also a good part of the economy, too. It will contribute to that here. You know it’s really — I marvel at the system and the impact that it does have. These early contests are very important because of the intense retail politics.
GOODWIN: Yeah. I mean, I think what we’re all looking forward to, ultimately is winnowing down the field a bit. I think when you have eight candidates here, the Republicans will have 10, Fred Thompson would make it 11. So it gets a little unwieldy.
DOBBS: Well, you left out — if you’re going to say that then we have to talk about eight and possibly Al Gore here.
GOODWIN: Al Gore, yeah and Wes Clark hanging out, waiting to get in.
DOBBS: And others to be named later.
GOODWIN: I assumed Gore would not get in unless a few dropped out and the field got smaller and he had a better chance. Right now we’re in the preliminary rounds. It’s going to matter, but, still, this is the first inning of a long game.
ZIMMERMAN: It goes back to the point we talked about in the beginning of the program — and I believe this very deeply — with all of the Democrats relatively holding the holding the same positions on most of the key issues, what it will come down to in these early contests is which candidate can prove they can deliver, either by their record, or which candidate can prove they really have a vision for the future. And that’s going to be a tough scrutiny, but that’s what I think voters in this state, in particular are going to look for: Who can deliver? Who can produce and with interest (ph)?
ROLLINS: They also have some time tonight, which is interesting. We have a two-hour debate.
DOBBS: You bet.
ROLLINS: They’ll have some time to talk so people can really make an impression.
DOBBS: And we’ve got Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper and Larry King are going to hold them accountable here tonight. So we’re just moments away from that.
We’re going have more on tonight’s debate, what you can expect with our political panel and debate — as I said, just a few minutes away. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Welcome back. In just a few minutes the debate, the presidential Democratic presidential debate will be beginning here. And as you can — if you can look over my shoulder there, you can see that all of the Democratic candidates have taken up their positions. And they’re ready for what I know will be an energetic and vigorous questioning by my colleague, Wolf Blitzer, who will be moderating this debate.
We are here about our panel, Ed Rollins, what should we expect? What do you expect?
ROLLINS: I expect a very meaningful, opening remarks. I think that first impression is going to matter. I think they have worked on that pretty hard.
DOBBS: OK.
GOODWIN: I would like to see clear expressions on Iraq and the war on terror. I think it needs to be resolved. The leading candidates need to start acting like potential commanders in chief and not just primary candidates.
DOBBS: Robert?
ZIMMERMAN: I’m looking forward to a format that allows them and encourages them to answer the questions directly. That’s got to be the challenge and that’s got to be expected. I think that is going to be significant. I think what is also going to be worth observing is how each of these candidates can truly distinguish themselves. What issues they’re going to focus on that will help them stand out.
Attacking each other will not work with registered Democrats. People want to see a united party and focus on who can beat George Bush most effectively.
GOODWIN: But I think — just before the break, Robert said they all have more or less the same positions. I think that does not speak well of the Democratic Party. I think that’s a weakness of the party, not a strength.
I would like to see them be a little tougher on each other, distinguish themselves on substantive issues, and not just all kind of be in a herd mentality on the major issues.
ZIMMERMAN: That’s why, Mike, you’re a journalist. And I’m delighted to see the Democrats united with, in fact, the majority of American people on most of the critical issues.
GOODWIN: By contrast the Republicans have a much more philosophically diverse field of candidates.
ZIMMERMAN: Well, I’m looking forward to Ed defending them.
(LAUGHTER)
ROLLINS: True, you are all very similar on all your positions, most of them wrong — but that’s OK.
(LAUGHTER) DOBBS: Republican strategist Ed Rollins reporting –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objective analysis.
DOBBS: Let’s get to what we’re going to see here tonight. Is this debate going to make a difference in the minds — you mentioned Democrats, Robert, I know those are closest to your heart, but the fact is more people are identifying themselves as independents than Democrats. Is this going to make a difference?
ROLLINS: I think it is. I think this is an important debate for the simple reason we’re now going into summer, there won’t be much other activity. I think the reality is people make an impression, and favorable one (INAUDIBLE).
GOODWIN: But I think, to stand out, each of them is going to say something other than just platitude, other than just I agree with John, I agree with Susie. They’re going to need to need to say something different, and be sharp and be distinctive.
DOBBS: You mean, just like Robert Zimmerman and Ed Rollins.
(LAUGHTER)
GOODWIN: That’s why they could win.
ZIMMERMAN: Every poll shows how closely the country is watching this next election. “Newsweek” had a poll where the overwhelming majority wanted the Bush administration to be over. People are worried about their future. They take this — they are taking this election very seriously and they’re very mobilized around it, in both camps.
ROLLINS: It’s 597 more days, Robert, suffer.
(LAUGHTER)
ZIMMERMAN: I’m looking forward to it.
DOBBS: For those who have not been following Ed Rollins, 597 days refers to the number of day for which George W. Bush will retain the presidency.
Michael Goodwin, Ed Rollins, Ed Zimmerman, thank you.
Stay with CNN for the Democratic presidential debate here in Manchester, New Hampshire. CNN’s coverage continues immediately following the debate as well. The candidates are all in place, as I said. The Democratic presidential candidates, they begin debating right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: This is a special edition of “LOU DOBBS TONIGHT: America Votes 2008″ for Sunday, June 3. Live from Manchester, New Hampshire with news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.
LOU DOBBS, CNN HOST: Good evening, everybody. We’re here at Sullivan Arena at St. Anselm College, the location of the Democratic and Republican presidential debates.
Tonight it’s the Democrats. In just two hour, eight Democratic candidates take the stage behind me. They’ll be stating and defending their positions on some of the critical issues facing this nation.
We’ll have expert reporting from the best political team on television, including John King and Candy Crowley. They will be with us here tonight.
We’ll have the best analysis from people who know these candidates and the issues very well. Donna Brazile and James Carville will join us here tonight.
And leading up to all of this, the Democrats, taking control of the Congress in last November’s election. Have the Democrats followed through on their campaign promises? They promised a lot. They promised voters they would change the way government is doing business. But have they?
Lisa Sylvester has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Democrats won last year’s election by promising the American people a do- something Congress.
REP. RAHM EMANUEL, DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS CHAIR: When the speaker’s gavel comes down, it intends to open the people’s House not the auction house.
SYLVESTER: Democratic leaders offered a host of reforms. Remember the campaign promise of six in ‘06? Many of their agenda items passed the house in the first 100 hours, but foreign policy issues quickly overshadowed domestic issues.
JENNIFER DUFFY, COOK POLITICAL REPORT: Their biggest failure may be simply losing the momentum they had at the beginning of this Congress. They have gotten very bogged down in their funding issue. SYLVESTER: Democrats promising to implement all of the 9/11 recommendation, but disagreements over port security stalled that plan.
On prescription drug prices, the House passed a bill that required the federal government to negotiate bulk prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. The Senate stripped out that requirement.
House Democrats moved to cut interest rates on student loans, but that still is not a reality. The Senate has been slow to act.
And then there was the promise to achieve energy independence. What have gas prices done? Gone from $2.20 on November 6, to $3.21 last week, according to the Energy Information Administration.
The scant progress is giving Republicans plenty of political fodder.
REP. TOM PRICE, (R), GEORGIA: Look at the number of bills that were passed. There were 28 bills passed through Congress. Thirteen of those were to name a post office or a building. I think the American people are extremely disappointed in the kind of leadership they’ve had to date.
SYLVESTER: But it hasn’t been a complete wash for Congressional Democrats. A bill raising the minimum wage $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour was signed into law.
Democrats also made headway on lobbying reform. Legislation that calls for more disclosure and penalties passed both chambers.
On Iraq, Democrats have reasserted their position.
PAOL BEGALA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: The country wants a change in the Iraq policy. And I think we want the plan basically that the Democrats passed. Ultimately I think the Democrats are going to win the war about the war because the public is on their side.
SYLVESTER: But as a new election season winds up, voters are looking for results and outcomes, not just rhetoric.
(on camera): Political analysts say Democrats faced a rough road when they took office because of the razor thin margin in the Senate. But their biggest accomplishment may have been more public oversight, with hearings that put a new spotlight on the federal government.
Lisa Sylvester, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Joining me now are three members of our political team, the best political reporting team on television. John King and Candy Crowley are joining us.
Lisa Sylvester’s report showing that the Democrats haven’t succeeded in moving all of their issues forward. Candy, just in your opinion, how is that lack of progress affecting the candidates on the campaign trail?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, at the moment, I got to tell you, Democrats are so excited there’s an election coming up in 2008. There is a lot of Bush fatigue. And that’s the best that can be said among the Democrats.
So far they’re not holding them accountable except on the issue of the war. When it comes to the issue of the war, they are — certainly the Democrats that are the activists that are going to vote in the primary season, they want to see tougher stances on the war. So that’s the one place where the Democrats are being held accountable.
The rest of it, I think, down the line they will be, but at the moment, the enthusiasm for a Democratic president is so high it kind of trumps being disappointed in these first four months.
DODD: Candy, thank you.
John King?
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, I think, A, Candy is dead right, but the war is the big issue right now. Number two, the Democratic presidential candidates used, to some extent, the lack of progress to their advantage, saying you need a Democratic president, one of the reasons you can’t get these initiatives into law because there’s still a Republican in the White House who opposes, or who wants significant modifications of these measures.
Another factor I think will play out down the line is, if the Democratic agenda is not making its way to President Bush’s desk, because it’s stalled in Congress, then more and more you’ll have the outside, those who are not in the Congress, the governors in the race, the former members of Congress in the race, maybe questioning the votes or missed votes for some of the candidates for president.
That’s one of the reasons Senator Clinton’s staff will tell you she’s careful to try to be in Washington as much as often. You’re seeing this play out on the Republican side where Senator McCain has missed a number of key votes.
So down the road it could be more of an issue than right now, but again the candidates for president say we need a Democratic president. That’s their rallying cry right now.
DOBBS: John, thank you.
Candy, thank you.
Candy Crowley and John King will be joining us throughout the next couple of hours.
Joining me now three of the best political analysts in the country.
Donna Brazile joins us, as does J.C. Watts and James Carville.
Thank you all for being here.
Donna, this debate tonight, are we going to learn a lot about the candidates? Are you expecting something new to come from the candidates and their performance here?
DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Absolutely. As you well know, this is a very important state not just for the Democrats, but, of course, in terms of the top tier candidates.
They want to, tonight, talk about the issues that the American people care deeply about — Iraq, health care. They want to talk about education.
So this is going to be an opportunity for them not just to get out their sound bites and stump speeches, but to details the plans they’ve been laying out on the campaign trail.
DOBBS: James?
JAMES CARVILLE, CNN DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: If I had to watch one candidate tonight, I think I would watch John Edwards.
I think Senator Clinton is going to do fine. She traditionally does fine in these kind of settings.
I think Senator Obama probably will have an improved performance. I think he realizes he was slightly off his game in the last debate. I expect him to play up.
I think Edwards wants to be sure he doesn’t lose contact with the front-runners. And he clearly established himself as the third candidate, as an alternative.
So I would look for Senator Edwards, maybe if anybody is going to do something unique or be a little aggressive, I suspect it maybe Senator Edwards tonight.
DOBBS: J.C.?
J.C. WATTS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think, Lou, you’re going see tonight Democrats preaching to their choir just like on Tuesday night you’ll see Republicans preaching to their choir.
I think tonight, with the audience they’ve got to, one, do not harm. I think Obama has to put more meat on the bones in order to kind of beef up the substance.
I think Senator Clinton — I’ve said all along, I think she’s going to be the nominee. She’s the one that everybody is — she’s got the big target on her back. I think she’s the one that people will be looking to make sure she doesn’t lose any ground.
DOBBS: Do you believe that she has that significant a lead?
BRAZILE: Oh, absolutely. Look, I think tonight she’s going to perform very well.
But I also think a candidate we should look at tonight is John Biden. He voted for the supplemental and he wants to defend his vote.
On the other hand, Joe Biden is out there. He’s talking about a different strategy for Iraq than the other candidates. He will do well.
I also think that Chris Dodd, who’s also doing well in this state — he’s running three ads. He’s another candidate to watch tonight.
DOBBS: The fact is Senator Biden has been the only one — see if you agree with me — who has really laid out some detail about what he thinks should transpire in Iraq. That is, try…
CARVILLE: Right. He does. He’s got the clearest answer on Iraq. He also, by the way, I report, that he won the sign derby on the way into the debate.
BRAZILE: Depending on what street you came in on.
CARVILLE: Let’s put it this way. Let’s be more precise. On the street I came in…
WATTS: Where did you come in, James?
CARVILLE: And he does have that advantage.
DOBBS: J.C. is looking for that Republican street sign.
WATTS: I didn’t see any.
DOBBS: You raise the idea that Edwards has to perform tonight because he has not shown great strength. He is struggling for that third position in the most recent polls, particularly in this state, third and fourth.
Another candidate that has shown some traction, however, is Governor Bill Richardson. What is your impression of what he can do and how important this is to him tonight?
WATTS: Well, I know Bill Richardson. I served with him. I think Bill is a good guy, qualified to be governor, but he hasn’t gotten any traction. I think he’s kind of — I think Bill Richardson and Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are kind of like Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee on the Republican side. They’re trying to crack the code. They can’t get into that first tier.
I think on the Democrat side, it’s Clinton, Obama and Edwards first tier, and then you’ve got Richardson trying to crack the code. I’m not so sure that he’s going to be able to do that. I think the first tier — it is that much separation.
DOBBS: James?
CARVILLE: Again, I think his analysis is right. But if I’m Edwards tonight, I want to clearly establish myself as the alternative. He has a real job to do. Obviously Senator Biden and Dodd are going to looking for ways to present themselves as an alternative. It’s a good opportunity to scope on up to do something.
DOBBS: How does Edwards do it?
CARVILLE: We’ll wait and see. He’s a pretty clever guy. My mind tells me he’s thinking overtime and he may try to position himself maybe on the war, maybe on health care to say, you have Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I’m different. I’m somebody else.
I just suspect if I’m Edwards, I’m nervous about losing contact with the top tier of the field.
BRAZILE: I think Bill Richardson, who is running number four in the polls here in New Hampshire, must stay consistent, especially on issues like immigration.
DOBBS: All right.
We’re going to be back with our panel of experts, political analysts and strategist.
And one thing everybody agrees on, a grand compromise for immigration, a bill that would provide amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. What’s the deal? We’ll have a report. And the best political teams in television continues to bring us their perspectives right here. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: We’re back with Donna Brazile, J.C. Watts and James Carville.
There’s also that skepticism that’s a subtext here, that it’s early in this campaign, that this debate, while as critically important as it is for the people running, particularly in the latter half of the pack, that not much can be achieved here tonight. Is that subtext wrong?
BRAZILE: Absolutely. I think the second tier candidates tonight can really make a name for themselves. They can, once again, distinguish themselves on the issues. They can point out some of the weaknesses or inconsistencies with the top tier candidates. And they come up with a good one-liner or respond in such as we that can make headlines tomorrow.
DOBBS: James?
CARVILLE: They could, but they also could make a fool of themselves. The danger is it doesn’t always work out the way you want to work out. And in the case of Senator Biden and Senator Dodd and Governor Richardson, these are very serious kind of accomplished people. They don’t have to have the news available to them that Kucinich or Gravel have. They’re not going to do that. They don’t view themselves that way. So it’s going to be a kind of difference here. They’re entirely…
DOBBS: So the breakout for them is more difficult.
CARVILLE: More difficult, exactly. Much more difficult for Richardson, Biden and Dodd. They can find some opportunities but they have to do in a Senatorial or gubernatorial way, where Kucinich and Gravel don’t have that burden.
Edwards is a little bit in the middle. I just think he’s senses he’s in danger of losing contact with the field of the top two and he doesn’t want to do that.
WATTS: Lou, I think Edwards and Richardson could gain some ground, if, I think, the top three, Clinton, Edwards and Obama, if they stumble in some way.
If they go out and have a good performance, I still don’t think those second tier candidates crack the code, but I do think the two that could crack the code and gain some ground would be Richardson — or the three, Richardson, Dodd, Biden. But it’s a do-no-harm for the top three.
DOBBS: We’re talking strategy. We’re talking basically don’t make a mistake as some caution in performance.
CARVILLE: That’s right.
DOBBS: In terms of the issue, these candidates are very difficult to differentiate among, are they not?
BRAZILE: No, I think there are a lot of differences among these candidates on some of the top issues. Iraq, we mentioned. Immigration, as you well know, is now a hot issue. The Senate will resume debate this week.
Even on that issue, you have Democrats, some coming out for the immigration compromise and others expressing grave doubts.
Senator Clinton put forward a bill with Senator Menendez that would reunite family, of course. Senator Obama questioned the so- called merit system in the bill. So there are differences among the candidates.
CARVILLE: The point is, though, by and large, the Democratic field shares a pretty common kind of issue terrain as the Republican field is going to share a common terrain.
I think what Donna is pointing to is they’re going to be looking for some of these nuances and different things. You can assure you that Senator Biden is going to bring up the fact that he’s the only one with a clear plan to deal with Iraq.
It’s going to be interesting to see if Senator Obama brings up Senator Clinton’s vote on the Iraq war. That’s something we’re looking for. It’s going to be a moment.
There’s some danger in doing that, Remember, the crowd in New Hampshire here is probably more important than the crowd on CNN, the crowd that’s going to be watching this on channel 9, WNOR. It is really important to these candidates. These New Hampshire Democrats don’t like attacks on each other. So it’s a rally risky thing to get in the middle of.
WATTS: Joe Biden, I think, is the guy that could maybe separate himself in terms of the war, but how do you do it if there’s an anti- war sentiment on the Democrat side. Joe voted for the war. I agree with his vote. I thought it took a lot of courage but I’m not so sure that was the right political vote for him. I think he made that vote out of conviction. So I’m not sure so he can gain any ground or, again, crack the code with that particular vote.
BRAZILE: He said he supported the troops and he thought this was one way to express support for the troops.
DOBBS: In voting for the supplemental war funding?
BRAZILE: That’s correct.
CARVILLE: That’s right. I would tell you this, that Senator Biden has got to be pleased with us because for somebody that’s getting one percent of the vote, he’s getting a lot of air time. I promise you that.
DOBBS: He’s clever nuance on strategy is working here.
CARVILLE: That’s what I’m talking about.
DOBBS: Well, we’re going to see a lot of strategy at work here through the either and a lot of analysis of that strategy in the performance and the run-up to these debates that will be beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern right here on CNN.
We’re talking with Donna Brazile, James Carville and J.C. Watts. I’m pleased to tell you these folks will be back with us as we continue our coverage here of the debates. We’ll be bringing you those debates, as I said, 7:00 p.m. eastern.
Just ahead, the moderator of tonight’s debate, none other than Wolf Blitzer. He joins me to take a look at the lineup tonight and where do they stand on the president’s grand compromise on illegal immigration? The candidates and their positions on granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, creating a path to citizenship in the words of some.
Stay with us. We’ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DOBBS: All of the Democratic presidential candidates that you will see and hear from that stage tonight here on CNN are unified on at least one issue, that of illegal immigration and border security.
Their support of the Senate’s so-called grand compromise on illegal immigration, however, is alienating much of their traditional Democratic base.
Casey Wian has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The eight Democratic candidates seeking President Bush’s job all share the Republican president’s goal of granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There are those for whom toughening the border is the answer and nothing more. Well, we have to be realistic. And we have to deal with the 10, 11 million people who are already here.
WIAN: Senator Barack Obama even praises the president’s stance on illegal immigration.
BARACK OBAMA, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: All of us believe in stronger border security. All of us want to see stronger employer verification mechanisms. But I also strongly believe in creating a pathway to citizenship so that people can come out of the shadows and not be fearful that their families are going to be broken up.
WIAN: Democrats are hoping to court Latino voters. John Edwards visited farm workers who lost jobs during a freeze in California, and promised to ask the president for help.
JOHN EDWARDS, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I can make sure that he knows what the plight is. He knows how serious it is.
WIAN: But endorsing the grand compromise, as the Senate immigration bill is being called, there’s no guarantee of Latino votes. Many Latino advocacy groups are angry the proposal, in their view, doesn’t grant amnesty to enough illegal aliens. And they don’t like the thousands of dollars of fines and other requirements favored by the bill’s supporters.
BILL RICHARDSON, (D) GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The legalization plan that tested the 12 million undocumented workers already in America — look, if you learn English, pay back taxes, pass a background check, you embrace American values, you can stay and you can work.
WIAN: It’s perhaps surprising that no Democrats are siding with their party’s traditional ally the AFL-CIO. The labor union opposes the grand compromise because legalizing millions of illegal aliens could take jobs away from industrial union members. But other unions, such as the Service Employees and Unite Here, back amnesty because their members work in jobs already dominating by illegal aliens.
With labor and the Republican Party split, Senator Obama predicts immigration reform will be left to President Bush’s successor.
(on camera): Governor Richardson says there are no votes to be gained on the issue of illegal immigration, but if 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants are given a path to citizenship, a lot of future voters are at stake.
Casey Wian, CNN, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Well, those Democratic presidential candidates will begin debating in just an hour-and-a-half from now. Eight Democratic candidates seeking the nomination will take the floor to debate their positions on the critical issues that face this nation.
Joining me now are our own distinguished panel of political analysts, Ed Rollin, former White House political director; and Republican strategist Michael Goodwin Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, New York Daily News; Democratic strategic, Democratic National Committeeman Robert Zimmerman.
Well, let’s start.
Ed, this panel has one thought in mind, I’m sure, and that’s to decide who the one winner will be. Will there be one winner tonight?
ED ROLLINS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: The critical thing is Hillary is the front-runner. Everybody is going to try to take a shot at her. They’ve got to bring her back to the field.
You’ve got some serious people there who are not serious candidates. And the only way they’re going to get any attention is to basically make some inroads on her.
Obviously, Barack Obama is still a curiosity for a lot of people. And the rest of them are significant Senators, but not significant presidential candidates.
DOBBS: Michael?
MICHAEL GOODWIN, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: I think that Hillary will play it safe. Her trademark is not to make mistakes, so I think they may go at her but I think she’ll be prepared for that and be cautious in how she answers.
I hope that there are some substantive discussions about Iraq and the War on Terror, with John Edwards saying there is no such thing as the War on Terror. I hope we get into that because that is the most important question facing America. ROBERT ZIMMERMAN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: It would really be a strategic mistake if these candidates start duking it out with each other. Amongst Democrats there’s no tolerance at all for seeing intra-party fighting when they feel victory with such a great opportunity.
I think what’s critical to this debate is for each candidate to try to find a way to define themselves better to the electorate.
In the last debate you saw Joe Biden do it with humor and Hillary Clinton did it in her response on the commander in chief question. Barack Obama has to show gravitas and Bill Richardson, who is making some headway in New Hampshire, has to step up to the stage and articulating a clear message.
DOBBS: How about Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel?
ROLLINS: They’re clear.
ZIMMERMAN: They’re clear. I don’t think they’re a factor to be concerned about.
ROLLINS: They’re a distraction. One of the tragedies of a debate like this– and I’ve seen anybody who runs gets to be on the stage. But people like that, go out and throw a hand grenade or do whatever and become a distraction or get the sound bite.
This whole drill is about getting a sound bite. It’s not how many million are watching tonight, it’s what the sound bites are tomorrow, the stories tomorrow.
DOBBS: Let me ask you the same question — I was talking with J.C. Watts and James Carville and Donna Brazile. Will there be an impact to the presentation and the performance and the statements of the candidates in these debates tonight?
ROLLINS: I don’t think so. I think they get so very programmed they don’t want to make mistakes or take risks. I think immigration is a perfect issue. Every one of them are for immigration. Every one of them says they’re for border security. I hope somebody presses them and says why haven’t you done anything about border security in the last couple of years? They certainly have had tremendous opportunities to do something and they haven’t.
GOODWIN: Yes, I mean, the format often dictates whether they break out of the script. Follow-up questions, pressing them for more answers, I think those are the things that can make a difference in the debate.
DOBBS: Robert?
ZIMMERMAN: The worst mistake that these candidates do is to come across too programmed or talking point oriented. Senator Clinton has got to project humanity in a presentation. She did that well when she ran for the senate. That’s going to be her challenge. Senator Obama has to project gravitas. This is a unique opportunity. And they loose it if they just rely upon talking points and overall programs.
DOBBS: All right. We’re going to turn now to my colleague Wolf Blitzer. He will be the moderator of tonight’s presidential debate. The commercial-free event will mix debate with a town hall-style meeting, appropriate since we’re in New Hampshire.
Wolf has more from the set of tonight’s debate. Wolf, you’ve heard the panel say you’ve got a tough job ahead of you. Tell us what you’re going to do?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN MODERATOR: Well, we’re going to try not to disappoint not only the panel, but the voters out there, Lou.
Let me walk you through what we’re doing from 7:00 p.m. eastern, a little more than an hour-and-a-half or so from now, until 9:00 p.m. eastern. Two hours of uninterrupted commercial free television.
Starting off with the eight candidates, I’m going it take you on a little tour of what’s going to be going on. All of the candidates are going to be standing here for the first hour behind these podiums. And they’re going to be answering questions from our reporters we’ve invited from WMUR, our affiliate here in Manchester. The New Hampshire Union Leader, all of them have will have an opportunity not only to answer the question that is asked, but then we’re going to follow up.
And if they don’t answer the question, I’m going to point out, you know what, they didn’t answer the question. That’s what’s going to go on. We’re going to try to allow the candidates to interact a little bit as well.
In the second hour, they’re going to come down, we’re going to have chairs, eight chairs that we’re going to put a little bit in front of these podiums and then the viewers out there — the town hall meeting, a traditional almost New England kind of town hall meeting, they’re going to be able to have chance to go ahead and stand up, ask a question.
I’ll probably follow up if the question isn’t answered, maybe we’ll let some of the other candidates weigh in, get their reaction. What we want to do, and this is important, is differentiate. We want to show the potential voters out there where these candidates agree and where they disagree. I think that will be important especially for the undecided in coming up with some decisions.
So we’ve worked on this format, and let’s hope it works.
DOBBS: Well, I’m sure it will work, Wolf. And you look pretty good down there. I think you’re ready to go on that stage. It’s ready-made for you. And those eight candidates who will be joining you tonight. And I know you will do a terrific job. And I love the fact that you’re going to hold them to the fire. And make them…
BLITZER: We’re going to try our best, Lou. We’re going to try not to disappoint.
DOBBS: Well, I know you won’t disappoint me or our viewers. Our panel is a little tougher though. Our distinguished panel of political analysts, Ed Rollins, Michael Goodwin, and Robert Zimmerman will be back with us.
Also, this nation’s massive trade deficit. You don’t hear a lot of talk about that, it has reached historic levels. And why aren’t candidates talking about this critical issue? That may change tonight. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: We’re back with our panel of political experts, including Ed Rollins, former White House political director, Republican strategist; Michael Goodwin, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, New York Daily News; Democratic strategist and Democratic National Committeeman Robert Zimmerman.
And let’s — the strategy tonight for these candidates. What is each candidate going to try to do in your estimation, Ed?
ED ROLLINS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I think, as I said, Hillary has to basically — I would be on the offense against Bush if I was in Hillary’s camp. I would make as strong an effort as I could to tie him down on the war.
DOBBS: Taking the position of the presumptive nominee.
ROLLINS: Absolutely. And that is — and she certainly has the expertise to do that. Everybody else I think has to project, and particularly Dodd and Biden, who are chairmen of major committees, I would somehow get it back to, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this is what I think we should do. They’re getting — they’re back on the turf here and they need to get out front.
DOBBS: Do you think voters are impressed by being chairman of this committee or that?
MICHAEL GOODWIN, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: No, no. I think it’s very much an inside Washington game. And I don’t think it works in a debate. It makes you sound like you know what you’re talking about and that have you gravitas. But I think most voters, you know, it doesn’t really matter.
I do think that the real onus here tonight is going to be on Edwards — among the top tier candidates, Edwards, and to a lesser extent, Obama. Edwards is slipping, I think he is kind of stalled. He is probably doing well in Iowa, but that’s about it.
And I think Obama, too, seems to have peaked, so I think both have something at stake tonight.
DOBBS: Your candidate, Robert, Senator Hillary Clinton, is leading in the polls. That has got to be terrific, it has got to have her camp absolutely thrilled and excited and I’m sure it’s an absolutely concrete lead that you don’t fear evaporating at all.
ROBERT ZIMMERMAN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, of course, you just totally destroyed the theory of managing expectations. But the more important point…
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: I was trying to.
ZIMMERMAN: But the more important point is, the whole concept of a front-runner is obsolete political thinking in fighting for the Democratic nomination. How a candidate does in Iowa, how they do in New Hampshire, how they will compete in the Nevada caucuses and South Carolina, those early contests will be very important in determining the position they’re in going into February 5th, especially someone who is perceived of as a front runner.
DOBBS: OK. We’re looking — excuse me just a second, Robert. That’s Senator Dodd arriving here on the campus, getting ready to prepare for tonight’s debate at St. Anselm College here. And entering the arena, just as we speak, all of the candidates arriving.
ZIMMERMAN: I want to go back to the point that Ed made that I think was very…
DOBBS: Robert, don’t you want to talk about Senator Dodd? You seem to be driven by…
ZIMMERMAN: I’m talking about — I’m going into Senator Dodd.
(LAUGHTER)
ZIMMERMAN: You know, with all of these candidates basically similar on most key issues, the ones who can show they can get things done and can show they’re competitive in the general election, that’s going to motivate the Democratic voters. Democrats are driven by winning. And they’re driven by who can deliver.
DOBBS: Well, let’s put this some perspective, because it oftentimes, at least sometimes in my view, it is lost, nationwide, an average of our polls by — CNN/Opinion Research polls over this year, show not the Democrats in the lead amongst those identifying themselves to one party or affiliation, but rather independent voters, which has risen to 42 percent nationwide, 33 percent for Democrats, 25 percent for Republicans.
New Hampshire is an independent-thinking state in every way. Is that going to be beneficial to Senator Clinton or perhaps another candidate?
ZIMMERMAN: Well — OK.
DOBBS: You know, this is destiny for you, Robert.
ZIMMERMAN: This is destiny.
DOBBS: Governor Bill Richardson is arriving at this very moment, Robert. And would you like to lay some plaudits at his feet as well?
ZIMMERMAN: As a matter of fact, he’s a fine governor, qualified. But here’s the point though in terms of that issue, too, about how a candidate does position themselves.
DOBBS: Right.
ZIMMERMAN: And I think this debate really gives Bill Richardson who is now emerging a bit in New Hampshire a chance to really stand out. And I think while the polls show independent voters being critical, in New Hampshire, independent voters can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary. And that saved Al Gore when they voted for John McCain.
DOBBS: What’s the impact, in your judgment, Ed?
ROLLINS: Well, I think it’s a tremendous impact. I think, first of all, if they vote in the Democratic primary, they’ll probably vote for the Democratic candidate for president. So Republicans really have to make an inroad. So it’s — which they haven’t done to date.
GOODWIN: Right. Well, I think that the temptation of the lower candidates to try to score a touchdown early, say something sharp, I think is something that will just be a distraction. I think the question is, you know, can Clinton make a good showing for herself to fend off Obama and Edwards who I think will be coming after her?
DOBBS: And preserve that lead that Robert Zimmerman wants to manage all of those expectations about.
ZIMMERMAN: I’m not her spokesperson, but look at that independent voter not to vote for Senator Clinton. And I think you have seen that, an independent voter could easily shift to another candidate.
DOBBS: You know what, though, on occasion, Robert, you sound a little like her spokesperson.
ROLLINS: He does. Sounds a little programmed.
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: You two are going to have — you and Ed Rollins are going to have to take that up, Robert. Michael Goodwin and I will repair to the zone of absolute neutrality and objectivity. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
We’ll be back, and when we are, Robert Zimmerman and Michael Goodwin and Ed Rollins will be among those joining us and staying with us.
Up next, the Democrat-led Congress under fire for selling out middle class Americans with a new trade compromise. How does this deal affect America’s already massive trade deficits and trade debt, and most importantly, American workers? And how does all of that relate to the Democratic Party traditions, values and ideals? We’ll have that report. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Now some numbers that you may not hear in the debate tonight, and they’re big numbers. For example, our national debt now stands at $9 trillion, a historic level, an all-time record. Our trade debt also at a record high $6 trillion, and it’s rising faster than the national debt.
Our trade deficit rising to over $800 billion last year, yet not one of the leading candidates are talking about trade, the deficit, its consequence. The Democratic Party and their nominees — or those seeking that nomination, seem to want to avoid this issue. That may be about to change.
Bill Tucker now has the report on our trade agenda.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Current trade policy has cost Americans more than 3 million jobs since President Bush took offense. Americans now have to borrow more than $2 billion a day to finance our foreign trade habit.
ALAN TONNELSON, U.S. BUSINESS & INDUSTRY COUNCIL: Anybody who is concerned about the living standards of their children should be very, very concerned about globalization and U.S. trade policy.
TUCKER: Last year for the first time ever, Chinese exports of manufactured goods surpassed U.S. manufacturing exports. Trade critics are frustrated at the president’s failure to stand up for American workers.
REP. STEVE KAGAN (D), WISCONSIN: This nation is hemorrhaging our jobs. They’re bleeding overseas, you can’t fix that with a Band-Aid. He needs to stand up, put his foot down and say, look, you can’t undervalue your currency, you should not be illegally funding your corporations and your businesses with grants and illegal subsidies.
LLOYD WOOD, AMER. MFG. TRADE ACTION COALITION: Industry after industry, for example, if you take the textile industry, we’ve lost nearly 500,000 jobs in the last six years. We’ve seen a substantial amount of market share loss. So certainly when you lose market share, you’re going to lose jobs.
TUCKER: And when jobs are lost, incomes decline, the tax base erodes, yet the administration has seemed more interested in playing nice and being friendly with China and talking.
PETER MORICI, UNIV. OF MARYLAND: We’ve been talking for five years now through three Treasury secretaries. The Chinese are very happy to talk about this issue because the longer this goes on, the more factories they can move from Indiana and Michigan to Shanghai.
TUCKER: The administration has filed complaints with the World Trade Organization that China’s export subsidies amount to an illegal business practice, and that China has failed to live up to WTO rules to protect intellectual property rights.
(on camera): But those are limited measures to those who say the real problem is China’s currency being pegged to the dollar, giving it a 40 percent price advantage.
Bill Tucker, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: And of course, the problem for the Bush administration is that its trade policies have effectively endorsed all of those issues and complaints against the Chinese as they have pursued wide open free trade no matter the economic cost.
Turning now to Ed Rollins and Michael Goodwin and Robert Zimmerman. The Democrats here on trade, not wanting to talk about it apparently. Yet this is a very — this a critical month. This is when so-called trade promotion authority, the means by which, the United States Congress traded away its constitutional authority and responsibility for trade to the presidency by creating fast track authority.
ROLLINS: One of the major problems is they don’t have an answer. And many of those 3 million jobs are manufacturing jobs from many of the union groups that were very supportive of the Democratic Party.
So I think to a certain extent they can’t address it because they don’t have an answer. And they should address it. Bush can’t address it either, but at the end of the day, you know, this is their constituency that they’re losing jobs. And it’s their constituency that is frightened.
GOODWIN: And politically, it’s both a challenge and an opportunity. I mean, take Ohio for example, which is a swing state in the general election, lost a lot of manufacturing jobs, I think more than any other state in the last go-round.
So it’s the kind of thing they have to look at the — what really is good for the country if you’re going to be the president, but also politically what’s good for me in the primaries and in the general election.
So they’ve got to work their way through both and so far they seem to be staying out of it more than anything else.
ZIMMERMAN: Well, you saw the power of this issue in the 2006 midterm election. And many states, particular in Ohio and Indiana and other regions of the country, in New Hampshire, this issue really resonated with the voters. And it’s really a very powerful issue with the freshmen members of the House in particular.
So I think it’s going to be an important issue here and they really have to address it. It’s not just good politics, it’s good policy.
DOBBS: Good politics, good policy. The fact is that this Democratically-led congress has to decide whether or not to restore, to extend, fast track trade authority to the president. Do you think they will have the guts to reassert their constitutional role in trade?
ROLLINS: Absolutely not.
DOBBS: Absolutely not.
ROLLINS: Absolutely not. I don’t think they want the responsibility. I think this way they can blame Bush for two more years, then it’s all theirs.
DOBBS: Will that be an analog to what has happened in the votes on Iraq, withdrawing, the last time, the supplemental, withdrawing the timetable? Voters in the midterm elections last November thought they were also voting for a change, of course, in Iraq.
GOODWIN: Right. I think what has happened with the Democrats really, it was easy just bashing Bush leading up to 2006. There is a lot of it going on now. But when you get the control of Congress, as they have, and then you’re running for president, as these guys are tonight, it gets more tricky. It gets difficult.
You’ve got to take on the issues. You can’t just say, he’s no good. You’ve got to say what you’re going to do. And so far that has been harder for them to come up with.
ZIMMERMAN: But they have been doing it on a lot of key issues.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: Well, let’s talk about — wait, OK. But, let’s defend them on the basis of trade. Let’s defend them on basis of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States. Let’s defend them on the basis of these jobs. Let’s defend on the basis of Democratic ideals for working men and women and their families who are getting hammered.
ZIMMERMAN: Let’s be clear about this. If in fact the Democrats give up their fast track authority and don’t take it back, they’re missing a great opportunity. I think it would be a very unfortunate situation, and very frankly, you can’t run against…
DOBBS: And on cue, Robert Zimmerman, arriving is Senator Joe Biden, who is going to be certainly one of the people most interested in performing well here tonight and establishing himself, because he has not been able to break out.
Do you think he’ll be able to do so tonight?
ZIMMERMAN: Well, he showed great momentum — by the way, if you folks cut (ph) for Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, I’m going to give up. But…
DOBBS: Well, we just might because, by golly, this is a Democratic debate and we’re going to give — I guarantee you we’re going to give voice to every one of your party’s candidates.
ZIMMERMAN: Well, it’s a fair point. But I will tell you something, Joe Biden does have the credentials, does have experience. Did well in the last debate. He’s a very skilled debater. I think he’s in a position where he really can stand out.
DOBBS: Great. We’re going to have to — we’re going to be back, three of the best political analysts and strategists in the country will be with us throughout these hours.
And we’re just an hour away now from the main event here in New Hampshire. The lounge act continues for just about an hour. But by the time we’re through here, you’re going to know exactly what to expect and what the expectation are for each of these candidates. What they’re risking and what they’re likely to win tonight on the debates on CNN. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: We’re back now with Ed Rollins, Michael Goodwin and Robert Zimmerman.
Robert did not seem to want to swear in blood that these candidates would be dealing with the traditional Democratic values of working — for working men and women in this country and the family.
ZIMMERMAN: Let me just clarify that. If they don’t…
DOBBS: You know the more you talk — the more you talk, the more likely it is that one of these candidates will show up here. And as a matter of fact I’m told that we just — that John Edwards has arrived? Senator Edwards, is that correct? Is that correct? Perhaps I’ve been — I’ve been misinformed.
ROLLINS: One very important subject for New Hampshire, besides the war and everything else, this has always been a low-tax state and I’m sure no Democrat is going to talk about their tax policy tonight because every single one of them up on stage has advocated some spending program that’s going to cost more taxes.
DOBBS: And we should point out, we’re talking nationwide, according to our polling, 42 percent of those people in our — that’s an average in our polls, identify themselves as independents. But in this state, in New Hampshire, 44 percent are registered as independents.
GOODWIN: Right. And I think — but, Lou, one of the challenges for Democrats early is what do they do with the Bill Clinton legacy on free trade? Bill Clinton, I believe, more than anything else he believed in, was globalization and free trade.
The next — if the next Democrat — if a Democrat is going to be the next president, you would think they would want fast track authority.
DOBBS: Fascinating. All right, we’re going to turn here, you see Senator Edwards arriving. The senator has quite an entourage there, they seem to have broken away there.
OK. And Robert Zimmerman, quickly.
ZIMMERMAN: Quick point, what Democrats are going to talk about is the deficit Bush has given us, and how he has underfunded our troops, underfunded our health care programs. So that’s what they’re going to talk about, talk about fiscal responsibility.
DOBBS: You got it. All right. We’re going to be back with our panel throughout the next hour. In our next hour, New Hampshire, of course, one of the most important primary states and early bellwether on the political fortunes of the eight Democratic candidates for their party’s nomination.
Political analyst Bill Schneider will be joining us to report on the impact of the primary on the leading democratic candidates. And there is the leading candidate at this hour, arriving here, those are live pictures, Senator Hillary Clinton, as we continue our countdown to the Democratic debate, live here on CNN, coming up at 7:00 p.m. Eastern.
Stay with us. We continue.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
O investimento angolano em empresas estratégicas portuguesas, através da petrolífera Sonangol, dá a Luanda capacidade de influenciar decisões em Lisboa, mais do que permitir a diversificação de activos externos, defendem economistas ouvidos pela agência Lusa.
A República da Alemanha acaba de eleger Angola como seu parceiro para o desenvolvimento. A informação foi avançada pelo Ministro-Adjunto do Primeiro-Ministro, Aguinaldo Jaime, em Frankfurt, onde terminou quarta-feira um fórum económico envolvendo cerca de 180 empresários e líderes associativos dos dois países.
