• 
• 
• 
• 
by John McCormick
DES MOINES – Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama said this morning that there are no surprises in his background and that his opponents would have found them by now if there were.
During an interview in Iowa on NBC's "Meet the Press," moderator Tim Russert asked the Illinois Democrat about potential "surprises" in his background. "Is there anything the American people should know?" he asked.
"There are no surprises, in part, because the Clinton campaign has done, I think, a thorough research job on us," Obama said. "If there was…I promise you, they would have found it by now, which is why they have ended up resorting to some of the stuff you are talking about."
Russert had earlier mentioned a campaign official in New Hampshire working for Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York who stepped down after he questioned whether Obama's use of drugs as a teen could hurt him in a general election.
"The only reason people know it, is because I disclosed it," Obama said. "Some of it was completely false. Now, look, I have been written about. I have been scrubbed. I have been vetted over the last year. You know, I'm sure if you talked to my wife, she could point out a few more flaws in my character. But the fact of the matter is that the people of Iowa, and I think the people of America, at this point, know what I stand for."
Obama said he has been "consistent in my values and my ideals" and that people "can have confidence that I am who I say I am."
Asked about recent statements by Bill Clinton that Obama lacks experience, Obama, as he often does, recited a 1992 quote from the former president about experience and needing the courage to change.
"He was right then," Obama said. "I'm right this time."
Noting that some outside groups are running "negative ads against us," Obama said such efforts may "have some effect," but downplayed their significance. "Ultimately, I'm putting my faith on the people of Iowa and the people of America," he said.
Obama was coy when he was pressed on whether he would run for president again, if not successful this time. Russert had asked him about a recent comment by his wife, Michelle.
"What my wife said is 'We're not doing this again,'" Obama said.
"Is she right?" Russert asked.
"The point she was making, I think, was an interesting one, which is, she said one of the things that we bring to this race is we're not that far away from normal," Obama said. "It wasn't that long ago that we were living in a small condo and it was getting too small for our kids."
When Russert pressed again, Obama did not directly answer.
"Tim, we haven't even cast the – we haven't even had the first caucus in Iowa," Obama said. "I intend to win this time. That's why I'm running."
Obama said he is enjoying campaign crowds that are "two, three times what we are seeing in some of the other campaigns." He also expressed confidence in his ground operation in Iowa.
"We have as good of an organization as I think people have ever seen in Iowa, and this is going to be a tight race," he said. "I think the polls are going to be bouncing up and down over the next five days, but what we're confident about is that if our folks come to the caucus and participate, then we're going to do very well."
Asked whether he could be hurt by a lower turnout in Iowa, Obama said that's not what he is expecting. "I think everybody is predicting a big turnout at this point," he said.
Obama was also forced to defend statements made by his top campaign strategist, David Axelrod, who last week drew a link to Clinton's vote to authorize the war in Iraq and potential involvement by Al Qaeda in the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.
"Of course not, and that's never what any of my aides said," Obama said. "They responded to a question as to would this tragedy in Pakistan in some way advantage Sen. Clinton as a consequence of her having been in Washington longer than I have. My staff said that, I think, candidates will be judged based on the judgments they have made. And they made, then, an indisputable, I believe, comment…and that is that going into Iraq, we got distracted from Afghanistan. We got distracted from hunting down bin Laden. We got distracted from dealing with the Al Qaeda havens that been created in northwestern Pakistan… Al Qaeda is stronger than at anytime since 2001."
Pressed further by Russert, Obama denied that he or his staff was trying to play politics so quickly after Bhutto's death.
"I am not drawing a causal relationship between any single vote and the tragedy there," he said. "The tragedy resulted from a suicide bomber, but what I do believe is that if we are going to take seriously the problem of Islamic terrorism, and the stability of Pakistan, then we have to look at it in a wider context. What we do in Iraq matters, what we do with respect to Iran matters, what we do with respect to [Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf matters."
Obama also defended his past statements about what kind of past lobbyists would be allowed to work in his potential White House.
"I haven't changed. Look, the terminology may have changed. The basic concept remains the same: I am going to break the revolving door that has become so commonplace," he said. "If you want to work in my White House, you not will be able to regulate former employers. And if leave my White House, you will not be able to lobby agencies that you used to work for on behalf of folks that were regulated."
Russert followed up: "If lobbyists agree to those terms, they could work in the White House?"
Obama responded: "Look, there are people who may have lobbied 10 years ago, 15 years ago. They may be able to render excellent service to the American people."
Russert also questioned Obama about a television ad he is now running in Iowa that claims his health care plan would "cover everyone," a long-running dispute among the Democrats about the need to mandate coverage.
"Every analysis of your health care plan says there are 15 million Americans who would not be automatically covered because you don't call for a mandate," Russert said.
Obama responded by contrasting his plan with those of Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. "They both believe that the problem is the government is not forcing adults to get health care," he said. "My belief is that the real problem is people can't afford health care, and that if we could make it affordable, they will purchase it."
Comments
I have to say, Obama was really wonderful in this interview. I think his personality and general manner is MUCH MUCH better when he is just talking and answering questions rather than doing his stump speech (even though everyone knows he's a great speaker). Anyway, I thought he handled the questions about his experience really well although I wish he would mention that he is the only Democrat that beats all the other republicans. THAT'S electability.
Posted by: Anna | December 30, 2007 11:43 AM
This was one of Obama's better interviews. He was able to successfully beat back all the questions and managed to put out a clear message of why people should vote for him. He's facing too many obstacles to win, but I think he's carried himself well. Hopefully, he'll decide to run again in 4 or 8 years.
Posted by: Mike | December 30, 2007 11:44 AM
Actually, Anna, John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate to beat all the Republican candidates. He is the one with the most electability, NOT Obama.
Posted by: Devon | December 30, 2007 12:07 PM
Barack's interview by Tim Russert inspired both confidence and optimism.
Think of the possibilities, here and elsewhere...
Posted by: Doug Zook | December 30, 2007 12:15 PM
Scrubbed? That makes sense, since Biden said he was "clean".
Posted by: Terry | December 30, 2007 12:43 PM
I thought he looked exhausted but he still did great. He's a pro. Mrs. Clinton sounded bitter and angry.
Obama can win. Get the vote out !
Posted by: Sally | December 30, 2007 12:44 PM
Good People of Iowa, you stand on the threshold of history! You can look forward to a bright new day full of hope and energy for tomorrow, or you can close the door and walk backward into the world of divisiveness , bickering, and shadow games. A vote for the great inevitable on is a vote for a return to those thrilling days of yesteryears. Good people of Iowa, send Barack Obama forward to continue his quest for a change in America that will resound all across the globe.
Posted by: GW | December 30, 2007 12:58 PM
No, Devon, it is Obama, and only Obama, that beats all Republicans.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1404
John Edwards does *not* beat all Republicans. This is a lie that I've seen repeated in several comment boards.
Posted by: Buck | December 30, 2007 1:48 PM
I didn't think Obama did very well at all. In fact, I think he is far more evasive than Clinton who is constantly criticized for the same thing.
I like Obama - but I think he'll be ripped to shreds in a general election. I also think he will be easily undermined by the GOP operatives if he won the primary. My vote is with Hillary - she is far more 'vetted' and capable of withstanding the political arrows that will fly in 2008.
Posted by: Danny | December 30, 2007 2:18 PM
nothing but making excuses for everyone around him! he is racist and I would never vote for him.
Posted by: Garry Willis | December 30, 2007 3:17 PM
Thanks for the words of encouragement, GW. I just got back inside from the cold of canvassing people in my neighborhood for Obama. Things look great in my precinct in Des Moines for Obama.
Posted by: Phil in Iowa | December 30, 2007 4:24 PM
Another Iowa Newspaper Endorsement......goes to Barack Obama, with a great writeup that hits some solid and salient points on who is best suited to lead America's foreign policy.
Barack was endorsed by the Marshalltown Times-Republican, a daily newspaper serving central Iowa.
The Times-Republican puts some strong commitment behind their choice for the nomination:
"With a philosophy of openness - from education to the economy, government to military actions - Barack Obama has based his message of hope and change on the belief that Americans want to be involved in their government".
"In an age where closed doors, secret military posts and middle-of-the-night pork barrel votes are all too common, Obama believes we can still come together as a country, we can work together to build a better America".
"To many of the candidates already have too much "experience" in our eyes - too much "experience" manipulating the system, too much "experience" bowing to special interests and too much "exp-erience" during a previous White House stint".
"Obama has what we would call more "down to earth" experience: helping in his community working as a civil rights activist, and, of course, his time in the Illinois State Senate".
"The argument has also been made that Obama lacks experience dealing with foreign policy and foreign leaders. Perhaps that "lack of experience" will translate into some bold, decisive actions that actually deal with foreign issues, rather than the typical "nod and smile" philosophy'".
"And while many Democratic candidates have called for an immediate troop withdrawal in Iraq, Obama understands that such action would be detrimental to foreign relations, the people of Iraq and our own troops. Instead, he proposes a controlled and responsible withdrawal from Iraq that would take a couple of years to properly complete. Obama also understands that a universal healthcare plan must be practical and achievable, not a pipe dream used only to gain momentum on the campaign trail. His plan doesn't ram a national health insurance program down our throats, rather it merely guarantees access to health insurance for all Americans".
"His common sense approach carries through to other issues as well: a sensible energy plan that helps reduce environmental impacts without shutting off everyone's electricity and a teacher pay program that rewards those who work hard to teach our children and doesn't reward those who don't".
"Obama offers a new path, one filled with hope and change. We think it's a path worth traveling down".
Posted by: J M | December 30, 2007 5:30 PM
In 2008, the Democrats don’t need to choose the lesser of the evils; this time around, it’s the GOP voters who find themselves in that position. Democrats have a field of qualified, experienced, intelligent, viable candidates, while Republicans are scrambling to determine whose skeletons are least likely to fall out of the closet before the general election.
The Clinton campaign has made a big to-do about Obama’s supposed lack of experience, and his relatively short tenure in Washington, D.C.
Given the corruption that runneth over in the nation’s capitol, I’m not entirely certain that lack of years in Washington is a negative quality. In fact, I think it’s one of Barack’s strongest advantages.
Barack Obama is a candidate that the average American voter can relate to. He wasn’t born into wealth, or a political family, or big business. His mother and grandparents were from Kansas, his father a student from Africa, and he was born in Hawaii, a state known even in the tumultuous 1960s for its tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Like most of us, he went through a phase in which he partied and experimented with drugs, but ultimately his intelligence and drive led him on a path away from temptation and towards great academic success. He was the first African American editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He established himself as a civil rights lawyer, and taught at the University of Chicago. He got elected to the state legislature in Illinois, fighting for health care and welfare reform and an end to racial profiling by law officers. He won his U.S. Senate seat with 70% of the vote and became a household name after his moving speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
He didn’t spend eight years in the White House as the spouse of the President. He’s been in the Senate only four years shorter than Hillary. He didn’t tour the world as Hillary did in her role as First Lady, he lived abroad, in Indonesia. There’s something to be said of experience, the kind of experience that Senators Biden and Dodd have after decades in the Senate. But Hillary’s attacks on Barack’s experience are unfounded, particularly when her own experience is not so involved as she often makes it seem. There is a great deal to be said for real world experience, the kind that Barack had while Hillary’s husband (not Hillary) ran this country from 1992-2000. Indeed, Hillary has served in the Senate a few years more. But Barack has served as an elected official since 1997, and his understanding of the political process is every bit as developed as hers.
Real world vs. Washington experience is why I believe Barack is the best candidate for the Democratic nomination. Hillary has been in the public eye and Washington for 15 years, and with that comes a degree of protection that makes walking down the street impossible. Barack has spent more time, more recently, with everyday people. Before 2004, he was everyday people. His anti-lobbying stance has helped him elude the number of special interest friends and enemies the Clintons and other Washingtonian politicos have made.
I think Barack Obama is the candidate most likely to bring a fresh, untainted perspective to the presidency. We need that, in this day and age where all the friends in high places and experience cannot guarantee our safety from our enemies or a balanced budget. I’m tired of the old establishment. I don’t feel 20+ years of Bush and Clinton presidencies will bring about any significant degree of change in the way the rest of the world views our nation, or peace in the Middle East. If Hillary Clinton is such a foreign policy expert, why have many of Clinton’s advisors decided to lend their support to Barack Obama and not their former boss’s wife?
Hillary’s campaign has taken ugly turn after ugly turn since Obama’s recent surge in the polls, and I’m not a fan of Democrats who focus to much of their attack on their Democratic colleagues in the primaries. The big picture is, can you beat Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson? Many feel Hillary has the best chance because of her noteriety across America. I think she is vulnerable to attacks from the GOP that will make the Swift Boat ad look like child’s play.
Republicans HATE the Clintons. They sought to destroy everything the Clintons stood for during Bill’s administration, and they will stop at nothing to destroy Hillary’s chances at the presidency. If she is elected, she will face the same music Bush did, a Congress unwilling to sign blank checks at the president’s bidding. Even if the Democrats maintain a slight majority, it’s clear that a slight majority in Congress, especially if Joe Lieberman is considered part of that majority, is worth little when it comes to controversial legislation.
Barack Obama conducts himself with a calm, collected, level-headed demeanor. He speaks openly and honestly, admitting to past mistakes like his drug use with a frankness Americans aren’t used to hearing from their leaders. He is a deliberate debator, and while many consider the pauses in his speech to be a sign of unpreparedness or stage fright, I believe he is the kind of candidate who likes to think about what he’s saying to you. He’s not spewing talking points hashed by a team of advisors and debate prep staff. He listens, he thinks, and then he talks. He doesn’t have the rapid-fire responses Hillary has, and I believe that helps him avoid damaging missteps in debates and Q&As.
I like that he’s young. I like that he’s new. I like his open-mindedness, his honesty, his sense of humor, his intelligence, his diverse background which has given him an original perspective. I like him, which is a lot more than I can say about many politicians in Washington.
Simply because I’m not supporting Hillary Clinton doesn’t mean I don’t want a woman in the White House someday. But America is at a critical junction, and so much is at stake in this election. I believe now isn’t the time to vote based on gender, race, or religion. It’s time to vote for a change. Out of the entire candidate pool, GOP and Democratic, I feel Obama is the one most likely to bring about change for our nation.
On February 5, 2007, in the Illinois primary, I will proudly cast my vote for Barack Obama, and I encourage each and every one of you to do the same.
P.S. - and far as foreign policy experience goes I give you the George W. Bush administration as exhibit 1A of it not meaning squat.
Posted by: ObamaGirl | December 30, 2007 5:33 PM
"...but what we're confident about is that if our folks come to the caucus and participate, then we're going to do very well."
Well, DUH
Posted by: Perry | December 30, 2007 8:00 PM
Obama was quite impressive today on Meet the Press. He doesn't throw punches, he is open, honest and direct--how refreshing in politics today. He is articulate and demonstrates diplomacy. Someone who can bring the country together to solve current issues.
Posted by: Judy Hennessy | December 30, 2007 8:57 PM
Devon, there have been several polls over the past few months and they consistently show Obama is the only Dem who can beat all the Repubs. There are a few that show the same thing for Edwards, but not consistently. A vote for Edwards (in Iowa) is a vote for Hillary. If Edwards expects to battle past Iowa and New Hampsire he better find a lot more feeble 97-year-olds to give him $500,000 to run his attack 527s. Because matching funds won't be able to take down Hillary Inc.
Posted by: Mark Billingsley | December 30, 2007 11:35 PM
1. [Obama on triangulation] He is equally guilty of triangulating. Most of the time he draws the first snipe and criticism. Then he complains of negativity when his rivals counter his (and his campaign’s) attacks. And at worst, he speaks in abstracts and generalities which give him room to parse. But his motives remain equally questionable.
2. [Obama on his candidacy as now or never] He is a plain opportunist seizing only the moment when as an unknown, his blunders are not yet much to be spoken of… seizing only the moment when as a dazzler, his fresh tactics could still work… seizing the moment when the rhetoric of hope would still work; for when the most experienced and steady President wins and delivers, what else can he talk about next time?
3. [Obama on hope] It will be unfair to speak of hope that does NOT rest on substance and can NOT stand on a concrete relevant experience to make it happen. That would be tantamount to a manipulation of a people's desperation.
4. [Obama on his policies] His policies are hybrids from policies that have been strongly initiated by and identified with his rivals. He talks of what’s wrong with past policies and other candidates’ policies but does not have an original policy of his own. He wants people to look only to the future because he has INsufficient past to substantiate the rhetoric he gives in the present.
5. [Obama on the right kind and wrong kind of experience] Obama has the POTENTIAL to have the right kind of experience. Unfortunately, now is not the time and the Oval Office is not the place to be earning and learning that experience. No president can be perfect but America cannot go from one extreme (GWBush) to another extreme (BHObama). The experienced person can fail and there is greater probability that an Inexperienced person would fail.
6. [Obama on judgment] One judgment call on the Iraq issue does NOT mean Obama would have good judgments on a gamut of complex issues. From what's been reported he has avoided making a vote on crucial issues. And he only has very limited experience to showcase an array of judgment calls, which did not even do that except showcase tasks that he did just as he ought to. It's not a fair claim by Obama.
7. [Obama on the Iraq issue] America does not live by "Iraq" alone. It is not even a simple right or wrong issue. Lucky Obama - the present sentiment is just rendering him to seem right. If he has no concrete and significant experience in the world stage and security matters, it would indeed be a gamble to have him as president.
8. [Obama on Not just change political party but change the game and players in Washington] Then why play the same game at all with the same players whose support he now seeks? His rhetoric may be ideal, but it's not the pragmatic necessary and urgent vote response for America.
9. [Obama on the establishment] How can Obama posture to bring a new face and a new way in the establishment when he brings with him a circle of close advisers and staff from the Clinton administration? Employing “Clinton minds” around him means he embraces the Clinton policies.
10. [Obama on his crowd] With a crowd audience he claims to be bigger than the other candidates, why has he not soared to lead? There is such thing as curiosity for an unknown. It does not automatically mean support.
Posted by: MG1220 | December 31, 2007 12:41 AM
Obama says he has been 'scrubbed?'
Is this a coded message for something in the Quran?
This is not a good thing for a country, that was founded with Christian values, and now, a possible muslim president in the near future???
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | December 31, 2007 1:07 AM
I can only hope and pray that the Iowa caucus participants possess sufficient sophistication to see through the deceptive and malicious attacks that have been made on Senator Obama and trust their hearts because the choice they make on January 3 will dramatically shape the direction of this presidential campaign and ultimately our country's future. My Christmas wish is that they will reject the politics of fear and personal destruction and take a leap of faith and hope by voting for Senator Obama--a man of character and vision who offers the promise of a new and different way of addressing our national and global priorities. Waxing a bit nostalgic here during the holiday season--remembering a time when we came together as a nation to address wrongs and achieve lofty goals, a time when all the world looked to America as a beacon of liberty and freedom and courage. I know in my heart Senator Obama can take us back there.
Our dreams unlock the door
To a place we once called home
Where full of life’s sweet promise
Our spirits freely roamed
Back to a time when we still believed
In all of life’s possibilities
Our dreams can lead us
To a future all our own
bjw
Senator Obama and his campaign can unlock the door to the realization of our dreams for ourselves and this great nation that we are blessed to live in.
Posted by: Bobby | December 31, 2007 8:59 AM
Bobby's message and poem get me teary. We have become such a cynical divided society that we forget we are all Ameircans and face the same perils with all our children. I am hoping the people of Iowa will vote with the minds, their hearts and their feet and give us all Obama as President.
Posted by: lin | December 31, 2007 11:46 AM
If Sen. Obama thinks he's seen the worst of it from the HRC campaign, he's in for a surprise. Should he win the nomination, he will be subject to an array of attacks from the GOP that the Clinton camp is incapable of using. For instance, no doubt the GOP will use Obama's voting record to buttress their claims that Obama is a "liberal." And the Republicans will not hesitate to use Obama's penchant for endorsing corruption and cronyism in Illinois against him, undercutting his claim to being some sort of good government crusader. Hillary is incapable of using these things, because she is just as "progressive" as Obama and courts the same kind of shady Cook County pols that Obama considers allies. Democrats may not care about these things, but swing voters may be a different story. Just because you are cleaner than the Clintons, doesn't mean you have been "scrubbed."
Posted by: JB | December 31, 2007 1:07 PM
Somebody please put a fork in the Clinton Machine...
It's done.
America is a Democracy - Not a Monarchy.
No more failed Presidents elected on the back of Nepotism.
Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.
It's time to Rise and Shine again.
Posted by: PulSamsara | January 1, 2008 2:44 PM