McCain, Obama Debate, Clash of the Titans? [Transcript]

Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama debated in Nashville, Tennessee, on Tuesday night. NBC's Tom Brokaw moderated the debate. Here is a transcript of that debate.
Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain meet in Nashville for their second debate.

Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain meet in Nashville for their second debate.

Brokaw: Good evening from Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee. I'm Tom Brokaw of NBC News. And welcome to this second presidential debate, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Tonight's debate is the only one with a town hall format. The Gallup Organization chose 80 uncommitted voters from the Nashville area to be here with us tonight. And earlier today, each of them gave me a copy of their question for the candidates.

From all of these questions -- and from tens of thousands submitted online -- I have selected a long list of excellent questions on domestic and foreign policy.

Neither the commission nor the candidates have seen the questions. And although we won't be able to get to all of them tonight, we should have a wide-ranging discussion one month before the election.

Each candidate will have two minutes to respond to a common question, and there will be a one-minute follow-up. The audience here in the hall has agreed to be polite, and attentive, no cheering or outbursts. Those of you at home, of course, are not so constrained.

The only exception in the hall is right now, as it is my privilege to introduce the candidates, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Gentlemen?

Gentlemen, we want to get under way immediately, if we can. Since you last met at Ole Miss 12 days ago, the world has changed a great deal, and not for the better. We still don't know where the bottom is at this time.

As you might expect, many of the questions that we have from here in the hall tonight and from online have to do with the American economy and, in fact, with global economic conditions.

I understand that you flipped a coin.

And, Sen. Obama, you will begin tonight. And we're going to have our first question from over here in Section A from Allen Shaffer.

Allen?

Shaffer: With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?

Obama: Well, Alan (ph), thank you very much for the question. I want to first, obviously, thank Belmont University, Tom, thank you, and to all of you who are participating tonight and those of you who sent e-mail questions in.

I think everybody knows now we are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And a lot of you I think are worried about your jobs, your pensions, your retirement accounts, your ability to send your child or your grandchild to college.

And I believe this is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Sen. McCain, that essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us.

It hasn't worked out that way. And so now we've got to take some decisive action.

Now, step one was a rescue package that was passed last week. We've got to make sure that works properly. And that means strong oversight, making sure that investors, taxpayers are getting their money back and treated as investors.

It means that we are cracking down on CEOs and making sure that they're not getting bonuses or golden parachutes as a consequence of this package. And, in fact, we just found out that AIG, a company that got a bailout, just a week after they got help went on a $400,000 junket.

And I'll tell you what, the Treasury should demand that money back and those executives should be fired. But that's only step one. The middle-class need a rescue package. And that means tax cuts for the middle-class.

It means help for homeowners so that they can stay in their homes. It means that we are helping state and local governments set up road projects and bridge projects that keep people in their jobs.

And then long-term we've got to fix our health care system, we've got to fix our energy system that is putting such an enormous burden on families. You need somebody working for you and you've got to have somebody in Washington who is thinking about the middle class and not just those who can afford to hire lobbyists.

Brokaw: Sen. McCain?

McCain: Well, thank you, Tom. Thank you, Belmont University. And Sen. Obama, it's good to be with you at a town hall meeting.

And, Alan (ph), thank you for your question. You go to the heart of America's worries tonight. Americans are angry, they're upset, and they're a little fearful. It's our job to fix the problem.

Now, I have a plan to fix this problem and it has got to do with energy independence. We've got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't want us very -- like us very much. We have to keep Americans' taxes low. All Americans' taxes low. Let's not raise taxes on anybody today.

We obviously have to stop this spending spree that's going on in Washington. Do you know that we've laid a $10 trillion debt on these young Americans who are here with us tonight, $500 billion of it we owe to China?

We've got to have a package of reforms and it has got to lead to reform prosperity and peace in the world. And I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we're going to have to do something about home values.

You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy. And we've got to give some trust and confidence back to America.

I know how the do that, my friends. And it's my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal. But I know how to get America working again, restore our economy and take care of working Americans. Thank you.

Brokaw: Senator, we have one minute for a discussion here. Obviously the powers of the treasury secretary have been greatly expanded. The most powerful officer in the cabinet now. Hank Paulson says he won't stay on. Who do you have in mind to appoint to that very important post?

Sen. McCain?

McCain: Not you, Tom.

Brokaw: No, with good reason.

McCain: You know, that's a tough question and there's a lot of qualified Americans. But I think the first criteria, Tom, would have to be somebody who immediately Americans identify with, immediately say, we can trust that individual.

A supporter of Sen. Obama's is Warren Buffett [chairman of Berkshire Hathaway]. He has already weighed in and helped stabilize some of the difficulties in the markets and with companies and corporations, institutions today.

I like Meg Whitman [former CEO of eBay and current McCain campaign adviser], she knows what it's like to be out there in the marketplace. She knows how to create jobs. Meg Whitman was CEO of a company that started with 12 people and is now 1.3 million people in America make their living off eBay. Maybe somebody here has done a little business with them.

But the point is it's going to have to be somebody who inspires trust and confidence. Because the problem in America today to a large extent, Tom, is that we don't have trust and confidence in our institutions because of the corruption on Wall Street and the greed and excess and the cronyism in Washington, D.C.

Brokaw: All right. Sen. McCain -- Sen. Obama, who do you have in mind for treasury secretary?

Obama: Well, Warren would be a pretty good choice -- Warren Buffett, and I'm pleased to have his support. But there are other folks out there. The key is making sure that the next treasury secretary understands that it's not enough just to help those at the top.

Prosperity is not just going to trickle down. We've got to help the middle class.

And we've -- you know, Sen. McCain and I have some fundamental disagreements on the economy, starting with Sen. McCain's statement earlier that he thought the fundamentals of the economy were sound.

Part of the problem here is that for many of you, wages and incomes have flat-lined. For many of you, it is getting harder and harder to save, harder and harder to retire.

And that's why, for example, on tax policy, what I want to do is provide a middle class tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans, those who are working two jobs, people who are not spending enough time with their kids, because they are struggling to make ends meet.

Sen. McCain is right that we've got to stabilize housing prices. But underlying that is loss of jobs and loss of income. That's something that the next treasury secretary is going to have to work on.

Brokaw: Sen. Obama, thank you very much.

May I remind both of you, if I can, that we're operating under rules that you signed off on and when we have a discussion, it really is to be confined within about a minute or so.

We're going to go now, Sen. McCain, to the next question from you from the hall here, and it comes from Oliver Clark, who is over here in section F.

Oliver?

Clark: Well, Senators, through this economic crisis, most of the people that I know have had a difficult time. And through this bailout package, I was wondering what it is that's going to actually help those people out.

McCain: Well, thank you, Oliver, and that's an excellent question, because as you just described it, bailout, when I believe that it's rescue, because -- because of the greed and excess in Washington and Wall Street, Main Street was paying a very heavy price, and we know that.

I left my campaign and suspended it to go back to Washington to make sure that there were additional protections for the taxpayer in the form of good oversight, in the form of taxpayers being the first to be paid back when our economy recovers -- and it will recover -- and a number of other measures.

But you know, one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'll bet you, you may never even have heard of them before this crisis.

But you know, they're the ones that, with the encouragement of Sen. Obama and his cronies and his friends in Washington, that went out and made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back.

And you know, there were some of us that stood up two years ago and said we've got to enact legislation to fix this. We've got to stop this greed and excess.

Meanwhile, the Democrats in the Senate and some -- and some members of Congress defended what Fannie and Freddie were doing. They resisted any change.

Meanwhile, they were getting all kinds of money in campaign contributions. Sen. Obama was the second highest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money in history -- in history.

So this rescue package means that we will stabilize markets, we will shore up these institutions. But it's not enough. That's why we're going to have to go out into the housing market and we're going to have to buy up these bad loans and we're going to have to stabilize home values, and that way, Americans, like Alan, can realize the American dream and stay in their home.

But Fannie and Freddie were the catalysts, the match that started this forest fire. There were some of us -- there were some of us that stood up against it. There were others who took a hike.

Brokaw: Sen. Obama?

Obama: Well, Oliver, first, let me tell you what's in the rescue package for you. Right now, the credit markets are frozen up and what that means, as a practical matter, is that small businesses and some large businesses just can't get loans.

If they can't get a loan, that means that they can't make payroll. If they can't make payroll, then they may end up having to shut their doors and lay people off.

And if you imagine just one company trying to deal with that, now imagine a million companies all across the country.

So it could end up having an adverse effect on everybody, and that's why we had to take action. But we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Now, I've got to correct a little bit of Sen. McCain's history, not surprisingly. Let's, first of all, understand that the biggest problem in this whole process was the deregulation of the financial system.

Sen. McCain, as recently as March, bragged about the fact that he is a deregulator. On the other hand, two years ago, I said that we've got a sub-prime lending crisis that has to be dealt with.

I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman [Ben] Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it.

A year ago, I went to Wall Street and said we've got to reregulate, and nothing happened.

And Sen. McCain during that period said that we should keep on deregulating because that's how the free enterprise system works.

Now, with respect to Fannie Mae, what Sen. McCain didn't mention is the fact that this bill that he talked about wasn't his own bill. He jumped on it a year after it had been introduced and it never got passed.

And I never promoted Fannie Mae. In fact, Sen. McCain's campaign chairman's firm was a lobbyist on behalf of Fannie Mae, not me.

So -- but, look, you're not interested in hearing politicians pointing fingers. What you're interested in is trying to figure out, how is this going to impact you?

This is not the end of the process; this is the beginning of the process. And that's why it's going to be so important for us to work with homeowners to make sure that they can stay in their homes.

The secretary already has the power to do that in the rescue package, but it hasn't been exercised yet. And the next president has to make sure that the next Treasury secretary is thinking about how to strengthen you as a home buyer, you as a homeowner, and not simply think about bailing out banks on Wall Street.

Brokaw: Sen. Obama, time for a discussion. I'm going to begin with you. Are you saying to Mr. Clark (ph) and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?

Obama: No, I am confident about the American economy. But we are going to have to have some leadership from Washington that not only sets out much better regulations for the financial system.

The problem is we still have a archaic, 20th-century regulatory system for 21st-century financial markets. We're going to have to coordinate with other countries to make sure that whatever actions we take work.

But most importantly, we're going to have to help ordinary families be able to stay in their homes, make sure that they can pay their bills, deal with critical issues like health care and energy, and we're going to have to change the culture in Washington so that lobbyists and special interests aren't driving the process and your voices aren't being drowned out.

Brokaw: Sen. McCain, in all candor, do you think the economy is going to get worse before it gets better?

McCain: I think it depends on what we do. I think if we act effectively, if we stabilize the housing market -- which I believe we can, if we go out and buy up these bad loans, so that people can have a new mortgage at the new value of their home -- I think if we get rid of the cronyism and special interest influence in Washington so we can act more effectively.

My friend, I'd like you to see the letter that a group of senators and I wrote warning exactly of this crisis. Sen. Obama's name was not on that letter.

The point is -- the point is that we can fix our economy. Americans' workers are the best in the world. They're the fundamental aspect of America's economy.

They're the most innovative. They're the best -- they're most -- have best -- we're the best exporters. We're the best importers. They're most effective. They are the best workers in the world.

And we've got to give them a chance. They've got -- we've got to give them a chance to do their best again. And they are the innocent bystanders here in what is the biggest financial crisis and challenge of our time. We can do it.

Brokaw: Thank you, Sen. McCain.

We're going to continue over in Section F, as it turns out.

Sen. Obama, this is a question from you from Teresa Finch.

Teresa?

Finch: How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?

Obama: Well, look, I understand your frustration and your cynicism, because while you've been carrying out your responsibilities -- most of the people here, you've got a family budget. If less money is coming in, you end up making cuts. Maybe you don't go out to dinner as much. Maybe you put off buying a new car.

That's not what happens in Washington. And you're right. There is a lot of blame to go around.

But I think it's important just to remember a little bit of history. When George Bush came into office, we had surpluses. And now we have half-a-trillion-dollar deficit annually.

When George Bush came into office, our debt -- national debt was around $5 trillion. It's now over $10 trillion. We've almost doubled it.

And so while it's true that nobody's completely innocent here, we have had over the last eight years the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history. And Sen. McCain voted for four out of five of those George Bush budgets.

So here's what I would do. I'm going to spend some money on the key issues that we've got to work on.

You know, you may have seen your health care premiums go up. We've got to reform health care to help you and your budget.

We are going to have to deal with energy because we can't keep on borrowing from the Chinese and sending money to Saudi Arabia. We are mortgaging our children's future. We've got to have a different energy plan.

We've got to invest in college affordability. So we're going to have to make some investments, but we've also got to make spending cuts. And what I've proposed, you'll hear Sen. McCain say, well, he's proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut.

The key is whether or not we've got priorities that are working for you as opposed to those who have been dictating the policy in Washington lately, and that's mostly lobbyists and special interests. We've got to put an end to that.

Brokaw: Sen. McCain?

McCain: Well, Theresa (ph), thank you. And I can see why you feel that cynicism and mistrust, because the system in Washington is broken. And I have been a consistent reformer.

I have advocated and taken on the special interests, whether they be the big money people by reaching across the aisle and working with Sen. [Russ] Feingold [D-Wisconsin] on campaign finance reform, whether it being a variety of other issues, working with Sen. Lieberman on trying to address climate change.

I have a clear record of bipartisanship. The situation today cries out for bipartisanship. Sen. Obama has never taken on his leaders of his party on a single issue. And we need to reform.

And so let's look at our records as well as our rhetoric. That's really part of your mistrust here. And now I suggest that maybe you go to some of these organizations that are the watchdogs of what we do, like the Citizens Against Government Waste or the National Taxpayers Union or these other organizations that watch us all the time.

I don't expect you to watch every vote. And you know what you'll find? This is the most liberal big-spending record in the United States Senate. I have fought against excessive spending and outrages. I have fought to reduce the earmarks and eliminate them.

Do you know that Sen. Obama has voted for -- is proposing $860 billion of new spending now? New spending. Do you know that he voted for every increase in spending that I saw come across the floor of the United States Senate while we were working to eliminate these pork barrel earmarks?

He voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?

I think you have to look at my record and you have to look at his. Then you have to look at our proposals for our economy, not $860 billion in new spending, but for the kinds of reforms that keep people in their jobs, get middle-income Americans working again, and getting our economy moving again.

You're going to be examining our proposals tonight and in the future, and energy independence is a way to do that, is one of them. And drilling offshore and nuclear power are two vital elements of that. And I've been supporting those and I know how to fix this economy, and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, and stop sending $700 billion a year overseas.

Brokaw: We've run out of time. We have this one-minute discussion period going on here.

There are new economic realities out there that everyone in this hall and across this country understands that there are going to have to be some choices made. Health policies, energy policies, and entitlement reform, what are going to be your priorities in what order? Which of those will be your highest priority your first year in office and which will follow in sequence?

Sen. McCain?

McCain: The three priorities were health...

Brokaw: The three -- health care, energy, and entitlement reform: Social Security and Medicare. In what order would you put them in terms of priorities?

McCain: I think you can work on all three at once, Tom. I think it's very important that reform our entitlement programs.

My friends, we are not going to be able to provide the same benefit for present-day workers that we are going -- that present-day retirees have today. We're going to have to sit down across the table, Republican and Democrat, as we did in 1983 between Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill.

I know how to do that. I have a clear record of reaching across the aisle, whether it be Joe Lieberman or Russ Feingold or Ted Kennedy or others. That's my clear record.

We can work on nuclear power plants. Build a whole bunch of them, create millions of new jobs. We have to have all of the above, alternative fuels, wind, tide, solar, natural gas, clean coal technology. All of these things we can do as Americans and we can take on this mission and we can overcome it.

My friends, some of this $700 billion ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations.

As far as health care is concerned, obviously, everyone is struggling to make sure that they can afford their premiums and that they can have affordable and available health care. That's the next issue.

But we can do them all at once. There's no -- and we have to do them all at once. All three you mentioned are compelling national security requirements.

Brokaw: I'm trying to play by the rules that you all established. One minute for discussion.

Sen. Obama, if you would give us your list of priorities, there are some real questions about whether everything can be done at once.

Obama: We're going to have to prioritize, just like a family has to prioritize. Now, I've listed the things that I think have to be at the top of the list.

Energy we have to deal with today, because you're paying $3.80 here in Nashville for gasoline, and it could go up. And it's a strain on your family budget, but it's also bad for our national security, because countries like Russia and Venezuela and, you know, in some cases, countries like Iran, are benefiting from higher oil prices.

So we've got to deal with that right away. That's why I've called for an investment of $15 billion a year over 10 years. Our goal should be, in 10 year's time, we are free of dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

And we can do it. Now, when JFK said we're going to the Moon in 10 years, nobody was sure how to do it, but we understood that, if the American people make a decision to do something, it gets done. So that would be priority number one.

Health care is priority number two, because that broken health care system is bad not only for families, but it's making our businesses less competitive.

And, number three, we've got to deal with education so that our young people are competitive in a global economy.

But just one point I want to make, Tom. Sen. McCain mentioned looking at our records. We do need to look at our records.

Sen. McCain likes to talk about earmarks a lot. And that's important. I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper.

But understand this: We also have to look at where some of our tax revenues are going. So when Sen. McCain proposes a $300 billion tax cut, a continuation not only of the Bush tax cuts, but an additional $200 billion that he's going to give to big corporations, including big oil companies, $4 billion worth, that's money out of the system.

And so we've got to prioritize both our spending side and our tax policies to make sure that they're working for you. That's what I'm going to do as president of the United States.

Brokaw: All right, gentlemen, I want to just remind you one more time about time. We're going to have a larger deficit than the federal government does if we don't get this under control here before too long.

Sen. McCain, for you, we have our first question from the Internet tonight. A child of the Depression, 78-year-old Fiorra from Chicago.

Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices -- sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?

McCain: Well, Fiorra, I'm going to ask the American people to understand that there are some programs that we may have to eliminate.

I first proposed a long time ago that we would have to examine every agency and every bureaucracy of government. And we're going to have to eliminate those that aren't working.

I know a lot of them that aren't working. One of them is in defense spending, because I've taken on some of the defense contractors. I saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion in a deal for an Air Force tanker that was done in a corrupt fashion.

I believe that we have to eliminate the earmarks. And sometimes those projects, not -- not the overhead projector that Sen. Obama asked for, but some of them that are really good projects, will have -- will have to be eliminated, as well.

And they'll have to undergo the same scrutiny that all projects should in competition with others.

So we're going to have to tell the American people that spending is going to have to be cut in America. And I recommend a spending freeze that -- except for defense, Veterans Affairs, and some other vital programs, we'll just have to have across-the-board freeze.

And some of those programs may not grow as much as we would like for them to, but we can establish priorities with full transparency, with full knowledge of the American people, and full consultation, not done behind closed doors and shoving earmarks in the middle of the night into programs that we don't even -- sometimes we don't even know about until months later.

And, by the way, I want to go back a second.

Look, we can attack health care and energy at the same time. We're not -- we're not -- we're not rifle shots here. We are Americans. We can, with the participation of all Americans, work together and solve these problems together.

Frankly, I'm not going to tell that person without health insurance that, "I'm sorry, you'll have to wait." I'm going to tell you Americans we'll get to work right away and we'll get to work together, and we can get them all done, because that's what America has been doing.

Brokaw: Sen. McCain, thank you very much.

Sen. Obama?

Obama: You know, a lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and where you were on that day and, you know, how all of the country was ready to come together and make enormous changes to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more unified country.

And President Bush did some smart things at the outset, but one of the opportunities that was missed was, when he spoke to the American people, he said, "Go out and shop."

That wasn't the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for.

And so it's important to understand that the -- I think the American people are hungry for the kind of leadership that is going to tackle these problems not just in government, but outside of government.

And let's take the example of energy, which we already spoke about. There is going to be the need for each and every one of us to start thinking about how we use energy.

I believe in the need for increased oil production. We're going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling. It includes telling the oil companies, that currently have 68 million acres that they're not using, that either you use them or you lose them.

We're going to have to develop clean coal technology and safe ways to store nuclear energy.

But each and every one of us can start thinking about how can we save energy in our homes, in our buildings. And one of the things I want to do is make sure that we're providing incentives so that you can buy a fuel efficient car that's made right here in the United States of America, not in Japan or South Korea, making sure that you are able to weatherize your home or make your business more fuel efficient.

And that's going to require effort from each and every one of us.

And the last point I just want to make. I think the young people of America are especially interested in how they can serve, and that's one of the reasons why I'm interested in doubling the Peace Corps, making sure that we are creating a volunteer corps all across this country that can be involved in their community, involved in military service, so that military families and our troops are not the only ones bearing the burden of renewing America.

That's something that all of us have to be involved with and that requires some leadership from Washington.

Next

Sphere: Related Content

How Much More Will Rev. Jeremiah Wright Destroy Barack Obama's Presidential Bid

MASSIMO CALABRESI

Voters have been running from Barack Obama since the Jeremiah Wright scandal erupted. A Zogby poll conducted this week in Indiana ahead of its key primary next Tuesday found that 21% of likely Democratic primary voters said they were less likely to vote for Obama as a result of his former pastor's statements. But why, exactly, are these and other voters fleeing? The answer could make the difference in Obama's chances to win the nomination and to pull out election victory in November. And it could tell us something about the state of racial politics in America.

There is a very small subset of voters who are sympathetic to Wright's expressions of respect for Louis Farakhan, his condemnation of America's 60-year bipartisan approach to Israel and his suspicions about U.S. involvement in the creation of the AIDS virus. The vast majority thinks his views on those issues are at least wrong, if not outright offensive. But what conclusion do those voters draw about Obama as a result? Do they imagine that Obama believes the same things? Or do they think Obama disagrees with them, but question his credibility because of his belated disavowal of the preacher who holds them?

Obama can marshal a lot of evidence to show he doesn't believe what Wright believes: his personal history, his professional life, his voting record all show he has fairly mainstream if somewhat liberal views on U.S. domestic and foreign policy.

But Wright's inflammatory statements in the past week forced Obama to make a renunciation that undermined the credibility of his well-received Philadelphia speech on race, in which he explained why he listened to Wright's speeches to begin with. "The difficulty people would have is precisely that: if he has been going to that church for a long time how could he not know?" says Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center. The question now for Obama is which is worse — people thinking you agree with Wright, or people not believing your high-minded explanations for associating with him.

A Rasmussen poll out Friday tries to peel back some of these issues, and the answers are not particularly heartening for Obama. In a survey of 800 likely voters, Rasmussen finds that 58% think Obama has denounced Wright because it's politically convenient, while 30% say he did so because he was outraged (13% say they're not sure). Only 33% say they think Obama was surprised by Wright's views, while 52% say they think he was not.

Just as troubling for Obama, a majority of people associate his views with those of Wright: despite his denials, 56% said that it was somewhat or very likely that Obama shares some of Wright's views, while 35% said it was not very or not at all likely (8% were unsure). The survey shows a racial divide in the response: 55% of whites think Obama shares some of Wright's views, versus 47% of blacks and 74% of those identifying themselves as "other."

Associating Obama with Wright's radical views raises the specter of racial stereotyping. Those who impute to Obama radical views about AIDS, Israel or black nationalism are knowingly discounting his stated positions and making assumptions that may be influenced by his race. Just how much of that is going on is hard to measure. But if there's a racial component to voters' abandonment of Obama in the wake of the Wright affair, it's safe to say those voters aren't coming back.

Wounds caused by damaged credibility, of course, are also hard to heal. "The problem with credibility," says Pew's Keeter, "Is that people think of it as a fundamental character trait. Some measure of lack of honesty is damaging because it leads to a broader generalization."

Obama's approach to the problem appears to be to empahsize his mainstream views and shore up his credibility through other associations. Endorsements from people like former Hillary Clinton supporter and onetime Democratic chairman Joe Andrew "can help you stop the damage from this kind of affair," says Keeter. Maybe. But at least repairing damaged credibility is possible; healing the country's racial divide is a lot more difficult.

Sphere: Related Content

A Few Things To Know About John McCain And Cindy McCain

Jennifer O'Shea & Bobbie L. Kyle

10 Things You Didn't Know About John McCain

1. John Sidney McCain III was born in the Panama Canal Zone on Aug. 29, 1936.

2. The McCains are a prominent military family. His father and grandfather were the first father-son admiral pair in U.S. naval history. John McCain Jr. commanded Pacific forces during the Vietnam War, while John McCain Sr. was commander of aircraft carriers during World War II. The guided missile destroyer John S. McCain is named in their honor. Today, two of McCain's sons are continuing the tradition—his youngest son, Jimmy, is a marine, while another son, Jack, is a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy.

3. In high school, he was a wrestler. His nickname was "McNasty." Later in life, he was nicknamed "the white tornado" because of his prematurely white hair.

4. After high school, McCain was accepted to the United States Naval Academy, though he was not a strong student. He was often disciplined for misbehavior and ultimately graduated near the bottom–790th out of 795–of the class of 1958. In 2005, he returned to the school to speak to a political science class, saying he was pleased to be back at the "old school where [I] did so well."

5. In 1967, McCain volunteered to serve in Vietnam as a naval aviator. On his 23rd bombing mission, he ejected from his plane after it was hit by a missile. He was captured by the North Vietnamese, who would not treat his injuries until they learned who his father was. Later, the North Vietnamese offered to release him early as a strategic measure, but McCain declined since there were others due to be released first. McCain was tortured for this refusal and ultimately was held as a POW for 5 1/2 years.

6. His 1999 autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, tells about his early life and capture in Vietnam. The book was made into a television movie in 2005. Actor Shawn Hatosy played the young McCain, though the senator once joked that Danny DeVito should have been cast instead.

7. As a senator, McCain is a well-known foe of pork-barrel spending. To deter his colleagues from trying to add such government spending to bills, McCain once had a staff member, Mark "the Ferret" Buse, whose full-time job was to monitor any such attempts.

8. He hosted NBC's Saturday Night Live in 2002, poking fun at politics by appearing on a mock edition of Meet the Press and impersonating John Ashcroft.

9. McCain frequently has toys in his office–including a figure of Theodore Roosevelt holding a teddy bear. Roosevelt is one of his heroes for combining conservative politics with reform.

10. His favorite book is For Whom the Bell Tolls. He also enjoys chocolate ice cream and pizza with pepperoni and onions.


10 Things You Didn't Know About Cindy McCain

1. Cindy Hensley, a Phoenix native, is the only child of James and Marguerite Hensley.

2. She attended Central High School and went on to receive a master's degree in special education from the University of Southern California.

3. Cindy met John McCain in 1979, while she was on vacation with her parents in Hawaii.

4. There is an 18-year age difference between Cindy and John, but they both lied about their ages when they met. John said he was younger than 42, and Cindy said she was older than 24. They didn't realize this until they went to apply for a marriage license a year after they met.

5. Cindy and John were married in Phoenix in 1980.

6. She was very close to her parents, who at one time lived across the street from the McCains.

7. They have four children: two daughters and two sons. The McCains adopted their youngest child, Bridget, in 1991 from an orphanage in Bangladesh.

8. Cindy is chairwoman of a business her father started in 1955. Hensley & Co. is one of the largest Anheuser-Busch distributors in the United States.

9. She is involved in many charities, including Operation Smile and American Voluntary Medical Team, which she founded.

10. She is a big fan of NASCAR.

Jennifer O'Shea & Bobbie L. Kyle are staff of the U.S. News library

Sphere: Related Content

Bill Clinton Faces Sharp Scrutiny For Role In Hillary's Campaign

Bill Clinton's role in his wife's presidential campaign faced sharp scrutiny today, after it seemed to backfire as Barack Obama romped to a huge win in South Carolina.

Hillary Clinton was forced into a staunch defence of her husband after yesterday's lopsided vote, and admitted he probably went too far in castigating the Illinois Democrat and the media in a bare knuckle state campaign.

The ex-president's finger-wagging revived a question at the core of the Clinton candidacy - how to leverage his popularity with Democrats, while ensuring he does not morph into a sideshow.

His fiery showing in South Carolina garnered a crop of tabloid headlines in his wife's home state of New York, as front-pages blared "Wild Bill" "Shoot from the lip Bill Clinton, "Calm Down" and "Bigmouth of the South".

But Senator Clinton's camp dismissed reports the ex-president will step back from the campaign frontlines, even as critics argue he may have offered ammunition for her rivals, and hurt his wife's credibility as a leader in her own right.

"President Clinton is an enormous asset and incredibly popular in the Democratic Party," said Jay Carson, a Clinton spokesman, adding the former president would continue to forcefully make the case.

Senator Clinton has dismissed suggestions of a co-presidency, by saying she would send the ex-leader off on global goodwill missions, in a role his Scottish friends have dubbed 'first laddie'".

"It is my candidacy, I am the one asking the people of America to support me. I believe I stand on my own merits," Senator Clinton said in Tennessee yesterday.

But Bill Clinton's red faced anger in South Carolina, has rivals suggesting he would be a meddlesome power behind the throne in a Clinton restoration carrying all the baggage of his turbulent presidency.

"I frankly can't wait because the idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do is something I can't imagine - the American people can't imagine," said Mitt Romney, a leading Republican candidate last week.

So, the Clintons, who have always operated as a formidable political tag-team, must walk a delicate line.

"The question is, is this campaign about Hillary or Billary?" said Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University, Iowa.

"If it is going to be Billary, it is going to be tough for them to pull off."

The South Carolina primary could be interpreted as a stunning rebuke to Bill Clinton, as African-American voters went overwhelmingly for Senator Obama, despite entreaties from the man once dubbed 'the first black president'.

Some exit polling also suggested Bill Clinton's attacks on Senator Obama's record may have pushed wavering voters towards her rival.

"I was for Hillary, until Bill started to get involved against Obama," said Beth Rickenbacker, from Orangeburg, South Carolina, a one-time Clinton backer who switched in the dying hours of the primary campaign.

As the Democratic race goes nationwide, risks loom for the Clintons should they launch a full bore attack which could succeed, but be seen to snuff out the inspirational promise of her rival.

Such a tack could boost Senator Obama's campaign rationale, that the Clintons are emblematic of a discredited style of partisanship which has poisoned politics.

Clinton aides are seething that Senator Obama is ripping the legacy of the only Democrat to win two White House terms since World War II, and branded him less transformational than Republican icon Ronald Reagan.

"President Clinton challenged conventional wisdom in every conceivable way, and I think that was an indelible part of the presidency," said top Clinton aide Mark Penn.

Senator Obama must also be careful, analysts said, as he criticises a presidency which many working class Democrats - who have yet to warm to him - still remember fondly.

"It is going to be especially difficult and tough to do, running against the Clinton era," said Dante Scala, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire.

Sphere: Related Content

IOWA Polls: Is Barack Obama Really Ahead Of Hillary Clinton?

Jane Hamsher
There has been much gnashing of the new DMR poll that puts Obama at 32%, Hillary Clinton at 25% and Edwards at 24%. Everyone has an opinion but most people who voice problems with the poll do so based on the fact that they estimate 60% of the caucus goers will be first timers. It's summed up well by desmoinesdem at th Iowa Independent:

ARG had Clinton up by 14, DMR has Obama up by 7.

At least one of those is an outlier, and probably both are, given the number of other polls showing all three candidates within the margin of error.

Two things jumped out at me regarding the DMR poll. One, it predicts that 60 percent of Democratic caucus-goers will be first-timers. I find that simply impossible to believe. I've been working my precinct, where we had 175 at the 2004 caucus. I have found very, very few people who attended in 2004 and do not plan to caucus again.

If 60 percent of the caucus-goers are new, that would suggest a turnout in my precinct of at least 300 people. Seems impossible.

Also, the DMR projects that 40 percent of Democratic caucus-goers will be independents who changed their registration and 5 percent will be Republicans who changed their registration. In 2004 those numbers were 19 percent and 1 percent, respectively.

Obama's lead comes entirely from an assumed unprecedented turnout of first-time caucus-goers, independents and Republicans. I am not buying it, but we'll all find out on Thursday night.

Big Tent Democrat does the math and concludes that if Obama truly if the DMR model is correct and Obama is truly ahead, the majority of his support is not from Democrats. Which is probably one of the reasons he feels at liberty to engage in wink-wink, nudge-nudge derision of them in an appeal to more conservative voters.

Obama gets some help today when Kucinich tells his supporters to vote for Obama on the second ballot.

Meanwhile, Mark Ambinder explains why the importance of John Edwards' lead as a second-choice among likely caucus goers is important.

Tonight's big event will be the Huck'n'Chuck, when Huckabee trots out Chuck Norris to stump for him. Not to be outdone, Edwards has just announced that tomorrow night John Cougar-Mellencamp will appear at a "This Is Our Country" rally at the Val Air Ballroom.

Sphere: Related Content

Mike Huckabee & John McCain Tag-Team To Stop Mitt Romney?

The Republican presidential race may look like a cluttered and chaotic mess, but it’s actually become fairly simple: Mitt Romney will win the nomination unless Mike Huckabee and John McCain can stop him.

Mr. Romney, unlike from every other G.O.P. candidate, is positioned to contest every state on the primary calendar. He has unlimited money, an enviable campaign organization and a message and style tailored to draw in Republicans of varying ideological stripes—or at least to get them to throw up their hands and say “good enough." If Mr. Romney is to be stopped, it must happen now. And that’s where Mr. Huckabee, the only candidate who can possibly beat Mr. Romney in Iowa, and Mr. McCain, the lone non-Romney hope in New Hampshire, come in.

Both men, severely underfunded and viewed with something between suspicion and scorn by influential components of the G.O.P. interest group establishment, plainly recognize their status as brothers in arms. Their strategy: Team up to make Mr. Romney himself an issue in the closing days of the campaign.

In a Sunday morning interview of ABC’s “This Week,” Mr. McCain sought to use Mr. Romney’s latest batch of New Hampshire attacks ads—which criticize Mr. McCain for advocating an immigration plan that Mr. Romney himself only two years ago described as “reasonable”—to raise questions about his opponent’s character and to give Mr. Huckabee some cover in Iowa.

“He’s attacking Huckabee in Iowa, who’s a good man,” Mr. McCain said. “And that shows that they’re worried, and that’s been his history—of spending lots of money attacking his opponents when they get close.”

Mr. Huckabee returned the favor minutes later on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Asked about Mr. Romney’s aggressive attacks against him in Iowa, Mr. Huckabee said that his opponent has run “a very desperate and very dishonest campaign” and noted that Mr. McCain in New Hampshire is a victim of the same ugly politics.

“Senator McCain is an honorable man, and I believe he's an honest man,” Mr. Huckabee said. “I believe he's a man of conviction. And I felt like that, when Mitt Romney went after the integrity of John McCain, he stepped across a line. John McCain's a hero in this country. He's a hero to me.”

He added: “If you aren't being honest in obtaining a job, can we trust you to be honest if you get the job?”

The McCain/Huckabee line of attack just may work, mainly because it highlights Mr. Romney’s chief vulnerability—the perception that he is a slippery beguiler -- while also drawing attention to the character attributes that underlie Mr. McCain’s and Mr. Huckabee’s personal appeal.

Mr. Romney is in such an advantageous spot right now because he’s methodically thrown a career’s worth of positions and rhetoric out the window and remade himself into a candidate who just so happens to embrace every attitude that polls well among Republican voters—a jarring transformation that he’s pulled off by projecting sincerity whenever he’s been questioned about it.

For three of the four years he held the post, he was an absentee governor in Massachusetts, racking up no meaningful accomplishments (other than jetting back home to claim credit for a health insurance plan that was drawn up by the state Legislature and that has thus far failed to come close to its goal of universal coverage) and alienating so many voters that a re-election campaign was out of the question.

Doubts about his trustworthiness remain, thanks to the paper trail he’s left and his own tendency to embellish—like his claim of being a lifelong hunter, or of having marched through Detroit with Martin Luther King.

Mr. Romney has poured tens of millions of dollars into savaging Mr. McCain and Mr. Huckabee for their various departures from conservative orthodoxy, whether on immigration, taxes, or torture, and it has worked well enough. Because Mr. Romney knows and is willing to say exactly what Republican audiences like to hear on these subjects, Mr. McCain and Mr. Huckabee can’t defeat him by arguing about these issues.

What they can do is draw on their own reputations for integrity -- Mr. Huckabee is a Bible-quoting Baptist preacher and Mr. McCain is a former P.O.W. who has paid dearly in politics for his willingness to take unpopular stands—to raise questions about Mr. Romney’s.

And so the G.O.P. race has come down to this: Will Iowa and New Hampshire Republicans go for a charmer with a knack for hitting the exact right ideological note whenever he speaks—someone who exhibited the same trait in liberal Massachusetts? Or will they ask themselves whether such a candidate might just a little too good to be true?

Sphere: Related Content

Did 2006 Change US congressional election?

Steve Fraser

TO begin with, polls indicate that the election represented an explicit repudiation of the Republican Party as a party; at least, as explicit as one could possibly expect in a midterm election. Try as they did to argue beforehand that all elections are local, Republican leaders knew that not to be the case, not this time; indeed, that's precisely why they traipsed around the country vociferously denying what they deeply feared was true.
Under normal circumstances and by its very nature, in the American electoral system -- monopolised by two amorphously constituted parties of little distinct ideological or programmatic identity, and with its multiple disincentives to any kind of independent party representation -- it is usually excruciatingly hard to register voter sentiment on behalf of a party rather than a candidate. But the election of 2006 was not normal in this regard. There are indications that significant numbers of Americans voted against the Republican Party and, with less enthusiasm to be sure, for the Democratic Party.
Perhaps most tellingly, in numerous races moderate Republicans, who remained quite popular with their constituents and had enjoyed long tenure in office -- the best known case is Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island -- succumbed to Democrats who were often no more to the "left" than they were. Notwithstanding the inherent fuzziness of what either of the parties stands for, voters seemed ready to conclude that the Republican Party and the administration of George Bush could be fairly associated with the disaster in Iraq, the shameful incompetence and callousness of the response to Hurricane Katrina, the rank and systemic corruption associated with lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and the crony capitalism of the oil companies and Halliburton. Voting for the Democratic Party was a way of repudiating all that, even if any particular Republican candidate might be blameless.
Then, there is the matter of the "Blue Dogs." It turns out that rumours of their ascendancy were not so much exaggerated as mischaracterized. True enough Senate candidates like Bob Casey in Pennsylvania or James Webb in Virginia were well-known supporters of such social conservative causes as gun ownership or the "right to life." But these were hardly the issues they ran on. On the contrary, the campaigns of Webb and Casey, not to mention Sherrod Brown's Senate campaign in Ohio and those of many fellow "Blue Dogs" running for House seats, stressed opposition to the war in Iraq and anger directed at big pharma, big oil, tax breaks for the rich, and free-trade globalization agreements like NAFTA.
Far more often than not, economic populism, not social conservatism, is what lent the Democrats, and in particular the Blue Dogs, an edge.
This same sentiment could be felt, both before and immediately after the election, in the overwhelming support for a quick Congressional move to raise the minimum wage and to empower Medicare to lower prescription drug prices by bargaining with the big pharmaceuticals. Even more remarkable, given the perilous state of the labour movement, is the emergence of a House majority in favour of the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would make it easier for millions of workers to join unions, a development critical to shifting the balance of political and economic power.
It would be premature to speak of a fully formed populist/New Deal-like alternative within the Democratic Party or to suggest that people were voting for such a possibility in 2006. Nonetheless, when the Democratic leadership anointed its opening agenda as the new governing party in Congress with the resonant phrase "the first 100 hours," echoing FDR's first 100 days, there was nothing accidental about it.
So, too, certain demographic and geopolitical trends that showed up in 2006 are suggestive of changes to come. The Latino vote, which in the 2004 presidential election was relatively evenly divided between George Bush and John Kerry, went a whopping 70% for the Democrats this time. And that wasn't even the biggest percentage shift in voting behaviour from the 2004 election in favour of the Democrats. That took place among white, non-college-educated working people who, for some time, have made up the core of the conservative populist constituency of the Reagan counter-revolution. Although all the numbers are not yet in, estimates suggest that about one-half of the shift toward the Democrats came from white working-class voters.
Regionally, the Democratic Party made significant gains in the Rocky Mountain West, while clearing away the remnant outposts of Republicanism in much of the Northeast and driving Republicans from Rustbelt outposts in Ohio and Missouri. The logic of that trend -- which doesn't, of course, mean that it will be realised -- is to regionalize the Republican Party in the South. In this way, the southernization of national politics, which was the great accomplishment of the Reagan political order, might be replaced by the southernization of the Republican Party.
Even the early talk about presidential candidates seems portentous. On the Democratic side there is no one to the right of Hillary Clinton, certainly a sign of a shift in the Party's center of gravity.
But odder than that is the candidacy of Barack Obama. It seems to signal a thirst for a messiah. Such a quest can be symptomatic of many things, some bad, some not as bad.
Obamaism is a real mystery. Others have already noted that messiahs don't normally come from the middle as he most emphatically does. Moreover, the charisma that surrounds the prince of banality from Illinois is even harder to decipher, attached as it is to nothing tangible or providential as was Robert Kennedy's lightning 1968 ascension before his assassination, his candidacy held aloft, rightly or wrongly, by the energies of the antiwar and civil rights upheavals.
Something -- though it's hard to tell what -- may be blowin' in the wind.
Perhaps the better question, then, is: Will the presidential election of 2008 turn out to be a turning-point election of historic proportions. The greatest unknown is whether or not the status quo is headed for a breakdown crisis severe enough to clear the ground for such a transformative moment.
Signs certainly point in that direction. The convergence of imperial defeat, economic insecurity, and rampant corporate malfeasance might be enough all by themselves.
But the sudden change in the political status of global warming -- once the dim, background hum of some far distant disturbance, now more like the heart-stopping premonitory theme music from the soundtrack of Jaws -- magnifies the crisis of the whole global order, at home and abroad. Anatole Lieven has called it global capitalism's "existential challenge." Life as we've known it may be beginning to end. Congress is already holding hearings about the natural apocalypse to come, and all but the most ostrich-like politicians acknowledge global warming as an urgent reality; a fact-on-the-ground, so to speak, no longer a debatable theory.
The Bush administration -- and so the old order -- has staked a lot on Iraq, not just its geopolitical and global economic ambitions. Its already severely diminished status as a moral exemplar of democracy and civil liberties won't survive this latest plunge into military mayhem.
Moreover, the President's "surge" plan is a mortal threat to the secret source of the regime's strength at home. The politics of fear and imperial bravado, which once won it legions of followers, may, in the aftermath of the surge, reach its own turning point as those voters abandon ship as fast as they once climbed aboard.
Can the administration or the old order survive a fiasco of such proportions?
Iraq is also the equivalent of a budgetary bunker-busting nuclear device. It exacerbates an already aggravated economic dilemma. Despite a Noah's flood of statistics that seem to support a Pollyana-ish view that we live today in the best of economic good times, millions of Americans experience the opposite -- a yawning gulf of insecurity affecting their health, retirement, and employment prospects. They share a gloomy sense of moving backwards, of decline.
Once upon a time, poverty was associated with the super-exploitation of those who toiled for meager reward.
Then, in mid-twentieth century America, poverty came to be associated with the lack of work, with those so marginalized they were shut-out of the main avenues of modern commerce and industry. Nowadays, we are rushing back to the nineteenth century. Today, 30 million people in the United States work long and hard and still live in poverty.
Insecurity even more pervasive than this once supplied the energy responsible for supplanting laissez-faire capitalism with the New Deal.
Might we be approaching something of that scale and scope today? Though there can be no definitive answer to this, there also can be no question that a general crisis of economic insecurity confronts the old order. All of its self-serving and adventitious rhetoric about the heroics of risk fall on increasingly deaf ears.
Not incidentally, since we live in the age of the global sweatshop, that older order is now global in scope; and the international financial mechanisms that so far have kept the global system humming for the U.S. are themselves under great and increasing strain. The system is, at present, being kept aloft by the needs of China, Japan, and other major economic powers. One day soon they may find the burden of swallowing gargantuan amounts of U.S. debt insupportable.
Are we heading toward a breakdown like the one which, in the early 1970s, forced the Nixon administration to scrap the Bretton Woods financial system, the defining economic institution of the post-war Pax Americana? Together with defeat in Vietnam, the devaluation of the dollar, and the end of fixed exchange rates for international currencies exacerbated the general impasse in which the New Deal order then found itself.
When it comes to the social reputation of our corporate elite, is it necessary to say anything more than Enron? The litany of shameless profiteering, felonious behaviour, cronyism, and corruption at the apex of the private economy has arguably called into question the "right to rule" of those presiding over the country's key economic institutions. Even at the regime's hubristic height following Bush's presidential victory in 2004, he discovered he'd crossed a bridge too far in his attempt to turn over the Social Security System to Wall Street.
Trust in the corporate elite has only grown frailer since then. Cynicism mixed with rage is a potentially explosive brew that fuels the economic populism even someone as "establishment" as James Webb articulated in his alternate State of the Union Address.
What may make these converging dilemmas over-ripe for change is the response of the old order itself.
One sign that some decisive crisis has arrived is the growing incapacity of those in charge to adapt -- as if the dire nature of what's happening dries up the springs of their political imaginations, forcing them to fall back on brittle orthodoxies. Andrew Mellon's notion of liquidating everything in sight as a way out of the Great Depression was one case of mental paralysis, a retreat to what had once "worked"; after all, the periodic busts endemic to the laissez-faire capitalist life-cycle had, in the past, always cured themselves, even if the "cure" included a great deal of what we would today call "collateral damage." The Bush administration is similarly falling back on its own orthodoxies, each move only betraying just how out of touch its top officials are with the new political and social realities forming around them.
Take its reaction to the stunning electoral defeat it suffered last November. The President's new "surge" plan, the self-destructive decision to forge ahead in Iraq without a scintilla of reasonable hope of success, even from the standpoint of the most cynical imperialist, is such a reaction: instinctive, unreflective, inflexible, and probably deeply believed in.
In other words, there is a resort to the ideological fixations which have long-driven this regime -- and the larger political order from which it rose - but which only become ever more rigidified as reality bites back.
So, for another example, the administration's response to the crisis of economic insecurity has amounted to an ideological provocation shoved right in the teeth of its own electoral repudiation. Bush proposed a massive cut in Medicare and Medicaid and, even more in-your-face than that, a tax on the health insurance of those dwindling remnants of the New Deal order who still enjoy some decent level of employer-funded health care.
Everything the old regime can imagine to defend itself ends up making things worse. With some poetic license, one is reminded of an inversion of that old Marxist axiom in which the capitalists, not the proletariat, become the gravediggers of capitalism.
Of course, that is a gross exaggeration. The question of the moment is not: Will 2008 be a turning-point election, but rather can it be one?
Here, everything depends not on what the old order does on its own behalf, no matter how bone-headed, but on how the gathering forces of opposition respond to the system's crisis. Is there a willingness to build a clear, programmatic alternative inside the Democratic Party? It is, after all, an institution deeply infected with free market/free trade ideology and most of the imperial presumptions of the conservative counter-revolution.
Is there a readiness to mobilize around non-market solutions to the general crisis: To fight openly for the re-regulation of the economy and its planned re-industrialization; for its re-unionization; for redistributive policies to supplant the idée fixe of economic growth; for the dismantling of the petro-industrial complex and its replacement by a new, non-fossil-fuel system of energy production; for a global assault on the global sweatshop?
Will there be a new era of polarization rather than centrism, partisanship rather than bi-partisanship, a head-on confrontation with the Democratic Leadership Council, like the guerilla wars once waged against the John Jacob Raskob and Al Smith elite of the pre-New Deal Democratic Party or the one waged by the Goldwater legions against the silk-stocking Rockefeller Republicans? Once upon a time, someone as mild-mannered as Franklin Delano Roosevelt found it within himself to "welcome the hatred" of those he labeled "economic royalists." Might there be someone equally unafraid waiting in the wings today?
Is there a new order being born, ready to challenge the old one where it is both weakest and also strongest: namely, in the imperial arena?
Not only has global aggression proved deadly to all, depraved in its moral consequences, and life-threatening to basic democratic principles and institutions at home, but it has also been the most fruitful, life-giving incubator of the conservative cultural populism which the old order has relied on for a generation.
Anti-World War I intellectual Randolph Bourne's prophetic aperçu -- "War is the health of the State" -- needs to be made even more embracing: War has become the health of a whole political culture, not to mention the vast, hard-wired military-industrial apparatus with which it lives in symbiotic bliss. Is there a will to take on that system of cherished phobias, delusional consolations, and implacable interests?
Finally, there is the X factor, most unknowable of all, but also most critical in converting a mere election into something more transformative. Might a social movement or movements emerge from outside the boundaries of conventional politics, catalytic enough to fundamentally alter the prevailing metabolism of political life?
Might the mass demonstrations of immigrants portend something of that kind? Might the anti-war movement soon enter a period of more sustained and varied opposition in the face of this administration's barbaric obtuseness? Straws in the wind as we race toward 2008. (Steve Fraser is co-founder of the American Empire Project and Editor-at-Large of the journal New Labor Forum. He is the author of Every Man a Speculator, A History of Wall Street in American Life, and most recently co-editor of Ruling America: A History of Wealth and Power in a Democracy)

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Clinton 44th US President - predicts Indian Numerologist

Indian Numerologist predicts that Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the 44th President of the United States of America. According to the Indian Numerologist analysis, the next U.S. Presidential election is on November 4, 2008. On that day, numerologists predict that signs would remain favorable for her. Besides, the next election is to choose the 44th U.S. President (4 + 4 = 8), Hillary will be in her 62nd year (6 + 2 = 8), to be more precise, on that day pf the election, Hillary will be 61 years and 10 days old (6 + 1 + 1 + 0 = 8). Indian numerologists M.K. Damodaran confidentially predicts that numbers 4 and 8 being highly influential for Hillary Rodham Clinton and she will be elected as the 44th US President.

It is seen that generally number 8 persons are influenced by number 4 also. So, this will be an additional luck for Hillary in the November 4, 2008 U.S. Presidential election.

Amateur numerologists M.K. Damodaran of Kannur District, Kerala State, India, confidentially predicts that numbers 4 and 8 being highly influential for Hillary, and she will be elected as the 44th US President.

Damodaran further writes, “It is seen that the year 2008 is very crucial for Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Given below the analysis and prediction regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prospects in the forthcoming US Presidential race/

”I am herewith submitting a detailed write-up regarding the chance of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Nov. 4, 2008 U.S. Presidential election . I humbly request to examine this.

Now that Hillary Rodham Clinton is hoping to be nominated as the candidate for the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election, it is immensely interesting to numerologically analyze her prospect.

Now, let us examine the influence of numbers 4 and 8 in Hillary’s life.

She was born on October 26, 1947. Her birth number is 8 (2 + 6 = 8) It is seen that number 8 has a strong influence on Hillary. To begin with, she was officially nominated to run for New York Senate seat on May 17, 2000 (1 + 7 = 8) After winning the election, she became a Member of the 107th Senate (1 + 0 + 7 = 8).

The next U.S. Presidential election is on November 4, 2008. On that day, Hillary will be in her 62nd year (6 + 2 = 8). To be more precise, she will be 61 years and 10 days old (6 + 1 + 1 + 0 = 8). Besides, the next election is to choose the 44th U.S. President (4 + 4 = 8).

It is seen that, generally number 8 persons are influenced by number 4 also. So, this will be an additional luck for Hillary in the November 4, 2008 U.S. Presidential election.

In addition to that, it is submitted that her ‘name number’ (occult number) is 67 which adds up to 4.

Name number is arrived at by adding together the value of each alphabet of the name. English alphabets are placed into 8 groups and each letter in a particular group assigned a particular value. This is discussed below.

No. of groups Letters Value of each letter

1) a, i, j, q, y - 1

2) b, k, r - 2

3) c, g, l, s - 3

4) d, m, t - 4

5) e, h, n, x - 5

6) u, v, w - 6

7) o, z - 7

8) f, p - 8

Now, let us find out the name number of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Hillary = H + i +l + l + a + r + y
= 5 + 1 + 3 + 3 + 1 + 2 + 1 = 16

Rodham = R + o + d + h + a + m
= 2 + 7 + 4 + 5 + 1 + 4 = 23

Clinton = C + l + i + n + t + o + n
= 3 + 3 + 1 + 5 + 4 + 7 + 5 = 28

Thus Hillary Rodham Clinton = 16 + 23 + 28
= 67 (6 + 7 = 13 Further adding, 1 + 3 = 4)

While discussing the influence of numbers on Hillary, it is quite interesting to note the influence of number 1 on Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was born on August 19, 1946. His birth number is 1 (1 + 9 = 10, 1 + 0 = 1). Further, his name number is 37 which adds up to 1 (3 + 7 = 10, 1 + 0 = 1). So, Bill Clinton is literally ‘numero uno’. Now, see the strong influence of number 1 on Bill Clinton.

1) He was elected U.S. President at the age of 46 which adds up to 1 (4 + 6 = 10, 1 + 0 = 1)

2) On May 28, 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “Paula Jones sexual discrimination suit against Clinton can proceed while he is in office” (2 + 8 = 10, 1 + 0 = 1).

3) On January 10, 1998 Clinton deposed in the Paula Jones case (1 + 0 = 1).

4) Kenneth Starr submitted his enquiry report in Monica Lewinsky case on September 10, 1998 (1 + 0 = 1)

5) Papers in Paula Jones case released on October 19, 1998 (1+9 = 10, 1 + 0 = 1)

6) Congressional hearing on impeachment began on November 19, 1998.

7) There were 37 members in the House Judiciary Committee (3 + 7 = 10, 1 + 0=1)

8) ‘One’ member belonging to the Republican Party voted along with Democrats.

9) The Senate voted on October 28, 1998 on an impeachment trial plan that called Monica Lewinsky to testify (2 + 8 = 10, 1 + 0 = 1).

10) The House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton on December 19, 1998 (1 + 9 = 10, 1 + 0 = 1)

11) Questioning of Monica Lewinsky started on February 1, 1999.

12) Clinton was acquitted on impeachment charges only because 10 Republicans cross-voted in his favour ( 1 + 0 = 1).

13) Clinton was the first President to visit Gaza Strip.

The year 2008 adds up to 1 (2 + 0 + 0 + 8 = 10, 1 + 0 = 1). So, the year is
very crucial to Bill Clinton.

Hence, it is seen that the year 2008 is very crucial for Hillary and Bill Clinton.

So, coming back to Hillary, numbers 4 and 8 being highly influential for Hillary, she will be elected 44th U.S. President in the election to be held on November 4, 2008, on which day Hillary will be 61 years and 10 days old (6 + 1 + 1 + 0 = 8).

M.K. Damodaran writes in conclusion, “As an amateur numerologist passionately researching in numerology for the last 18 years, my findings/predictions have been widely published (The Indian Express, The Hindu, The Times of India and The Asian Tribune etc.). The following internationally interesting findings/predictions made by me were reported.

1) Accident death of Princess Diana.

2) Violent death of former Afghan President Dr. Najibullah.

3) Bill Clinton influenced by number 1.

4) That number 13 was lucky for Vajpayee and that he would return as Prime Minister after the election in 1999.

5) Electoral victory of George W. Bush in the November 7, 2000 U.S. Presidential election.

6) That Bush will lose out to Saddam and that the former will be the ultimate loser in the Iraq affair.

(However, the prediction that Bush will not come to power for the second time was proved incorrect)

Sphere: Related Content

Real Conservatives Cannot Afford To Sit This One Out.

Ann C. Mulkern
Denver Post Staff Writer

The next president must possess core conservative principles or risk losing the election and much of what America stands for, Rep. Tom Tancredo told a cheering crowd today at a conservative convention.

The Littleton Republican who is considering a presidential run presented his political vision in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference.

In a packed and cheering ballroom, Tancredo said it's imperative to crack down on illegal immigration and reject "the cult of multi-culturalism" that he says is destroying American values. Tancredo also declared the need to return to traditional conservative ideals, including opposition to legalized abortion.

"With the world at war, and the very survival of Western Civilization at risk, with the Supreme Court potentially one death or retirement away from reversing Roe Vs. Wade," Tancredo said, referencing the case that legalized abortion, "real conservatives cannot afford to sit this one out."

Tancredo was one of several potential and declared presidential candidates appearing at the conference, an annual Washington D.C. gathering of the right wing of the Republican Party. In presidential election season, it serves as an audition for candidates wanting to capture conservative activists and impress the national media with their ability to draw crowds.

Tancredo has formed a presidential exploratory committee, saying he sees the need for a true conservative in the race. He touted his conservative credentials and used three Biblical references during his speech.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., also spoke.

Conservative Political Action Conference members will take a straw poll Saturday indicating which candidates they most support.

Walking on to the stage to the strains of the theme from the movie "Rocky," Tancredo said he's a "huge long shot" and compared himself to the hero of the Oscar-winning boxing movie.

Tancredo alternately spoke about his potential to win the presidency, saying he knows it's David vs. Goliath, but that "David won." But he also seemed to concede he won't advance when he said he wants "a candidate in this presidential election that I can vote for."

"I'm so tired of voting because the person is the lesser of two evils," Tancredo said. "I want to be able to vote for somebody &I believe is leading a crusade, somebody who I actually want to participate in that crusade because they inspire me to do so.

"I may not be that person, I understand," Tancredo said. "But look for that in whoever it is you're going to support."

Some Tancredo supporters at the event said they believe he can win the nomination, despite the fact that lead candidates are raising an estimated million dollars a week. Tancredo's congressional bank account had $189,000 when he made the last required disclosure at the end of 2006.

"I absolutely think he can get elected," said Nathan Rager, 21, of Virginia. "He's the most well-known conservative in this race."

According to Rager, Former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani has a liberal record. Romney's record on conservative issues isn't consistent, he said. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., "is just an amnesty supporter," he said, referring to McCain's support of a legal status for illegal immigrants.

Republican K.C. McAlpin of Virginia didn't vote for President Bush in either 2000 or 2004, choosing instead an independent candidate. He wouldn't say whom. He said he'll do so again rather than vote for McCain, Romney or Guiliani.

Tancredo, McAlpin said "is an authentic conservative."

Romney supporter Ruth Malhotra, 23, of Georgia, however, said while Tancredo's done a "amazing work" on the immigration issue, he's "not presidential material.

"When you're looking at someone to lead our country, you need a strong record of leadership, more broadly defined," Malhotra said. "I don't think Tom Tancredo is the best person to lead our country."

During his speech, Tancredo demonstrated his fondness for controversy. He repeated his tempest-provoking remark made last year that Miami is like a Third World Country. He talked about the letter he received from then-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. In that letter, Bush said Florida people celebrated diversity.

"I'm all for celebrating diversity," Tancredo told the crowd. "When you make a state religion out of it, that's when you have a problem."

He said that the country needs a leader who knows we need a strong national defense "because our enemies are psychopaths and our allies are the French."

When comparing himself to the fictional Rocky character, Tancredo joked that one of the differences between himself and Sylvester Stallone was that "probably Sylvester Stallone does not smoke cigars. But I do."

The crowd erupted in large cheers and hoots. Last month, a Capitol police officer came to Tancredo's congressional office after a neighbor smelled smoke and called police. Tancredo was smoking a cigar, which is legal in lawmakers' offices.

"Although we are in the middle of a place that's run by what I refer to as the lifestyle Nazis here in Washington D.C., that don't let you do things like smoke in public places, in my office in the capitol anyway, the smoking lap is lit, even if my next door neighbor doesn't like it."

Sphere: Related Content