Transcript of Monday’s Obama Press Conference in San Antonio
Q: inaudible <paraphrased> question about NAFTA/Austan Goolsbee?
BO: Let me be absolutely clear what happened. First of all when I gave you that information that was the information that I had at the time. It turned out that the Canadian consulate in Chicago contacted my, one of my advisors, Austin Goolsbee on their initiative. Invited him down to meet with them. He went down there as a courtesy and at some point they started talking about trade and NAFTA and the Canadian embassy has confirmed that he said exactly what I have been saying on the campaign trail. That I believe in trade but it is important for us to have labor standards and environmental standards that are enforceable and that I intend to obtain modifications and amendments that will make them enforceable. So this notion that Senator Clinton is pedaling that somehow there are contradictions and winks and nods has been disputed by all the parties involved. What is not disputed is that Senator Clinton and her husband championed NAFTA, worked on behalf of NAFTA, called it a victory and called it good for America until she started running for president. That is indisputable. That is a fact. And so I know that the Clinton campaign has been treated us… or employing a kitchen sink strategy. We’ve been catching what 3,4 things a day, this is one of them it doesn’t change the facts.
Q: inaudible <paraphrased> question about Rezko?
BO: Carol can I just say I have to really dispute this. It is true that you wanted an individual sit down but I don’t think that is fair to speak for the entire Chicago press corps, let me just finish. Before you were reporting on these issues I had an avail with some Chicago reporters here that would recall it in which I literally, you can talk to andy Shaw or I think I saw Flannery here today where I literally stood there and took as many questions on this issue as people could think until people had no more
Q: Inaudible
BO: That is exactly right
Q: Inaudible
BO: No, well Lynn, I am just saying that I don’t think it is disputed and I took every question. I was there until everybody had satisfied their questions. I just want to make that point initially, you may still have questions which I am happy to answer. But I don’t think it is fair to suggest somehow that we have been trying to hide the bone on this. There have been several hundred stories written on this issue. The thought pattern remains unchanged. I’ll try to repeat it and then if there is a specific question that you have, I am happy to respond to it. Tony Rezko was a friend and supporter of mine for many years. He was a well-known businessman in the community as you are aware of. He supported not just me but many democrats and republicans. He is now in trouble and is on trial for federal corruption charges. Those charges are completely unrelated to me and I don’t think anybody’s disputes that. What is also true is that I entered into a real estate transaction with him in which I bought a strip of land at an adjacent property that he had purchased. I have said that that was a mistake because at that point there was already a cloud over Tony Rezko. I’ve been very open about what I’ve called a boneheaded move. On the other hand, there have been no allegations that I did anything wrong, there have been no allegations that I in any way betrayed the public trust, there have been no allegations that I did him favors. We have disgorged all the money that we can identify that was raised by him. So that is the extent of the story. Now if there are, I don’t excuse myself from having made an error and I’ve said that repeatedly but if there is something additional other than the fact that he has gone on trial and the Clinton’s campaign have decided to make this a theme the past couple days.
Q: In terms of finding out how many fundraisers he held for you, who attended those fundraisers, the disclosure of the closing documents in regards to joint transactions?
BO: The disclosing documents have been provided to the Tribune and the Sun Times, if I’m not mistaken. I just checked with my staff. I know that we provided them. Let’s find that out. But the point is, if there are specific requests in terms of information that you feel that you don’t yet have, we will be happy to talk about that. I guess what I am saying is nobody has disputed what we have said repeatedly. And I understand that this is a hot story that broke because there is a convergence of a trial that is unrelated to me and the fact that I am a presidential candidate. But the fact that, the notion that we haven’t been forthcoming, I would dispute if there is specific requests, I’d be happy to talk to you.
Q: [inaudible]… to say that you have taken a tour of the home with Mr. Rezko. Its these details..
BO: that was perfectly consistent with…
Q: But these unexplored details, for example, how many fundraisers, just who was there.
BO: Because what happens is that these requests can just go on forever so at some point, what we just try to do is respond to what’s pertinent to the question that had been raised. There is no dispute that he raised money for us and there is not dispute that we tried to get rid of that money. And part of what we try to do is provide information on the pertinent questions that would have been raised. If there are additional questions then we’d be happy to answer.
Q: <paraphrased> You talked earlier about including GI Bill, including GI benefits, but how are you actually going to do that?
BO: Part of what I would like to do is expand the GI Bill. Colleague of mine from Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, as well as Jim Webb have both proposed new 21st Century GI Bill of Rights. I want to work with them to upgrade those benefits to get them the kinds of services they need and the educational benefits they need and matches up with the cost of college education these days. The problem is that there’s a big mismatch between the level of benefit and how much it costs to complete a bachelor’s degree. My attitude is that we have to upgrade those benefits to match them up with the costs.
Q: <paraphrased> Secretary Rice—meeting with adversaries—does that include Hamas?
BO: It does not include Hamas. They are not heads of state. They do not recognize Israel. You can not negotiate with somebody that doesn’t recognize the right of a country to exist. So I understand why Israel doesn’t meet with Hamas. I do think it is important for us to try to jumpstart the peace process. It has been of enormous strain of late. I think it’s important for Sec Rice to reach out to Hamas to try to encourage them to back into conversations with…
Q: Are you saying that this administration is right to ignore Hamas?
BO: I think there are enough of other parties communicating with Hamas that Hamas is clear at this point in what would be required in order to legitimize talks with them and that is somewhat recognition of Israel, denounciation of violence, and making sure that prior agreements are respected. They are not heads of state. They are not recognized as the head of the Palestinian authority. I understand the concept that you’re trying to push here. I think it is entirely legitimate to make distinctions between those who are heads of state, heads of establish countries, and those who have advocated terrorism as a means of obtaining their rights. That is a pertinent distinction to draw.
Q: <paraphrased> Question about Jewish support and McCain?
BO: It would surprise a number of my supporters who are members of AIPAC to find out I was a quote-unquote half hearted supporter of Israel. The gentleman r you refer to obviously is not familiar with the facts
Q: Do you need to win a big state like Texas to prove you are a viable nominee?
BO: What qualifies as a big state? I though Illinois was a big state. I thought Missouri was a big state. I thought Washington was big state. Colorado I thought was a big state. Washington state looks pretty big to me. So we won two thirds of the states approximately where there have been contests so far. I would think at this point the question is no longer is it a big enough state, is it a state with too many black people is it s state that was in the Midwest is it a caucus state. We’ve won states and we’ve won delegates. No senator Clinton is running a tenacious campaign. she’s a hard working candidate she brings to bear enormous resources. President a Clinton has been working hard on her behalf and so we know that this a been an extraordinary election and continues to be and we’re working as hard as we can do well. But this notion that there is a a particular kinds of state that you have to win just doesn’t make too much sense.
Q: If I could just go back to the NAFTA. Did Mr. Goolsbee try in anyway to reassure the Canadians about nafta? Obviously this is an issue of great concern.
BO: No and as I said just understand the context. Nobody reached out to the Canadians to try to reassure them. They reached out unbeknownst to the rest of use, reached out to Mr. Goolsbee invited him for what he thought would be a fairly casual conversation and I repeated what we have said on the campaign trail, which is that we believe in trade with Canada we believe in trade with Mexico, but we think the terms of nafta have to be altered so that the labor standard and the environmental standards are enforceable in the same way that some of the commercial provisions are. So there’s nothing more there. I have said repeatedly that I believe that nafta needs to be modified. This is not a new position of mine. This is a position that dates back many years during my us senate campaign I was criticized for taking this position by the Chicago Tribune. its been well recorded it hasn’t altered. And that stands in contrast to Senator Clintons to positions on this issue which as altered substantially. Thank you
