Transcript of Obama Press Availability
Johnstown, PA3.29.08
BO: Let me just go ahead and take some questions.
Q: The stops here in Pennsylvania seem a little smaller. Is that a conscious decision?
BO: Yes. You know, we were having these huge rallies and it's just hard to get questions and have a lot of interaction and some of that was out of necessity in the first week or so. When were having an event a week and so you couldn't really take time for the retail politics that I enjoy and think helps people know me better. We can take a little more leisurely pace when we have 6 six weeks to campaign in the states. We can do more OTRs. We're gonna be doing more town hall meetings, fewer rallies. We'll probably save the rallies towards the end of the campaign.
Q: Why do you think this is a difficult state for you? [inaudible] in terms of measuring your success after April the 22nd? 10 points behind? 20 points?
BO: I don't think this is a difficult state for me. I think I'm not as well known as Sen. Clinton is in this state, which is reflected in the polls. She has a popular Democratic governor that gave her a good head start and provided her with some institutional support. I, on the other hand, have a very popular Democratic senator, who endorsed me yesterday. I'm thrilled with Bob Casey's endorsement and I think we're going to make steady progress. As you know I have not taken the approach of Sen. Clinton which says this state is important and then these three aren't, or trying to select which contests matter. I think all contests matter. So we want to do as well as we can uin Pennsylvania, we may not be able to win, but I think we have a good chance and we're going to work as hard as we can.
Q: Senator Casey, you are introducing Barack Obama to the democrats. Is that a tough sell?
Casey: No, I think that term has never been defined. It's defined different ways. but I don't think there's any question that the more that he's on the ground, the more people see him, the more people see him and see his command of the issues and, frankly, see his leadership style, that's what we're going to elect in November, a leader. Not a list of - and someone who just talks about - issues. And I think they understand that in these really difficult economic times they've got to elect somebody that they are going to have confidence in, that they can be inspired by. and I think he's doing that already. The more time on the ground in Pennsylvania, the better he will do. But look at the other side, they've been campaigning in this state for 15 years, think about it. So it's a tall order. But we're making progress.
Q: Senator - Basra and Iraq in general has been plunged back into quite a bit of violence in the last few days. I'm interested in your take on that and if this has any effect, for instance, on plans to, you know, your proposals to withdraw troops. What you think the course we might take right now?
BO: Well, obviously, we're still getting news from the front, so I don't want to suggest that I have absorbed all of the facts. Based on what I've seen so far, it appears consistent with my general analysis which is the presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq. If we are going to bring long-term stability to Iraq, it is going to have less to do with our military presence there and more to do with the ability of the various factions, not just Sunni-Shia but, as we're seeing now in Basra, Shia-Shia, inner-sectarian conflict, to be resolved. And I actually believe that we have a better chance of resolving it by setting a clear timeframe for withdrawal, in consultation with our commanders on the ground, at a deliberate but careful pace. Time would be ample for them to then come together, but they'd understand that we're not going to be permanently occupying the country. So there's nothing that's happened in Basra that either surprises me or undermines my basic view that it is the political accommodations rather than our military presence that is going to bring about long-term stability. Unless you are willing to do what John McCain has suggested, which is essentially to set up a permanent occupation in Iraq, in which we are functioning as some sort of military protectorate. And, setting aside the enormous costs, $10 billion to $12 billion a month, which is unsustainable and would erode our economy here at home - the strategic implications of a long-term presence in Iraq and how that can be used to recruit terrorists, how it distracts us from having to finish the job in Afghanistan, are all reasons why I think that is a fundamentally flawed policy.
Q: Senator, what do you think of the Bush administration's package of financial regulation reform proposals? Are they adequate to the moment and do they offer anything useful in your view as a framework?
BO: We haven't seen all the details, and there are two separate proposals that have been at least talked about over the last couple of days. You've got their mortgage housing proposal that seems to draw from some of the work that's been done by Senator Dodd and Representative Frank and that I am a co-sponsor of. If we do have a FHA model that can come in and help buyers and lenders renegotiate with each side of the transaction taking a loss but stabilizing the situation, then I think that's a healthy thing. But we haven't seen all the details, there's some suggestion that's the direction the administration might be willing to go. I think that provides a bottom to the housing crisis that can help restore some confidence in the credit markets. Based on what I've seen, at least just in the reports this morning, the regulatory proposals related to the Fed, I think, are inadequate. There are some good things in there about consolidating multiple regulatory agencies, streamlining and modernizing some of these regulations, recognizing the difference between banks and thrifts and other institutions may not be what they used to. But, for example, there is no call for increased capital reserve requirements or liquidity requirements on investment banks, despite the fact that we know the Federal Reserve is now empowered to provide a discount window directly to these institutions the same way it does commercial banks. if I'm a commercial bank right now, I'm still not clear why it is that investment banks not only are able to do things I can't do, aren't subject to the same capital requirements and liquidity requirements that I am and yet they've got the same fallback with the Fed as we do. and if I'm a taxpayer, I'm also concerned about that, because promises the possibility of investment banks or other institutions like hedge funds continuing to take excessive risks knowing that the fed might come in and bail them out. So my sense is that part of the package that they're putting together is not adequate. There are some good elements to it and I think we should be open to negotiating with the administration, but, you know, there's just an ideological predisposition not to add additional regulation. I think that would be a mistake. let me take a couple more. We're going to have a more extensive one on Monday. so I don't want to be here forever. you have had about eight of them already. so I'm going to see if anybody else who hasn't had an opportunity -- go ahead.
Q: You got a question about jobs going overseas. and you said you wanted to be honest. how much of what you are offering is tough love and are you at all worried that what they will hear, the voters will hear is eventually tough cookie.
BO: No. I mean, I though I gave a pretty extensive answer. I talked about investing in education, lifelong learning, changing our tax code to incentivize companies locating here, changing our trade policies so that we're tougher negotiators with other countries and it's not as easy for companies to move overseas and then ship the goods right back here without any labor standards, environmental standards or safety standards, investments in infrastructure, investments in energy independence. The point I was making was that the same jobs are probably not going to come back. You know, we're not going to suddenly see Bethlehem Steel re-open. What we're going to see potentially is some specialty steel of the sort that we saw at Johnstown Wire that has created a niche that can grow. That's the kind of approach I think that we've got to take and that's why parts of Pennsylvania are actually doing pretty well right now.
Q: [paraphrase] To follow up. In Ohio, where you did have some time to campaign, you got beat pretty badly in the eastern part of the state that's quite similar in many ways to western Pennsylvania. What are you doing or saying differently in this state that's going to cause a different result for you?
BO: We didn't really have a lot of time to campaign. I mean, we had two weeks to campaign between Texas and Ohio. And so I think that I spent maybe four days in Ohio total. And we're going to be spending six days just on this bus trip. So some of it is just the ability to get known more effectively. And the message is going to stay consistent, which is that not only do we need a set of policies, particularly on the economy, that provide relief to middle-class and working-class families. But that the only way we're going to actually implement those policies is if we break the grip of special interests and lobbyists in Washington. And that is at the heart of my campaign. You know, if you put side-by-side some of the policy proposals between myself and Senator Clinton, the differences aren't always that great. On some issues we've got real debates. On some, they're somewhat manufactured debates to provide you guys something to write about. But I do think there's a real difference in terms of how we see Washington, because I think that, you know, if the mortgage-lending industry is spending $185 million on lobbying, then, you know, there's going to be certain outcomes that have an impact on how we can keep people in their homes here in Pennsylvania. If the drug and insurance companies spend a billion dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions over a decade, they're going to have a little more say about the health bill that comes out of committee than some of the people who were here today, who are trying to figure out how to deal with premiums that are rising, or don't have health insurance at all. And to the extent that I can communicate that need to change how business is done in Washington, and to create a more transparent and more accountable system, then hopefully that's something that will resonate with folks who feel like every four years they're given a bunch of promises but nothing really changes. Ok? Why don't I make this the last one.
Q: Yesterday, Senator Leahy, who endorsed you, said that Senator Clinton should get out of the race. Do you think it's premature for some of your supporters to start saying that?
BO: Yeah, you know, I hadn't talked to Pat about it. My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants. Her name's on the ballot, and she is a fierce and formidable competitor, and she obviously believes that she would make the best nominee and the best president, and I think that you know, she should be able to compete and her supporter should be able to support her, for as long as they are willing or able.
Q: Is there a time to mention?
BO: No, I mean I just think when we've completed all the contests that are remaining, some point in early June, then at that point there are no more contests. And I think it is important to pivot as completely as possible, for the superdelegates or others, to make a decision as quickly as possible so that we can settle on a nominee and give that nominee some time before the convention to select a vice president, or presidential nominee, to start thinking about how the convention should be conducted. So I think that work is going to have to be done relatively quickly - and at that point there won't be really any further information to be had. We will have had contests in all 50 states plus several territories. We will have tallied up the pledged delegate vote, we will have tallied up the popular vote, we will have tallied up how many states were won by who, and then at that point I think people should have more than enough information to make a decision. But I think that the notion that the party's been divided by this contest is somewhat overstated. You know, there's no doubt that among some of my supporters or some of her supporters, there's probably been some irritation created. But I also think every content you've seen in every state, huge jumps in Democratic registration, including independents and Republicans who are changing registration to vote in the Democratic primaries. You know, those are people who are now invested in what happens. And I think that bodes very well for us in November; I think the party's going to come together. You can't tell me that some of my supporters are going to say, well, we'd rather have the guy who may want to stay in Iraq for a hundred years, because we're mad that Senator Clinton ran a negative ad against Senator Obama. And I think the converse is true as well. I think Senator Clinton's supporters will ultimately look at a comparison and say, “we think an Obama administration would be very different from a McCain administration.” So I'm less worried about this than some people are. I do want to make sure, that, to the extent that I can control it, that we show some - some restraint, and that we're measured in how we present the contrast between myself and Senator Clinton. And we've been very careful in this campaign not to say things that could be used as, you know, ammunition for the Republicans if Senator Clinton were the nominee.
Q: Do you think she's done the same?
BO: Well, I think we've been trying to maintain that kind of approach, and I hope that that's the approach that both our campaigns take and our surrogates take. And I think we have not been blameless in this process.
Q: You guys are going bowling later, you much of a bowler?
BO: I am a terrible bowler, so you guys should have fun observing me. My basketball game's not bad. Casey was a beast on the boards.
Q: You guys played at the Y?
BO: We played at a high school.
CASEY: I was very blue collar, which means I didn't score much.
BO: No, but you were boxing out, which is what we needed
