'Meet the Press' transcript for Feb. 3, 2008

MR. RUSSERT:  It seems like an eternity ago, but on Monday Senator Edward M. Kennedy came here to Washington, American University, and endorsed Barack Obama, standing with Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the 35th president of the United States, and this is what Kennedy said.  Let's watch.

(Videotape)

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D-MA):  He will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past.  He is a leader who sees the world clearly without being cynical.  He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in without demonizing those who hold a different view.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  Bob Shrum, what does that endorsement mean?

MR. SHRUM:  I think it was a very powerful endorsement.  It--the--Teddy has at times been--he's my friend, but he's at times been the lion in winter.  I think he might be the lion in springtime for the Obama campaign.  I think he kick-started that campaign, gave it a new start.  He said a year ago that he would endorse someone if they inspired him, if they inspired the country.  And I think he made that decision.  He thinks that Obama can be a transformative figure, thinks he's ready to be president, and knew exactly what he wanted to say in that speech.

MR. RUSSERT:  Mary Matalin, we have Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, Oprah Winfrey and Carolina Kennedy in Los Angeles today.  Do those kinds of big events work?

MS. MATALIN:  They work towards what is a conventional wisdom in this cycle, which is not--endorsements haven't meant much, but enthusiasm has meant a lot. That's what Huckabee did in Iowa.  Stronger than but less coverage than the Kennedy endorsement was Claire McCaskill in Missouri, senator, and Governor Sebelius in Kansas, his home state.  These are women, these are--they were sort of tangentially attached or committed to Hillary.  So those kinds of endorsements mean something.  This is a lot of hoo-ha.  It might, it might contribute to the enthusiasm, but we have not written off on this show and the punditocracy has written off Hillary so many times you can't even count, so...

MR. SHRUM:  Well, let me make clear, I'm not writing her off.  What I think happened on Monday was that Ted Kennedy had a huge impact in giving Obama a new chance, a new entry into this race and no other person could have had the same impact that he had.  But I'm not writing her off.  I think it could break toward her, it could break toward him.

MR. MURPHY:  But in--it--she was anything but written off till she started losing primaries.  What happened was that great comeback in New Hampshire made it a real race.  I think the Kennedy thing has one other dimension.  He's clearly a big battleship, huge power in the Democratic Party, to the extent endorsements matter.  But he may be the key to unlocking the Latino vote, which is where Obama's had trouble, and that's another thing to watch in California if it does go Obama's way.  I think Kennedy could get a lot of credit for moving in those numbers.

MR. RUSSERT:  And those are exactly the congressional districts that Kennedy campaigned in over the weekend.

MR. MURPHY:  Exactly.  They know it, and they're playing that strategy.

MR. CARVILLE:  First of all, women, what we're seeing here--and, and everybody knows this--women are disproportionately higher proportion of the Democrat electorate than they are the general electorate, obviously, 55, 57 percent sometimes.  It's not surprising to me at all that the Obama campaign would have Michelle Obama with Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy campaign for him in Los Angeles.  However, Senator Clinton, we got to be fair to her here, she has a strong hold on these women voters.

MR. CARVILLE:  They have come in, and they've, you know, they've basically saved her in, in, in New Hampshire.  And, you know, a lot of questions...

MR. RUSSERT:  Overwhelming gender gap in favor of Senator Clinton.

MR. CARVILLE:  Exactly.  Yes!

MR. RUSSERT:  State after state.

MR. CARVILLE:  State after state.  And, and, and it's not in a general electorate that--it's kind of 52, 48, women, men; 51, 49.  In a Democratic electorate it could be 55, 56, even 57 percent in some.  The Obama strategists understand this.  I had a, a friend of mine, a, a woman in, in Connecticut that got six pieces of mail from, from Hillary's campaign.

MR. SHRUM:  That same conversation.

MR. CARVILLE:  I mean, it's really--they--everybody--we're--people watching MEET THE PRESS, both of these campaigns know this down to the core.

MR. SHRUM:  Yeah.  Yeah.

MR. CARVILLE:  And believe me, if you're a woman in any of these Super Tuesday states, you're going to get a lot of mail.  You're not going to be lonely.

MR. SHRUM:  But you left--you left out one piece of information.  She got six pieces of mail; her husband got--who's also registered Democrat--got not one piece of mail.  And I think that tells you where the Clinton people want to put their resources.  But number two, I'm not sure that you shouldn't send the guy at least one piece of mail.

MS. MATALIN:  A husband should vote like their wives.  That's--we're moving it to a new era.

MR. CARVILLE:  None, none, none of this is surprising...

MR. SHRUM:  Never happen, Mary.

MR. CARVILLE:  ...and these strategists know that.

MR. RUSSERT:  A big debate on Thursday night.  One of the lines was most repeated was offered by Hillary Clinton in her response to the dynasty question.  Here's Hillary Clinton.

(Videotape)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON:  And you know, it did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush, and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  Mary Matalin:

MS. MATALIN:  You know, this--even Democrats, thinking Democrats, this is not going to be a race about Bush.  They have united--this party's been united on one organizing principle for eight years, it's anti-Bush.  People are over it.

MR. RUSSERT:  But in a Democratic primary?

MS. MATALIN:  Even Democrats are over it.  What're you going to do?  What are you going to--and always, always elections are about the future.  They're not about the past.  She's just--it's just a--it was cute, it was clever, but in was, in the end, sophistry.

MR. CARVILLE:  I think what they were--I think what Senator Clinton was saying is, is there's really economic troubles here, and before you go vote, you need to think about that.  I think was this more focusing people on economic problems.  Then Friday morning you have this 17,000 net jobs loss. That is what, what, what the Hillary Clinton campaign thinks that voters will think going into the thing here is, we are--have very, very big problems in this country.  What's the best way to solve them?  Do you want an experienced, steady hand on there or do you want somebody who's kind of new, gives a great speech?  That's what they would like the election to be framed as.  That's what she was--she was trying to get away from the dynasty question as much and put it on an economic question, is what she was trying to do.

MS. MATALIN:  Well, that really popped out for me!

MR. MURPHY:  Well, if I were--no advice from me, but I'd be careful with clean up analogies.  Place needed to be steam cleaned after Bill Clinton.  I don't think that was a particularly powerful...

MR. SHRUM:  I've got a--but, look, James clearly is trying to get them to understand that it's the economy, stupid...

MR. CARVILLE:  Right.

MR. SHRUM:  ...the line he used a long time ago.  I'm not sure it cuts that way at this point.  I think people may believe that Obama can actually deal with the economy, too.  The real question people are asking here, I think, is, number one, who's going to stand for change, much as Mary hates it.  Number two, who's up to the job.  And I want to say, Hillary Clinton--that was not only a great line in the debate, I heard her give a terrific speech this weekend.  I think she has a new stump speech where she says we got to go beyond deadlock, beyond fear-mongering, beyond distortion and change this country.  She almost sounded like she was channeling Obama.  That should've been the speech she was giving from the beginning.

MR. MURPHY:  And when you can't beat them, copy them.  And that's clearly what she was trying to do.

MR. CARVILLE:  But, but, but we do agree what they were trying to do is focus it.  I'm, I'm saying that's was what Hillary was trying to do with that line.

MR. SHRUM:  James, I think you've been trying to get them to focus on the economy for some time.

MS. MATALIN:  But I'm not against change.  It's that change is certain.  OK? This is a change.  It's going to change no matter what.  It's always about a choice.  She's got to get them to focus on the choice in the general election. It's not--he just can't ride the change...

MR. SHRUM:  But, Mary, if we change, for example, from Bush to Cheney, we wouldn't really change.  It might get a little worse.

MS. MATALIN:  Cheney, the guy I would've been for, is not in the race.

MR. SHRUM:  I know, but he wouldn't have...

MS. MATALIN:  There are two guys I would've been for, and they're not in the race:  (unintelligible)...and Cheney.

MR. SHRUM:  If you were for him, he wouldn't have won either.

MS. MATALIN:  McCain is change.  Romney is change.

MR. RUSSERT:  All right, we're going to get to the--we're going to get to the Republicans, I promise.

MR. CARVILLE:  All right.  Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT:  Let me stay with the Democratic debate.  A large part of the debate was on Iraq.  Senator Clinton was asked about whether her vote for the war was a mistake and what it meant.  Let's watch Senator Clinton's response and then the--Senator Obama's comments after her answer.  Let's watch.

(Videotape)

SEN. CLINTON:  I believe that it is abundantly clear that the case that was outlined on behalf of going to the resolution--not going to war, but going to the resolution--was a credible case.  I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA:  The legislation, the authorization had the title, "An Authorization to Use Military Force--U.S. Military Force in Iraq." I think everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war.  I think people were very clear about that. That's--if you look at the headlines.  The reason that this is important, again, is that Senator Clinton, I think fairly, has claimed that she's got the experience on day one.  And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that it is important to be right on day one.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT:  Mike Murphy.

MR. MURPHY:  A very powerful line for Obama, that was his high point of the debate.  It's an issue where the Democratic primary voters are more lined up with him, and, you know, I thought that was his moment, just like the cleaning thing was hers.

MR. RUSSERT:  James Carville--and before you answer, "Take it Back:  Our Party, Our Country, Our Future," best-selling book by James Carville and Paul Begala.  And here's what it says:  "Some of the Democrats who supported the war in Iraq began to claim their vote was to put pressure on Iraq--that they voted merely to give the president the option to go to war.  Bunk.  The war resolution was a blank check.  The language of the resolution could not be clearer.  `The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate' against Iraq." Mr. Carville, was her answer bunk?

MR. CARVILLE:  Well...

MR. MURPHY:  Begala, Begala wrote that paragraph, right?

MR. CARVILLE:  First of all, first of all, the governor of Louisiana once said of the attorney general of Louisiana, "If you want to hide anything from Jack Gremillion, stick it in the law book." And I don't know if that's fair, Mr. Russert, for you to actually read my book and quote me.  I mean, I didn't mean--look, Senator Clinton--and I say this, I think her--given her answers, exactly.  She believed the Bush administration.  That was a mistake.  And it was a mistake then, it's a mistake now.  Every now and then politicians make mistakes.  I love her to death.  I look at--she's made so many right decisions in her career.  This was not a--the decision to believe the Bush administration was not a, was not a good decision.

MR. SHRUM:  But don't, don't you think she would have been better off if she'd just said from the beginning it was a mistake?  Because I went through the necessity of parsing with John Kerry.

MR. CARVILLE:  I--right.  Right.

MR. SHRUM:  She didn't have that necessity.  And she could have said like two years ago, "The vote was a mistake, let's move beyond it," and I think I've said on this show before...

MR. CARVILLE:  Right.

MR. SHRUM:  ...she would have been a lot better off.

MR. CARVILLE:  I--maybe.  But you know, in her mind I think is what, what they say, is that, based on the information that she had, she thought it was the correct vote at the time.  Obviously she doesn't think it is.  This thing has been played and replayed.  Every voter knows that she voted to authorize the war.  Every voter knows that she said the Bush administration assured her of this.  It's a judgment call.  Voters are going to have to assess that when they make a decision.

MR. MURPHY:  Every politician has a blind spot, and hers is never admitting failure or mistake, and she's paying a price.

MR. RUSSERT:  Even the 11 Amendment, where the question from the political person was that people wanted to know about that, an amendment by Carl Levin that would have sent, in effect, this resolution off the table and moved to the United Nations for more discussions.

MR. CARVILLE:  Right.

MR. RUSSERT:  She said, "Well, I didn't want to subordinate the U.S. interest to the U.N." And no one involved in that resolution said that was the issue.

MR. CARVILLE:  Well, Senator Feingold, Senator John Kerry, all those voted against it.  Senator Feingold expressed some of these same concerns.

MR. RUSSERT:  But Senator, Senator Levin, the sponsor...

MR. CARVILLE:  I know, Senator Levin thought that, and I don't think--and I think Senator Levin did.  But they were, Senator--I know Senator Feingold did, Senator Kerry did also...

MR. SHRUM:  But Senator Feingold voted against the whole resolution.

MR. CARVILLE:  I think Senator--I know...

MR. SHRUM:  I mean, so...

MR. CARVILLE:  So it's, again, I think all of this is fair to bring up, but also, in her--she did--her state had just been hit in 9/11.  The administration told her that.  I didn't, I didn't agree with her vote, and I can't sit here and say that I did.  But it's one of those things.  I do know a lot of things that she has done that I really agree with and passionate about, and I know her person and I love her to death.

MS. MATALIN:  Well, here's a quick counter, Tim.  For eight years they've been saying Bush is a dope, so her argument is, "I've been duped by a dope." That's what they've been saying this whole...

MR. CARVILLE:  No.

MS. MATALIN:  ...time, yes.  And another thing about that, you know when you guys say about Iraq, we want to end the war, we want to resolve Afghanistan, you never say we want to win the war, we want to defeat the jihadis.

MR. MURPHY:  Yeah.

MS. MATALIN:  And there are eight million people watching that, and you guys are dancing on the head of a pin of something that happened years ago, which is basically saying I was duped by what she presumes to be a dope.

MR. MURPHY:  I agree with it.  That was a big moment, she said, "I want to resolve the war in Afghanistan." Not in the Democratic primary, but in a general election, that's the kind of thing that's going to go back if she's the nominee, and hurt her.

MR. SHRUM:  I--can I defend her?  I think...

MS. MATALIN:  Yeah.

MR. SHRUM:  I think she--all she was saying, resolve the war.  It's not--she doesn't want to get out.  Don't start smearing her before she's the nominee.

MR. MURPHY:  Well...(unintelligible).

MR. SHRUM:  She wants--she does want to win the war in Afghanistan.

MS. MATALIN:  (Unintelligible).

MR. SHRUM:  All you have to do, all you have to do is look at her record.  In fact, she's been attacked for being too tough on this.

MR. RUSSERT:  All right, let me, let me...

MR. MURPHY:  (Unintelligible).

MR. SHRUM:  So I want to defend her on that.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Nov. 22: Senate roundtable, Brinker, Snyderman Nov. 15: Clinton, Duncan, Gingrich, Sharpton Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Sept. 27: Bill Clinton, Paterson, Kyl, Webb Sept. 20: President Obama, Sen. Graham, Rep. Boehner, roundtable Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: