Return to Transcripts main page

Lou Dobbs This Week

Immigration Day Protests; Obama and Clinton Tied

Aired May 04, 2008 - 19:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

LOU DOBBS, HOST: Tonight: Senators Clinton and Obama are effectively tied in national opinion polls just days before the primaries of Indiana and North Carolina. Will Senator Clinton surprise her foes? What will Obama do? We'll have complete coverage.
And: Thousands of open-borders, pro-amnesty protesters holding rallies on National Law Day. Those demonstrators, incredibly, are demanding an end to the enforcement of U.S. laws.

We'll have that and much more: Straight ahead here tonight.

ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK: News, debate, and opinion. Here now: Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: Good evening, everybody.

Senator Barack Obama tonight is hoping the controversy over his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, is now behind him. Obama denounced Wright's inflammatory, anti-American remarks. Obama said he's angered, shocked, and surprised by Wright's outrageous and insensitive statements. But the senator still faces questions about why it took him so long to repudiate the Wright comments.

The latest opinion polls show the race between Clinton and Obama is now a statistical dead heat. A CNN/Opinion Research Poll giving Obama a national lead over Clinton of only one percentage point among Democrats. Candy Crowley has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT, TRINITY UNITED CHURCH: Yes, let me say we can do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(NEWSBREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What you believe so fundamentally and then he questions whether or not you believe it in front of the National Press Club, then that's enough.

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SR. POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On the trail, Obama has been trying to push back against all the whispers, that he doesn't salute the flag, that he's a Muslim, that he doesn't share American values -- because more than Hillary Clinton or John McCain, it was Jeremiah Wright who seemed to be defining Barack Obama.

OBAMA: When I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts everything that I am about and who I am.

CROWLEY: Half white, half black, Obama's entire campaign is predicated on rising above partisan social and racial divides. Everyday he talked, Wright was a drag on the politics of hope. The question is whether Obama took too long to see that.

Candy Crowley, CNN, Hickory, North Carolina.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: Well, we'll find out Tuesday just what damage Reverend Jeremiah Wright has had on Senator Obama as voters go to the polls in both North Carolina and Indiana.

Bill Schneider has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): The answer is yes and no. Consensus: A solid majority of Democrats now believes Barack Obama will win the nomination. No consensus: Democrats are about evenly split over which candidate they prefer -- 46 percent for Obama, 45 percent for Hillary Clinton. Obama has lost his lead. Is it because of the controversy over his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright?

OBAMA: What we saw yesterday out of Reverend Wright was a resurfacing, and I believe, an exploitation of those old divisions. Whatever his intentions, that was the result. It is antithetical to our campaign, it is antithetical to what I'm about.

SCHNEIDER: Only 19 percent of Democrats say Wright's statements have made them less favorable to Obama. More than 2/3 say they've had no effect at all. The bigger problem appears to be Obama's string of losses to Clinton in big states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. They may have created doubts about Obama's ability to win.

Is he winning against John McCain? Obama leads McCain by four points. That's within the margin of error. Does Clinton do better? Not really. She leads McCain by five. That's one reason why Democrats are having trouble making up their minds.

What's amazing is that the Republican candidate is doing so well when a Republican president has the highest disapproval rating on record. How can that be?

OBAMA: What he's not offering is any meaningful change from the policies of George W. Bush.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Senator McCain wants more of the same.

SCHNEIDER: It can be because Americans are divided over whether McCain's policies would be mostly the same as those of President Bush or mostly different.

(on camera): Democrats say McCain's policies would be the same as President Bush's. What's interesting is that Republicans say McCain's policies would be different. Republicans may be looking for change, too.

Bill Schneider, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: Organizers of rallies demonstrating against immigration laws and the enforcement of those laws continuing to try to influence the presidential campaign. All three of the principle candidates: Clinton, Obama, and McCain supporting the so-called comprehensive immigration reform, a bill that Congress killed last year. The demonstrators' long-term goal, they say, is to set the amnesty agenda for the next administration in Congress.

Lisa Sylvester tells how they're doing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The crowd was much, much smaller than years past, slightly more than a dozen people protested outside the headquarters of the Democratic and Republican parties in Washington. A later rally had a couple hundred people -- pushing for nothing less than amnesty.

SAMEER DOSSANI, DEMONSTRATOR: We're anti (ph) to the raids and anti (ph) the deportation, legalization, amnesty for all.

SYLVESTER: The group called the May 1st Immigrant Coalition sent a letter to the three presidential candidates asking them to support a path way to citizenship for as many as 20 million illegal aliens in the United States. In fact, all three senators: John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama already support granting amnesty for some.

Obama is stumping for votes in North Carolina.

OBAMA: Let's give them a path way so that they can become - they can have some legal status. And it might take 10 years, but at least then they've got some prospect, some hope.

SYLVESTER: North Carolina, next up on the primary list, has seen an explosion of immigrant growth. It now ranks in the top five states. But one group advocating for stricter illegal immigration enforcement says the three candidates just don't get it -- how filling jobs with illegal workers displaces and hurts Americans.

ROY BECK, NUMBERS USA: I believe that all three of them are fundamentally blind at what it's like to be a working-class person in this country -- what it's like to be a roofer or a dry-waller. To work on these occupations, they're flooded by foreign workers. They do not feel the pain that these lower middle class workers are feeling. SYLVESTER: All three candidates share roughly the same position on immigration. One reason they're not jumping to talk about it on the campaign trail.

(on camera): Senator McCain has said he supports border security first unlike the Democratic candidates. But McCain's fundamental positions still mirrors the comprehensive immigration bill that failed in Congress last year. That included more funding for border security, building a southern border fence, and a path way to citizenship for illegal aliens.

Lisa Sylvester, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: Coming up next: A critically important ruling by the Supreme Court. The justices are upholding Indiana's law on voter identification, a ruling that could have national effect.

And astonishing statement by a U.S. attorney charged with upholding this nation's laws. We'll have that story and a great deal more next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: As a top law enforcement officer is saying, it's not a crime to be in this country illegally. U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie of New Jersey saying the simple act of in his words "being in the United States without proper documentation is not a crime." But he pointed the fact that illegal aliens in this country are -- they're violating dozens of criminal laws, as any U.S. attorney should know.

Bill Tucker has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): U.S. Attorney Chris Christie is the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey. So when he tells an audience at a community gathering that "being an immigrant living in the United States without documentation is not a crime," just a civil offense, people listen. And some people become outraged.

The mayor of Morris town is now calling for his resignation. Christie's office has since issued what he calls a clarification, saying that he was responding to a direct question. And that, quote, "The U.S. attorney responded that the simple act of being in the United States without proper documentation is not a criminal act under federal law." That clarification invited this response from a former Justice Department attorney.

KRIS KOBACH, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: Mere presence, just standing in the country illegally is not in itself a crime. That's correct. But that's -- you know, kind of a silly statement. Illegal aliens are not just standing here, being present, and doing nothing else. They are a multitude of crimes associated with the life of an illegal alien in the United States. That's just the way our laws are written. TUCKER: There are more than 50 criminal offenses in immigration law ranging from illegal entry to helping others do so, a crime to help illegal aliens stay, a crime to work without authorization, a crime to use and carry false documents, a crime to fail to carry your registration documents. The list is long but one is enough. Even Christie admits, being here illegally or without proper documentation, as he puts, "is an offense that will result in deportation."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: We should note that Christie does not have a strong record on prosecuting immigration violations. In fact, from 2002 through 2007, we could only find 13 cases of immigration that he prosecuted. We called his office to double check, they would not help us. They would not confirm it, nor would they deny that.

But, Lou, compare that to the other U.S. attorneys we spoke with -- in New Mexico, in Arizona, in Kansas, who were only too happy to provide the records to us. Exactly, borderless (ph) state like Kansas, 600 cases in that same time period.

DOBBS: Well, Mr. Christopher Christie has showed himself and to be what he is, and we appreciate it. Thank you very much, Bill Tucker.

The U.S., Mexican and Central American governments are stepping up their efforts to fight increasingly violent drug cartels of Mexico. The Mexican President Felipe Calderon recently sent 3,000 of his federal troops into Tijuana to fight those warring cartels. The Bush administration is now calling on Congress to give it a military aid package that would send Mexico nearly $1.5 billion taxpayer dollars.

Casey Wian has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The leaders of the United States and Guatemala, the two nations bordering Mexico and its escalating drug wars met at the White House this week. President Alvaro Colom says the recent arrival of four military helicopters from the United States helped Guatemala seize more drugs.

PRES. ALVARO COLOM, GUATEMALA (through translator): We are working not just with the United States, but also with Mexico and the entire neighborhood in Central America because all of us must be involved in order to combat that surge (ph) at all levels.

WIAN: President Bush again pressed the U.S. Congress to approve the Merida Initiative. It seeks $1.4 billion from military aircraft, technology, and training to help Mexico fight drug cartels.

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH, UNITED STATES: We are working hard to reduce demand for drugs here in America. At the same time we want to work in conjunction with strong leaders to make sure these drug traffickers don't get a stronghold. And that's why it's very important for Congress fund the Merida Project.

WIAN: But in six months, Congress has not acted.

PROF. GEORGE GRAYSON, COLLEGE OF WILIAM AND MARY: It's important that we symbolically show our cooperation with Mexico in the war against drugs. After all, we consume most of the junk that comes across the border. At the same time, I don't believe the U.S. Congress wants to grapple with this issue before the presidential election.

WIAN: Still, Robert Gates became only the second U.S. Defense secretary to visit Mexico Tuesday. He promoted Merida, predicted congressional approval, and said he hoped the money would begin flowing to Mexico by Memorial Day.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN: Gates called Merida a wise investment of American money, and said if Congress fails to approve the plan it would be, quote, "a real slap at Mexico." But some U.S. lawmakers worry Mexico's history of government corruption and say they fear military hardware intended for Mexican soldiers could be diverted to drug cartels. Lou?

DOBBS: Well, you know, that's a fascinating report, and an absolutely reasonable concern on the part of everyone here that it's unconfident (ph) and it's still absolutely corrupt federal government of Mexico will just misuse that money.

WIAN: Yes. That's one of the issues here, Lou. Some of these congressmen want some oversight by the U.S. government on how this money and how this hardware is used. The Mexican side, they want complete control over this aid. And that's where the sticking point is, Lou.

DOBBS: Well, the problem is, of course, the Mexican government has been absolutely irresponsible -- we won't go anywhere further than that, although I could -- in fighting the drug cartels and trying to stop drug traffic. But that we could say the same thing of the U.S. government and its failures. This may be an experiment worth having trying to at least begin to dent all the drug trade into this country.

Just a reminder to everybody, Mexico is across the southern border, the principle source of methamphetamines, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana into the United States. Of course, the open-borders advocates don't often want to talk about that part of the issue on border security.

Casey, thank you very much. Casey Wian.

Up next here: An important Supreme Court ruling that could prevent fraud at the polls and the latest inflammatory remarks from Senator Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Reverend Wendell Anthony, president of the NAACP in Detroit, defending Wright and he is my guest here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The Supreme Court ruled that states have the right to require photo identification in order for anyone to vote. The case is centered (ph) around the state of Indiana's strict state (ph) voter ID law. It comes just one week before Indiana's critical Democratic primary. And as Kitty Pilgrim now reports, groups such as the ACLU, they're already howling.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Indiana has a voter ID law requiring a voter proves who they are with photo ID when they vote. The Supreme Court said that rule was not a burden and did not violate the constitutional rights of voters.

PROF. MICHAEL PITTS, INDIANA UNIV. SCHOOL OF LAW: The court has a state interest in deterring and preventing in-person voter fraud. And so, the court said that that was a legitimate, safe interest, and it outweighed the burden on voters. So the law was upheld.

PILGRIM: The ruling reads: "Not only is the risk of voter fraud real, but that it could affect the outcome of a close election. There's no question about the legitimacy or importance of a state's interest in counting only the votes of legitimate voters."

Twenty-five states require some ID at the polls. Seven ask for photo ID and courts have ruled in favor of it in Arizona, Georgia, and Michigan.

Wayne Turner represents the Indiana county clerk who oversaw the election cited in the court case.

WAYNE TURNER, ATTORNEY: For all of the things we obtain photo IDs for, it is really a minimal burden on voters to produce that kind of proof that they are who say they are.

PILGRIM: The ACLU and others argue that voter ID laws suppress voting because not everyone has adequate ID And the law could disenfranchise disadvantage and poor voters. Three of the Supreme Court justices basically agreed with the argument but not the majority.

STEVEN SHAPIRO, ACLU: We're very disappointed. But on the other hand, the decision clearly leaves the door open to future challenges by Indiana residents and voters elsewhere in the country.

PILGRIM: But the court clearly states, "We cannot conclude that the statute imposes excessively burdensome requirements on any class of voters."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: Now, Indiana gives free IDs to people who apply for them. Also, anyone without an ID can cast an original ballot and then have 10 days to come up with their documents, Lou. So...

DOBBS: So, what is the problem for the ACLU? I mean, the idea that voters going to the polls should be able to prove their identity -- what in the world is happening in this country where that is a burden?

PILGRIM: Yes, well, this court clearly found it was not a burden. ACLU says some people just don't have this document.

DOBBS: Don't have it?

PILGRIM: Don't have it.

DOBBS: Can't be troubled to get it?

PILGRIM: It's hard to defend this.

DOBBS: It's hard to imagine that -- they can find time too register, isn't it? At what level do we want people voting? The parties will be doing everything they can to register voters and help those who have health issues that would keep them at home.

PILGRIM: Well, the ruling clearly said the states have a right to uphold their elections and require documentations.

DOBBS: Thank you Supreme Court for telling us that state's rights actually still exist, that this is still a federal republic. I mean, it's remarkable what we're being granted here in this country. Perhaps, it's still even a representative democracy. Who knows?

Thanks very much, Kitty Pilgrim.

Let's take a look now at some of your thoughts.

Ruth in Tennessee said: "Lou, what this country needs is unity among its citizens. Those who refer to themselves as hyphen-Americans need to decide which side of the hyphen they belong."

Well said.

And Irish in California: "I don't know what all of this fuss is about saying it hurts the party to settle our choice at the Democratic convention. Isn't that why we have the convention?"

I think that's a very said (ph) question as well.

And Bill in California: "Lou, when I was growing up, my father always told me to be careful with choices in life because there weren't any do-overs. But can we make an exception for all of our presidential candidates just this one time?"

I'm with you, partner.

We love hearing from you. Send us your thoughts at LouDobbs.com. Please join me on the radio all week long, Monday to Friday.

Monday, we'll have detail of the fiercest battle for the Democratic nomination. Among my guests: Democratic strategist, Hank Scheinkopf; Politico's John Harris; professor of law at Vanderbilt University, Professor Carol Swain. That's Monday through Friday for the "Lou Dobbs Show." Go to LouDobbsRadio.com to find local listings for the radio show.

Up next here: One of the country's most outspoken pro-amnesty, open- border activists joins me. I try to have frank discussions, whenever possible, against even the most outrageous of demands.

And: President Bush's disapproval rating, well, it's skyrocketed to the highest in history. I'll be talking about that with three political analysts and one of Reverend Wright's strongest supporters joins me to talk about his inflammatory comments and they're likely impact on Senator Obama and the presidential campaign.

Stay with us. We're coming right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

DOBBS: The president Detroit chapter of NAACP and staunch supporter of Reverend Wright, the Reverend Wendell Anthony joins me now. Good to have you with us, reverend.

REV. WENDELL ANTHONY, PRES., DETROIT NAACP: Thank you, Mr. Dobbs. Good to be with you.

DOBBS: Let's turn to what Reverend Wright said. He said, quote, "The recent attack on the black church is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. It's about the black church." How in the world do we get to that point?

ANTHONY: Well, I think, Lou, what he was really saying and in the full context of that portrayal. When you want to stop gate and channel the work of the church as coming from a pastor, it not only affects him, but it affects all of us in the ministry. People often want to define you, and then they can confine you. He's been reduced to a sound bite. You cannot do that for 40 years in five or six instances.

LOU DOBBS, CNN HOST: We would agree that he has not been in any way confined.

ANTHONY: Well, not right, not recently. Because, he has broke that confinemnt. You might remember also, Lou, that in '67, folks didn't like what Martin Luther King was saying about the Vietnam war.

DOBBS: I have a hard time Reverend. I have a hard time -- you putting Reverend Wright and Martin Luther King, Jr. in the same deal.

ANTHONY: But the principle is the same though. In terms of -

DOBBS: I'm not sure -- tell me how it is.

ANTHONY: Very specifically, Dr. King spoke out against the Vietnam war. He was maligned. He was ostracized. He was criticized. Most of his friends and a lot of those detractors used that as an indication to say he was unpatriotic. How can he talk about that. He had no business speaking about that.

DOBBS: So should our reflux in here then be go Reverend Wright, say what you will. It won't have any influence. We will ignore what you've said. We will not acquaint or attach any importance to anything you've said or to the relationship that you've had with Senator Obama. I'm a little confused about what people are asking for here.

ANTHONY: Absolutely not. What we should be saying is that the right of the church to speak truth to power is still intact. But whether it's Barack Obama's former pastor, whether it's Martin Luther King, Wendell Anthony or Lou Dobbs. What we should be focusing on is that just because a minister has articulated his grievance relative to measuring that against the work of god and the works of god in terms of working against war, working to bring about national health care, talk about issues of poverty. Should teachers not speak about the high cost education? Should farmers not speak about the high --

DOBBS: Do you think - do you believe that a preacher should be suggesting that the white government is inflicting AIDS on its black citizens? Do you think that should be the case? Do you think that there should be such words uttered from the pulpit? I'd love to hear this from you? Do you think the words, GD, the United States, should every escape the lips of a pastor in the pulpit?

ANTHONY: I'm so glad you asked that question, Lou. Because consistent with biblical history when you look at history, when you read it. He was not saying that as you on a street corner. He was talking about the history of the church.

DOBBS: I know the context.

ANTHONY: God has damned nations and people when they have gone against the will of god. As a matter of fact --

DOBBS: And he was referring -- and at that point he was referring to what?

ANTHONY: He was referring to the comments that an ambassador had made concerning what was going on in --

DOBBS: And his view was? And his view was?

ANTHONY: And also from his view, from what I understand was, by virtue of innocent people being killed in an unjust war then god has a problem with that. Whether that is Iraq, America -

DOBBS: He was saying -

ANTHONY: Or any other nation. The issue is injustice versus justice. And I simply say that it's about speaking truth to power. It's about representing all people and that is all Dr. Wright is attempting to do.

DOBBS: That's all the Reverend Wright is attempting to do?

ANTHONY: Absolutely. Speaking the truth to power and allowing folks to make a (inaudible). The difference between being a pastor and one who speaks from a political pulpit is that you have a calling that responds to the questions and the responses of god. Other folks have a calling that responds to the questions of the world and man. DOBBS: The question is how could he possibly, how could we in these country, endorse those kinds of hateful statement from the pulpit of any church. Black, white, Hispanic, you name the church, temple, synagogue, mosque. How could those words be legitimized, validated, coming from the pulpit of any church talking about love, equality, and forgiveness?

ANTHONY: If those words were hateful, if they were designed to beat people down, as to lifting people up, if they were designed not to put the way to truth --

DOBBS: How about - are you talking about just the people in that church?

ANTHONY: No, I'm talking about people worldwide. Period.

DOBBS: How could you? Or how could you not? Now, Reverend, you're a bright and able fellow.

ANTHONY: Absolutely.

DOBBS: How in the world can you justify those kinds of comments coming from any church at any time? from the lips of any man or woman in this country?

ANTHONY: It's not a question of justifying the comments. It's a question of not accepting the predicament and the policies of any government that finds itself killing innocent people, not providing health care, not providing adequate educate --

DOBBS: Your support for Reverend Wright then is based on agreement with what he has basically said on his own pulpit.

ANTHONY: My support of Reverend Wright and all those who preach and spread the gospel of Christ is that it must be based on truth, it must be liberating. It must be lift people up and not put people down. And if you listen to the full text of what Jeremiah Wright --

DOBBS: Well, I have. And I have it.

ANTHONY: That's why and I believe when you talk about fairness and immigration then I know that if people listen to the full context of Lou Dobbs they'll get exactly what he's saying. You are not a person who views hate. You're trying to bring about understanding. I get your understanding. Get his understanding.

DOBBS: Well, I'm sure trying to understand his understanding.

ANTHONY: His is for the church of Christ.

DOBBS: I'll take you up on it. I don't know if I have the right to make that offer.

ANTHONY: And if you come to Detroit, visit Fellowship Chapel United Church of Christ.

DOBBS: You got a deal, Reverend.

ANTHONY: All right. Thank you.

DOBBS: We tried.

ANTHONY: All right.

DOBBS: Take care.

ANTHONY: Bye.

DOBBS: Up next Senators Clinton and Obama battling for voters in North Carolina and Indiana. We'll be joined by three of the country's best political analysts.

And the pro illegal alien lobby pushing it's amnesty agenda, holding protests nationwide. I'll be talking to the president of the Mexican- American Legal Defense and Education Fund next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Joining me now are three of the best political analysts in the country and our contributors to this broadcast. Here in New York, democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf, syndicated columnist Miguel Perez and in Washington, D.C., "Washington Times" columnist Diana West. Tuesday in North Carolina and Indiana we've seen a real closing here, Miguel. What do you think is going to happen?

MIGUEL PEREZ, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, Jesus, I wish I had a crystal ball. I really think that, you know, it's Obama still to lose. I think that Hillary may be picking up in the polls a little bit. Hillary Clinton may be picking up in the polls, but he's gaining on delegates. And in spite of all the turmoil regarding his reverend and all of that, Reverend Wright, he's still gaining in what really counts which is the delegates.

DOBBS: So, you think he'll win in North Carolina and in Indiana?

PEREZ: I don't know about Indiana.

DOBBS: OK. Hank Sheinkopf.

HANK SHEINKOPF, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Tightened up in North Carolina, no question about it. Tightened up in Indiana. Hillary Clinton should do well among the people she needs to do well. Anything can happen in North Carolina because of the Reverend Wright controversy. But I have to side with Miguel on this one. He still got the delegates. She's got momentum. She's also got something important, people forget, campaigns count. People should never say that Hillary Clinton wasn't a fighter. Well, in fact, she is. And she's proven it.

DOBBS: Boy, has she ever. Diana West, your thoughts.

DIANA WEST, "THE WASHINGTON TIMES": Well, yes, I agree with everyone on the panel today. I would only add that I hope that Senator Obama does not allow Hillary Clinton to really drive a wedge between him and the superdelegates on the character issue. It just astonishes me that now we are supposed to think that she is the squeaky clean character and he is the questionable character for being a politician who says what he needs to say when he needs to say it as we've seen with Reverend Wright. No one has brought up any of the questionable aspects of Senator Clinton's past, including, for example, when she says she will stand up to OPEC countries which she did this week. No one brings up the fact that her husband, Bill, has practically been a ward of the state of Dubai in his post presidential after life. I mean, these are nonsensical things including the fund raising shenanigan she went through.

SHEINKOPF: This is partisan gobble. Let's put it in context.

DOBBS: I don't think so, Hank.

SHEINKOPF: I think there are two different people. There is one named Bill and one named Hill. Because he does that doesn't mean she's doing it. If she's running for president of the United States, he isn't.

WEST: How is it --

SHEINKOPF: And to bring up stuff not proven, this is nonsense.

DOBBS: Do you happen to know, do they have a joint checking account?

SHEINKOPF: I would hope that they don't to tell you the truth.

WEST: But, you know, how do you tell -

DOBBS: I was hoping they would.

SHEINKOPF: There you go.

DOBBS: Go ahead.

WEST: I was just going too say in terms of something very serious. China. She also says she will talk tough with China. Throughout the period of her husband's two terms, we had all kinds of shenanigans going on to the pursuit of campaign funds for the Clinton coffers.

DOBBS: Oh, yes.

WEST: And outflow of military knowledge and expertise, authorized and unauthorized.

SHEINKOPF: We can go back to Nixon if you would like. I mean --

WEST: No.

(crosstalk)

DOBBS: Go ahead, Miguel.

PEREZ: I agree with Diana to a certain extent. Because I think that, you know, when you compare what the record of Obama and the record of Clinton, I think Obama now is getting all the negative press where, you know, we suddenly forgot about the sniper fire. And I think that's even more serious than the situation that Obama has with the minister?

DOBBS: You think it's more serious than the problem that he has with the minister?

PEREZ: Yes. It came from her outright lying. And it came from her. It came out of her mouth. The minister's mouth is not Obama.

DOBBS: How about the antipathy towards people who don't look like you - the Pennsylvania really insults to working men and women there by Senator Obama.

PEREZ: Terrible. But at the same time. You know, I think the sniper fire is the most serious of all.

DOBBS: I'm about to say it's the weirdest. I'm not even sure I can say it's the weirdest. But it's all pretty weird. We're going to be back to think about the wonderful choices we have for president brought to you by the democratic and republican political parties. And special interest groups taking to the streets pushing their agendas. Amongst those agenda, amnesty for illegal aliens. I'll be talk with the leader of one of those groups next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: we're back with Hank Sheinkopf, Miguel Perez and Diana West. Let's -- this government of ours isn't working on a host of levels. Do you think there's any chance in the world any one of these three candidates, Diana West, can actually do something to change the direction of this badly battered and dysfunctional government?

WEST: Honestly?

DOBBS: Honestly. No partisan nonsense.

WEST: Honestly, no.

DOBBS: Yes. I wanted to ask you. So what are we doing here? I mean, seriously?

WEST: I really don't know. This is a terrible, terrible time. Because there are so many pressing problems. And we are not seeing anything that really resembles real "vision" from any of our three choices. So it really is a -- we're all in a terrible bind. And I guess we're trying to talk our way out of it.

DOBBS: What do you think, Hank?

SHEINKOPF: Whoever is the president will have to do what successful presidents generally do which is break with the past, create a new path and fight with congress about it within reason to get certain things done. My view about this historical trend is that we are -- the next president will be a transitional figure as this country comes to some kind of economic decision about who it is and what it is going to do and what it's going to produce in the future.

DOBBS: A one-term president.

SHEINKOPF: Maybe a one-term president. The political trends are so - a sexualism is changing. The things that have made American politics work are changing dramatically. And I think that this is very critical election. And it will be generationally based. It will work itself out over time.

DOBBS: Which candidate does that favor?

SHEINKOPF: It certainly would favor Obama. There has never been a president born in the 1930s in this country's history. McCain would be the last, simply, you know, (inaudible) to be in such matters. And he would be the last if he were to be elected. The republicans have the -- the republican president hasthe worst polling numbers since modern polling has been done. Very hard to see him in the White House with that.

DOBBS: Miguel?

PEREZ: I could care less about which one of these two democrats finally gets it at this point. I'm just tired of the whole primary race really. And a lot of the American people are. I can't wait to get to the general elections when we'll really have major contrasts between whoever it is from the democratic side and the republican. And then we'll really have an exciting debate. I think unfortunately the primaries is a long marathon. And then we have ten weeks, a 50- yard path for the general election. We're not going to have enough time if we don't get this over with, the primary, to really have McCain debating whoever it is on the democratic side. And we need that. We need those debates between the two parties.

DOBBS: We need the debates between the two parties, but we had those debates in 2004. We had them in 2002. We had them through the 90s. And I'm trying to remember the part where we did well in those debates. Where we actually had a difference of view between the two parties. Point of fact as I say, quite often here as you all know, these two parties are the opposite wings of the same bird. They have not differentiated themselves. They've certainly failed to represent the rule of the majority, which means we have a failing democracy. What do you think?

SHEINKOPF: I think that's exactly true. Part of what's going on here, why this has occurred it's about transnational corporations. It's about money and politics. It's about the need for money and the fact that money has no party identification. It is just that simple. So long as we fund campaigns the way that we do, we will continue to have these problems.

DOBBS: Is it a - since, Diana, that people are simply taking what they can from a very bad situation? Go ahead. You know. We have all of these horrible issues that have been perpetuated by Washington, D.C., rather than resolved. But that's fine as long as I get mine. Is that the attitude you perceive? WEST: Yes, and I think there's something else maybe that we haven't talked about yet that I think is playing a huge role in politics and everything really. And that is the role of emotionalism. I think many of these politicians are fuelled and inspired and driven by emotionalism in terms of pandering. I think the American people have become much more easy marks for the sort of give me, what's the government going to give me? And you see this, for example, playing out with the gasoline tax vacation. That is one of the silliest notions that that is actually going to address any problem in terms of our oil supply, our gas refinery capacity. Our own energy independence.

DOBBS: Let me put this out the there for you. Now we have the discussion about the tax holiday, gas and tax holidays. We have the discussions of national health security proposals, one more private base, one more government base. The reality is, and no one in the national media seems to want to discuss it is we can't afford anyone - these three candidates' health care proposals. Right, Miguel?

PEREZ: Absolutely. And that's the problem. The problem is you have all these candidates that is making all kinds of promises about all these expenses. And where is that going to come from our? Our pocket. Taxes.

DOBBS: Right. Hank, you get the last word here.

SHEINKOPF: Co-optimal is created by the politician; otherwise, the system collapses. There is no real policy decision. There is small tinctures of something that amount to not much.

DOBBS: And you have folks, the three of you just really built up my spirits for election 2008. Thank you very much, Diana West. Thanks, Hank Sheinkopf. Miguel Perez, thanks you. Up next, the president of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund joins me. He wants amnesty and amnesty only for millions of illegal aliens in this country. We'll find out if there's anything, anything that we can agree on. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: John Trasvina is the president and general counsel of the Mexican-Americanb Legal Defense and Educational Fund. He joins us tonight from Chicago. John, good to have you with us on the broadcast.

JOHN TRASVINA, PRESIDENT, MALDEF: Good evening, Lou.

DOBBS: Are you disappointed by the turnout?

TRASVINA: No, not at all. This is a day when immigrants come out from the shadows, from their regular work of really keeping this country moving forward on a number of different areas. They're in the most dangerous and difficult jobs but they're out proudly standing up, doing what is very American, which is peaceful protests, peaceful assembly, asking Congress to change the laws. Overdue change in the immigration laws. DOBBS: Well, you say that. And perhaps many of the people you represent say that. But about, it looks a sizable majority of 300 million Americans say no. We're not going to do the amnesty thing. We think the law that came out as the McCain-Kennedy legislation three years ago that has been rejected twice in Congress and most recently in the Senate. Just isn't the right legislation. So, do me a favor --

(crosstalk)

TRASVINA: Do me a favor - to support legalization and therefore comprehensive immigration reform.

DOBBS: Yes. Well, the congressional budget office, demonstrated very clearly the nonpartisan congressional budget office, demonstrated clearly that comprehensive immigration reform legislation, which you supported last year as did a lot of other people. Would have only dealt with 25% of the illegal immigration problem. Secondly, it would have been, point of fact, been exorbitantly expensive and would have taken up just about 3/4 of the visas for the families of those who are in this country illegally who would have been given amnesty. So those are difficult, difficult hurdles for even the most fanatical enthusiasts for comprehensive immigration reform to overcome.

TRASVINA: Well, it's one are where you and I agree. The system isn't working. It's not working for the American people. It's not working for the immigrants. It's not working for the nation's economy. It needs to be fixed frequent. That's why people are uproar to seek those kinds of fixes.

DOBBS: Also, seeking to have the U.S. immigration laws, that are frequently but certainly with increasing frequency being enforced by immigration and customs enforcement. Don't you think it's a little bold to demand that laws be not enforced?

TRASVINA: Of course, not. The movement for against segregation laws back in the 60s. It's the same kind of demonstrations. You would deny those people back in the '60s? Black, white, Asian, Latinos together fighting, coming out and marching? You would deny those people the right to a peaceful assembly? I don't think so. On this particular issue, the nation's needs to be heard. The nation's need needs to be heard. This isn't working.

DOBBS: All we're hearing from. We've heard very clearly as has the U.S. senate and these presidential candidates, by the way, that the majority of Americans are opposed to a blanket amnesty and will not stand for it.

TRASVINA: Well the tancredo part of the party didn't win. Tancredo didn't win. The (tancreda)ph didn't win. The three remaining candidates, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, senator McCain has supported the comprehensive immigration reform as do the majority of the American people do.

DOBBS: Actually, they don't, the majority that is of the American people. But let's get to the real issue. Why is it that corporate America on the right, if you will, and on the left, socio-ethnocentric activists groups. You know, various left wing groups have met on the issue of exploiting illegal labor in this country. One a free pass on it. And refuse, and resist to secure our borders, when, at a time when the principal victims of the -- principle source, of course, of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana is Mexico, yet the very people who proport to represent some of the ethnic peoples in this country who are being most devastated by addiction and by those drugs are refusing to secure the border. Don't you think that's irresponsible?

TRASVINA: Wwell, your side of the debate is allowing the United States to do nothing on these issues.

DOBBS: No, actually, John. That isn't what I said. I said secure the border. You haven't got the guts to say the same thing.

TRASVINA: Absolutely.

DOBBS: You secure the border. Look, we can sit here and talk about immigration law.

TRASVINA: It's an organization of lawyers. We believe in the law.

DOBBS: Why don't you enforce it instead of calling for the lack of enforcement?

TRASVINA: Part of legalization, part of enforcement is legalization. It's an overall picture. It's enforcing the law. Of course, you absolutely --

DOBBS: Do you also want to legalize marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines? Because those drugs are killing people in the very ethnic group that you purport to represent.

TRASVINA: Look, you can get off on different subjects all you want.

DOBBA: It's all about securing the border. It's all about enforcing our laws.

TRASVINA: A lot of people come in and don't even come across the border and they come in legally and overstay their visas. So, it's not don't focus on the border.

DOBBS: Let me ask you this. If in point in fact, we could secure the borders, would you be willing to secure those borders and ports and then begin the process of reforming our laws? Or would you resist that idea absolutely?

TRASVINA: The two go hand in hand. Legalization is helping us secure the nation.

DOBBS: Do you --

TRASVINA: You have an artificial distinction between what you say enforce the laws and everything else is reform. It's all reform. The system needs to be reformed. Whether, it's the border security or whether it's the entry exit system or the legalization or the long wait for family -

DOBBS: We could have -- we could be on the issue right now. We could be undergoing a very vigorous reform of our immigration laws had your organization and others not resisted securing that border.

TRASVINA: Absolutely not. You're just saying incorrect, Lou. We could have had comprehensive immigration reform. It is what most of the American people want, the overall perspective of comprehensive immigration reform. Not just one part of it, not another part of it. Every time Congress has done just one piece, it's failed. It has to do both.

DOBBS: John, I got to -- it has to do what?

TRASVINA: It must address both legal immigration and illegal immigration together. It didn't do that the last time.

DOBBS: Oh, I agree with you on that. John, thank you very much.

TRASVINA: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: John Trasvina. And thank you for joining us. Please join us here tomorrow. From all of us, thanks for watching and good night from New York.