Return to Transcripts main page

This Week in Politics

Bush Calls for End to Offshore Drilling Ban; Candidates' Energy Plans; Possible Iraq Troop Cuts

Aired June 22, 2008 - 14:00   ET

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

TOM FOREMAN, HOST: With $4 a gallon gas, Americans are driving less -- about 30 billion miles less in the past six months alone. And they're buying more fuel efficient cars. Some are suggesting SUVs could go the way of the Edsel.
So what are politicians doing to help? Well, they're really not doing anything right now, but they sure are talking about it.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FOREMAN (voice-over): As a wildcat driller, George W. Bush never struck big oil in Texas But this week, he was not giving up. This time, prospecting for black gold in the White House rose garden.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We should expand American oil production by increasing access to the outer continental shelf.

FOREMAN: The president's solution to America's energy crisis is simple, drill offshore, drill in the Alaskan wilderness, squeeze oil from shale in the Rocky Mountains, ask OPEC to increase its output, and build more refineries.

BUSH: Congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action. They will need to explain why $4 a gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act.

FOREMAN: To make it clear, if the Democrats in Congress don't immediately fix a problem that's been decades in the making, it's all their fault. Democrats fought back.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), HOUSE SPEAKER: Two oil men in the White House, they put together an energy policy that drives up the price of oil to $4 a gallon. And now they're saying you're going to have to drill your way out.

BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There's no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best, you're looking at five years or more down the road.

FOREMAN: But oil is a burning issue in this election year, so much so that GOP candidate John McCain reversed his direction on offshore drilling. He once opposed it. Now...

JOHN MCCAIN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.

FOREMAN: And he blasted his opponent's plan for more efficient cars and tax incentives to drive down gas prices.

MCCAIN: That was President Jimmy Carter's big idea, too. And a lot of good it did us.

FOREMAN: But Barack Obama has a full tank for this election fight and is hitting back hard.

OBAMA: Senator McCain wants to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to big oil and opposes a windfall profit tax on oil companies like Exxon to help families struggling with high energy costs.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOREMAN: If only we could run our cars on high-octane political rhetoric. So as promised, what is a stud duck? A stud duck is the lead rough neck on an oil rig. Of course, and when it comes to bad news and the economy, CNN's stud duck is senior business correspondent Ali Velshi, who joins us from New York today. And with me in Washington, senior political correspondent Candy Crowley.

Candy, let me start with you. It seems like what's happening really is a giant political philosophical argument. Everybody knows we are an oil economy, but we have to change. And one side is saying the change is most important. And the other side is the stability and what we have is most important.

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And this age old argument. I mean, this a Democratic/Republican argument that has been going on every time there's an energy crisis. So what happens, of course, is that it all gets stalemated up on the Hill.

But you have on the one hand, Barack Obama, who is emphasizing alternative energies, who is saying to meet the immediate crisis, we need to pump another $50 billion in the stimulus package so that people will have more money in their pockets. John McCain saying let's do more offshore drilling. So it's a production versus a changing way of life sort of argument. Now each have elements of the other.

FOREMAN: But neither one has any real new elements from what they've done in the past.

CROWLEY: No. No, no, absolutely not. That's why I say this is an old argument on a new problem. The only real immediate issue that they're arguing is that gas tax vacation. John McCain wants it. Barack Obama doesn't. But you know, by January, who knows? It's really more a political argument than anything realistic.

FOREMAN: Yes, and Ali Velshi, you point out the gas tax vacation really wouldn't make much difference to most people.

ALI VELSHI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Eighteen cents a gallon. It's a political football right now. It doesn't really matter. What we have to understand is that there's no short-term fix for oil prices or gas prices. What's the long term fix? Congressman Randy Forbes from Virginia came out this week with what he calls a new Manhattan Project. And it's sort of a growing way of thinking that a lot of people are saying the way we tackle energy is to tackle it really big. The way we had a Manhattan Project, the way we had a race to space. The idea that we put a lot of the best minds in the country and a lot of money and incentives to not talking about increasing fuel efficiency by a few miles a gallon, but getting to 70 miles a gallon. Figuring out more nuclear energy, figuring out real alternatives, really using bio fuels.

FOREMAN: Doesn't...

VELSHI: We need a big think on this.

FOREMAN: Ali, those are really interesting ideas, but Candy, I guess the question always in Washington, is there any real political appetite for that? I could see people on both sides of the aisle saying, yes, that's what we need but can that get any traction?

CROWLEY: I tell you, not if $4 a gallon gasoline goes back down. I mean, what is driving this new energy discussion is home heating oil...

FOREMAN: Right.

CROWLEY: ...air conditioning and the gas prices. So if there is that immediate problem, then absolutely, you know, that's the fire that they need.

FOREMAN: And this is not true in politics, but in market, too, right, Ali?

VELSHI: That's the biggest fear that a lot of people who see change. The argument for change is that if we go down to even to $100 a barrel for gas and $3.00 a gallon for -- $100 a barrel for oil and $3 a gallon for gas, that appetite will disappear very quickly.

Why is it now all of a sudden now in 2008 every third person on Capitol Hill has a solution to energy? Because it's an election year. And gas prices and oil prices are very high. This is the stimulus for change is these prices.

FOREMAN: I want to look at the various plans that are being offered here, just in a sketch generally. George Bush's energy plan, lift the ban on offshore drilling of the outer continental shelf, expand production of oil shale, enhance and expand refining capacity, expedite refining permission process, get more refineries online basically.

John McCain's plan, very similar to a lot of that. But he adds in the idea of suspending the federal gas tax for summer and encouraging more nuclear power. That's one of his alternatives.

And Obama's energy plan, he wants to continue the ban on offshore drilling, oppose the gas tax holiday, double fuel efficiency standards to 50 miles per gallon, and support windfall profits tax on oil companies to help those low income families with energy bills, as you mentioned, Candy.

When you look at these three plans and you listen to what Ali was talking about there, do you think that there is a growing consensus in Washington that if we're ever going to address our energy problems, we have to get it somehow separated from the explosive nature of month- to-month politics?

CROWLEY: Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think you hear that in the Randy Forbes that Ali just mentioned. And that is there has to be fundamental change in both how people live, but also in how we approach energy. I mean, you're hearing people talk again about nuclear energy. The idea of drilling offshore 30 years ago, post new safety mechanisms on oil rigs, pre $4 a gallon gasoline sounded worse to a lot of people than it does right now.

So it may be old solutions, but it's in a new environment. And you have people that are now looking at things they wouldn't have looked at before. So maybe somewhere in there is a consensus. It's certainly not going to come this year.

FOREMAN: Ali, one of the interesting proposals I heard some time ago was the idea that somebody said if you took the increase in gas that we're all paying now...

VELSHI: Yes.

FOREMAN: ...compared to five years ago, and five years ago you had said we're going to increase a tax on gas that much...

VELSHI: Right.

FOREMAN: ...and spend all of that money on alternatives that we would be five years closer to real alternatives.

VELSHI: Yes.

FOREMAN: Is that just pipe dreaming or would that be true?

VELSHI: No, it really is true, unfortunately. And I know there are a lot of people who would say you're not really suggesting more taxes on anything. But the fact is we were paying so much less for gasoline, we could have built other alternatives. At some point, that pain is going to be there and we've got to figure out a way to deal with it.

The bottom line is if we start to see a pullback in gas and oil prices too quickly, we'll all rest and say, it's OK and we'll be back in this pickle before we know it again. We are not producing enough oil to meet demand in China, Brazil, India, Russia and the Middle East. We just can't make up for it. We've got to change how much we consume.

Remember, this is not about more oil. It's about changing our reliance on oil.

FOREMAN: So Candy, the last question goes to you here. This is all wonderful to talk about these grand plans, but the fact is someone has to get elected this fall.

CROWLEY: Absolutely.

FOREMAN: And in selling the message to the voters, will any of those grand plans sell or is it going to come down to somebody saying, I can convince you that a year from now, you won't be paying $4 a gallon and vote for me?

CROWLEY: You know, in the end, it comes down to voters thinking who's going to get it done. And it really - I mean, elections are on broad themes. They're not on, should we drill, you know, on the shelf?

FOREMAN: It goes a long...

CROWLEY: It's not about - yes, exactly. Those are long-term solutions. The summer gas tax holiday goes away. So it's going to be more what is this person about? Does he generally go in this direction? It's really in the end not about the specifics.

FOREMAN: And I generally think he'll keep my car going for a reasonable price.

CROWLEY: Yes.

FOREMAN: Candy, Ali, thanks both for being here.

The rest of you, stay right where you are. We're going to examine the real choices the next president will face on the difficult issues of war and peace. We'll tell you about the perks politicians enjoy that you do not. And we'll talk about why turning down almost $85 million could be a good idea. And finally, our top five presidential campaign slogans will be coming up. Stick with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOREMAN: This song was part of a collection one Iraq vet said kept him going during his tour. But Sum 41's "In Too Deep" could just as well describe the situation either presidential candidate is going to find himself in next January.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama say they're going to make their decisions based on advice from the commanders on the ground.

So let's turn to someone who covers those commanders, CNN's Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr. And for the political angle, Ben Smith, senior writer for the Politico, safe in an undisclosed location in our New York bureau.

Barbara, let me start with you. The simple truth is if they're waiting for what the commanders are going to say, what are the commanders going to say to them about this war? BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, what General Petraeus is actually getting ready to do is make another round of recommended troop cuts. He is scheduled to leave Iraq sometime around September and move on to his next job. But before he goes, he's going to recommend more troop cuts. And that's going to come right around the time when Barack Obama may be in Iraq and Afghanistan. How does he go to Iraq, maintain his position of the U.S. has to get out of there when General Petraeus at that very time is recommending more troop cuts?

FOREMAN: So Ben, if that's exactly what happens, does this yank the rug out from under one of the planks in his platform?

BEN SMITH, POLITICO.COM: Well, I mean, you know, I think he probably is in favor of troop cuts. And in fact, I mean, in the Democratic primary, all the candidates, including Obama, were pressed very hard on this and progressively moved farther toward promises to bring the troops home, which he's now very much that it's doing.

FOREMAN: Well, my point is of course that he's in favor of it, but if that's one of your platforms, you're saying I will get the troops reduced and the troops are reducing anyway, doesn't that weaken the argument somewhat?

SMITH: Well, I think - I mean, I think he's talking about much more dramatic reductions than anything that Petraeus is likely to propose. He wants to bring basically all of them.

FOREMAN: But how does he do that, Barbara, if he's saying he's going to trust the general and the general is saying this is the reasonable way to get out?

STARR: Well, you know, General Petraeus, all the top commanders have pretty much already sealed the deal by saying they don't want a timetable, that they're against a scheduled mandated timetable. And it will always be, as they say, conditions on the ground. How does a new commander in chief, maybe the first month in office, go against his top military commanders? That's a box that neither Obama or McCain may be able to get very easily out of.

FOREMAN: Let's listen to what John McCain's has said about what's going on over there still. He's been much criticized for it because many people in this country still oppose this war, but listen to what he says.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: I am convinced that we are on the path to victory. And that victory means Americans come home, but they come home with honor and victory, not in defeat. The consequences of Senator Obama's advocacy for a time for withdrawal and set dates without regard to conditions on the ground, in my view, leads to chaos and genocide.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Ben, does this stance by McCain at this point in the race hurt him or help him?

SMITH: You know, it's a tough question because he has to sell not just himself, but to some degree the war. I mean, he has to convince people who are not convinced, although I think there's an increasingly perception among kind of the pundits, the media, the elites that things have improved in Iraq. That - I don't think that is that widespread, at least not at the moment, that perception on the ground. And Mccain has to sell that and convince people that the war is getting better I think if he's got a chance.

FOREMAN: Let's listen to what Barack Obama said about the same issue of having so many troops overseas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We have nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq. We may have no more than one or two brigades that can function outside of Iraq as a consequence of our current position. Many of the troops there are on their second, third, or fourth tour of duty. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is sliding towards chaos and risks turning into a narco terrorist state.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Barbara, he raises Afghanistan. And frankly, Afghanistan is raising its own head. Here's a follow-up question to all of this. Is Barack Obama, even if he wins, potentially in the position of walking into office and immediately having military commanders say now we need a substantial troop increase in Afghanistan?

STARR: Not even potentially, Tom. That is the done deal. President Bush has already pledged to NATO to send thousands of more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in early 2009. General Petraeus, when he goes on to his next job as the head of Central Command, the whole region, he is already formulating, we know this now, a recommendation for even more troops to Afghanistan

Where are they going to get them from? How is this going to impact, you know, military families in this country? This is the commitment in waiting for whoever goes into the Oval Office on day one. More troops for Afghanistan, that is the war that's in deep trouble right now. That's the one that they have to fix.

FOREMAN: So Ben, it seems like that's a double-edged sword for Barack Obama? He can point to Afghanistan and say that's evidence of how our foreign affairs have been badly managed. But gosh, it'd be tough to take office and say I'm committed to reducing our involvement abroad and immediately increase it?

SMITH: I mean, he's actually said that he's committed to reducing the involvement in Iraq, but I think he's basically committed to, like as Barbara said, to increasing American involvement in Afghanistan He and all the Democrats have talked about kind of what, how that war has sort of been left behind. And Iraq has been a distraction from that. FOREMAN: Well, Ben, let me ask you about that, though. Does that end up blunting his message though, saying, I'm the anti-war guy, if he's at the same time having to say, but I will go along with the increase in Afghanistan?

SMITH: It might a little. And I don't think he wants to paint himself as the anti-war guy as a peacenik. That's sort of never been his posture. He says he opposes dumb wars, but not all wars. And all along, he's tried to sort of project this kind of muscular image of somebody who's willing to intervene in Pakistan, for instance, you know, if he needs to, who wants to direct American attention to Afghanistan, but who thinks Iraq was a colossal blunder.

FOREMAN: One of our latest polls still shows that the majority of the public, no matter how they feel about the Republican party, the Democrats still believe John McCain substantially would be better at handling foreign policy for this country. 54% up there for John McCain That's a pretty strong number, Barbara Is there a sense in the military, when you talk to them about what they expect from the next commander in chief and do they prefer one of these guys over the other?

STARR: That's a tough question to answer. You know, I would tell you that I think top military commanders are struggling very mightily in this election to set the tone that they are nonpartisan. They have stated their preferences about where they want the war in Iraq to go, but they don't want to send a message to the young troops that they have any political involvement in this. They're trying to stay clear.

FOREMAN: But they do want to send a message that says we clearly want a commander in chief we can work with and takes seriously what we say.

STARR: What may be concerning talk commanders more is what nobody's really talking about right now. And that is al Qaeda, al Qaeda central, if you will. The al Qaeda that is hiding in Pakistan plotting new attacks according to the intelligence community.

While everyone is very worried about more attacks, what may worry them even equally is an al Qaeda propaganda campaign emerging before the U.S. election, where al Qaeda will come out, bin Laden perhaps himself put messages out there trying to influence U.S. opinion and world opinion.

Both candidates know that that is potentially a very dark possibility lurking over the horizon. Both of them also know, I think, that their eventual positions, whoever goes into the Oval Office, will be very different than their campaign promises. Reality will overtake. But as they say they just want to avoid those two evil words in politics, flip-flopper.

FOREMAN: For now, the war goes on. Our best thoughts to all of our troops overseas. As always, Barbara, thanks for being here. Ben as well. Which presidential candidate ran on a slogan of a chicken in every pot? Here's a hint, he did not deliver. The answer is coming up.

And straight ahead, the sweet deals you can get just by winning a seat on Capitol Hill. And speaking of sweet deals, it's time for a very tasty edition of our political side show.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FOREMAN (voice-over): What is it about cookies that gets presidential spouses into trouble?

HILLARY CLINTON: I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies.

FOREMAN: This time, it's Mr. Clinton caught with his hands in the cookie jar. In a recent magazine bake-off, Bill's oatmeal cookies were a spot on match to a Betty Crocker recipe. However, Cindy McCain's oatmeal butterscotch yummies were eerily similar to a Hershey's creation. And the McCain campaign has already been convicted once by a jury of bloggers for recipe rustling. Now is culinary plagiarism an impeachable offense?

In other food related news, China has only weeks to get ready for the swarms of tourists expected to arrive for the Olympics. So they've decided to change their menus so that the Chinese can figure out what the non Chinese are ordering.

For instance, Kung Pao chicken apparently sounds when we say it like government abused chicken, which could be technically true, but hardly appetizing. On the other hand, food purists are lamenting the loss of other Chinese dishes, which when literally translated, come out as chicken without sexual life and bean curd made by a pock-marked woman. You just can't please some people.

And finally, Jones Soda, the company that brought you turkey and gravy flavor pop, is holding a pop poll. Will Obama, yes, we can cola in a bottle not a can despite the name outsell John McCain soda made with pure patriotic spirit. We'll see. In the meantime, you can enjoy a vintage bottle of Capitol Hillary and dream about what might have been. We'll pop out, but be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOREMAN: Today's definition from the devil's dictionary was written by the original author back around the turn of the century. Ambrose Bierce was a cynical political columnist, like all the good ones are. And he had a great definition for the word politics. He said it was the conduct of public affairs for private advantage. Boy, doesn't that hit the nail right on the head?

Some things never change, at least it looked that way in Washington this week as it appeared that some politicians were getting a break on their mortgages. So here to explain it all is A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of "The Hill" newspaper. Tell me what happened in a nut shell here?

A.B. STODDARD, "THE HILL" NEWSPAPER: It was determined that Senators Dodd of Connecticut and Conrad of North Dakota had received loans from Countrywide very much in the news for - in this foreclosure crisis, and that they may have received loans that the public were not privy to.

FOREMAN: They're referred to as VIP loans in some...

STODDARD: There was a VIP program for important people.

FOREMAN: And what did this mean? They got a better rate?

STODDARD: There were some rate reductions, apparently. And both senators say they don't believe they were getting special treatment. They didn't ask for special treatment. Senator Dodd said he was unaware of receiving any loan unavailable to the public that he never spoke to the people who were the big whigs of the company. But obviously, it raises a lot of questions.

FOREMAN: Well, we can hear it directly from both of these gentlemen. Let's take a listen quickly to what they said about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS DODD (D), HOUSING CMTE. CHAIRMAN: I never spoke to anybody except loan officers about this thing, never any higher-ups or any senior people within Countrywide.

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D), NORTH DAKOTA: If somebody had suggested I was getting some sweetheart deal, I would have recoiled from that. Look, my reputation means a lot to me. I just wouldn't do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: All right, so A.B., what do you make of this? Is this truly a case where people in this position can be that out of touch? And if so, is that a mistake? Or are they just pleading ignorance and saying I'm shocked there's gambling here (INAUDIBLE)?

STODDARD: You know, as with many coins, there are two sides here. I mean, when you're 1 of 100 U.S. senators, you -- much of your life is handled by staff. And staff are the gatekeepers between the people who want to butter you up and the important decisions you have to make. They want to make life easier for you.

FOREMAN: How is life made easier for senators? What is different about their life day-to-day than ours?

STODDARD: Well, they -- much is handled by staff. From the time they get up in the morning, they are driven places. They're not stuck in traffic like us. They don't open their wallet. Food is brought to them. They go to the House or Senate gym. They go to galas. They go to golf tournaments. They go on international trips around the world. And they travel in style. But they work very hard. And they are accountable ultimately obviously to the voters. It is the responsibility of the principle. And so, even though the ethics manuals are 700 pages, and they're not going to read them as you and I have not read the IRS code, it is up to them, obviously, in this atmosphere of scrutiny to be vigilant.

FOREMAN: But in this day and time in particular, when approval of Congress is so low, this is a real potential pitfall out there. You would think all of these offices would take very seriously?

STODDARD: Yes, and I think at this point, there's -- we haven't determined whether or not they violated the gift ban. And there will be, you know, they'll look further into this. But I think that people are calling for guidelines to see if other members received loans like this. And a system that can be established so that this doesn't...

FOREMAN: Do you often have members who show up who simply say I want none of that? I will not use the free gym, I wont' use the travel? I'm going to do everything like a normal citizen would.

STODDARD: There are actually members like Congressmen Ron Paul who give back the rest of the budget at the end of the year that they don't spend.

FOREMAN: And what happens with them? Do they find that that works or do they find that in a system that's designed with all these perks, it's hard to operate without them?

STODDARD: Well, you have to pay staff. And you have to travel. And you have to get back and forth. You have to be many places in a short amount of time. Your schedule is not your own. You work on the weekends when you go back to your district. I mean, that money goes. And it goes to a good purpose.

But there are people that are more vigilant, obviously, than others.

FOREMAN: I have a feeling there are going to be more as time goes on. Thanks for joining us, A.B., as always.

This sure sounds like someone buying an election. Vote yourself a farm. We will tell you which presidential paragon used that slogan to get elected in just a bit.

But first, a look at a woman who's green with political envy on this week's viral videos.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We are the party of tomorrow, he's the party of yesterday. He's the past, we're the future.

FOREMAN: We keep promising no more Obama girl videos. But well, this is really about a McCain fan. And it is the kickoff of the fall campaign. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 100 more years in Iraq...

FOREMAN: Lunaticsandliars.com has a new song about John McCain and the changes he's been going through.

(SINGING)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You hated Bush's tax cuts until you chose to run. And now you've got the gall to say...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: God bless them everyone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe there could be a natural disaster that we could completely ignore.

FOREMAN: And finally, monkeybox.com says there are no lame ducks in this White House. Why the president and his pals have plenty of high jinx still up their sleeves.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put a pack of cigarettes in every school lunch. Turn the value of a dollar to a dime, because we've got plenty of time.

FOREMAN: They may have time, but we don't. Break now, more later.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOREMAN: Well, despite what Pink Floyd says, money may not be the root of all evil, but it makes politics complicated. Case in point, this week Barack Obama opted not to take public money for his campaign. He said it was a matter of principle.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: If we don't stand together, the broken system we have now, the system where special interests drown out the voices of the American people, we'll continue to erode our politics and prevent the possibility of real change. That's why we must act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: John McCain, on the other hand, saw it as a broken promise.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: I'm especially disturbed by this decision of Senator Obama's because he signed his name on a piece of paper. He signed his name himself on a piece of paper that said that he would, if, I, the Republican nominee, took public financing in the general election, that he would, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP) FOREMAN: There is an old adage that goes whenever they say it's not about money, it's about the money. And so to explain the money, Rick Stengel, the managing editor of "TIME" magazine is in our New York bureau. And with me in Washington, CNN's master of political mathematics, senior political analyst Bill Schneider.

Rick, let me ask you, Barack Obama's taking some heat over this right now. Is the short-term damage worth the long-term gain?

RICK STENGEL, TIME MAGAZINE: Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think people would have been accused -- his campaign would have been accused of political malpractice if he didn't do this. When he signed that statement originally, I don't think he had any sense of the magnitude of the amount of money that he would be able to raise and has raised. It has transformed and could transform the political process.

But at the same time, Tom, it does work for McCain, who would have done it if he could have raised that much money, too. It works for McCain because he can accuse Obama for the rest of the campaign of being a hypocrite.

FOREMAN: Does this in fact, Bill, give McCain a little scent or little slice of moral high ground?

BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It does for the time being. But remember this, people don't like public financing. Only about 10% of Americans check off the box on their tax return that designates $3 of their tax money for public financing. They don't like the idea of their tax money being used for politics. They like the way Obama is raising money. Lots of small contributions from large numbers of people. And it really adds up.

FOREMAN: A lot of people are saying that's the very essence of public financing because the public's choosing to finance. Let's look at the actual numbers, because they are dazzling in this.

Obama has in his total fundraising raised about $272 million. That's about $5.4 million per state if you divided it that way. Mccain, $98 million, about $1.96 million per state. The difference, Obama could spend almost $3.5 million more per state against McCain. Bill, that is walloping money.

SCHNEIDER: It is. And it could make McCain go on the defensive in states that he ought not to have to spend money in, because Obama's spending money in places like Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, where Mccain is probably favored, but he's going to have to defend himself in those states because Obama has the money to spend in places like Texas

FOREMAN: I want to look at the map over here and get a sense of what you're talking about. You mentioned Georgia over here. You mentioned the southern states in general, Tennessee, where else are we talking about? Texas

SCHNEIDER: Texas.

FOREMAN: Places like this, where he can put a push on. These are not states, Rick, that he's going to win, are they?

STENGEL: Well what he, as Bill was suggesting, he can force McCain to spend money and play in states that once upon a time a Republican wouldn't have to play in. Remember, you know, Republicans never used to advertise in New york or California, for example. If suddenly the Democrat is forcing Republicans and McCain to visit states that he wouldn't normally have visited, he's changing the shape of the whole race. And in fact, that is the whole point of spending that kind of money, to try to transform the way we've run these presidential races over the last 8, 12, 14 years.

FOREMAN: There's no question that this is exactly what he did to Hillary Clinton He forced her to defend areas that she might not have wanted to defend. But Bill, you pointed out a very interesting problem in the southwest. Let's circle it down here. And look, this is Arizona, which is McCain's home state. Talk to me about the states around it.

SCHNEIDER: Well, there are three toss-up states that border Arizona. Nevada which voted for Bush last time narrowly. Colorado, which trended Democratic big time in 2006, voted for Bush twice. New Mexico is one of the closest competitive states. They all border John McCain's Arizona. He said I understand the West. Barack Obama doesn't understand anything about our problems.

But those states are very competitive right now. And that could be the beachhead where Democrats can begin to see some big gains.

FOREMAN: So in effect, Bill, what Obama would want to do with his money is establish a very broad front war, where McCain feels like he has to protect everything and he doesn't have the money to fight him that way?

SCHNEIDER: Fifty state strategy. That's what Howard Dean has been talking about. He can make Democrats aggressive if not competitive everywhere across the country and really change the electoral map with that kind of money.

FOREMAN: Now Rick, when you're losing in hockey, what you do is you start a fight, because it's the only way to get the other team off their game. What kind of fights can McCain start with Obama to counter this 50 state strategy and all this money?

STENGEL: I think he can say as he already has, that Barack Obama made a promise and he violated that promise. You know, at the same time, us political wags would say he would have done the same thing. But he can start saying, you know what, this guy isn't exactly who he says he is. He's made promises that he doesn't keep.

But you know, as Bill said, the American public, you know, they don't care so much about public financing. And as every politician knows, you know, money and politics is like water. It will seep in. It will get where it has to be. And in fact, in many case, a lot of people -- Republicans have often said, you know, money is speech. And to restrict money is restricting free speech. And that's a classic conservative Republican argument. FOREMAN: Rick, when you look at the amount of money that's being spent here, do you think the whole concept of campaign finance reform and limiting money in politics after this election is just going to be a dead issue?

STENGEL: It may break the whole system. I mean, Mitch McConnell used to say, who also argued that money was speech, is that companies spend more money promoting a new flavor of yogurt than we spend on our whole presidential election campaign.

You know, Proctor & Gamble will spend this year five or six times as much as the presidential candidates spend on advertising. One thing that Americans know and understand is advertising. We know what television commercials mean. We know what they do. I think it's really impossible unless we have strict federal financing of all public elections and presidential elections to keep money out of politics.

FOREMAN: And Bill, last word to you here. Same question, do you think that by the time this election is over with this extraordinary amount of money, that people are just going to throw up their hands on both sides and say, you know what? Get the money and run because there's no way to control it.

SCHNEIDER: It's going to be very difficult to control because the public financing that would be required to fund a presidential race today would be so enormous, the American people would never support it. You can always defeat public financing by saying, my fellow Americans, do you want your hard earned tax dollars to go to paying for those awful political ads? Of course not. Well, you're not going to be able to finance a campaign any other way.

FOREMAN: We'll have to see what happens. Thanks so much, Bill and Rick. We appreciate you helping us count our change.

SCHNEIDER: Here's another presidential slogan. 54 40 or fight. Sure, all of you can say what it's about. Every school kid remembers that war with Canada, but how many of you can tell us how it was used to gain the Oval Office? Stick around for the answer along with a look at the other news in THIS WEEK IN POLITICS.

But first, it was a busy week for the two women vying for First Lady. Michelle Obama stopped by to chat with the ladies of "The View." And despite a round of tough girl fist bumps, it was clearly part of an attempt to soften up her image by her husband's campaign. Not everything went smoothly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARBARA WALTERS: Did you want him to be president?

MICHELLE OBAMA: No, no. It's like, please don't do this. You know, I didn't want Barack to go into politics because I thought politics was a mean business. And you know, I knew this man that I loved. He was sweet empathetic I thought...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you say pathetic?

OBAMA: Empathetic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Pathetic, sympathetic, empathetic, whatever. Cindy McCain spent the week doing non-profit work in Vietnam, yet she still found time to weigh in on her Democratic counterpart.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CINDY MCCAIN, SEN. JOHN MCCAIN'S WIFE: I think she's a fine woman. She's a good mother. And you know, we both are in an interesting line of work right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Everyone being so nice. Even John King there. So you can rest assured, though, the tough talk will be back soon. And so will we.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOREMAN: You could say a lot of Barack Obama supporters are like the Dixie Chicks still mad as heck. And they showed it this week at a rally in Michigan. They left no doubt as soon as Governor Jennifer Grandhall mentioned Hillary Clinton's name, booing loudly. And Barack Obama had to work fast to restore a vestige of party unity.

Good idea, since he and Senator Clinton will be campaigning together next week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: She has lifted up the sights of young women all across America, including my two daughters. She is worthy of our respect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Senator Obama also held a number of meetings with Clinton supporters in Washington It's not an easy sell. Listen to the union leader only a couple of months ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THOMAS BUFFENBARGER, MACHINISTS UNION PRESIDENT: I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius-driving Birkenstock wearing trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak. This guy won't last around against the Republican attacks...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Wow, now that's political rhetoric. More on the Democratic party's efforts to kiss and make up is coming up on "Fast Track".

But right now, it's time for a look at some of the other news in THIS WEEK IN POLITICS.

Once again, gay couples in California are joyously celebrating wedded bliss after the state supreme court overturned a law banning such marriages. But opposing groups are gathering funds to amend the state constitution and ban them again. Some legal experts argue that the marriages taking place now will still be legal. Confused? Just wait.

Congress voted this week to override the president's veto of the farm bill they had passed last week, which was a replacement for the farm bill that was passed, vetoed, and overridden last month, but was found to be missing 34 pages and so had to be started all over again. As if the country's farmers weren't suffering enough right now, the whole process has been as clear as mud.

And like a farmer and a busted levee, there's no love lost between John McCain and former Pentagon Chief Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld refused to back the presumptive GOP nominee when "The Hill" newspaper caught up with him this week. Any reason for that? Well, maybe it's because McCain once said Rumsfeld was possibly...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: ...one of the worst secretaries of defense in history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN: Unlike Rumsfeld, we'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOREMAN: Now it's time to hop on the fast track. Everything you need to get through the next week in politics. And who better to guide us than political editor Mark Preston. Always good to see you. Look, we got Clinton and Obama getting all palsy, going to a fundraiser together, campaigning together. What does this mean?

MARK PRESTON: You know, Tom, back in 1621, the pilgrims and the Indians broke bread in what we now know is Thanksgiving. Appropriately enough, the Obama/Clinton meeting will take place at the Mayflower Hotel here in Washington, D.C. Joining him at the table, some of Clinton's top fundraisers. She's asking them to contribute to Obama's campaign. The next day, she'll hit the campaign trail for him.

FOREMAN: Well, we didn't expect that at one point. Different agenda for the Republicans. John Mccain, California and Ohio, where he'll be campaigning. One place he won't be, one person he won't be sitting down with. What's that about?

PRESTON: He won't be on stage with Barack Obama at a forum or a debate. Right now, the campaigns can't seem to get it together. They're debating over the debates. When are they going to be, where are they going to be? What's the format going to be?

So even though Obama won't show up at them, John Mccain is still moving forward. He's been at one in New York City. He's been at one in Minnesota. He'll be at one next week as well. Safe bet Barack Obama won't be with him.

FOREMAN: And the Democratic leadership council convention is coming up here. And even though it sounds dull, it really matters to Barack Obama. Why?

PRESTON: It absolutely does. If you look at exit polling from the primaries, Barack Obama needs to do some work with conservative Democrats. The DLC represents the centrist wing of the party. Howard Dean once called the DLC the Republican wing of the Democratic party. Barack Obama might show up. He has an invitation out. But who we won't see is former DLC Chairman Joe Lieberman. He's endorsed John Mccain.

FOREMAN: Wow, big change there. Mark Preston, thanks so much. In a minute, that list we've been promising you. But at this moment, our late-night laughs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID LETTERMAN: Al Gore has endorsed Barack Obama for president. How about that? Yes. And political experts say this is great because it gives the Obama campaign a much needed shot of boredom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's so different from Bush already. The only issues they agree on are education, immigration, Iraq, abortion, Supreme Court judges, social security, tax breaks for the wealthy, wiretapping, trade, healthcare, the Middle East, same-sex marriage, and Medicare.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOREMAN: So before we go, as promised, here are our favorite presidential campaign slogans of all time and the candidates who pitched them.

In 1844, 5440 or fight was the rallying cry of James Polk, who was threatening to go to war over Oregon's border with Canada of all things. No, it's not a political bribe. Vote yourself a farm was Abraham Lincoln's way to remind voters of his support for free homesteads out West. William McKinley wanted to remind the public of the prosperity of his first term. So he talked about a full dinner pail. Doesn't look like he missed too many dinners, though, I must say. Woodrow Wilson used the "keep us out of the war" phrase to be elected to his second term in which he immediately got us into World War I.

But our favorite slogan is the promise Herbert Hoover made even as the country slid into the Great Depression. A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage. Of course, you can say that today if we have a car in every garage, that's fine, but we just can't afford to drive them. That's it for THIS WEEK IN POLITICS. I'm Tom Foreman. Thanks for watching. Straight ahead, "LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK."