Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs This Week
Chinese Bid to Buy Into U.S.Company Nixed; Texas Highway Project; Campaign Doings
Aired February 23, 2008 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KITTY PILGRIM, HOST: Tonight: Senators Clinton and Obama fight to win the biggest remaining primary in the state of Texas. Obama and Clinton are trying to win the support of independent voters. Those voters could play a decisive role. One of the biggest issues for Texans and all Americans is the TransTexas Corridor. It could be a major step toward a North American Union. We'll have all that and much more straight ahead tonight.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK: News, debate and opinion. Here now: Kitty Pilgrim.
PILGRIM: Good evening, everybody. The battle for the Democratic presidential nomination is at a pivotal point. Senators Clinton and Obama are locked in a bitter fight for the primaries in Ohio and Texas. Those contests will be held March 4th. The outcome could determine who wins this race. Now, both candidates faced off in a CNN debate at the University of Texas in Austin. Candy Crowley reports from Austin.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Hillary Clinton went in to reach out, to grab some of the connection with voters that comes so easily to Barack Obama. And the moment came when she was asked about a time when she was tested. She recalled a ceremony at an Army Medical Center treating wounded Iraq war veterans.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Those who had lost limbs were trying with great courage to get themselves in without the help of others. Some were in wheelchairs and some were on gurneys. The hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.
CROWLEY: Asked if Obama is ready to be president, she wouldn't bite, listing her credentials instead. Relaxed and confident in what was probably his best debate yet, Obama moved to trump her resume.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: On what I believe was the single most important foreign policy decision of this generation, whether or not to go to war in Iraq, I believe I showed the judgment of a commander in chief, and I think that Senator Clinton was wrong in her judgments on that.
CROWLEY: They both admitted their plans are very similar, but argued around the edges of healthcare reform and tangled again over foreign policy. In this case, how they would greet a new leader in Cuba.
CLINTON: I would not meet with them until there was evidence that change was happening, because I think it's important that they demonstrate clearly that they are committed to change the direction.
CROWLEY: He says he would meet a new Cuban leader without pre- condition.
OBAMA: Because the problem is: If we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world.
CROWLEY: On the latest dust-up along the campaign trail, Obama batted away the Clinton campaign charge that he plagiarized a paragraph of the speech.
OBAMA: The notion I had plagiarized from somebody who was one of my national co-chairs, this is where we start getting into silly season in politics and I think people start getting discouraged about it.
CROWLEY: She went after him.
CLINTON: -- lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in. It's change you can xerox and I just don't think.
OBAMA: Oh, that's not -
CLINTON: No, but you know, Barack, it is because, if you know, look -
CROWLEY: She got booed for the effort. Otherwise, she avoided the kind of nasty battle that has worked against her and he avoided making any mistakes. They left as they came in -- still in a competition.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CROWLEY: In Texas, with this sizable block of Latino voters, there were questions on illegal immigrants. Asked about a wall along the border between Mexico and the U.S., both candidates who voted for that wall now say, there may be portions along that border where a wall doesn't make sense. On English as a national language, both called it a unifying language and said they do believe immigrants should learn to speak English and finally, when Hillary Clinton was asked about raids looking for illegals in businesses and homes, she said, there should only be raids in the most egregious of circumstances. Kitty?
PILGRIM: Candy Crowley reporting from Austin, Texas. Thanks, Candy.
In the GOP contest: Republicans are rallying around Senator John McCain. Now, this after the "New York Times" accused McCain of having an improper relationship with a lobbyist. McCain said: That's untrue. The "Times" said, it's standing by its story. Dana Bash reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): With his wife by his side, a subdued John McCain issued an unequivocal denial.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm very disappointed in the "New York Times" piece. It's not true.
BASH: That emphatic not true was meant for every suggestion and allegation in this lengthy article. First: That he had a romantic relationship with lobbyist, Vicki Iseman.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Senator, can you describe your relationship with Vicki Iseman?
MCCAIN: We're friends. I've seen her on occasions, particularly at receptions and at fundraisers, and appearances before the committee.
BASH: On that, an assist from Mrs. McCain.
CINDY MCCAIN, JOHN MCCAIN'S WIFE: My children and I not only trust my husband, but know that he would never do anything to not only disappoint our family, but disappoint the people of America.
BASH: Then, the charge that McCain used his powerful position on the Senate Commerce Committee to help Iseman's corporate clients.
MCCAIN: At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust nor make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interests, and would favor any one or any organization.
BASH: The "Times" also says, eight years ago during McCain's first presidential run, his adviser was so concerned about his relationship with Iseman, they confronted both and tried to block her access. Again, flat denial.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Nobody in your campaign said, senator, she's a problem, don't deal with her?
MCCAIN: No.
BASH: The one "Times" source to go on the record is McCain's former top political adviser, John Weaver. He confirms to CNN, he was worried and did confront Iseman but insists it wasn't about a relationship, rather that Iseman was spreading word, quote, "around town" that McCain helped her lobbying clients, something Weaver said would undermine McCain's former campaign. "My concern wasn't about anything John had done, it was about her comments, it was about access she claimed to have had," Weaver told CNN. McCain insists, he knew nothing about that.
MCCAIN: I'd never discussed it with John Weaver. And so, as far as I know, there was no necessity for it, but that's a judgment that he made. BASH (on camera): Iseman's lobbying firm issued a statement calling the story, quote, "Fantasies of a disgruntled former campaign employee, saying it without foundation or merit." As for the McCain campaign, the irony is: They're actually relishing in this controversy, because it allows the candidate who's trying to court conservatives to pick a fight with one of their biggest enemies, and that's the "New York Times". In fact, McCain's campaign manager issued a letter to fundraisers and donors asking for money to help fight the, quote, "liberal establishment." Dana Bash, CNN, Toledo, Ohio.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Well, joining me now for some perspective on the Republican and the Democratic contests, our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider. Bill in your opinion, how much damage, if any, has the "New York Times" article done to Senator McCain's campaign?
BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, in the immediate sense, not a lot of damage, because Republicans are rallying. Conservatives in particular, including some of his fiercest critics like Rush Limbaugh are rallying to McCain's support. Their calculation is: If the "New York Times" attacks you, you must be one of us. Come. We'll support you.
PILGRIM: That's interesting. Bill, speaking of Mike Huckabee, who's still in the GOP race, now, does Huckabee have any chance of winning at all? Why is he still persisting?
SCHNEIDER: That's question A in the Republican race: What is he doing? Does he hope to get on the ticket for vice president with McCain? This is a strange way of doing it, not getting out of the race. Maybe, he's lining himself up to be the next Republican nominee, sometime in the future. That's a possibility. Or maybe he wants to be the leading voice for the conservative movement, because John McCain is, the conservative movement has a very ambivalent attitude towards McCain. He's accepted by some, not by others. So, maybe, if McCain is the nominee, Huckabee wants to be the person who speaks for conservatives.
PILGRIM: That would be sort of logical role for him. Bill, it's really a very tight race they have, going back to the Democrats for Clinton and Obama in Texas and Ohio. What are the latest polls saying about those primaries? What's your projection on that?
SCHNEIDER: They're saying exactly what you characterized: A very tight race. There have been two polls taken in the past week here in Texas where I am. Both of them show the race within one or two points. One of them, by CNN with the Opinion Research Center has Hillary Clinton just two points ahead of Barack Obama: 50 to 48, easily within the margin of error. The other is even closer, by the "Washington Post" and ABC News: Clinton 48, Obama 47. So, it's really very close. The Ohio poll by the "Washington Post" and ABC News shows Clinton with a statistically significant lead but not a big one: 50 percent for Clinton, 43 percent for Obama. So, even that race is really pretty close. PILGRIM: Is this the make or break contest right here coming up? Ohio?
SCHNEIDER: It looks like it, Ohio and Texas. So, it looks like the end game for the Democratic primaries. Bill Clinton himself said, if his wife doesn't win both Ohio and Texas that may be it. She won't be the nominee. If she does win, you know what? It can go on for a while, because she may still be behind in delegates unless she wins by a big margin. So, the chase for delegates in those all-important superdelegates could just go on and on, possibly right up to the convention, unless some Democrats, the leaders of the party, most likely, someone like Al Gore step in and try to figure out some arrangement, so it does not allow a fight on the convention floor.
PILGRIM: Uncommitted delegates. There was a plea on the part of the Clinton campaign to have those uncommitted delegates stay uncommitted until after these contests coming up in Ohio and Texas. That's a strategic, important point for them, isn't it?
SCHNEIDER: It is indeed. Because Hillary Clinton wants those delegates to wait and see if she can win Texas and Ohio. Because there's been a slow but steady drift of uncommitted delegates towards Barack Obama as he's won more and more primaries. Now, 11 in a row since Super Tuesday, and she's afraid they'll, you know, begin to tip over in large numbers. So, she's saying to them, hold on. Hold on. Let's see what I can do in Texas and Ohio before you make up your minds.
PILGRIM: All right. Thanks very much, Bill Schneider.
Still to come: A rare victory in the battle to stop communist China from buying strategic U.S. assets. Christine Romans will have the report. Christine?
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kitty, American regulators have scuttle a controversial deal, a deal in which a Chinese company with ties to its military would acquire a minority stake in an American technology company that supplies security for the Pentagon. Kitty?
PILGRIM: Thanks, Christine. We look forward to that.
Also: Seething anger over a massive highway project in Texas that could be a step towards the North American Union. We'll have that story.
And: Rising outrage at the federal government's other failure to protect you and your family from dangerous imports. We'll have a special report. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIA BREAK)
PILGRIM: National Security concerns this week halted the sale of a technology company, 3Com. Bain Capital and Chinese company, Huawei offered more than $2 billion to buy 3Com. Now, that deal raised concerns very early on. A subsidiary of 3Com sells security software to the Pentagon and Huawei has close ties to the Communist Chinese government. Christine Romans has her report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS (voice over): 3Com, Bane Capital and Huawei pulled their merger application from the national security review process. From the beginning, there were questions about the $2.2 billion deal, in which private equity firm, Bane Capital buys 3Com and give the 16 percent stake to Huawei. 3Com provides computer security for the Pentagon and Huawei has ties to China's military. John Tkacik is with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
JOHN TKACIK, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: There's no question but that national security is put in a compromised position when you let a foreign government-owned or government-responsible entity like Huawei have direct involvement in an American computer security and networking company.
ROMANS: There are heightened concerns now about cyber attacks on American defense systems. Bane and 3Com were willing to divest its subsidiary that provides computer security to the Pentagon but a source close to the deal says, that wasn't enough for regulators. 3Com's CEO said he was, quote, "very disappointed." Last fall, more than a dozen senators expressed, quote, "grave concerns" about the deal in a letter to the Treasury Department because of this longstanding and apparently, deeply engrained relationship between Huawei and China's army. And in the House, eight Republicans urged the Huawei deal not be approved. One of those congressmen praised CFIUS.
REP. THADDEUS MCCOTTER, (R) MICHIGAN: This is a lone victory in an attempt to stop stealth assaults on America's national security, and what we cannot do now is let our guard down. We must be ever vigilant. I think that the CFIUS process was working. I think that we should abide and appreciate the decision of Bane not to go forward with this deal.
ROMANS: A Treasury Department spokesman had no comment.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: CFIUS is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., part (ph) of the national security review process and that review of this deal was in its final stages and headed for the president's desk. But a source close to the company says, it became clear in recent days that CFIUS would not allow this deal to proceed. Now, as for the response from the Chinese government, China's Foreign Ministry spokesman said, Huawei is the company that operates by all the market rules and urged a, quote, "Fair and reasonable environment for the investment of Chinese companies in the U.S." Some folks had said, ways (ph) of protectionism that a national security review panel in this country would say, it is unseemly for Huawei to own such important technology and such access to the Pentagon.
PILGRIM: Security review. It's absolutely critical. I think everyone who really looks at this agrees on that. The question really is: Did the government review process stop this deal completely or is it likely to be revived under some other structure that may escape government notice?
ROMANS: The companies have been saying that they are going to try to rework their policy (ph), they're talking to each other, try to work out an understanding. Maybe, they can make the United States government happy. But John Tkacik over Heritage said, these two companies, Huawei and 3Com had strategic alliance, had been working closely together for some five or six years now. His concern is that many of the things the national security review process was trying to stop may have already happened.
PILGRIM: Yes, that's really sad, but everyone should keep their eye on this. Again, thanks very much, Christine Romans.
Well, there is rising outrage over another threat to our sovereignty and security, the so-called TransTexas Corridor also known as the NAFTA Super Highway. This is an issue the presidential candidates are ignoring as they crisscross the state ahead of the March 4th primary. But as Bill Tucker reports, the people of Texas are determined to fight the project.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): It's a Texas-size proposal. The TransTexas Corridor, I-69: A combination of rail lines, utility lines, car and truck lanes, which will be the width of three football fields, laid end to end. Three times wider than a typical interstate, it will run from Laredo to Texarkana, but the project is attracting some Texas-size opposition at town meetings throughout the state.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a terrible idea and a terrible attack on property rights. It amounts to a 4,000-mile laceration of concrete and steel inflicted upon the good people of Texas.
TUCKER: And many say, it's all for the good of multi-national corporations.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The plan is to ship cheap goods produce by under market labor in China and the Far East and the North America via Mexican ports.
TUCKER: Roughly $150 billion worth of imports from Mexico came into U.S. via Texas roadways in 2006, according to the Texas Department of Transportation, which is why they say, the corridor is needed, but at what cost?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why do we need this corridor? Well, somebody's going to get rich and it's not going to be anybody in this room here.
TUCKER: The I-69 Corridor will cut through rural farmland, land that in many cases has been in the family for generations. The state vows to use eminent domain and take that land. Those farmers and ranchers vow in return, they will fight to stay, including this promise from a marine serving in Iraq. His letter read was for him. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (reading): You can count on me to fight you at every meeting and there is nothing stronger than a United States marine fighting for his home.
TUCKER: There are 12 more town meetings planned between now and March 3rd.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: And all public comments are due by March 19th. Ironically, the Texas Department of Transportation has no way of funding this estimated $183 billion project. So, it's looking for private investment capital to build the road in return for the tolls collected. Spain's Cintra is one of those in the lead for the contract. But Kitty, Cintra or any other partner for that matter, may be weary of the partnership with TxDOT simply because the agency earlier this month admitted to a $1.1 billion bookkeeping error on its books. So, it double counted revenue, making it appear the agency had more money than actually did.
PILGRIM: Well, that would definitely put a shadow over that deal. Thanks very much, Bill Tucker.
Up next: Dangerous imports. Why our government flatly refuses to protect us from the growing threat to our safety and our prosperity. You simply won't believe what the government has to say on this issue.
And the fight for Texas: Will independents rule the day on March 4th, the Democratic candidates seem to think so. We'll have a special report, up next. Stay with us.
(COMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: There were six recalls this past week alone of children's products from communist China. The products were recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and they included some that contains high levels of lead. Other products contained small parts that could pose a choking hazard. Some of those products could cause fires or burns. Now, these new recalls illustrate the utter incompetence of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The commission's job is to keep unsafe products from ever reaching our shores. The head of that agency, Nancy Nord, is now facing charges she failed to see the threat posed by dangerous imports from communist China. Louise Schiavone reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Recalled this month, 64,000 Cinderella 12-volt electric ride-on toys, made in China: fire hazard; 6,600 Spiderman water bottles, made in China: choking hazard; 11,000 bracelet sets, made in China: lead hazard. All among hundreds of thousands of recalled products from China just this month. And here's what the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission has to say about this U.S. trading partner. NANCY NORD, ACTING CHAIR, CPSC: The Chinese government in particular appears by all accounts genuinely committed to improving the quality of the products they export to the United States.
SCHIAVONE: Critics say the statement in a Washington speech is wishful thinking at a minimum.
ALAN TONELSON, U.S. BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY COUN.: As an advocate for the American people and an advocate for their safety, Commissioner Nord should be focused on holding the Chinese to results.
SCHIAVONE: With a staff of 400, a field inspection team of 85, and a laboratory of 20 product testers, by its own definition, the CPSC is overwhelmed.
NORD: There are over $2 trillion worth of products, imported into the United States every year by over 800,000 importers, at more than 300 U.S. ports of entry. We simply cannot inspect our way to product safety.
SCHIAVONE: A leading consumer advocacy group says, that's not good enough.
JOAN CLAYBROOK, PUBLIC CITIZEN: She's not using her regulatory authority. She's using her conversational authority with Chinese officials over dinner to say that we're going to have safer products. And that's really meaningless.
SCHIAVONE: But strikingly, the acting director draws a sharp distinction between trade policies and statutory safety obligations to American consumers.
NORD: Safety is not a trade issue. And we will be vigilant in making sure that imports that come into this country are safe. Again, safety is not a trade issue.
SCHIAVONE: In defense of Nord, the CPSC stated: "Acting Chairman Nord effectively and thoroughly enforces U.S. laws and CPSC statues and directives, not the ideals that some critics wish were laws."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: Getting leaders of the U.S. -China Commission charge that China has built this enormous economic growth on the backs of American consumers, exporting not just products but hazards, sickness, and in a few cases, death, even as the CPSC appeases China and U.S. business. Kitty?
PILGRIM: Kitty, where does Nancy Nord stand on pending legislation to strengthen the CPSC?
SCHIAVONE: Well, there are two versions of this bill, the House and Senate are different. The Senate bill is tougher and that's the one of course that Director Nord doesn't like. The Senate bill includes: Whistle-blower protections, greater authority for state prosecutors and consumer cases and higher damage ceilings. But Commissioner Nord says, she's afraid these tougher provisions would get in the way of the government's delicate "carrot and stick" approach. Critics said that's just appeasement.
PILGRIM: Well, it's very clear, no matter what you think about this, that something needs to be done to protect the American consumer. Thanks very much, Louise Schiavone.
Coming up: Independent voters could determine the outcome of the biggest remaining primary in Texas. We'll have a special report on that.
Also: So-called superdelegates, not voters, could have the final say in the Democratic contest. Two superdelegates, one supporting Clinton, the other supporting Obama will join us.
And: Middle-class Americans are reeling from the economic downturn. The controller general says, we could be on the brink of an even bigger economic crisis. He is our guest.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TONY HARRIS, CNN, CORRESPONDENT: Hello. I'm Tony Harris at the CNN Center in Atlanta. Next, more "Lou Dobbs this week." But first news headlines. Senator Hillary Clinton lashes out at her democratic president rival. She accuses Senator Barack Obama of using negative campaign tactics in two mailings that criticize her healthcare plan and trade views. One flier says she wants to force everyone to buy health insurance whether or not they can afford it. But Clinton says that's false. Obama says he stands by the accuracy of his mailings.
A couple in southeast Georgia, the town of Portal, causing a lot of buzz. Robert and Tanya Harris will soon be multi-millionaires. Because they hold the winning mega million ticket worth $270 million.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT HARRIS, WON MEGA MILLIONS: $2 for $270 million. What a blessing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: Wow. Robert has already retired from his job as a structural steel iron worker. He and his wife use their grandchildren's birthdays to come up with the winning birthdays. Their ticket is expected to be confirmed Monday, that's when the lottery office opens. I'm Tony Harris.
Now back to "Lou Dobbs this week."
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN, ANCHOR: The critical primaries in Texas and Ohio are less than two weeks away. And many say Senator Clinton must have a strong showing if she expects to stay in the democratic race. Polls indicate the candidates are now in a virtual tie in Texas. Texas has an open primary, and independent voters will have a powerful voice, but will the candidates be listening? Casey Wian has our report. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Please, join with me, and let's make history together!
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And if you will stand with me, Texas, if you will vote for me, Texas --
CASEY WIAN, CNN, CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Texas primary voters are not constrained by party affiliation. Republicans can request a democratic ballot and vice versa. About 40% of the voters identify themselves as independents. So, in a hotly contested Texas democratic primary, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both emphasizing independent themes.
OBAMA: I believe in capitalism. I believe in the free market. I believe in entrepreneurial opportunity. But when a CEO is making more in ten minutes than an ordinary worker's making in an entire year and the CEO gets the tax break, and the worker gets nothing, something is wrong. Something has to change.
WIAN: By a wide margin Texas voters of both parties say the economy is the most important issue in this year's election.
CLINTON: When I am president, we will have an energy policy that makes us more secure, and puts people to work.
WIAN: Both candidates are also trying to attract Latino voters who make up about one quarter of the Texas electorate. Obama with his familiar bilingual homage to the United States Farm Workers founder, Cesar Chavez.
OBAMA: Si, se puede. Si, se puede.
WIAN: And Clinton, with reminders she once helped register Latino voters alongside (LORASA), the country's biggest Latino organization and promises for what she calls comprehensive immigration reform.
CLINTON: We will strengthen our border security, and we will provide a path to legalization for those who are here who are willing to pay a fine and willing to pay back taxes and willing to learn English.
WIAN: In the meantime, both candidates are practicing their Spanish.
CLINTON: Si, se puede is right. Yes, we can!
WIAN: Casey Wian, CNN, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are both a long way from the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch their party's nomination and that means superdelegates could have a final say on the democratic nominee. Robert Zimmerman is a democratic national committeeman and super delegate supporting Senator Clinton. He's also a "Lou Dobbs Tonight" contributor. James Zogby, a member of the DNC executive committee is a super delegate supporting Senator Obama. Now, they both maintain that in the end super delegates will back the will of the people.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES ZOGBY, DNC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: The super delegates are good, intelligent, very representative people on the democratic national committee for the -- the fact is that they are not going to put themselves in a position of overturning the will of the people. I've already --
LOU DOBBS, CNN, ANCHOR: Wait a minute. That's what I want to understand and then turn to Robert. How do you know what the will of the people is if neither one has achieved a majority that's necessary, the number of delegates necessary to reach that level?
ZOGBY: Right now, Senator Obama is up around 900,000 votes in terms of voters cast and 160 delegates in terms of delegates elected. At the same time, at the same time, let me finish, Bob.
DOBBS: It wasn't Bob. It was Lou, I'm the one interrupting all the time.
ZOGBY: You will have, almost half of them have not committed. They're not going to commit at all and I don't think they're going to commit until they get closer to the convention and what they're going to do --
ROBERT ZIMMERMAN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: You know this is the most --
DOBBS: Jim, I got to interrupt you now because I got to give Robert a little time.
ZIMMERMAN: OK. You know, this is the most over reported story in the political cycle. I have to tell you. The notion that super delegates are going to fly into the convention and make their decision, sort of a comic book version of what's going to happen. Personally, I think one of the two is going to emerge in the month of March, and that person's going to ultimately coalesce the momentum and the support. But the point here is the Obama and Clinton campaigns both believe super delegates should use their independent judgment and their best evaluation as to the best candidate and who will be the best president. Also, important to remember, Lou, almost all of the super delegates are elected individuals, either through serving in the House and Senate or through their political parties.
DOBBS: OK. Now, if we look at Michigan and Florida.
ZIMMERMAN: That's right.
DOBBS: Fewer than 300,000 votes separate these two candidates. Should those delegates be counted? ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely. And you can't have a viable democratic nominee unless you're going to include those delegates.
DOBBS: Jim, you got the last word here.
ZOGBY: Yes. Simply Michigan and Florida are not going to count. They're not going to count because the rules were very clear on that. There was no one on the ballot except for Senator Clinton in Michigan and I know democrats in Michigan who seeded up voting for McCain because -- for Romney because they wanted to defeat McCain. It simply would not be fair to include the Michigan delegation. Now, could they be seated, of course? Will they get a vote no.
ZIMMERMAN: They have to be seated.
DOBBS: So, you're going to give them shelter but you're going to disenfranchise them?
ZOGBY: They're no disenfranchised.
ZIMMERMAN: We're talking about over 2 million voters.
ZOGBY: They made a mistake violating the rules of the democratic party and the democratic party put sanctions against them.
DOBBS: To be honest with you gentlemen, I am really looking forward to this being a very tight race, into the convention, because it looks like it's far more interesting...
ZOGBY: As far, Senator Obama is going to will win it and we'll see that happen in the next couple weeks.
DOBBS: Jim Zogby. Thank you very much, and who do you think will win?
ZIMMERMAN: I think Hillary Clinton is well on her way.
DOBBS: Thank you both for surprising me with your forecast. Robert Zimmerman and Jim Zogby. Thank you, gentlemen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: Coming up, some Clinton supporter are concerned that overspending has put her campaign in jeopardy. We'll discuss that, and much more with three of the nation's top political analysts. Also, the comptroller general of the United States, an advocate for sound fiscal policies affecting America's middle class, he's leaving his post. He'll us why when he joins us. So, stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Millions of middle class Americans be losing the struggle to keep their homes and their jobs as this economy worsens. David Walker is the comptroller general of the United States. He is an advocate of fiscal reason and has brought public attention to government waste and inaction on our financial crisis. He recently announced his resignation, to join a foundation focusing on critical issues that are affecting this country and he told Lou why he's leaving government service.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID WALKER, U.S. COMPTROLLER GENERAL: You know, I've accomplished all but one the objectives I set out for myself in 1998 and the last objective is to try to help get the Congress to make some tough choices about the challenges that face the future of America, and I'm actually going to have more flexibility and more discretionary resources by partnering with the great American Peter G. Peterson on this new foundation.
DOBBS: Former commerce secretary, long-standing advocate for fiscal prudence and responsibility, a terrific American, as you say. He's putting quite a bit of money behind this effort, too, isn't he?
WALKER: He has pledged at least a billion dollars over the next several years, and that will make a difference. We're going to be a very non-traditional foundation, a very non-bureaucratic, very results oriented.
DOBBS: You have done more than anyone. The public's attention, to the degree the public's attention can be focused on the sometimes difficult issues to both analyze, understand, to discuss, whether it be the unfunded liabilities or the infectiveness of government and waste in government. But no one would have focused my judgments as clearly on the unfunded liabilities that are the result of the entitlement program, social security, Medicaid, Medicare is that going to be a big part of your effort?
WALKER: It certainly is. We have a $53 trillion hole that we're in of which about $9 trillion debt we already have and $44 trillion are unfunded promises for social security and Medicare alone. And that hole gets deeper $2 trillion to $3 trillion a year by doing nothing.
DOBBS: Let's start out with fundamentals. All of that money is related to our society and economy, our way of, our government and our political system. Do you believe we're going to have to make fundamental changes in the way this economy operates, the way we think as a society and the way in which we govern ourselves to deal with the problems that are so massive and so deep, so broad and in scale.
WALKER: We are going to have to make some dramatic and fundamental reforms. After World War II, we were over 50% of the global economy. Now, we're 22% and under pressure. We face a lot of competition. We're number one in many things but not all things. We need to get back to basics. We're going to have to you know, reimpose some tough budget controls. We're going to reform our entitlement programs and our tax system. We're going to eliminate a lot of waste with regard to spending and we may have to engage in political reforms as well in order to get people focus on the future.
DOBBS: I sure hope we do. I hope you're effective in that, because this government isn't working. This government is broken. This government is dysfunctional. These parties are pathetic, partisan, myopic and really, frankly, void of imagination, and seemingly concern for the people they serve. If your foundation can alter those, the direction that we've been in for too many decades, power to you.
WALKER: We're going to give it our best effort and I'm confident, we're going to make a difference.
DOBBS: David Walker, we know you will. You've been terrific and we appreciate all that you've done, as comptroller general, looking forward to what you're going to accomplish in the foundation.
WALKER: And thanks for your interest and efforts, Lou.
DOBBS: Thank you very much.
WALKER: Take care.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: Coming up, Senator McCain and the "New York Times" square off. Did the paper go too far in its reporting on McCain? Well, three of the best political analysts in the country will be here next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Joining me now, CNN contributor Errol Lewis, a columnist for the "New York Daily News," Ben Smith, senior political reporter for politico.com, and Diana west, columnist for the "Washington Times," CNN contributor, and author of "The death of the grown-up." Thank you all for being here. We have to start with the debate. How, Ben, how do you think it went?
BEN SMITH, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, POLITICO.COM: Well, I think the most interesting thing of what didn't happen. You know, Hillary Clinton was pitching softballs. Do you think Barack Obama is ready to become commander in chief and she didn't engage. You know, she could have said he wasn't, and you know, she didn't. Either it's become clear that a lot of these attacks just aren't working and she's been trying since she lost Iowa or because it's become a point in the race where she just doesn't want to do any more damage. She didn't attack him where she could have. And that's what struck me most.
PILGRIM: And Obama's performance?
SMITH: He's running up the clock, and he did that pretty well.
PILGRIM: Yes. Diana what do you think?
DIANA WEST, "WASHINGTON TIMES": Well, I think, one reason particularly on the question about, will he make a good commander in chief, the reason that he wouldn't make a good commander in chief, which she could say, because he doesn't have experience, but she's in the same boat. So, that's the kind of question she can't really engage in, because they have a number of the same kind of weak spots, and then they have a lot of the same strong spots. So -- that was a place where she couldn't really go.
PILGRIM: You know this debate has struck me, was not as conciliatory as the one in California, but it wasn't totally happy, the way the other one was. Errol.
ERROLL LEWIS, "NEW YORK DAILY NEWS": That's right. She did have a need. It wasn't just perception. It wasn't just spin. She really does need to sort of stop him from doing what he's doing. I mean, in every one of these races including the ones that are coming up in Texas. He started out 20 points behind, he catches her within a few days of the election and he passes her and he blows her out by double digits. And along the way, he's outspending her in the media market. So, this is a piece of free media but she doesn't have to pay for it with her dwindling funds and she had an opportunity. And the one time she did try to go slightly negative, that line about "change and Xerox." She actually got booed which is really a horrible reaction. So, she was in a tough position after that. What do you do with the rest of the debate after you've been booed?
PILGRIM: Let's play that, because I think our audience would benefit from hearing it for a second.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That's, I think, a very simple position, and -- you know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in. It's change you can Xerox and I just don't think --
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That's not --
CLINTON: Well, but, Barack, it is, because you know, if you look --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: Interesting exchange there, and you know, what struck me about that whole exchange is it's not on the substance of policy or any grand plans. This is about a very narrow issue that turned up in the last week that then took a real moment in the debate. Ben, what do you think?
SMITH: This was a tactical, you know, move the Clinton people thought they could get some traction on. You know, this idea that he's a plagiarizer. That, you know, particularly that he's a good speaker but there's no substance there. But ultimately, they were less egregious things that she had done herself in borrowing lines from people and Obama can successfully - I don't think I'm as ready as some to totally write her off here. When you say she come from behind in every state, you know, that Obama has. She won in California. She won in Massachusetts. You know, she's up in the polls in Texas and Ohio. So, I would wait for the results.
PILGRIM: Absolutely. And I think we all here are of that position, although some of the mainstream media has definitely taken the contest is over position. Let me play, while we're still on this whole thing about substance and style and all that, Obama's comment. Let's play that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: Senator Clinton of late has said, let's get real. And the implication is that, you know, the people who've been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: Well, as Ben points out, some have written off Hillary Clinton and yet that's not a fair position to take. Is it?
LEWIS: Well, it's a hasty one and one that can be proven wrong as we discovered in New Hampshire and a couple of other places. New Mexico in the end went in her favor. Yes, it certainly is too early to write her often. On the other hand, after 10 straight losses and after a piling up of delegates in a popular votes, all in his favor, where she has to be concerned I think is not so much with what the next round of votes are going to be but what those super delegates are going to be, what political professionals are going to think. And that's when the spin, nuance, and who has the momentum starts to matter. You know, you've got dozens of congressmen and congresswomen who have supported her, whose districts then went for Obama. Those are not solid votes in her corner. So, she's got some problems.
PILGRIM: That's a great point. You know, the uncommitted delegates. The Clinton campaign has made an appeal to wait until after the next two contests to actually make a move. Diana, any thoughts on this before we go to break?
WEST: Yes. Well, it's more than an appeal. I think that actually probably quite a lot of strong-arming going on behind the scenes. Very unattractive. And I think when you look at these two candidates, they are so similar on the issues, as this debate and all the others, have really brought out that you do start looking at the personality and you do start looking at the Clinton and Clintonisms, and the it doesn't do her any favors, in this position, as she does seem to be - I know we're not supposed to write her off, but the tea leaves are not looking good for her at this moment.
PILGRIM: Any last thoughts, gentlemen?
LEWIS: Well, again, you - there are a lot of people who have been wrong a lot of the time. And Texas is an empire unto itself. I mean, the lone star is, there's a lot going on there.
PILGRIM: All these independents.
LEWIS: Lots of markets, I think there's a couple dozen television markets. It's very hard to even figure out what's going on. You can't poll it correctly because it's both a primary and a caucus. It's notoriously difficult for polls to reveal what people are going to do in something as complicated as a caucus. So, there is a big question mark hanging out there. PILGRIM: Ben, I'm going to wait one second, we're going to take a quick break and I promise I'll start with you when we come back. We'll have more with our panel right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Joining me again, Errol Lewis, Ben Smith and Diana West. You know, one of the big stories this week is the "New York Times" coverage of McCain, and McCain strongly denied the story and by Friday, this is what McCain was saying. Listen to what he said first.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don't have anymore comments about this issue. I had a press conference yesterday morning, I answered every question. I'm moving on. I'm talking about the issues and challenges of America and the big issues that Americans are concerned about. I addressed the issue, I addressed every question that was addressed me, and I do not intend to discuss it further.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: And also including the comments of Mike Huckabee who said I'll take him at his word and have no further comment on it. What do you think? This is one of those things that was an interesting story politically, it was an interesting story for journalists to talk about. It was a very big discussion in the NEWSROOM this week. Ben, what do you think?
SMITH: Well, I think, one of the most interesting things here is that, you know, McCain went after the "Times" and he rallied his conservative base behind him. And the mainstream media doesn't have a base. You know, the liberal blogs didn't stand up for the "Times." Some did, some attacked McCain, but didn't really defend the story. Other liberal blogs, you expect to be going after McCain defended McCain in this case. And so, nobody was in the "Times" corner here against McCain and it really helped him out.
LEWIS: Even though I work for a tabloid newspaper, I don't know that this was a sex story. I couldn't quite understand why people focused on that, almost to the exclusion of what I think, was the substantive issue here, and the substantive problem for McCain which is.
PILGRIM: Influence. Right?
LEWIS: Influence peddling. And you know, you don't have to have a smoking gun in the form of a bill that he wrote or a bill that he killed or a letter that he wrote. It's the access, it's the problem. And it's been a problem going all the way back to 1985, and he has tried to style his campaign as one that is in favor of getting away from all this undue influence, and yet his campaign is stacked from top to bottom with lobbyists and here we have this. Once again, he's taking the plane rides. He's letting the lobbyists run around in his office. And I think it is serious. You know, and if we continue to talk about it as if it were a sex story, and there's no proof there, then I think we missed the larger issue.
PILGRIM: Well, that's a fair point, but you know, some make the case in Washington, stacked to the ceiling with lobbyists and there's a whole issue of influence is not exclusive to John McCain.
LEWIS: Well, that's true. He's the one who has tried to make it part of his political persona. He raises the issue.
PILGRIM: Let's get Diana in on this one.
WEST: Well, the reason it become as sex story, if that's going to be our handle for it is because the lobbyist in question was a lovely woman. And so that's the reason that the story got into the newspaper. And in a funny way, though, I was thinking about this, because I don't think that the story was sticking to McCain in a funny way but I think what the story did was hurt Hillary Clinton in the sense that, it is not a substantiated story to really impair McCain and yet it reminded people what he we all lived through for those two Clinton terms, in terms of the serial womanizing.
So, in a way, it brought up all wrong things for Hillary Clinton and also gave the "New York Times" another black eye for running a story, an anonymous lead source story, that does not seem relevant.
PILGRIM: Did you see this impacting the democratic campaign?
SMITH: You know, I don't think Hillary - I don't think this is a bad thing for Hillary anymore. When Hillary was asked, when she's been tested in life. She made this clear reference to the scandals of the '90s and the audience and the democratic audience applauded her. I think most democrats see this as something she survived, something that made her tough. I mean, it's very strange in retrospect to look at it that way, but I think that's kind of the emotional reality of how democrats feel about it.
PILGRIM: And actually the focus of her campaign, is sort of humanize her to take her out of the policy wonks sort of --
SMITH: Yes, there's nothing more human than that.
PILGRIM: Yes.
LEWIS: You know, it would be -- just going back to McCain again with his chin tucked in his chest and sort of mumbling, and kind of, you know, holding his ground, refusing to talk about this anymore, I don't think he's going to abolish the issue just because he wants to. I also think that it's going to come back between now and November. And I also think that, look, he's going to have to deal with this at some point. You know, that we are going to have this as an issue, going not only into this election but the next one and the next one. He, ironically, is the one that put it on the national agenda. Reducing the influence of corporate special interests.
So, you know, he can try as much as he wants. I don't think anybody is necessarily going to challenge his personal integrity. But as you say, the institutional problem in Washington is one that I think even his biggest supporters is going to have to acknowledge needs to be addressed.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Errol Lewis, Diana West, Ben Smith, thank you.
And thank you for joining us. For all of us here, thanks for watching. Enjoy your weekend. Good night from New York.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxantshop.com
