Election 2008 Obama vs. McCain | Clinton vs. McCain | Latest 2008 Polls | Latest 2008 News

April 13, 2008

Mayor Nutter & Senator Daschle on "Fox News Sunday"

Fox News Sunday

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I'm Chris Wallace and this is "Fox News Sunday."

The battle for Pennsylvania -- we'll discuss the latest in the fight for the Democratic nomination with two key advisers, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, who supports Clinton, and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, co-chair of the Obama campaign.

Then, China and the Olympics -- should the U.S. boycott? We'll talk with the president's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, and Olympic gold medalist Joey Cheek.

Plus, the presidential candidates appear on "American Idol."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ.: It's back to work on my new immigration plan. Watch your back, Simon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Who did the best before millions of viewers? We'll ask our judges -- Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams.

And our Power Player of the Week is involved in real power plays, all right now on "Fox News Sunday."

And hello again from Fox News in Washington. Well, with just nine days until the Pennsylvania primary, the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has reached new heights this weekend over several new issues.

Here to discuss it is former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, national co-chair of the Obama campaign, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, a Clinton supporter from joins us from his city.

Well, gentlemen, let's start with the latest controversy over comments that Barack Obama made last Sunday at a California fundraiser, where he talked about small towns in Pennsylvania that have lost jobs and that he says Washington has failed. Here they are.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, D-ILL.: It's not surprising, then, that they get bitter -- they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

WALLACE: Mayor Nutter, Barack Obama now says that he regrets not the remarks, but the way that he phrased them. How damaging is this whole controversy in Pennsylvania?

MAYOR MICHAEL NUTTER (D), PHILADELPHIA: Well, it's hard to completely assess the damage. Of course, that will be left to the voters. But certainly, it seems damaging to the campaign.

I'm certainly saddened to hear those kinds of comments. I've lived in Philadelphia and, of course, Pennsylvania for almost 51 years. They don't represent the thoughts of people throughout this great commonwealth.

And I don't understand why Senator Obama would make such comments. I'm sure he can explain them for himself.

WALLACE: But, Mayor, specifically what do you find objectionable?

NUTTER: Well, they don't represent the views of small-town America or certainly even folks here in Philadelphia or in our nearby suburbs.

People are optimistic about the future. They have a lot to look forward to. They're energized about this campaign. They're looking for and want to support a candidate who supports their issues and concerns.

I've talked about this urban agenda and urban conversation. So it just demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what small-town America is about.

WALLACE: Senator Daschle, Hillary Clinton, not surprisingly, went after Obama big time this weekend already. She said that these comments were elitist and out of touch. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, D-N.Y.: The people of faith whom I know don't cling to religion because they're bitter. In fact, they embrace their faith because it gives them so much in return.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Obama says that he regrets the phrases he used, that his words were ill-chosen.

But let's talk about the deeper meaning there. Does he believe that people in small towns and depressed areas turn to guns or turn to religion out of frustration?

TOM DASCHLE, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Well, Chris, first of all, you've got to remember that this is a man who was raised by a single mother, who chose -- who volunteered to work in one of the poorest neighborhoods of Chicago, who spent his whole life working with the disenfranchised. This is a man who understands when you go into an emergency room and you see people lined up in the hallways, there's something wrong, who understands that we've got 80 percent unemployment on reservations, who understands that 81 percent of the American people think we're on the wrong track.

So there may be some optimistic people out there like Mayor Nutter suggests, but I will tell you the vast majority of the people in this country want to see change. They think that Washington is out of sync with their lives, who want to see...

WALLACE: I understand the economic frustration, but what about this comment that people turn to guns and to religion out of frustration? I mean, don't people turn to guns and religion because they mean something to them?

DASCHLE: Well, what he was saying is that there are those who use guns and religion, use faith and guns, as a divisive issue.

And when you're angry, when you feel disenfranchised, you're more susceptible to those kinds of divisive politics, that those who thrive on that divisive nature of these emotional issues really are the ones that he was faulting here, not the people that hear this.

But there is a great deal of anger out there, a great deal of sentiment that we've got to see change in this country, and that unless Washington breaks with its past and accepts the fact that this sentiment is really deep-seated, it's palpable, we're not going to see the change we need in this country.

WALLACE: Mayor Nutter, does that explain it to you?

NUTTER: No. And as a matter of fact, I've not heard any of that kind of conversation during the course of this campaign here in Pennsylvania. I mean, that's not what people are talking about.

People are talking about, whether in small-town Pennsylvania or some of the larger cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh -- we're talking about real issues and real concerns.

They're concerned about public safety. They worry about their education of their children. They want to see who has ideas about jobs and economic development to bring our economy back and turn our big cities and small towns around, going in a positive direction.

So I don't know where this is coming from. I don't know what would possess Senator Obama to say this, because you won't see it, you don't hear it, in the course of dialogue of real people in these cities.

I know he took a six-day bus tour, but clearly he does not understand what's going on here in Pennsylvania and expressing the concerns of real people on the ground.

WALLACE: Senator Daschle, Obama already had a problem reaching out to white working-class Democrats, the so-called Reagan Democrats. Aren't these comments going to make it even harder?

DASCHLE: Just the opposite, Chris. I really think Mayor Nutter ought to go to his own emergency room. He ought to go to the unemployment lines today in Philadelphia where people are standing in line without the hope of a good job.

They ought to worry about the jobs being displaced and being sent overseas. You know, obviously, people are -- want to be hopeful, and that's really the message of the Obama campaign, why the Obama campaign has such traction, because he talks about hope.

But you know, if things are so rosy, why change? Let's just have a third Bush administration. That's really what...

WALLACE: Mayor Nutter, I want to bring something else...

NUTTER: Chris, with every respect...

WALLACE: Mayor Nutter?

NUTTER: Yes, sir. Go ahead.

WALLACE: Mayor Nutter, may I please ask -- bring something else into this? Because one of the issues I think you would agree that a lot of workers in Pennsylvania and across the country are worried about is trade.

Now, Senator Clinton says that she's against the trade deal with Colombia, but her chief strategist, Mark Penn, was actually working for the deal, helping Colombia, when he was still working with the campaign, which he still is, at the same time that he was advising Clinton.

We now find out that former President Clinton got paid $800,000 by a Colombia group to support and promote the free trade deal. So Senator Clinton doesn't exactly have clean hands on these issues either, does she?

NUTTER: Well, first, I would say Senator Clinton is an independent person. She'll exercise independent judgment. Mr. Penn -- I think that issue has been dealt with.

Senator Clinton stands on her own as an independent person, and so her position on these issues is very clear. She's talked about fair trade, that NAFTA needs to be renegotiated. And so her position I think goes without question.

But I would go back again and say, with every respect to Senator Daschle, I've been to a few emergency rooms. I've walked the streets of Philadelphia. And just because people are having problems doesn't mean, as Senator Obama has articulated, that they're turning to their religion or to guns as a means of expressing something.

There's a rich history of sportsmanship and legal gun use all across Pennsylvania. People support their religion because of deep faith. And so there is a complete disconnect here, with every respect to Senator Daschle, who I've admired for a long time.

WALLACE: They clearly feel that they have got the hammer in their hands on this one. You can hear it from Senator Clinton. You can hear it from Mayor Nutter. I mean, this is a problem for the Obama campaign.

DASCHLE: Well, Chris, of course, you can distort what Senator Obama said, and that's really what we're hearing again this morning. That isn't what Senator Obama said.

What Senator Obama said is that faith and guns are very important. He has talked about that for the entire campaign. He has spoken specifically to his own faith and how important it is to him. He understands that.

But what he's saying is that there are those who use these issues as very, very divisive issues to try to disenfranchise further the people that are susceptible to that.

I can see why Mayor Nutter would change the subject on Colombia. People don't like to be misled. They don't like it when they're not told the truth. I mean, the fact is that Hillary Clinton has a questionable record with regard to Colombia.

Her own top adviser, Mark Penn, was fired recently for advocating for Colombia. So you've got her adviser advocating for Colombia, Hillary Clinton saying that she supports the effort not to pass the Colombian free trade agreement.

I think the people of Pennsylvania, the people of the country, really deserve a better explanation than the one we've gotten.

WALLACE: All right. We've got a little bit more than a minute left, and let me get you both to do a little forecasting.

Mayor Nutter, the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls -- and let's put it up on the screen. The most recent average shows that the race had, at least before this latest controversy, tightened.

Obama was closing the gap with Clinton, who once led by double digits, and now, according to the most recent polls, which predate this controversy, she now leads by seven points.

Your sense: Is the race tightening? Does Clinton have a safe lead? What do you think this is going to do, this latest controversy, to the primary in Pennsylvania?

NUTTER: Well, people will continue to assess that during the course of the week. You always expect these races, especially in Pennsylvania, to tighten.

But the reason Senator Clinton is doing very well in Pennsylvania is, one, because she understands the state; two, she was here the other day talking about issues of substance that people really care about -- public safety, and urban economic issues. She understands it. And as I've said on T.V., she gets it. She knows what really is going on all across the state.

WALLACE: Mayor, let me bring in Senator Daschle for one -- basically, to get him to respond to that.

If Obama loses Pennsylvania after losing Ohio, and if again he shows weakness among white working-class Democrats, especially after this latest controversy, isn't that serious trouble?

DASCHLE: Chris, he's won the popular vote. He's won by far the vast majority of the states all across this country. Look. Pennsylvania is Hillary Clinton's second state. She's lived there for virtually her whole life in and out.

So we've always known this is a very, very heavy lift.

WALLACE: Pennsylvania is her second -- I thought Arkansas was her second state.

DASCHLE: Well, she's had a lot of second states. She's claiming it as her second state these days.

NUTTER: I can see why Senator Daschle might want to use that as the excuse.

WALLACE: All right. In any case, we're going to have to leave it there.

Mayor Nutter, Senator Daschle, thank you so much, both of you, for talking with us today.

NUTTER: Thank you.

DASCHLE: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: Up next, should President Bush skip the Olympics in China this summer? We'll talk with his national security adviser and with an Olympic gold medal winner when we come right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: This week the Olympic torch continued its international tour, but instead of being a symbol of the world coming together, it was a flashpoint for critics of Chinese human rights.

We'll discuss what the U.S. role should be with an Olympic gold medal winner in a moment. But first, we turn to the president's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley.

And welcome back, sir.

STEPHEN HADLEY, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Nice to be here.

WALLACE: We invited you here to talk about China, but first let's deal with some other troubled spots right off the top.

There are reports the White House now views Iran, not Al Qaida, as the central threat in Iraq. First of all, is that true? And what is Iran doing differently to merit that growing concern?

HADLEY: We've really had three challenges in Iraq. First was sectarian violence. The surge has brought that down. Al Qaida. They're on the defensive. A third one was the activities of illegal militias, particularly in the southern part of the country. We've known that's been a problem for a while.

What's different now is that Prime Minister Maliki decided it was time to take control of the situation down there. He moved forces down. He's had some success. He's taken control of the port. But there's more work to do.

WALLACE: But what is Iran doing differently that we're hearing all this talk from General Petraeus and other top administration officials that Iran is now the central threat?

HADLEY: I think what Prime Minister Maliki learned and the Iraqis learned was what we've known for some time, that Iran is very active in the southern part of Iraq.

They are training Iraqis in Iran who come into Iraq and attack our forces, Iraqi forces, Iraqi civilians. There are movements of equipment. There's movements of funds.

So we have illegal militia in the southern part of the country that really are acting as criminal elements that are pressing the people down there and, in good measure, as we've seen, alienating the Iraqis from Iran.

WALLACE: This week President Bush put the regime in Tehran on notice. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: ... Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops and our Iraqi partners.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Mr. Hadley, we've imposed economic sanctions. We've attacked their supply lines in Iraq. And the Iranians have only become more aggressive.

So when the president talks about protecting our interests, what more is he prepared to do?

HADLEY: Well, as the president said, Iran really has a choice. Do they want to have good relations with Iraq, or are they going to continue a pattern of activity that's destabilizing the situation?

One of the good things is that we believe the Iraqi government now understands more clearly what they are doing. They will put diplomatic pressure to bear on Iran. That's a good thing.

In addition, we will continue to do with Iraqi security forces what we've been doing for some time. We will go after their surrogate operations in Iraq that are killing our forces, killing Iraqi forces.

We will disrupt their networks by which they move fighters, weapons and funds in and around Iraq. And we will cut off as best we can the flow of fighters, weapons and arms into Iraq.

WALLACE: There were some mixed signals from the administration this week about further troop withdrawals after the five surge combat brigades come out in July, so here's your chance now to try to clear that up.

Will the president consider pulling out more troops after this period of assessment during the summer, and what does he need to see first?

HADLEY: Here's what he's decided. We will continue the withdrawal of combat brigades going from 20 to 15 by July. That's the first decision.

Second, General Petraeus asked for a period of time to consolidate his forces and assess the security situation. The president said he will have the time he needs. General Petraeus says he needs 45 days.

At the end of that -- after the completion of withdrawals in July. At the end of that 45 days, he will be in a position to make further recommendations. What we hope is that conditions on the ground will permit continuation of what we call return on success, and more U.S. forces will come out. That's the recommendations we hope he will be able to make based on the conditions on the ground after he completes this period of consolidation and assessment.

WALLACE: Well, you know, some Democrats are already saying, "Sure, what's going to happen is around Labor Day, September, the president's going to announce more troop withdrawals to try to help John McCain."

HADLEY: He is going to make a decision based on the recommendations of his field commanders.

He has told them very clearly their only consideration is what they need to do to succeed in Iraq, and his objective is to leave Iraq in a situation at the end of his term where we have a strategy that is succeeding, that the American people can see progress, and to hand it over to the next administration, whether Republican or Democrat, so that they will inherit a strategy of working -- that is working and don't have to confront a crisis on Iraq policy in the first months of a new administration.

WALLACE: Let me turn to one other trouble spot. The U.S. House voted this week to change the rules and to delay consideration of the Colombia free trade deal, in all likelihood until after the election.

Is the president prepared to deal with House Democrats to try to resolve this, or are we basically in a standoff?

HADLEY: We have been trying for the last 16 months. People forget, this agreement was signed 16 months ago. And for 16 months we have been trying to work with the leadership in the Congress for a bipartisan way forward to get a vote on that agreement.

The decisions that were made by the leadership are disappointing. We will continue to work with the Congress, but the point is this is a good agreement. It helps American farmers, workers and businesses. It stands by Colombia.

We have no better friend than Colombia in this hemisphere. And the president believes very strongly that Congress owes the American people a vote on this agreement this year.

WALLACE: Let's get to China. No sitting president has ever visited any foreign Olympics, so why is President Bush even going to Beijing?

HADLEY: The president's going to show support for the U.S. Olympic team and to show support for our men and women who are going to participate in these Olympics. He said that very clearly.

He's also said -- and what he has done through his own personal diplomacy is to contact the Chinese authorities. He talked with President Hu just two weeks ago. He raised the issue of human rights. He raised the issue of what's going on in Tibet. And he sent a very clear message that he believes it's in the interest of Chinese authorities for them to meet with representatives of the Dalai Lama.

WALLACE: But the president says he doesn't view the Olympics as a political event. He views it as a sporting event. Clearly, the Chinese see it differently. They see it as a statement that they have arrived as a great power.

Whether the president feels this way or not, can you understand where the world may see the president's coming to the opening ceremonies as a statement that he, in effect, is lending his prestige, or at least that he's not so upset that he would boycott the Olympics?

HADLEY: You know, I think this issue is in some sense a bit of a red herring. I think, unfortunately, a lot of countries say, "Well, if we say that we are not going to the opening ceremonies, we've checked the box on Tibet." That's a cop-out.

If other countries concerned about Tibet, they ought to do what we are doing, through quiet diplomacy, send the message clearly to the Chinese that this is an opportunity, with the whole world watching, to show that they take into account and are determined to treat their citizens with dignity and respect.

They would put pressure on the Chinese authorities quietly to meet with representatives of the Dalai Lama and use this as an opportunity to help resolve that situation.

If people are concerned about Tibet, that's what they ought to be doing rather than making these sort of symbolic gestures about whether you go to the opening ceremonies.

WALLACE: But no consideration -- you do have leverage at this point. Obviously, these Olympics are terribly important to the Chinese -- no consideration of even raising with the Chinese the issue in private and saying, "If you don't change your actions towards Tibet or Darfur, the president reserves the right to change his mind about going to the Olympics?"

HADLEY: We have a lot of leverage on China. We are using it in a constructive, diplomatic way, and it is a lot greater leverage than just the issue of whether he goes to an opening ceremony or not.

I think the whole international community has leverage. They ought to be using it now, not letting themselves off the hook by simply saying, "Well, we won't go to the opening ceremonies of the Olympics."

WALLACE: Is there also a tactical decision here that confronting the Chinese in public is counterproductive?

HADLEY: Well, it's an issue of the Chinese government. It's also an issue of the Chinese people, who are very invested in the Olympics, who see it as a coming of age for China, and so it's a balancing here. We think that it is very important to deal with the Tibet issue, but we think the best way to do that is through the kind of diplomacy we have been undertaking, not by the kind of frontal confrontation that is being suggested by some.

WALLACE: Presidential national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, thanks so much for talking with us.

HADLEY: Thanks very much.

WALLACE: Joining us now is Olympic athlete Joey Cheek, who won a gold medal in speed skating two years ago. He's a founder of Team Darfur, a coalition of athletes raising awareness about the crisis in Sudan, and he comes to us from Princeton, New Jersey.

Joey, what do you think of President Bush's decision to go to the opening ceremonies? And what do you make of Mr. Hadley's comment that it's a cop-out for other countries to boycott the event and think that that accomplishes anything?

CHEEK: Well, as far as President Bush and his decision on whether or not to go to the opening ceremonies, I think that's -- that is not exactly for me to say.

From the beginning, obviously, I'm very strongly against any sort of athlete boycott, because most of these athletes have spent their lives preparing for this, and I, of course, couldn't ask another athlete to do something I wouldn't do.

That being said, you know, one of the things on Darfur and the issue with Darfur, over and over again, China, who has more leverage than any other country in the world on Sudan and Darfur, has said that they were using quiet diplomacy.

And they've been using quiet diplomacy for the last two years, as tens of thousands of more people have been killed and another few hundred thousand in just the last few weeks have been displaced from their homes.

So what I notice is that often times -- I'm sure that quiet diplomacy is necessary, but often times quiet diplomacy takes place while people are being slaughtered.

WALLACE: So when President Bush talks about this reasoning that, you know, he can, has and will talk to Chinese leaders in private, you're not persuaded?

CHEEK: Well, you know, I certainly -- I have no idea what President Bush does in private with Chinese leaders.

But what I do think is that, you know, when we speak about the Olympics and the opportunities that Olympians have, by hosting an Olympics, any nation that hosts an Olympics -- I think you're accepting a higher moral standard.

The Olympic games was founded not just to be a simple sporting event. It wasn't founded just because people wanted to get together and have fun and play some games.

It was created so that we could promote the values of peace and human rights and justice. And when a nation accepts that obligation, as China or any nation that hosts it, they accept this higher standard.

So I don't think it is just another sporting event.

WALLACE: Joey, as we said, you are one of the co-founders of Team Darfur. What is it that you want Olympic athletes to do in Beijing to express opposition to Chinese support for the government, the regime, in Sudan?

CHEEK: Well, what people may not realize is that the IOC places very strong restrictions on athletes at the Olympics. You're not allowed to make any sort of political statement, wear any sort of political propaganda, as they put it.

What I think, though, athletes can do, and what I think our best bet is, for us to use our voice, for us to use our chance in the media, and not just U.S. athletes. Team Darfur is made up of athletes from over 51 countries who can raise awareness about what's still happening in Darfur, for example, and really point out the connection between governments and especially China and the leverage they have over Sudan.

WALLACE: So when would they express those views? I mean, for instance, obviously, I'm sure you're talking with other members of your team about the kinds of statements they might make or the demonstrations they might make.

Could we expect flags to be carried during victory laps, or demonstrations on the awards podium or at news conferences? Give us a sense specifically of where you want to get your message across at Beijing.

CHEEK: Sure. Specifically, I think our best bet and, really, our only, in an Olympics sense, legal bet is to use our press conferences and our media.

If an athlete were to raise a flag or to even wear one of our Team Darfur wrist bands in an Olympic venue, the IOC has said that athlete would be sent home.

It's funny that the IOC and some of the nations in the west -- in particular, Great Britain, New Zealand, Belgium -- have all tried to pass what equates to gag orders on their athletes.

And you're not allowed to say anything bad about China, about the Olympics, about anything, even if there is a real legitimate program, because it seems that everyone is just cowering and doesn't want to, you know, offend Beijing.

The problem is when we talk about a coming of age, when a nation has a coming of age, you have to start acting like an adult. WALLACE: Obviously, you know, you're going to -- it's going to be up to the individual athlete, but would you like to see -- would you anticipate that some of these athletes may defy the Olympic rules and, in fact, make these kinds of public statements or public demonstrations at the Olympics?

CHEEK: Yes, well, myself and as now -- you know, I'm a retired athlete, but as myself, being a leader of this organization, Team Darfur, and really trying to bring people in, I can't endorse or recommend anyone doing anything that would jeopardize their Olympic career.

If I saw an athlete do something like that and they were penalized for it, I can't say it would blow me away. I wouldn't be stunned. But I would certainly be moved by the gesture.

And if they came under pressure or fire, which they certainly would from the Olympic Committee, I, for one, would be more than happy to stand up and scream from the high hills what a noble gesture it was.

WALLACE: And finally, given the ability and the willingness of the Chinese regime to do what it wants despite all kinds of pressure, what do you actually think a few athletes speaking out, or carrying a flag or doing something like that at the Olympics -- what do you think that can really accomplish?

CHEEK: Well, the thing is, I'm not sure that the original premise is correct. I'm not sure that China doesn't respond to this. A year and a half ago when you brought up the issue of Darfur and China, they said, "Hey, this is an African internal issue. We have nothing to do with it."

And because of the work of other activists -- and athletes have said that they'll be competing at the games and say that this is wrong. Slowly, the rhetoric began to change, and we think some of the actions have changed.

So what I've seen from personal experience of the last two years of working on this issue is that it's not a zero-sum-progress game. There is some movement. However, it's just painfully slow.

WALLACE: Joey Cheek, we want to thank you so much for talking with us. And I expect we'll be in touch between now and August in Beijing.

CHEEK: Thank you for having me.

WALLACE: Up next, Clinton and Obama slug it out in Pennsylvania, and all the candidates go on "American Idol." Our Sunday regulars offer their critiques after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I didn't say it as well as I should have because, you know, the truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation -- those are important. That's what sustains us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was Barack Obama yesterday trying to explain his comments about people in small-town America clinging to guns and religion.

And it's time now for our Sunday regulars -- Brit Hume, Washington managing editor of Fox News, and Fox News contributors Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio.

So, Brit, how bad is this for Obama?

HUME: It isn't good. He says he didn't say it very well. One wonders what "it" was. I mean, the thought is pretty clear, which is that you have economic frustrations which are the reason why people in small towns of Pennsylvania and elsewhere around the country cling to guns and religion.

Those are the very kind of people that one would imagine that we would describe as Reagan Democrats. And one could hardly have imagined the statement that would more alienate those people from him and possibly, ultimately, if he were the nominee, from the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton, of course, pounced immediately and continues to. I think it's an opening for her. I think it raises questions about whether he does have a kind of elitist attitude toward people who come from very different backgrounds from him, he being the one with the more elite background.

So this was a -- I'm not sure it will derail him from the nomination, but this was a bad gaffe.

LIASSON: Yes, I think it was a bad gaffe. It kind of goes to the heart of the argument that Hillary Clinton is making to the superdelegates. She's saying if he's the nominee, he's going to be a weak candidate for blue collar voters, white blue collar voters, in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where they're competing very hard in the primary right now, and those are states that Democrats have to win to win the White House.

She's saying the Republicans are going to be able to paint him as a John Kerry kind of elitist, effete Democrat, and this was a real gaffe, not a Michael Kinsley gaffe, a real gaffe, because right now, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are competing hard for those voters in Pennsylvania, and Obama was hoping, if not to win the state, at least to cut close into that demographic which Hillary Clinton has pretty much owned up until now.

WALLACE: Bill, obviously, Obama, among other things, says words count. But if you change the words -- if instead of saying that they cling, you said they turn to guns or whatever, and instead of saying bitter, they're angry -- one of the points that Obama is trying to make now in his rescue effort, his self-rescue effort, is to say, "Look, I'm in touch with the fact that there is anger and there is bitterness in depressed areas."

Is that a possible way to save it?

KRISTOL: Well, I think it's intelligent of him to try to focus on that, because, sure, plenty of people are angry and unhappy and even bitter.

But what he said is that people turn to religion because of anger or bitterness, and that's inconsistent with his own account of how he came to religion, incidentally.

He was brought up in a secular household and was inspired by Reverend Wright and says that religion is very important in his life. Even the clip you just played -- we played at the beginning of this segment -- well, he now acknowledges people are sustained by these traditions.

Isn't that a little patronizing? There are plenty of people who are religious who didn't grow up in a religious tradition. They find religion important to them. They've discovered it themselves and find it important to them.

So I do think it's a revealing statement, because it reveals, I think, his genuine -- his own thought. It's not a gaffe in the sense that he said something he doesn't believe. He said something he does believe.

WALLACE: Just forgetting the merits, on the politics of it and the Pennsylvania primary, big deal or not?

KRISTOL: It could be. These things are always hard to predict. Yes, I think it could be.

WILLIAMS: Yes, I think it could be, but you know, in defense of Barack Obama, I think you heard some of it from Tom Daschle here on the program with you earlier. He's saying, "Look, you know, Republicans have played to this kind of fear and anger and resentment in small-town white America over time."

And so you think about anti-immigration policy, antitrade policy, and guns -- you know, go out there -- and hatred of immigrants and all the rest.

But he did it in such a way that it came across as elitist, you know, latte-drinking, Volvo-driving liberals out in San Francisco, and he's saying it in this private group.

WALLACE: I mean, we should point this out. He said this in a San Francisco fundraiser last Sunday.

WILLIAMS: Right.

WALLACE: And actually, it was, interestingly enough, a liberal website, the Huffington Post, which has been very favorable to Obama, which on late Friday put the story out and also the bad audio of what he had to say.

WILLIAMS: Well, the problem now is one in which, you know, he comes off as trying to make amends for something that he really believes. I think this is who he really is.

And it really fits with, I think, some of a model that says you know what, he's not in touch with people. He, his wife -- they're, you know, somewhat distant and they look down their noses at people who are trying to make a go of it in this country.

WALLACE: All right. Well, in fairness, to talk about Hillary Clinton, she had her own problem this week which, not surprisingly, involved her husband, who decided to revive the whole controversy about her running for her life in Bosnia and proceeded to tell about a half dozen whoppers himself.

Brit, is Bill Clinton creating a whole new outbreak of Clinton fatigue?

HUME: Well, but for Barack Obama's comments, that might have made more news than it did. You know, I used to say about politics that I didn't like these truth squads that newspapers and other news media had to go out and try to parse the statements of candidates for truth or falsity, because I believe that in political campaigns, most of what the politicians said about one another were -- most of these things were arguably true and arguably false.

I'm afraid this year has blown my theory away. We have had a series of statements, particularly involving Hillary Clinton and now Bill Clinton as well, that were not arguably true at all. They were utterly false.

I mean, her whole claim about landing under sniper fire and dashing across the tarmac in Tuzla turns out to be a hot one. We've seen the video. It isn't true.

And now he's come out with an account of how that happened and when it happened that turns out to be false. And of course, it carries with it the suggestion, if you'll recall, that he also said, "Well, if it's 11 o'clock at night and you're 60 years old, you forget things," about her original statement.

Of course, she's supposed to be the person who's wide awake at 3 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning when the phone rings in the White House. Maybe that accounts for why she's having trouble at 11:00, that she's been up all night.

But either way you look at it, this sort of dug the hole even deeper and put the Hume theory to a test it couldn't pass.

WALLACE: Mara, I want to get us all in touch with reality, because for all the campaigning, by far the biggest audiences that these candidates were exposed to this week was when they appeared on "American Idol" to talk about giving back to charity.

They all had very different approaches. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: "Idol Gives Back" is proving that when ordinary people come together, they can do extraordinary things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: I've had the good fortune of working with many of the groups that will benefit from your generosity tonight, and I can tell you that each donation will make a difference.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: "American Idol" is a lot like a presidential primary election, except for people who live in Michigan and Florida. Their votes actually count.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: You know, it was interesting and, I think, somewhat telling, because both Clinton and Obama basically read it like another public service announcement, not, I think, focusing on the fact that 20 million people were going to be watching, and the McCain people obviously gave some thought. It was better shot. Obviously, he showed a little humor.

LIASSON: It's the humor that made the difference. And look. McCain is the funniest candidate out there. I mean, he's the one who takes a kind of ironic view of politics. I think this was perfectly in keeping with that. And I think that this was a situation where humor was called for, and he brought some.

HUME: That's something he had the luxury of time to prepare for, because he's not involved in a tight race. LIASSON: Yes, yes, although I think he could have done it even off the cuff.

KRISTOL: It was interesting that Barack Obama told us that ordinary people can make a difference. That was nice of him to say.

I mean, really, politicians should not patronize to people by saying, "Well, you ordinary people -- you can help, too."

WALLACE: I also thought that it was interesting that Hillary Clinton said, "I've worked with many of these groups." I mean, it was interesting. All three of them revealed something in those little canned statements.

Anyway, we need to take a break here. But next up, we'll turn to the policy and politics of Iraq as General Petraeus makes a return visit to Washington.

But first, we once again asked Barack Obama to come on, and there sure would have been a lot of things to ask him about today. He once again turned us down, and so the Obama watch rolls on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: On this day in 1743, Thomas Jefferson was born. The Jefferson memorial was dedicated on this same day in 1943 to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of our third president.

Stay tuned for more from our panel and our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: This means rejecting, as we did in 2007, the calls for a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal of our forces at the moment when they are succeeding.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was John McCain and Hillary Clinton expressing very different views about Iraq as General Petraeus reported to Congress this week.

And we're back now with Brit, Mara, Bill and Juan.

Well, as we sit here at the end of a busy week with the president signing on to the Petraeus plan in terms of troop withdrawals and a non- pause pause -- whatever you want to call it -- a reassessment for 45 days this summer, Brit, does it look like the war has become a bigger or a smaller issue in the general election campaign?

HUME: For the moment, a bigger issue, because of the violence in and around Basra and the attacks in Baghdad, attacks on the Green Zone. American casualties have ticked up a little bit. Whether in the long run this will prove to have been a turning point for the worse or better remains to be seen.

Obviously, the Maliki government took some initiative down in Basra. They didn't get all the military results they expected, but it wasn't so very long ago that we wouldn't have expected the Maliki government to even try, particularly against Shiite militia.

So there's a lot in this. We don't know the ultimate outcome. But for the moment, I think the war is more in focus than it was before.

WALLACE: If the war is more in focus, Mara, is that bad news for John McCain? It's an unpopular war, according to the polls.

LIASSON: Yes, I think it's a little bit of bad news for him, but it's early enough in this election that what's happening in the fall means a heck of a lot more.

I think these hearings were just, in terms of the candidates, very status quo. Everybody kind of stuck to their positions, and it didn't change things in a big way.

WALLACE: Bill, on the policy side -- and this is what I talked about with Stephen Hadley -- perhaps the most striking development this week was this increased and new focus on Iraq -- on Iran, rather, not Al Qaida, as the central threat to our interests in Iraq. What's going on here?

KRISTOL: What's going on is that we've done so much damage to Al Qaida, they've been pushed up north toward Mosul. I think we're going to continue to reduce their effectiveness. And so now the Iranian- backed Shia extremists are the major threat.

That's good, not bad. We have virtually wiped out Al Qaida in Iraq, which Al Qaida said over and over was the central front of their battle against the U.S.

I think now Iran now comes more into focus. We have to see how much we can do to deter Iran from complicating things in the south with the Shia. But the good news is the Iraqi Shia government, which was supposed to be a puppet and pawn of Iran, has turned against the Iranian-backed Shia militia.

Politically, I think this is good for McCain for this reason. What's the main challenge of the next president? Dealing with Iran, dealing with Iran's attempts to get regional hegemony, dealing with Iran's attempts to destabilize Iraq, dealing with Iran's attempts to get nuclear weapons.

Who do you want dealing with Iran over the next four years, McCain or Obama? I think that's good for McCain.

WILLIAMS: I don't think it's good for McCain because I think it makes the war a bigger issue. I mean, the whole rationale that was put forward this week still focused on Al Qaida.

And as you have just said, the United States military has done a good job of dealing with Al Qaida. So then the argument becomes well, if things are getting better, why do we need to stay? Oh, no, because if we leave, things will get worse. But wait a second. You've dealt with Al Qaida, and now we shift to Iran, you know, the new devil in the picture.

I think at some point it just strains credibility. And when you put General Petraeus there and saying, you know, where is the political progress, you almost feel like you're talking to the wrong person.

You should be talking to President Bush and his team about why there has been no political stability developed in Iraq given that the U.S. military has provided this long time frame for which progress could be made.

WALLACE: I don't want to let the week pass without discussing the move by House Democrats to flat-out change the rules.

There was a 90-day clock that when a trade deal went up to Congress under fast track rules, they had 90 days to vote it up or down, no amendments -- obviously, an attempt to try to get these things through.

House Democrats changed those rules, took off the time clock, basically have said they're not going to do anything until after the election.

Brit, what's the impact of that?

HUME: Well, I think it exposes something that we've been seeing for some time. We area long way, in dealing with the Democratic Party, from dealing with the policies of John F. Kennedy or even Bill Clinton.

The Democratic Party was once the party of free trade. Now, this measure may -- may -- ultimately pass, but in an election season, given the appeals the Democrats are making at the presidential level and elsewhere on the issue of trade, they don't want a vote on this, and this gets them out of voting on it.

It's a bad move. It alienates an ally. This is the very kind of thing that Democrats, with all their talk about joining forces with allies, working closely with our allies, would appear to be -- that appears to be now hypocrisy in the face of this move on Colombia.

WALLACE: Mara, is it good politics for the Democrats?

LIASSON: I think in the short term, yes. In the long term, no. This is a complete repudiation of Bill Clinton's kind of new Democratic stance on trade.

WALLACE: Let me also turn to China and the Olympics, because I have to say it's a subject I'm fascinated by, and I thought Joey Cheek was an awfully impressive young man today, the Olympic gold medalist.

Bill, what's your take on this? Is President Bush right to say, "I'm going to go to Beijing and I'm going to go to those opening ceremonies?"

KRISTOL: No, I don't think so. I hope he changes his mind. The opening ceremonies are a political -- the Chinese have made this a political event -- this massive torch relay through every continent. That's not the way it used to be done.

The giving of the Olympics to Beijing was a political decision in 2001 explicitly defended as such at the time -- this is going to help China liberalize. It's going to give them an incentive to respect human rights. It hasn't worked out that way, particularly. That's fine. Don't cancel the Olympics. The athletes should go. But the president of the United States does not have to go to the opening ceremonies, which really herald China's sponsorship of these Olympics.

WALLACE: Why do you think he is?

KRISTOL: I think he said he would, and he feels some commitment to that, and he thinks he can privately pressure Hu Jintao by continuing to say that he'll go. And maybe he will be able to pressure them. Maybe he shouldn't announce now that he's not going to go.

But if things don't get better, it seems to me he could find something else to do those couple of days.

WILLIAMS: Well, if you want to make a difference, he should go. If he wants to really have influence, he should go. The counter argument would be, be by his absence, he makes a statement that somehow will chasten the Chinese.

Guess what? The Chinese will become more nationalistic, more angry, more a sense of isolated by the absence of international presence in this arena.

And if you look back, if history is our guide, oh, did it make a big difference that Jimmy Carter and the Americans didn't show up in 1980? I think, in fact, it was a failure, our absence there.

WALLACE: But in fairness, we're not talking about boycotting the Olympics altogether.

WILLIAMS: Well, no, but you're -- well, you know what? I think that is the first step. It's the camel's nose here. This is part of saying we don't like what the Chinese are doing.

And in fact, we don't. It's counter to our Democratic principles what they're doing, not only in terms of Tibet, but also Darfur. These folks are not nice people by our measures. But you know what? You've got to deal with them in a way that allows them to be persuaded.

And one last point on the Colombia trade pact to Brit. You know, I think President Bush knew it wasn't going to get through. So much as the Democrats were playing politics, and I think it's just reprehensible that they would play to fears of people about free trade, President Bush knew this thing was going down.

He'd been told it was going down without the environmental and labor protections, and he let it go down because he thought Republicans would benefit.

HUME: I was just getting ready to agree with Juan about China when he...

(LAUGHTER) ... and he ran out the clock on me.

WALLACE: He did indeed. Thank you, panel. See you next Sunday.

Up next, a very special Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: This week Washington is abuzz with excitement about this man. No, it's not a politician or a visiting head of state. It's our Power Player of the Week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Do you want to be the greatest hockey player who ever lived?

OVECHKIN: Yeah.

WALLACE: You do.

OVECHKIN: Yeah.

WALLACE: Do you think that's possible?

OVECHKIN: Why not?

WALLACE: Alex Ovechkin is the 22-year-old star of the Washington Capitals who has burst onto the national sports scene.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: ... and right off the draw, Ovechkin fires and scores.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: He scored 65 goals this season, propelling his team from last place at Thanksgiving to a spot in the playoffs.

But while he's likely to be named the sport's most valuable player, the Russian makes it clear in his heavily accented English it's still not enough.

OVECHKIN: I can do better.

WALLACE: Really?

OVECHKIN: Yeah.

WALLACE: Why?

OVECHKIN: Because I'm maximum, max guy, you know? Like, I'm always want to be -- do the maximum.

WALLACE: Sometimes "maximum guy" surprises even himself, as with this remarkable goal two years ago that instantly became a YouTube classic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: ... Alexander Ovechkin. When it looked like it was no longer possible, he still got it done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OVECHKIN: I try to do the same in practice, you know, sometimes, and I can't even touch the puck.

WALLACE: Ovechkin's unique skills have won him a contract, as Washington Capitals' owner, Ted Leonsis, announced in January.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEONSIS: We signed Alex Ovechkin to a 13-year contract.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: $124 million over 13 years. That's a lot of money.

OVECHKIN: Yeah. That's a lot of money.

WALLACE: Do you think you're worth it?

OVECHKIN: If ownership give me that money like they think I deserve it, so -- but still, I don't want to stop what I do, and like, if I sign a contract, like, I can, you know, just say, "OK, life is done, like I can go smoke cigarettes."

WALLACE: Ovechkin gets his work ethic from his mother, Tatiana, who won two Olympic gold medals for Russia in basketball. And Ovechkin wears the same number eight his mother wore when she played.

OVECHKIN: My mom play, and I play, and my hope -- and my children do something in sports that wear the number eight.

WALLACE: It's the Ovechkin number.

OVECHKIN: Yeah.

WALLACE: Ovechkin is known as a team player, more interested in how the Capitals do than individual achievements. But when we asked what his goals are, it became clear he wants it all.

OVECHKIN: To win everything.

WALLACE: Which means what?

OVECHKIN: To be the best, like when you're done with your career, you say you have like -- I have Stanley Cup, I have Olympic games, I have everything.

WALLACE: Be one of the best ever.

OVECHKIN: Yeah.

WALLACE: And you think that's possible?

OVECHKIN: Of course.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: The Capitals were tied late in their playoff game Friday night when this happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Ovechkin steals. Score! Alex Ovechkin!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That's right, Alex the great scored the game winner. Game two later today.

Now, a program note. This week, Pope Benedict comes to the U.S. for the first time. Be sure to watch our Fox News special "Mission to America" tonight at both 8:00 p.m. Eastern or, if you miss it, at 11:00 p.m.

And that's it for today. Have a great week, and we'll see you next "Fox News Sunday."

About Us | RSS | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2008