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

April 06, 2008

McCain on "Fox News Sunday"

Fox News Sunday

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

In what looks like a Democratic year, how do Republicans hold on to the White House? As our "Choosing the President" series continues, we'll ask the GOP's presumptive nominee, Senator John McCain, in a "Fox News Sunday" exclusive.

Then, the commanding U.S. general in Iraq briefs Congress this week. What kind of reception will he get from Democrats? We'll find out from one of their leading voices on foreign policy, Senator John Kerry.

Plus, with two weeks until the Pennsylvania primary, does Clinton or Obama have the upper hand? We'll ask our Sunday panel -- Fred Barnes, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams.

And our Power Player of the Week opens a museum for news, all right now on "Fox News Sunday."

And hello again from Fox News in Washington. We continue our series "Choosing the President" now with the Republican nominee-to-be, Senator John McCain.

On Friday, we met up with the senator at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. He was there to speak at ceremonies marking the 40th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: Senator McCain, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

MCCAIN: Thank you, Chris. It's nice to be back.

WALLACE: Your advisers say that you are going to campaign in places that Republican presidential candidates usually don't -- inner city, rural Alabama, Appalachia. Do you plan to run as a different kind of Republican?

MCCAIN: I believe that the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan -- that that's a tradition of the Republican Party, that we need to go all over America, and not just the specific places you're talking about, but compete hard in every section of the country -- for example, California.

California can no longer be written off, in my view. And that means going to all parts of that state and reaching out to Hispanic voters, independents, others.

I know that you know, Chris, that one of the recent trends which may not have been as understood as well as some other things is that there's this dramatic rise in the independent voter registration, whether it be in my state or all across America.

The independent voter will make an even larger difference, I think, in the 2008 election. So I have to energize our base, get the independents and the old and new, quote, "Reagan Democrats."

WALLACE: I think you might agree that Republicans have too often been portrayed, and perhaps too often acted, as the party of the haves at the expense of the have-nots.

You're here today at the Civil Rights Museum, but it has come to our attention that in 1983 you voted against the federal holiday for Martin Luther King. You voted in 1990 against civil rights legislation.

Isn't it going to be hard to reach out to all those groups given your history and the history of the party?

MCCAIN: Well, let me say in 1983 I was wrong, and I believe that my advocacy for the recognition of Dr. King's birthday in Arizona was something that I'm proud of.

The issue in the early '90s was a little more complicated. I've never believed in quotas, and I don't. There's no doubt about my view on that issue. And that was the implication, at least, of that other vote.

But I was wrong in '83, and all of us make mistakes, and I think nobody recognized that more than Dr. King.

WALLACE: Karl Rove, who now works with Fox News, does maps for us based on the average of recent public polls. You haven't seen these, but you might be interested.

And what they indicate is that traditional Democratic strongholds like Pennsylvania, like Michigan, like Minnesota are up for grabs this year. You talked about California. Is this not going to be a red state, blue state election?

MCCAIN: I don't think so in the traditional way. I think that all of these states, or most of them, are up for grabs.

You've seen a dramatic increase in Hispanic voters in my part of the country, but also many other parts of the country. In the southeast, the greatest population increase has been Hispanic voters.

We probably are going to see voters more activated, African American voters as well as Hispanic as well as others. And also, it's pretty clear that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have energized the younger voters.

And I believe I have. And I believe I've got to compete on that grounds, too. That's why I go on shows that young people watch.

So I'm not sure that the old red state, blue state scenario that prevailed for the last several elections works. I think most of these states that we have either red or blue are going to be up for grabs. WALLACE: It's a 50-state battleground.

MCCAIN: I believe so -- if not 50, certainly the majority of them.

WALLACE: As a reporter, one of the things I've always noticed about you is you're not very good at hiding your true feelings.

This week you said Barack Obama, quote, "doesn't understand national security, has no background, no experience on these issues." A few weeks ago, you said he's deceiving voters with eloquent but empty rhetoric.

Putting aside your differences on issues, straight talk, is Barack Obama qualified to be president?

MCCAIN: If the voters decide that of America, absolutely. I believe that my talent and my background and my experience, which has led to my judgment, is -- I think qualifies me more, obviously, or I wouldn't be seeking the presidency.

Let me just say again that was in response -- when I said he was inexperienced and does not have the background -- to the charge of this, quote, "100 years in Iraq," and it was obvious when you read the whole quote -- and I hope that at some point we could see that -- where I was in an exchange with a voter in New Hampshire, a town hall meeting, the kind of exchanges that I enjoy most.

He said, "How long are you going to be there." I said, "It could be 100 years, but it's a matter of U.S. casualties, and we have presence in countries like South Korea, Japan," et cetera, et cetera.

So it's very clear. And Senator Obama and anyone who reads that knows that I didn't think we were in a 100-year war.

WALLACE: But I want to go to the bigger issue...

MCCAIN: Yes, sure.

WALLACE: ... which is that you said Obama doesn't understand national security, has no experience, no background on these issues.

I understand the voters are going to make up their minds. In John McCain's opinion, does someone who has no background in national security - - is he fit to be commander in chief?

MCCAIN: Again, I'm not ducking your question, Chris. You could make an argument maybe that Jack Kennedy was not, quote, "qualified" in 1960 as opposed to Richard Nixon. The voters decided on Jack Kennedy.

So I can't dictate what the voters will decide. All I can do is match my credentials and my knowledge and background up against Senator Obama's or Senator Clinton. That race is not decided yet.

And I will gladly stand not only on that background and experience, but my vision and my ability to lead this country in difficult times.

WALLACE: You gave a major economic speech recently in which you said...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: It's not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they're big banks or small borrowers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: After that, Senator, one columnist compared you to Mr. Potter, the banker in "It's a Wonderful Life."

What would you do to help the thousands of Americans who right now are in the process of losing their homes? Or do you feel, as you said in your speech, that's not the duty of government?

MCCAIN: Look, Americans are hurting right now. Americans are sitting around the kitchen table as we speak trying to keep the American dream, and that is ownership of their own home.

They don't know if they have to get another job. They don't know if - - the challenges are enormous right now, and Americans are hurting.

The key to it is not to bail out people who speculated or people who engaged in unsavory practices. The key to it is get the lender and the borrower together. We know how hard that is because of identifying the lender, but there's ways to do it.

The key to it is to support this legislation which is going through the Senate right now which I think will move the ball forward down the field, such as individual deductions for and larger deductions for home loan mortgage payments, the purchase of mortgages which are bad by local authorities, increasing funds for counseling so that people who are in difficulty will better recognize what their options are.

Of course, there's a role for government, but it's not to -- it's not to reward greedy speculators. It is not to reward people who misbehave. And it certainly isn't a huge expenditure of taxpayers' dollars which, in the long run, could exacerbate the problems that exist.

On the issue of Bear Stearns, very quickly, every financial expert I know says that if it had failed, it would have rippled throughout the entire financial community and would have caused greater problems which eventually would have come down on the average citizen if our economy continues to decline the way that it's been doing.

So I'm ready to act. And I understand how terrible this is for so many millions of American families. And I understand the challenges and I'm prepared to meet them, and that is limited government intervention.

But where government is required, let's go ahead and do it. We passed a stimulus package. People are going to be getting checks in the month of May. Maybe they'll be able to help boost the economy a little bit. But there's no magic wand here that can be waved.

WALLACE: Let's turn to foreign policy. You acknowledge you were surprised by the recent Iraqi offensive in Basra. In the end, the Iraqi government failed to oust those Shiite militias.

Doesn't that raise serious questions about the continued weakness of the central government in Baghdad?

MCCAIN: Well, actually, when I say I was surprised, our authorities in Iraq were surprised, the State Department -- it was about a 48-hour...

WALLACE: Right. The whole government was surprised.

MCCAIN: Yes, about a 48-hour window. It's interesting. We have asked the government time after time to act effectively, that we want this government to act. They acted.

Now, obviously, the results were mixed. Obviously, there were problems. And Maliki, in my view, should have waited until we had concluded the battle of Mosul which is going on as we speak.

They do have control of the port of Basra now. That's one of the major economic areas of Iraq because of the oil that goes through there. It was al-Sadr that declared a cease-fire, not Maliki, and they continue...

WALLACE: It was brokered by the Iranians, who actually may have more clout with both al-Sadr -- I mean, let me just ask you the question from this point of view.

General Petraeus is coming to testify in the next couple of days. A lot of talk about the surge and how that's helped damp down the violence -- some would say because there was a spike of violence during this Basra battle, maybe al-Sadr's decision to hold the cease- fire is as responsible as the surge is, and if he changes his mind, we're back in the frying pan.

MCCAIN: Well, in respect, I don't think Sadr would have declared the cease-fire if he thought he was winning. Most times in history of military engagements, the winning side doesn't declare the cease-fire.

The second point is that overall, the Iraqi military performed pretty well. Six months ago, it would have -- or eight or nine months ago, it would have been unthinkable for Maliki to act this way.

WALLACE: We heard this week that 1,000 soldiers refused to fight or deserted.

MCCAIN: And there were many, many thousands who are fighting there. Compare that with two years ago when the army was basically unable to function in any way effectively.

Look, I didn't particularly like the outcome of this thing, but I am convinced that we now have a government that is governing with some effect and a military that is functioning very effectively. Up in Mosul where some of the best units are, they're functioning well.

I've always said, Chris, this is long and hard and tough. We're paying a huge penalty for four years of a failed strategy that I fought hard against, and I believe this strategy has succeeded and will succeed and can succeed. But it's long and hard and tough.

WALLACE: A couple of final questions I'm going to ask you, sir. You said this week that you have started putting together the list of possibilities for vice president.

Given that you call radical Islam the transcendent challenge of our age, fair to assume that your running mate must have firsthand foreign policy experience?

MCCAIN: I don't know if that's -- I think that the person -- the first and really major and overwhelming priority is a person who shares my principles, my values, my priorities -- as you know, priorities are very important in presidents -- and could immediately take my place. That's, I think, the overriding criteria.

WALLACE: So it could be someone who's, in effect, a foreign policy novice.

MCCAIN: Well, it could be someone who has a lot of experience and someone who doesn't on national security issues. And frankly, the process that we're in -- you know, it's so early in the process that, honestly, it's -- the sole criteria I'm looking at is not that.

It is who can best take my place and carry on the agenda and the vision that I have outlined and will continue to outline during this campaign.

WALLACE: Senator, I wouldn't ask you this question, but it did come out at a congressional hearing this week that you still do not have Secret Service protection.

MCCAIN: Yes.

WALLACE: As we sit here in the National Civil Rights Museum, which was the scene of the Lorraine Motel and the assassination of Martin Luther King...

MCCAIN: Yes.

WALLACE: ... why not?

MCCAIN: Because it inhibits, obviously, my ability to have close contact with people, but we'll be meeting early next week with the Secret Service and working out the modalities for Secret Service protection.

WALLACE: Do you think you'll take on Secret Service protection before the convention?

MCCAIN: Oh, no, we'll be setting it up early next week, so I would imagine...

WALLACE: You'll be taking it next week.

MCCAIN: Not as early as next week taking it, but I'll meet with the Secret Service and we'll set it up, and shortly thereafter we will have Secret Service protection.

WALLACE: So in the next few weeks.

MCCAIN: Sure, if not earlier, yes.

WALLACE: And because...

MCCAIN: Well, I think that it's important that as we get more and more visibility that we recognize the inevitable, and so we'll be talking with them early to arrange for, very soon, some Secret Service protection.

WALLACE: Finally, you are also known as someone who doesn't suffer fools gladly. You have written about your, quote -- in one of your books - - about your legendary temper, and I wonder...

MCCAIN: I shouldn't have written that book.

WALLACE: Well, that's right. But I do wonder -- being "John McCain, the maverick" is different than being "John McCain, president of the United States."

Do you think at all -- have you thought at all since you have become, in effect, the Republican nominee that if you do become president that you may have to change not your personality, but the way you act, if only because it's so hard for people to come into the Oval Office and say they disagree, say they think you're wrong?

MCCAIN: Chris, I've worked across the aisle more than -- I'll match my record of legislative bipartisan achievements with anybody.

You can't scare people or intimidate them if you're going to reach agreement with your colleagues and your contemporaries. And I've worked hard at that, and that's what the American people want.

Second thing is if I lose my capacity for anger, then I shouldn't be president of the United States. When we have corruption in spending that ends up with people in federal prison, I get angry.

When I see greedy people like a guy cashing in millions of dollars on the backs of this Bear Stearns takeover, I get angry.

When I see the waste and corruption in Washington, I get angry. And you know what? The American people are angry, too. Look at the polls. Look at the polls.

They are angry because there is spending and waste and corruption, and government is not responding to their hopes and dreams and aspirations.

So I'll get angry when I see somebody who's corrupt and ends up in federal prison. And yet at the same time, I have a proven record of working across the aisle.

I've known these leaders in the House of Representatives, in the Senate, for more than 30 years. I know how to work with them very, very well, and I will, for the good of the country.

And I believe I can appeal to the better angels of their nature and they'll work with me. I'm confident of it. And the American people want that now.

WALLACE: Senator McCain, thank you so much.

MCCAIN: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: Best of luck to you, sir.

MCCAIN: Thanks for having me on.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: And our thanks also to the staff of the National Civil Rights Museum for their help.

Well, up next, we'll talk with Senator John Kerry about that upcoming report to Congress on Iraq and some presidential politics. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Joining us now to discuss Iraq and presidential politics is Senator John Kerry. He's on the campaign trail for Senator Barack Obama, and he comes to us from Philadelphia.

Senator, let's start with the question I asked Senator McCain about Barack Obama's fitness to be president. Take a look, if you will -- back when you were running in 2003, here's what you had to say about experience. "The presidency is not the place for on-the-job training on national security and foreign affairs issues."

Question: Why was experience important then and it isn't now?

KERRY: Well, it's judgment, judgment and experience, and I think Barack Obama comes with -- look, he has more experience in foreign policy than George Bush, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton had when they became president, Chris.

Number two, judgment is the critical element here. I mean, John McCain -- I just listened to him. John McCain has been wrong. He said that he said it would be long and tough in Iraq. In fact, in '03, John McCain said the war would be brief and the oil would pay for it. He was wrong.

Last month he said that Muqtada al-Sadr was losing his influence. He was wrong.

In January he said Basra is not a problem. He was wrong.

In fact, on the 100 years war issue, John McCain is being disingenuous, because what he said in that interview was as long as there is no violence -- which indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of Iraq itself.

Our own national intelligence people tell us it is the American presence that is attracting jihadists and creating violence. So if he's talking about being there for 40 years, 100 years, he's talking about attracting more and more terrorists and not paying attention to the larger challenges.

WALLACE: Well, wait a minute, Senator Kerry. I mean, on the question of the 100 years -- and you campaigned for president in 2004. I never heard you say, "Let's get all of our troops out of South Korea," where they've been for half a century.

KERRY: Well, absolutely not, but...

WALLACE: Let me just ask -- I never heard you say, "Let's pull our troops out of Germany," where they've been for more than half a century.

That was the model he was talking about there, not 100 years of war.

KERRY: Absolutely I disagree, Chris, and if you go back and look at what he said on the Charlie Rose show four months ago, he was asked by Charlie Rose -- he put it in the context of no casualties.

And he said, "Well, do you think you can you do that in Iraq?" And John McCain said, "No, you can't do it in Iraq because of the culture and religion." He got it right then. He's getting it wrong now.

The point is that you have, you know, a John McCain who really has shown, I think, a misunderstanding of where the real center of the war on terror is. He has adopted the Bush policy with respect to the war a terror, which is a mistake with respect to how we're prosecuting it in Iraq.

And he has ignored what we need to be doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as has the Bush administration.

WALLACE: Senator, if I may, I think you're conflating two different interviews. When he talked about the 100 years, he was talking specifically in a town hall meeting in New Hampshire where they said, "You know, we might be there 50 years." He said, "Maybe 100 years."

KERRY: Chris...

WALLACE: And then -- if I may -- and then specifically talked about the South Korea model and the...

KERRY: Yes, I know that, Chris.

WALLACE: ... German model. But let me ask you, if I may...

KERRY: But no, no, no, no, no, don't -- Chris...

WALLACE: Let me ask you...

KERRY: Chris...

WALLACE: Then you can answer any question you want.

KERRY: All right.

WALLACE: Back in 2004, you spoke very differently about John McCain. You considered him as a possible vice presidential running mate.

In May of 2004, you said that McCain was your first choice to be secretary of defense, and that's at a time when we had already been in Iraq for more than a year, sir.

KERRY: No, I didn't say that, and I...

WALLACE: You didn't say which, sir?

KERRY: I didn't say that he was my first choice. I said he was somebody...

WALLACE: Well, it was a quote from May 2004.

KERRY: But let me be very clear about John McCain in 2004. John McCain in 2004 was a Senator John McCain who had opposed the Bush tax cuts, who had indicated at that point in time a very different attitude on any number of subjects from global climate change to how you treat the powerful in Washington.

Nomination John McCain is a different person. He is now supporting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

He voted against the bankruptcy bill -- in other words -- I mean, for it. He took the position of the most powerful interests against the average American.

He votes against the minimum wage, repeatedly again.

I think you have a very different John McCain. But come back...

WALLACE: But on the war in Iraq, sir, there wasn't a different John McCain. And in 2004...

KERRY: There was not a John McCain...

WALLACE: ... if I may, he had been supporting the Iraq war. He was one of the biggest supporters. Of course, you had voted for it as well. And you were talking about him as being a member of a Kerry administration.

KERRY: No, I -- we had a conversation about whether or not to explore the issue. We never got to the full exploration, Chris, number one.

Number two, let's be very clear about this 100 years. Again, the model in Japan and in Korea is a model where they have adopted a full democracy and where they have none of the insurgency, Al Qaida, jihadists, religious extremism, that you have in Iraq. John McCain himself four months ago -- please go back and read the interview -- said in answer to Charlie Rose, "No, I don't envision it being possible to stay that period of time in Iraq, and we will withdraw," he said, because of the religious and cultural component.

So you have a different John McCain today when he talks about 100 years or a million years.

Now, the bigger issue -- and this is where Barack Obama has shown the judgment to be president juxtaposed to John McCain. Barack Obama understands that the policies of John McCain and George Bush are not making America safer.

The fact is that Iran is more powerful. Iraq is in chaos fundamentally, a dysfunctional government. You have Afghanistan where the Taliban is resurging. You have Pakistan which is fragile.

You haven't yet succeeded in dealing with the nuclear weapons of North Korea. You still have Al Qaida reconstituted...

WALLACE: Senator?

KERRY: ... Hamas more powerful, Hezbollah...

WALLACE: Senator, can I get back to one of my questions?

KERRY: Yes, but, Chris, this is your question.

WALLACE: Well, no, it really -- I think we've gone off the track at this point.

A few days ago, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said this about John McCain, and let's put it up on the screen. He called him "a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years."

You complain about Republican attacks on you back in 2004. What do you think of Howard Dean calling McCain a blatant opportunist?

KERRY: Well, I honestly don't know what he was referring to or where that comes from. I'm not going to sit here -- I mean, the key issue here...

WALLACE: Do you think he's a blatant opportunist?

KERRY: No. Look, I think John McCain has taken positions in the course of trying to win the Republican nomination, whether it's the reversal and flip-flop on the intolerance with respect to Jerry Falwell and others, or whether it is the Bush tax cuts flip-flop, or whether it is this flip-flop now on the issue of Iraq, or whether it is, you know, global climate change, where he has not yet signed on to Joe Lieberman and John Warner's bill.

There is a clear indication of a Nomination John McCain versus the Senator John McCain. WALLACE: Well, Senator, I mean, with all due respect, I mean, every politician, frankly, including you, have been accused of flip- flops over the years.

KERRY: Yes, but my...

WALLACE: But if I may, do you think that John McCain was an opportunist when he was supporting the troop surge when no one else in the Congress was supporting the troop surge?

KERRY: No, I don't believe that.

WALLACE: Do you think John McCain was an opportunist when he refused to take early release from a North Vietnamese prison camp because he was the son of an admiral, because he said he was going to stay there for years, as long as all the other Americans did?

KERRY: Chris, please. I think you almost insult my intelligence and my values and those of every American. Nobody ever would insinuate that John McCain is anything but a hero for his activities in the prison camp...

WALLACE: Well, Howard Dean called him a blatant opportunist.

KERRY: Well, I think he's referring to what's happened in this period of time, I assume, with respect to the nomination. I mean, I just referred to several major reversals. Now, you know, come back to what you just said about me, et cetera.

You know, the one reversal that the Republicans tried to play with was my vote against an amendment that I had voted for because I wanted to pay for the war. That was a vote of principle.

When the Senate refused to pay for the war and the Senate refused to demand a plan from the administration, out of principle I said, "I'm not going to vote for that." That was not a flip-flop. That was a vote of principle.

Now, you'll have to explain to me how voting for the Bush tax cuts after you vote against them is not a change, a fundamental change, of principle.

WALLACE: Senator, if I may, we're running out of time and I want to ask you about new events.

General Petraeus is coming to testify before Congress this week. A new National Intelligence Estimate indicates the troop surge has brought not victory, but some success both on the military and on the political side.

Shouldn't Petraeus be allowed to finish the troop drawdown in July, then have a pause to see how things happen, before deciding whether to pull out any more troops?

KERRY: Well, I think he's going to -- obviously, there aren't the votes in the Senate not to do that, so he's going to be allowed to do that, Chris. That's not the issue.

But the issue is really what I was focusing on earlier about this huge difference between Barack Obama and John McCain and the security of our country. It's not a political issue. It's a real issue.

The fact is America is less safe today because of the policies that have been pursued by this administration. John McCain supports the policy that our own intelligence agency tells us is attracting more jihadists, creating more terrorists, and diverting us from the real focus in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Barack Obama understands that. John McCain apparently does not.

And his policy wants to continue with a bogged down America in Iraq rather than change the dynamic. Barack Obama has said we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. And he knows we have to change the dynamic, deal with Iran, deal with Syria, create real diplomacy.

The reason the surge has been successful is partly because of the increase of our troops, who are superb, but also because Muqtada al- Sadr declared a truce and because, as you said yourself to John McCain, the Sunnis decided they were better off working with the Americans.

That is not an equation for long-term success in Iraq.

WALLACE: Senator Kerry, we're going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for a very spirited interview.

KERRY: Well, they always are.

WALLACE: And please come back, sir.

KERRY: Thank you very much.

WALLACE: Up next, the state of the Democratic race. Clinton leads in Pennsylvania, but Obama has a big money advantage. And speaking of money, the Clintons have made a lot of it.

Our Sunday group tackles all that after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Now, don't get me wrong. I have absolutely nothing against rich people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: That was Hillary Clinton after her campaign put out tax returns showing she and her husband have made more than $100 million since leaving the White House.

And it's time now for our Sunday group, Fox News contributors Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Bill Kristol, also of The Weekly Standard, and Juan Williams, also from National Public Radio.

We are truly fair and balanced today, everyone. All right.

So let's take a look at the numbers from the Clinton tax returns. Let's put them up on the screen. The Clintons made $109 million in the last eight years, they paid $33.8 million in taxes, and they gave $10.2 million in charitable contributions.

Fred, does that put the Clinton money issue to rest?

BARNES: Well, no, I don't think so at all. I mean, now, look. They're doing something to greater excess that has become quite common in Washington, and that's cashing in on your public service. You know, there's a word for it, "buckraking," and a lot of people do it.

Congressional aides go and become lobbyists, and some senators like Trent Lott become super lobbyists -- and John Breaux of Louisiana as well. And some people become stars and get huge amounts of money giving speeches, like Colin Powell.

WALLACE: And is there anything wrong with it? BARNES: No. Well, there's nothing wrong with it, but I don't think -- and it's not shocking to all of us in Washington.

But I think it will be shocking to the American public when they see these incredible numbers and this amount of money that the Clintons have made. And I'll have to say it is so different than the way it used to be some years ago.

I mean, Harry Truman went back to Missouri and wrote his memoirs, I guess. That was about it. Eisenhower went to Gettysburg. Now you hit the lecture circuit, and the Clintons have made zillions.

WALLACE: Mara, let's pick up on some things that the Clinton tax returns don't tell us. And let's put those up. President Clinton made between $12 million and $15 million from Yucaipa Companies, an investment firm that does business with, among others, Dubai and the Chinese. We don't know what the president's role was there.

And we still don't know who gave millions of dollars to fund his presidential library. Do you think that part of it, what we don't know, is an issue?

LIASSON: Yes. Well, I think it's a -- I think what we don't know is the area where the most interesting facts might eventually come out if anybody could get at them.

I mean, what we don't know is -- and I don't think there's any question -- nobody's accusing them of this, but did he invest $1 in Yucaipa and get $15 million? Was it kind of like cattle futures? Or exactly, you know, the connection between the people he's helped, you know, in foreign business deals versus big contributions to the library.

There's a lot of confluence between people he's given speeches to and donations to Hillary's campaign. No accusations of anything shady or illegal, but we just don't know a lot of facts.

WALLACE: Bill, do you think the Clintons can now hold the line and say, "We've done this dump, we have basically given you, between being governor, running for president, now this, 30 years worth of financial returns, that's it?"

KRISTOL: Well, I don't know. I think the Yucaipa, which is Ron Burkle's firm, seems to have just paid Bill Clinton a salary of $3 million a year, on average, to open doors. Maybe he was worth that.

But I think -- let me get back to Fred's point. As Fred said, there's nothing shocking anymore about cashing in on public service.

People understand it to be a kind of making up for the rather moderate salaries people took when they were senators or governors or cabinet secretaries.

But usually you do that at the end -- after your public life has ended. You don't cash in on public service and then run for office. Now, to be fair, Hillary...

WALLACE: Well, he's not running for office. KRISTOL: No, that's exactly my second point. To be fair to Hillary Clinton, she didn't. I mean, she was first lady. Then she became senator from New York.

And therefore, it brings Bill Clinton back into the center of the picture. I think that's the implication of the tax returns.

Somehow, everyone is reminded once again that if you get Hillary Clinton, you get Bill, too. You get the possible conflicts of interest. You get the cashing in on public service in a somewhat unseemly way.

And I think it's just another nail, frankly, in Hillary Clinton's political coffin in this nomination contest.

WALLACE: Don't, you know, sugar-coat it here, Bill.

KRISTOL: Well, I don't mean to be harsh. I say that, of course, with sorrow, not with...

WILLIAMS: I don't know why you would say it's a nail in some coffin. I just think people will think that they made a lot, a lot of money. And as Fred said, this is what goes on in Washington. It goes on all the time.

I think President Reagan went over to Asia and made speeches for zillions of dollars. Nobody says, "Oh, that's terrible."

BARNES: Yes, $1 million it was.

WILLIAMS: OK. So $1 million.

WALLACE: For two speeches.

WILLIAMS: Right. Yes. OK.

BARNES: He was well paid, but...

WILLIAMS: So my point...

KRISTOL: And Nancy Reagan didn't run for office.

WILLIAMS: Well, all I'm -- it's just a different life, a different time. All I'm saying is why would you say that? I don't know.

It seems to me that, you know, if we want to look at John McCain, we can start asking questions about his wife, the heiress to a beer fortune. Where's all that money coming from which John McCain's...

WALLACE: It's coming from people drinking beer.

WILLIAMS: well, no, but I'm saying -- you know what? Giving speeches, drinking beer, which -- I prefer giving the speeches as a source of income, if that's what you want to get into. I don't see that this is an issue at all. It will create the image that these are extremely rich people, and that they are. And if that's to be held against her, then I could say it's a negative.

But she could also lend money to her campaign. I think the campaign could use money after the results this week that indicated Barack Obama again has doubled what she...

WALLACE: $40 million versus $20 million.

WILLIAMS: Correct, and put ads up in Pennsylvania that have contributed to what he's...

WALLACE: Let me get to Pennsylvania. A little over two weeks until the Pennsylvania primary. Let's put some poll numbers up. The most recent RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows Clinton now with a seven- point lead. Only a week or so ago it was double digits.

What's your sense of Pennsylvania, Mara?

LIASSON: Well, clearly, it's tightened. I mean, we've seen this before in state after state where she had something like a 20-point lead. He manages to shrink it but can't seem to get over those last five points to win. I mean, that happened in Texas and Ohio.

I think that the polls have definitely tightened. He's been campaigning there in a different way. Instead of the big rallies where he's like a rock star, he's actually been holding smaller meetings, trying to relate to, you know, white working-class people.

He's been able to outspend her on television I think 4-1 there. I mean, the money does matter. I don't know if it means that he's going to win Pennsylvania.

I think the big question about Pennsylvania is will she get double digits or will he hold her to a kind of single digits, less than Ohio- type...

WALLACE: Let me ask you about that, Fred, because...

LIASSON: And that makes a huge difference for her, because she can't catch up to him in the popular vote, which I think now is agreed upon as a criteria for her to be able to make her case to the superdelegates, if she doesn't win Pennsylvania by double digits.

WALLACE: Let me ask you, Fred -- I mean, this gets into one of these classic "better than expected," "less than expected."

BARNES: Yes.

WALLACE: Is a win a win, or does she have to win by a certain margin for that to keep her alive and viable in the Democratic race?

BARNES: I think she has to win.

WALLACE: Well, she clearly has to win.

BARNES: Yes, and that's enough. But look. Mara's right, and I think Democrats have come to agree. She's 740,000 votes behind in the popular vote. She's got to be ahead or she doesn't have an argument when you come to the end of these 10 primaries.

It just makes it harder to pick up -- if she doesn't pick up a couple hundred thousand votes in Pennsylvania, she's going to have to pick them up somewhere else, and it's hard to imagine where -- maybe in Puerto Rico.

But look. If she comes to the end of the road here, she's going to be behind in delegates and behind in popular vote, she has no argument that she can give the superdelegates. If they went with her then, it would split the party.

WALLACE: All right. We need to step aside for a moment.

Next up, we'll turn to foreign policy. General Petraeus reports to Congress, and President Bush meets with Russian President Putin.

But first we want to note that a feature we started here, the "Obama Watch," has now become part of pop culture.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JON STEWART: Chris Wallace and "Fox News Sunday." They have been left out in the cold. And that is surprising. "Fox News Sunday" is one of the big five Sunday chatters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: As Jon Stewart noted, Obama danced with Ellen and played basketball with Tyra, but once again this week he continued to snub this show and all the people who watch it. So the "Obama Watch" keeps ticking.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: On this day in 1917, the U.S. declared war against Germany, entering World War I. Allied forces who had been fighting since 1914 welcomed America's involvement. The war continued another year.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: And we're back now with Fred, Mara, Bill and Juan.

Well, as we reported earlier, General Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, is coming back this week to report to Congress, to report to the president.

As we all know when he did it last September, it was a very big deal. You see him there in the jammed hearing room as he defended the surge.

Now he's expected to report some progress, call for a pause in July after the troop surge drawdown, and after he makes his report, to head back to Baghdad.

Bill, why is it so less of a pressing story, so less of a headline news this week than it was in September?

KRISTOL: Well, because it's more evident that the surge has worked and we're on course to a satisfactory outcome of the war, first of all.

Secondly, because the Democrats made fools of themselves when they attacked Petraeus, and the most famous one, of course, was Hillary Clinton, who said it would take a willing suspension of disbelief to believe what General Petraeus was saying.

And of course, what he was saying was true. And General Petraeus is an honorable man. And Hillary Clinton should be the last person to talk about willing suspensions of disbelief, I would say, in light of recent stories she's concocted.

So I think Petraeus will do fine. And for me, you know, what's impressive about Petraeus and Odierno and Ambassador Crocker is this -- people worry, I've worried, can our government even function.

And we're so bad at doing a lot of things, it seems, these days. And here we have people who've come up through the military and through the foreign service doing really an exemplary job.

I mean, this is not politics. This is just taking a very tough situation when they went over there over 1.5 years ago and really turning it around.

And it is reassuring -- I mean, I've never -- I've always had confidence in our military and the fighting men and women, but it's really reassuring that they can -- that we can execute here -- conceive and execute a sound plan.

WALLACE: But let me ask you about that, Juan, because we have the events of the last couple of weeks where Prime Minister Maliki announced this big crackdown on the Shiite militias in Basra. Now he's had to suspend it. Al-Sadr and his forces are alive and well.

Have the events of the last couple of weeks demonstrated the strength or weakness of the central government in Iraq?

WILLIAMS: Well, it's a mixed story in the sense that the administration is quite proud that, in fact, you've had Maliki acting on his own, taking action to go after fellow Shia.

But I think all that was missing from Bill's recitation there were the pompons, like the Final Four. He's cheering for the administration, cheering for the surge, cheering for the war.

You know what? Even if you look at what the National Intelligence Estimate said -- and you know, that -- people are not questioning whether or not that's become simply another source of cheerleading for the administration.

They say any gains that have been made as a result of this surge are fragile -- fragile -- and they look as if they're not being sustained because Maliki has not connected with his own people, not been able to build the success in terms of that political process.

And in terms of Petraeus, the reason it's not exciting that he's coming back this time is people see that the Bush administration is coming to an end, and Petraeus is viewed as a mouthpiece now for the administration more and more and more.

He's just their guy, and so you're hearing the same thing from him, the National Intelligence Estimate.

KRISTOL: You don't think it's been an exemplary and admirable act of generalship? I mean, leave aside the administration, leave aside what -- aren't you proud of what Petraeus and Odierno and Crocker have done in the last 1.5 years in Iraq?

WILLIAMS: Let me just tell you...

KRISTOL: I'm serious about this. Shouldn't all Americans be proud of that?

WILLIAMS: Americans are proud that we have decreased the level of violence. But what did Joe Biden, who will head the hearings that Petraeus will testify before this week, say just yesterday? He said all we've done is bring the levels of violence back to 2005 levels.

WALLACE: All right. All right.

WILLIAMS: And most Americans don't think that that's a victory or anything to celebrate. They want us to get out. WALLACE: In the time that we have left, I want to move to another subject.

President Bush met with Russian President Putin this weekend at his seaside vacation home on the Black Sea.

And, Fred, Mr. Bush was coming from a NATO summit at which they voted unanimously to go ahead with that missile defense system in Eastern Europe. So question: What is the state of U.S.-Russian relations at this moment?

BARNES: Well, I'd say not very good. It's not the cold war, but Putin's a problem. He doesn't want these missiles in Poland -- rather, these missile defense systems in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

I was, frankly, surprised at this unanimous vote by NATO. I thought, you know, there was -- the NATO countries balked at bringing Georgia and Ukraine into the process of getting in NATO, but they went ahead with this and said, "Go ahead. We're for these missile defense systems."

And I mean, getting Georgia and Ukraine -- and there was no urgency on that, but there is on this. Putin doesn't agree. But look. You know what's going to happen? Poland and Czechoslovakia are going to have these missile defense systems whether Putin likes it or not.

WALLACE: Mara, I was surprised, in fact, that -- I thought Putin's outrage or offense would be much greater.

LIASSON: Yes. I actually think...

WALLACE: He met with Bush and he said, "Well, the devil's in the details." He sounded very much like he wants to work...

LIASSON: Yes. I thought it actually was less of a conflagration than could be expected. And I really agree with Fred. I think the big news this week is what NATO did. And the fact that not only did they agree to the missile defense system -- and I do agree that expanding NATO is less urgent.

But also, they committed more troops to Afghanistan, which I think is important. So you know, look. Relations with Russia aren't great, but they aren't imploding, either.

KRISTOL: You know, this notoriously unilateral administration has in the last few months performed extremely well at a rather delicate task of alliance management.

NATO has committed to increasing forces in Afghanistan. They got consensus on the missile system, which was supposed to be dividing NATO just a few months ago.

And even on Georgia and Ukraine, they got an agreement in principle to move toward admitting them, which Bush insisted on. Bush fought people within his own administration who thought this is pushing too hard. And as you say, Putin seems to have backed down.

So I think it's a pretty impressive performance by this allegedly lame duck and unilateral Bush administration.

WILLIAMS: Maybe because they're lame duck that they're able to get so much of this done. But I agree, it's been a good performance.

And what's interesting to me is the relationship with Putin, because obviously that country is becoming less democratic and less representative of what's possible.

So I think that the Bush administration has to, in some ways, take a hard line, and the question is whether or not this new guy, Dmitry Medvedev, is actually going to be anything more than a puppet.

And all that Bush could bring himself to say yesterday was favorable first impression, but I'm still dealing with Putin. Well, there's a huge contradiction there for a man who's willing to go to war to promote democracy in the Middle East.

WALLACE: Let me ask you, Fred -- and we've only got about 30 seconds left. This was the last meeting that Bush and Putin will have as presidents. Putin's stepping down next month, expected to be prime minister, but he won't be president.

How do you rate Bush and Putin and the president's handling of Putin over the course of these last seven years?

BARNES: Well, it's been tough. You know, with all the oil money that the Russians have now and natural gas money, it's empowered Putin, who's a Russian nationalist and a former KGB agent.

The difference is when Putin steps down, he'll still basically be in power. When Bush leaves, he won't.

WALLACE: All right. And that's always a good thing. Thank you, panel. See you next Sunday.

Up next, our Power Player of the Week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: In the midst of this intense presidential campaign, news viewership is up, but so are complaints about the news media. Well, we've got something for both the fans and the critics. Here's our Power Player of the Week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE URSCHEL, EXEC. DIRECTOR, NEWSEUM: News is the first rough draft of history, and so in that sense we're kind of the "first rough draft of history" museum.

WALLACE: Joe Urschel is executive director of the Newseum, the latest Washington landmark just down from the U.S. Capitol.

At a time when the media takes hits from all sides, the mission here is to reaffirm the First Amendment and the importance of a free press to our democracy.

URSCHEL: We're not press bashers. We're not press apologists. We're about the importance of news. And I think people get that after they have an experience here.

WALLACE: There's plenty to experience, in 250,000 square feet of exhibits over seven levels in what's billed as the world's most interactive museum.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

URSCHEL: Well, this is news history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Urschel took us to the history gallery sponsored by News Corporation, parent of Fox News, which starts in France back in the 1500s.

URSCHEL: This is a broadsheet. It's an illustration of the wars between the Catholics and the Huguenots. And you can see it's very graphic.

WALLACE: You can also pull up front pages over the centuries and zoom in to read how they covered historic events.

And for a news family, I was honored to see the Wallaces represented.

URSCHEL: This is the first script from "60 Minutes." You may find that of interest.

WALLACE: I was going to say, the old man made the museum.

URSCHEL: Exactly.

WALLACE: There are also powerful exhibits such as the twisted top 30 feet of the broadcast antenna that stood on the World Trade Center -- nearby, front pages from around the world and a video of reporters who covered that day.

Do you find people are very moved by this exhibit?

URSCHEL: People are so moved, in fact, that we've had to put out boxes of Kleenex for them to use, and during the day we have to replace those boxes several times.

WALLACE: But there's also plenty of fun, such as an area where you get to be a T.V. reporter. I couldn't resist.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: All right.

URSCHEL: You get to pick a location for your backdrop. Where would you like to go? WALLACE: I've got to be the White House correspondent.

URSCHEL: OK. Send us to the White House.

WALLACE: I'm Chris Wallace. It was a busy week here...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: But the bottom line here is serious, to deal with all the doubts people have about bias and inaccuracy in the media, and to explain why, despite our problems, a free press is so vital.

URSCHEL: I think there are efforts to erode those freedoms, and we think if people understand why they're important and why the news media works the way it does, that it's important to keep that support solid.

And if we can help in that direction, we've done a great thing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: The Newseum opens to the public on Friday.

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