Transcript of 'Race for the White House with David Gregory' for April 17, 2008

With Joe Scarborough, John Harwood, Rachel Maddow and Harold Ford, Jr., as guests

Transcript:

DAVID GREGORY, MSNBC ANCHOR: I‘m David Gregory, tonight, debating the debate. Now it‘s Barack Obama‘s turn to complaint about the format and the treatment, as the RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE rolls on.

Welcome to the RACE, your stop for the fast pace, the bottom line, and every point of view in the room. Five days now before PA, and the question is, did last night‘s debate change any minds? The key exchanges in just a moment. “Inside the War Room” tonight, we find the new poll numbers that expose Hillary Clinton‘s dilemma, to attack or not to attack? At half past, don‘t forget, that‘s at half past the hour. Tonight‘s “Big Questions,” has Michelle Obama pulled ahead in the battle of the political spouses?

The foundation of the program, of course, a panel that comes to play. And with us tonight, MSNBC political analyst and host of the “Rachel Maddow Show” on Air America, Rachel Maddow; NBC News analyst and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, Harold Ford Jr.; CNBC‘s chief Washington correspondent John Harwood; and “MORNING JOE” himself, the host of MSNBC‘s “MORNING JOE,” Joe Scarborough.

We begin, as we do every night, with everyone‘s take on the most important political story of the day. It‘s the “Headlines.” My “Headline” tonight, gotcha politics. That‘s how Senator Obama‘s campaign manager described the ABC debate. Obama complained today about 45 minutes of questions focused on his negatives, controversial statements, associations, and gaffes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Now, I don‘t blame Washington for this, because that‘s just how Washington is. They like stirring up controversy, they like playing gotcha game games and getting up to attack each other. And I have to say, you know, Senator Clinton looked in her element.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY: Obama argued Clinton twisted the knife at various points during the debate, and learned the wrong lesson, in his estimation, from the politics in the ‘90s. Here is Senator Clinton on Obama‘s bitterness remarks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don‘t believe my grandfather or my father or the many people whom I have had the privilege of knowing and meeting across Pennsylvania over many years cling to religion when Washington is not listening to them. I think that is a fundamental sort of misunderstanding of the role of religion and faith in times that are good and times that are bad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY: Obama had this comeback.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Senator Clinton is right, she has gone through this. I recall when back in 1992 when she made a statement about how—what do you expect, should I be at home baking cookies? And people attacked her for being elitist, and this and that, and I remember watching that on TV and saying, well, that‘s not who she is, that‘s not what she believes, that‘s not what she meant, and I‘m sure that that‘s how she felt as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY: Here‘s the deal, are these the decisive issues? Maybe, maybe not, but personality, credibility, and character do count in campaigns. This is Obama‘s time of testing, and he has to deal with distraction, perception and events beyond his control. How he deals with all of this will determine whether or not he can close the deal and capture this nomination. That‘s my “Headline” tonight.

Joe Scarborough, your take on the debate last night?

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, “MORNING JOE”: David, I couldn‘t agree with you more. The “Headline” last night was—and today is that Obama failed his test. Here‘s a guy who from Iowa on January 3rd through the Wisconsin Primary was a rock star. He was a unifying figure, he was post-partisan, he was post-racial.

Well, the honeymoon is over. Now Barack Obama is another politician getting beaten up. And when he gets beaten up, what does he do? He attacks the messenger. He sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton did a month ago when she kept going after moderators of these debates.

You don‘t do that unless you‘re taking on water. Barack Obama‘s biggest problem is, and this is something that superdelegates are worried about in the Democratic Party tonight, the fact that he had his weakest debate this political season, according to The New York Times, last night.

He should be in mid season form, he‘s not even close. He was testy, he was defensive, and he looked agitated by the fact that he was having to answer some tough questions that Republicans are going to make him answer from Denver all the way through November. He had better get used to it.

GREGORY: A lot to talk about. John Harwood, your “Headline” tonight?

JOHN HARWOOD, CNBC CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: My “Headline” is not a game-changer, David, and sad to say, as brilliant as Joe, he‘s only partly right here. Hillary Clinton had an extremely strong debate last night, Barack Obama did not, but my reporting from Democratic political professionals today, including those in Washington, even though Obama was trashing Washington pols for spreading this kind of stuff, they say this has not shaken the advantage that he has had among superdelegates over the last two months.

He has been accumulating about one a day. She needs to reverse that dynamic very quickly to have a chance in this race. It has not happened yet.

GREGORY: All right. Rachel Maddow, your take on all of this tonight?

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: The big winner from last night was the one not in the room. I‘m referring, of course, to John McCain. And I‘m the first person to criticize the utility of head-to-head match-up polls at this point in this type of election year, but the trend lines are good and getting better for John McCain.

The new AP./Yahoo poll that is out today shows him doing better than anybody could have expected at this point in the campaign, and that‘s because Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are doing the Republican‘s work for him at bottom dollar, tearing each other down. And McCain, without even really campaigning, is reaping the benefits of it.

GREGORY: All right. Harold Ford, welcome to the program, your take, your “Headline” tonight?

HAROLD FORD JR., NBC ANALYST: I think the McCain coronation is a little bit premature, although last night we saw a great raging debate between the two Democrats. Once Obama or Clinton emerge from this serious and what has been a pretty agonizing primary process, for those watching, and I would dare say the candidates, they will find a John McCain who is ready to be defined.

I think he is trying his hardest not only to reintroduce himself to the public, and even to his own party, he‘s having some challenge now cobbling together every element, every part of the Republican Party and is going to have a harder time, I believe, as we move forward at bringing more independents as Democrats frame and define him as a Bush third term.

GREGORY: Harold, if you look at last night, though, you have to think, yes, there is a fight going on on the Democratic side, but this really was the opening chapter of a general election debate as well, because even if some of these issues don‘t hurt Obama in the primary, and they are certainly distracting him, they‘re going to be fodder for a general election campaign.

FORD: Look, this is all a great test for both Barack and Hillary. Barack needs to be tested more, we need to hear more from him, we need to see how he responds under pressure. Hillary has shown a lot of that, but she was the inevitable candidate just a few months ago and now we‘re seeing how she responds as an underdog.

GREGORY: All right. Coming up next, most pundits scored last night‘s debate for Hillary Clinton, but the polls show she‘s suffering big time when it comes to trustworthiness, honesty, and favorability. We‘re going to dissect the numbers coming up.

Later, your playdate with the panel, call us, 212-790-2299. You can e-mail as well, race08@msnbc.com. We‘re right back after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: With all this talk about Pennsylvania‘s primary next week, is anyone looking ahead to Indiana or North Carolina, less than three weeks away? Well, we‘ll get a breakdown of the latest numbers and tell you who is leading in the long run.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: We‘re back. Special edition tonight of “Inside the War Room” breaking down the latest poll numbers to determine which strategies are working and which are not. Back with us, Rachel Maddow, Harold Ford Jr., John Harwood, and Joe Scarborough.

First up, the pundits are saying Hillary Clinton scored some political points after last night‘s debate by putting Obama on the defensive. But according to the polls, she still has an uphill battle to climb when it comes to favorability and credibility in the latest The Washington Post/ABC News poll.

Her unfavorability score, look at this, up 14 points, from 40 in January to 54 percent in April. Obama‘s also jumped up, but by a lesser margin, from 30 percent in January, 39 percent in April. John Harwood, what does it tell you?

HARWOOD: Well, it tells me that she has got a bit of a box in terms of how to go after Barack Obama. I think she had the best of all worlds last night in that debate, because you had Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC raising these issues, putting Obama on the defensive, she could sort of chime in sadly and say, you know, I may not care about this stuff all that much, but there may be a lot of voters out there, and I‘m sorry that this is an issue, but we certainly have to deal with it.

That‘s exactly what she wants, because every time she goes aggressively on the attack herself, her negatives go up. And by the way, there was a lot of criticism of Stephanopoulos and Charlie for raising supposedly irrelevant issues. I think that is complete baloney. They were legitimate issues. Barack Obama is going to have to deal with this stuff if he is the Democratic nominee.

And from a Democratic point of view, if you are a Democratic strategist, better now than in October.

GREGORY: Rachel, what‘s the deal here? I mean, is there a gender aspect to this, that she gets more negative ratings if she goes on the attack? Why can‘t she effectively attack him?

MADDOW: Well, I think she is effectively attacking him, getting his negatives up by 9 points is no mean feat, it has to be said. And honestly, with due respect to John, I think that there‘s nothing about the fact that this slime is being discussed now in the Democratic debate that means it won‘t be discussed later.

Everything that‘s being thrown at Barack Obama right now has been out there. It‘s just a question of...

HARWOOD: He gets to practice his answers.

MADDOW: It‘s just a question of how much he‘s going to have to deal with it. Look, I mean, Democrats have two things they could have expected from this extended nominating contest.

They could have expected either we‘re going to start the general election campaign and get the slime and the insinuation and the personal stuff out there now so we have to deal with it for six months instead of two, or they could have expected this is going to be a debate that‘s about what—the Democrats competing over how best to identify a Democratic alternative to the Republican politics the country has had for the last eight years.

HARWOOD: But why is it slime?

MADDOW: It‘s slime because the first six questions of that debate—or the first one, which I think was already answered, but it‘s not that much of a surprise they started with, will you pick each other as the running mate? The answer is no. Then we get pastor, then we get bitter, then we get flag pin, then we get Bosnia, then we get the Sean Hannity question about the Weather Underground guy.

That is not...

HARWOOD: That‘s tough, but it‘s not slime.

MADDOW: It is slime. Because if you think about the different options that you have for the way Democrats can fight right now, they could be fighting about what‘s America—what ought America be like after George W. Bush? But they‘re not.

FORD: All right. In fairness to George and Charlie Gibson, understand they‘ve had about 15, 16 debates and they‘ve gone back and forth. I‘ve been on the ballot and then sat through some of these debates, and there are times I‘m frustrated at the questions that are asked.

The reality though is neither of these candidates, one will emerge as the nominee, will be able to avoid these tough, uncomfortable, and frankly, at times, insensitive questions. So I think it‘s appropriate.

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: Let me—here‘s the issue, though, character questions, authenticity, trustworthiness, these are issues that voters actually vote on. And last night, once again, Clinton faced tough questions for her Bosnia comments. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you reconcile the campaign and credibility that you have when you‘ve made those comments about what happened getting off the plane in Bosnia, which totally misrepresented what really happened on that day? You really lost my vote. And what can you tell me to get that vote back?

CLINTON: I‘m embarrassed by it, I have apologized for it. I‘ve said it was a mistake, and it is, I hope, something that you can look over.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY: But will voters take her word for it, or did the Bosnia flap permanently damage her credibility? Look again at the polling from ABC News/Washington Post poll, nearly two years ago, 52 percent of respondents thought Hillary Clinton was honest and trustworthy. That number has now plummeted to 39 percent.

And now a majority of voters, 58 percent, say no, she‘s not honest and trustworthy. Meanwhile, when asked who was more honest and trustworthy, Obama‘s lead grew from 38 to 53 percent in April, where Clinton has stayed at 30 percent.

Joe, what‘s the significance?

SCARBOROUGH: Well, the significance is, of course, that these are one of the areas where voters do vote on. You‘re exactly right. They want to know whether they can trust the politician that‘s in office, especially if they‘re going to be president of the United States.

And it‘s something that once you get behind the 8-ball there, it‘s hard to get out from behind it. You look at Ronald Reagan, in late 1986, he lost the American people, they stopped trusting him. Iran/contra came, and for the next two years he battled just to survive. He left the White House with positive poll numbers, but still, it was a tough two years.

The same thing happened with Bill Clinton in 1997, 1998. Once you go down in this category, it‘s hard to rehabilitate yourself, and that can have a real impact, especially in a primary election where there‘s not a lot of great differences on policy. When it gets personal, this is a number that you want to have high.

You want to be high on leadership and you want to be high on trustworthiness. She‘s not right now.

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: Let me just jump in for a second. I want to go on to this final point here in the polling, and that is, talk about end game. You look ahead to Indiana and North Carolina primaries, the latest L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll shows Obama ahead of Clinton in Indiana, Obama 40 percent and Clinton trailing by 5 points at 35 percent.

Look at North Carolina, Obama well ahead of Clinton with 47 percent. Clinton trails by double digits, 34 percent. With over 15 percent of voters undecided in both states, still the question of whether it‘s anybody‘s game.

Harold, it just shows you that the stakes are so high for Clinton. She needs a real game-changer out of a debate like this to really shift the numbers here.

FORD: Both of them now have to focus squarely on Pennsylvania. If she enjoys a 12-, 13-, 14-point advantage there and a win on next week, where Barack is able to close up to six or seven points, that will influence those states going forward.

I have to think all the numbers you have put up are relevant. But remember, political contests are choices between one or two candidates. Right now, her opponent is Barack Obama. There has not been a bigger force in newness and politics since Bobby Kennedy. So she‘s being compared to him.

When you pair her or match her up against John McCain or even Barack Obama up against John McCain, there are different qualities and different ways we measure these candidates. Joe is right that there‘s a trustworthiness and integrity issue that we look at closely.

But remember, political contests are choices between two people and two parties. Whichever one of these candidates is able to get out and define the other the quickest—to define the other the quickest in the general will be the one who ends up with an edge, which is why I believe a lot of these numbers are really—are not as relevant as they may seem, or not as important as they may seem.

After we get past Pennsylvania, we will have a clear sense of Indiana and a clear sense of North Carolina. If she wins big, she will benefit in big ways in both of those states going forward as well.

GREGORY: And that‘s going to be the key, how big is the margin of victory after so much time campaigning? I can‘t even remember the last time we had a vote in this primary.

Coming up, dueling “Smart Takes,” Marc Ambinder says that Barack Obama couldn‘t have done any worst at last night‘s debate. Another pundit, Mark Halperin, says he came out on top. So who has got the smarter take tonight?

And Mitt Romney provided some laughs at last night‘s Radio & Television Correspondents Association Dinner, delivering his top 10 list of why he dropped out of the presidential race. Here are a few of our favorites.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Number nine, I got tired of the corkscrew landings under sniper fire.

(LAUGHTER)

ROMNEY: Number eight, as a lifelong hunter, I didn‘t want to miss the start of varmint season.

(LAUGHTER)

ROMNEY: Number two, I took a bad fall at a campaign rally and broke my hair.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: Welcome back to the RACE. I‘m David Gregory. “Smart Takes” time. The provocative, the thoughtful, the most insightful. We find them all so you don‘t have to. Here, again, Rachel, Harold, John, and Joe.

First up, doing “Smart Takes” tonight about Obama‘s debate performance, theatlantic.com‘s Marc Ambinder says last night was very bad for Obama. To the quote board: “Keeping the scorecard, there is no way Obama could fare worse, nearly 45 minutes of relentless political scrutiny from the ABC anchors and from Hillary Clinton, followed by an issues and answers session in which his anger carried over and sort of neutered him.”

TIME‘s Mark Halperin says it wasn‘t Obama‘s best night, but he still gave him a B-plus, a higher grade than Clinton. To the quote board: “Subdued and secure, but often peevish and cross, it was a surly, tepid night for Obama, but he still emerged stalwart and in the lead.” Joe?

SCARBOROUGH: I don‘t know how anybody could have said that was a good night for Barack Obama. I respect Mark Halperin, and always read his work on time.com, but, boy, it was a bad night for Barack Obama.

He was peevish, as Halperin said, and unfortunately for him, he has had much better debate performances, but last night was the most watched debate performance, about 10 million people saw Barack Obama, a lot probably for the first time in a debate. That‘s not how he wanted to introduce himself to those people. It was a bad night for Barack Obama.

GREGORY: Well, but, Rachel, here‘s another take on this, which is, is there an advantage—I‘ve talked to some people within the Obama campaign who say, you know, it‘s not so bad to come out looking like he got beat up a little bit here, because they‘ve seen the other side, where it‘s Hillary Clinton complaining about debate coverage and treatment, and that didn‘t work so well for the Obama team. She got some benefit of that before.

MADDOW: I think that‘s right, but kind of for a different reason. I think it‘s not so much that Obama could benefit from the sort of sympathy against a hostile press thing that Clinton benefited from. I think it‘s more that Democrats have been concerned that Barack Obama maybe can‘t take a punch. Well, we have now seen him be punched a lot, and we know what he looks like when he gets punched.

And I think that Halperin is actually right when called him kind of tepid and stalwart. What Barack Obama looks like...

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: But this is the important point. You said it was slime earlier.

MADDOW: Yes.

GREGORY: These are qualities of these campaigns, and this—how he responds to issues like this, taking a punch, how he deals with this kind of stress, and stuff that he thinks is a distraction, it matters. That‘s what he‘s going to face in the White House, isn‘t it?

MADDOW: Well, it depends. I mean, it would have been really also interesting to see him take punches on stuff like Iran, and gas prices, and Iraq, and—you know, and the torture story that ABC broke to such effect last week and then they didn‘t discuss at all last night in their debate.

I mean, there are so many substantive issues on which he could have been hit and sort of pulled apart, and they didn‘t. They instead hit him all with the personal stuff. It‘s interesting, but it‘s not everything.

SCARBOROUGH: The question is, how did he take that punch, Rachel? Does anybody believe he took the—because you said that‘s what‘s important, and that is what‘s important, how is he going to take the punch, how will he take it this fall against John McCain? Does anybody really believe he takes a punch well?

MADDOW: Well, we saw what he does, he said “um” a lot. He punched back kind of mildly, he didn‘t lose his composure, and he actually didn‘t wallow as deep as his opponents and the moderators did in going...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: That‘s what he does, now we know.

HARWOOD: There‘s another question, Joe, and that is, who is going to play Stephanopoulos and Gibson on SNL on Saturday night.

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH: That‘s the big question.

HARWOOD: But look, I want to make one point about what—the slime issue that Rachel mentioned earlier. Rachel, Harold, and David are all too young to remember this, but Joe and I are old enough to remember the 1988 campaign. George H.W. Bush went to a flag factory running against Michael Dukakis, who had voted against the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, and everybody said in the press, including—what a ridiculous issue, what a slimy thing to do, what a dumb thing to do.

SCARBOROUGH: They mocked him.

HARWOOD: Guess what? Lee Atwater was right in doing that for George H.W. Bush, that‘s why the things like the flag lapel pin are things that Barack Obama has to learn to have good answers for.

SCARBOROUGH: And if I can say really quickly, everybody did, the press was unmerciful against George Bush senior. He went to flag factories, he talked about it non-stop, and I‘ll be damned if that didn‘t have a great effect. A lot of Americans said, I‘m not voting for this new kind of Democrat that won‘t even let kids in Massachusetts pledge allegiance to the flag. These things that people in Manhattan think are slimy, connect.

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: I got to get in here, I‘ve got take a break. We‘re going to come back, “Big Questions” of the night of this campaign coming up on the RACE. Don‘t go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWSBREAK)

GREGORY: Welcome back to RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. I‘m David Gregory. Time now for the three big questions of THE RACE. Still with us, MSNBC political analyst and host of the “Rachel Maddow Show” on Air America, Rachel Maddow, NBC News analyst and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, Harold Ford Jr., cNBC‘s chief Washington correspondent John Harwood, and Morning Joe himself, the host of MSNBC‘s “MORNING JOE,” Joe Scarborough.

First up, this may have been the marquee moment from the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton saying, yes, he can, when pressed if Barack Obama could win in the fall. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A simple yes or no question, do you think Senator Obama can beat John McCain or not?

CLINTON: Well, I think we have to beat John McCain and I have every reason to believe we‘ll have a Democratic president and it is going to be either Barack or me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The question is, do you think Senator Obama can do that? Can he win?

CLINTON: Yes, yes, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY: Yes, yes, yes. Well, some polls have shown as many as 30 percent of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. But last, Clinton seemed to say don‘t worry about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: I will do everything to make sure that the people who supported me support our nominee.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY: Our first question tonight, did Clinton concede her strongest argument to these super delegates, her electability argument? Harold Ford Jr., what do you say?

FORD: No, she was being what any good candidate for president, for Senate, for governor, who‘s in a tough primary, of course you make clear. They have split the votes basically in this race. They‘ve split the delegates basically in this race. I thought she did the right thing. She not only showed a kind of maturity, but showed a sense that she wants a Democrat in the White House.

By no means—but she made the case, as Barack would have said, of course, I‘m going to vote for Hillary.

GREGORY: But the issue is, Rachel, was it just a throw-away line to say yes, he can win the general election, when her entire substantive argument is no, he can‘t because of the issues.

MADDOW: I thought it was a moment of graciousness that was a bit empty, and I think that‘s the way that Barack Obama responded to when he said, essentially, later on in response to that—he said, thank you for saying that, and of course I would say the same thing about you, but you‘ve always called me condescending, out of touch, elitist and inelectable.

So it‘s one thing to say of course, your opponent from your same party could win. It‘s another thing to denigrate not only their chances but the fact—the extent to which they deserve it.

FORD: I was 10 years old when George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan ran against each other in 1980. George H.W. Bush called Ronald Reagan‘s economic plan it Voodoo Economics. They joined together and went on to run the country for eight years.

SCARBOROUGH: He was also pro-choice until the night before the convention.

FORD: Funny how things happen.

SCARBOROUGH: David, if I could say really quickly on this electability argument, last night at the dinner down in Washington, D.C., I talked to a lot of leaders of the Republican party, talked to some people in John McCain‘s camp, leaders of that campaign, they told me off the record, quietly, that right now they would prefer to go up against Barack Obama. They think he‘s going to get wiped out in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Missouri. They say if they run against Barack Obama, Missouri is in the bank.

They believe now—two months ago, they believed Hillary Clinton would have been an easier target. But on this electability issue, you ask Republicans quietly, behind the scenes, they will tell you Obama is weaker.

HARWOOD: David, that doesn‘t mean Joe is right. First of all, I‘m surprised Joe would be hanging around with all those Washington elitists in tuxes last night.

SCARBOROUGH: I‘m totally elitist.

HARWOOD: But second of all, rather than being gracious, I think Hillary Clinton was doing the necessary thing in saying that he could win. She would offend super delegates a lot more if she said he couldn‘t win the election, and probably hurt herself in the process. It‘s one thing to say that he‘s less electable, to say he‘s unelectable, even if she thinks it, would be very in-politic and backfire.

GREGORY: Let me go—next up, Barack Obama was hit with the charges of elitism, and Michelle Obama is hitting back. Mrs. Obama is providing she can deliver a pretty effective counterpunch, passionately speaking to voters about her family‘s working-class roots. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHELLE OBAMA, WIFE OF BARACK OBAMA: Yes, I went to Princeton and Harvard, but the lens through which I see the world is the lens I grew up with. I‘m the product of a working-class upbringing. I want people to know when they look at me to be clear that they see what an investment in public education can look like.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY: For most of the season, in a campaign, Bill Clinton has been the spouse in the spot light, both good and bad, but Michelle Obama‘s strong response to the bitter-gate leads us to question number two: in the war of the political spouses, does Michelle Obama have a new edge? Harold, I have been watching over the last couple days. I think she‘s been a controversial figure in the course of this campaign, mostly under the radar. But in some ways, I felt she‘s been helping Obama find his voice on this background question, more effectively than he has.

FORD: Michelle Obama, whom I know, is not only a great campaigner for her husband, she‘s a terrific mom. She‘s a wonderful lawyer, and has given up a lot of her professional pursuits to help her husband. At the end of the day, these races are about the people running. As Hillary Clinton has told her own husband, I think recently, I make decisions in this campaign, and I‘m the candidate. And Barack is the candidate on the other side.

But she‘s very effective. She‘s very smart. But at the end of the day, neither Bill Clinton nor Michelle Obama will sway votes in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina going forward. This is about these two candidates.

GREGORY: I think you‘re fundamentally right. But Joe, you know as well as anybody that just as the Clintons are looked at as a package, as they were back in 1992, when you have both very accomplished spouses here front and center, they‘re looked at. They‘re judged sometimes together.

SCARBOROUGH: And they‘re judged harshly sometimes. It‘s ironic you‘re asking this question tonight, when last night—it‘s not ironic. It‘s a coincidence. Last night, you had Barack Obama talking about Hillary Clinton in 1992 being slammed for being too assertive. It was trouble for Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, despite the fact they ended up winning, also Michelle Obama is walking a very fine line in 2008.

What does that say about the country? I don‘t know, maybe not a lot of positive things. But at the same time, whenever a potential first lady speaks out aggressively, there‘s always criticism and blow back. The question is, will it happen here? Of course, she has been put in the background over the past month or two.

GREGORY: That‘s right. John, I talked to some people close to Obama‘s camp last night at the dinner that we‘re talking about, who were concerned about Michelle Obama‘s level of intensity. Is she a natural campaigner, does she smile enough? Things you talk about in terms of people campaigning, how they come across.

HARWOOD: I got to tell you, David, to take your question, if you take the last two weeks or last two months, I think Michelle Obama has cleaned Bill Clinton‘s clock. She‘s a very appealing figure. That bit about public schools was very powerful. Most of what Bill Clinton has provided for his wife in this campaign would be say stuff that he would have provided even if he had been out of the country during the campaign. It‘s the Clinton brand from the 1990s. That counts for a lot and it counts for a lot of Hillary Clinton‘s political reputation, and what causes a lot of working-class voters to be for her. But in terms of what they‘ve actually done, the blocking and tackling on the campaign trail, she‘s been fantastic.

GREGORY: Finally today, 2008 was supposed to be the year of the Democrats. We‘ve talked about it a lot. Before Iowa, generic presidential match ups by the AP and Yahoo shows a Democratic nominee with a 13-point lead over the Republicans. But the rise of McCain and the prolonged primary battle have virtually erased the Democrats advantage.

A new AP Yahoo match up, McCain gets 37 percent to the Clinton‘s 36 percent, and McCain gets 36 percent to Obama‘s 34 percent. The key quote from the pollsters: “what‘s clear is that some Republican leaning voters who backed Bush in 2004 that lost enthusiasm for him are returning to the GOP fold along with a smaller but significant number of Democrats, who have come to dislike their party‘s two contenders.”

Our third question then, is John McCain now the front-runner in the general election? Rachel, I have a theory or a question about this that is the McCain brand I think jibes well with people who have an anti-political affect to them this year. He‘s seen as authentic. He may by too close to Bush on the war. But he‘s seen positively by people who are skeptical about the system.

MADDOW: I guess I don‘t feel that, because he represents Washington to such a great extent. He‘s been in Washington since roughly right after the Capitol was rebuilt. He‘s been in Washington for a very long time. I do think you‘re right that he‘s trying to tap into that. I think it‘s important to note that his biography tour, his reintroducing himself to the country tour ended at the time in his biography when he came home from Vietnam. He didn‘t do a biography tour about his time in the Senate.

So he wants people to think of him as an outsider, but for my entire lifetime, he‘s been in Washington, so it‘s hard for me to see him as somebody who doesn‘t represent politics.

SCARBOROUGH: David, how much though—try to put a money figure on how much John McCain has gotten goodwill from the American people over the past seven years by being high profile seemingly every time where he‘s been against George W. Bush. He‘s been a maverick over the past seven years. And I know Democrats can name 1,000 issues where he‘s like Bush. But the bottom like is John McCain has been in the news over the past seven years time and time again by sticking a sharp stick in George W. Bush‘s eye. Try to monetize that. You just can‘t do it.

HARWOOD: John McCain is going to be very tough in a general election, but he‘s absolutely not the front-runner in this race. Whoever emerges from the Democratic primary process is going to be the front-runner. You talk privately with McCain‘s people, they know that too.

FORD: I agree.

SCARBOROUGH: Agreed.

MADDOW: It doesn‘t look like that to me, not when I look at those numbers. John McCain isn‘t campaigning right now—

(CROSS TALK)

HARWOOD: That‘s a bad formula.

SCARBOROUGH: And the fact that he‘s only one percentage point ahead in the middle of this intramural blood bath?

MADDOW: What has John McCain done to earn his numbers right now? He‘s run like one three-minute-long web ad involving spooky multi-colored smoke and his high school English teacher. He‘s not even campaigning right now. He‘s essentially on vacation.

SCARBOROUGH: They‘re voting for the maverick brand that John McCain earned over the past 20 years.

MADDOW: They‘re voting against Obama and Clinton right now, who are spending a million and a half dollars a day for that privilege. Obama and Clinton are spending themselves into the ground. They‘re tapping out their fund-raising to a certain extent. They‘re tied with a guy whose not even running.

SCARBOROUGH: They‘ll come together. Republicans a month ago were talking about how they would never join in behind John McCain. Now you look at the polls internally, John McCain‘s beating Hillary Clinton 95 to five percent among Republicans. They‘re breaking back. Democrats will do the same thing. This is just a phase. They get to Denver, the balloons go up, everybody will cry.

(CROSS TALK)

HARWOOD: There‘s no way that 30 percent of Hillary Clinton‘s voters are going to vote on for John McCain. No way.

FORD: This race will be about change, and the Democrat will wear that label. John McCain—I want to remind every one in this program, ten months ago, many of our friends in the media industry declared John McCain politically dead. Ten months later, he now finds himself—

GREGORY: I don‘t remember that. I think everybody in the media was giving him a fair shot. He had a legitimate shot to come back. That‘s the story I‘m sticking with.

I have to take a break. We‘ll come back with your voice mails and e-mails. The panel has a lot to talk about tonight. You do as well. Or phones have been ringing off the hook, inbox is overflowing. And Vice President Cheney has some fun at Hillary Clinton‘s expense last night at the Washington dinner we‘ve been talking about.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Did you see that footage of Hillary knocking back that shot with the beer chaser? It looks like she replaced Mark Penn with Johnny Walker. Apparently, it was pretty strong whisky, and there might have been a few more when the cameras stopped rolling. When the 3:00 a.m. phone call came in, it went right to voice mail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: Back now on RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. I was talking about the vice president, Dick Cheney, at the correspondents dinner last night. I want you to look at some of this video as he tells these jokes. Every time he delivered a punch line, he looked very, very impressed with himself. But I thought one of the great lines, where he tried to get serious for just a moment. He went on this litany of I want to tell you that your work matters. I want to tell you that you sacrifice a lot, and that you really try hard. I want to tell you all those things, but I just can‘t bring myself to do it.

In other words, he really doesn‘t like us, and he wasn‘t going to make any pretense about it. But here was interesting, Joe, I was talking to Mo Rocca a little bit afterwards, with Noah Oppenheim (ph), our producer, and I said, what was that like sitting next to the vice president. He‘s not an easy guy to make small talk with. Apparently they talked about Mo Rocca‘s book that he had written about presidential pets. And they talked about President Ford‘s lab, I guess, or cocker spaniel. It must have been an amazing moment up there.

SCARBOROUGH: It must have been. I‘ve had an opportunity in past campaigns to sit down and talk to Dick Cheney behind the scenes. He‘s a very likable, relaxing person, doesn‘t seem impressed by himself, completely opposite from the whole Darth Vader image that‘s been cast on him. I love—that was one of my favorite lines, when he said he went to his wife Lynne, complaining about the fact people were calling him Darth Vader, and she said, don‘t worry, honey, it humanizes you.

HARWOOD: Joe, was the Chardonnay up to your standards.

SCARBOROUGH: You know what, I‘m a working class man. I don‘t know if you saw me but, I had some water, bread, and then I actually helped people serve you elitists. I‘m a man of the people. They don‘t call me regular Joe for nothing.

GREGORY: Leave Joe alone. Joe is in touch with the people. Leave this man alone. Let‘s get the viewers to weigh in. I‘ve had a chance to talk to the panel. You get your turn as well, with your play date starting right now. As you can see, Rachel Maddow, Harold Ford Jr., John Harwood, and Joe Scarborough with us.

A lot of responses about the Democratic presidential debate yesterday. Let‘s start with Jim in Kentucky. He says this --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At what point are we expecting presidential candidates to not have any kind of association with somebody of questionable character in their past?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY: I think that‘s a fair question. Harold Ford Jr., when does guilt by association go a step too far?

FORD: The American people are smart enough to distinguish between these things. If you have a close relationship with someone who has a very checkered, questionable past, and you didn‘t know them before that time, or you met them during that time, and you steadied and grew the friendship, voters are able to see through that. And I thought Barack handled that question fairly well last night. It was an interesting comparison he made between Tom Coburn, but I understood what he was trying to say. I think voters get it.

SCARBOROUGH: But Harold, if you ran for governor of Texas or ran for Senate again, people in Tennessee know you. If there‘s a questionable association, they go, we know Harold Ford, maybe he hung out with a weird guy one summer when he was younger. Whereas if somebody new runs for that Tennessee seat and nobody knows him, then you start saying, OK, who is this person? Who do they hang out with? Who do they associate with?

Barack Obama can‘t be shocked. He was in Washington for one year before he decided to run for president of the United States. People don‘t know him. They know John McCain. They know Hillary Clinton. They don‘t know him. So who he associates himself with is that much more important to voters.

FORD: That‘s why Jeremiah Wright has been such a big issue as well. Joe makes a good point. But I do think the caller‘s question dealt with how far back—how do we know—how long can you punish a candidate or someone running for office for a friendship? At some level, I just think voters are able to get it. Jeremiah Wright will pay bigger than this --- the Weather guy we talked about last night.

MADDOW: Associates and friendships become an issue when political opponents decide to make them an issue. We talked about this before on the show. The Jeremiah Wright

(CROSS TALK)

MADDOW: Joe, let me make my point and then you can dismiss me. Let me make my point first. Jeremiah Wright as a pastor for Barack Obama is an issue. The political associations that John McCain has made with right wing pastors have not been an issue. The issue that has been made about who‘s giving money to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, because their opponents have decided to go after them on that. For example, John McCain had this incredibly controversial relationship with a Florida campaign co-chair, who was caught in a bathroom offering money to a police officer to do something that we can all imagine in a bathroom. Nobody is going to John McCain and saying he was your Florida campaign co-chair; what do you think about men doing that in bathrooms? What do you think about entrapment from police officers? What do you think about public sex?

HARWOOD: That‘s what a general election is for.

MADDOW: But nobody‘s brought that up to John McCain at this point, and it‘s a decision made by political opponents. It‘s not something that happens organically because of how long you‘ve been around the block.

GREGORY: Let me get a break in before I run out of time. You can play with the panel every night. Don‘t forget to call us or email us. Predictions from the panel are coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: We‘re back. It‘s prediction time. Time for our panelists to peer into the crystal ball and tell us something that they see. Rachel, Harold, John and Joe still with us. Joe, what are you seeing tonight?

SCARBOROUGH: Well, I think I may blow all my time on the predictions to respond to Rachel. I don‘t engage in crossfire type debates and certainly I don‘t want to talk about what people do in bathrooms. I do want to say though that anybody—and you can ask Harold Ford. You can ask anybody that‘s ever run for political office, that the thing you want to do is define your opponent.

You define opponents that people don‘t know more easily than defining opponents that have been in public service for a quarter of a century. It was the only point I was trying to make. And again I don‘t do cross-fire, so if we want to yell back and forth, then Rachel will have to find somebody else.

MADDOW: Joe, I wasn‘t trying to yell back and forth with you. I was starting to make my point and you cut me off before I started my first sentence. You waited for me to start. I started and you jumped in.

SCARBOROUGH: I don‘t mean to be condescending, but I can say that anybody that‘s ever run for political office before knows that there‘s a big difference between John McCain and defining him, who has been in public service for 25 years, and defining Barack Obama who was in Washington, D.C. for one year before he decided to run for president.

GREGORY: All right. I‘m going to shut this particular debate down and move on. John, your thoughts about what‘s coming up ahead.

HARWOOD: After Tuesday, Hillary Clinton is right back in the fight of her life. What she‘s probably done with bitter-gate and with that debate is preserve her lead in Pennsylvania. She‘s got a working margin there. She‘s likely to win next Tuesday. But then she‘s got those May 6th contests in North Carolina. She‘s likely to lose there. She‘s got to win in Indiana, very close race right now. No more than even money bet for her to win that state.

GREGORY: All right. Harold, what do you see coming up?

FORD: The Democratic nominee, once he or she is determined, will surge to a five to 10 point lead over John McCain. I‘m a believer that as this race is joined between McCain and Obama/Clinton, you‘ll see John McCain have to answer questions about how it is that you can believe that going into Iraq, if they had no weapons of mass destruction, was the right thing to do, which he said.

I think Joe Biden laid this case out in the last 48 hours. The Democratic nominee will benefit from the biggest thing happening for Democrats nationally, people want a change, and John McCain doesn‘t represent that.

GREGORY: All right. Rachel, your thoughts tonight?

MADDOW: First of all, Joe and I will go out for a beer and hash this all out. My second prediction is that it will be Cindy versus Laura on morning television. Next week, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, we‘ll have daytime appearances from two major A-list Republican spouses. Cindy is going to be co-hosting on “The View” on Monday, the day before the Pennsylvania primary. Laura Bush is going to be hosting an hour of the “Today Show” the morning of the primary.

I don‘t know if this is a coordinated effort to get Republican family values and very popular Republican spouses out there in advance of that big Democratic contest, but I think it should start an air war, where we see a lot more of Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton being humanistic and interesting on TV in the next few weeks.

FORD: I‘m bringing the Crown Royal for this beer-fest these guys are about to have.

HARWOOD: Joe only drinks white wine.

GREGORY: What is it we‘re seeing with the spouses starting to step it up and go to some of these forums now? It‘s almost the time in the primary season where they think it‘s time to bring them out.

MADDOW: You know, Laura Bush has consistently been the most popular Republican in the country for almost the entire term that Bush has been president. So I think they see this actually probably their best face forward on days that otherwise would be owned by the Democrats just because of the sheer volume of coverage of this Pennsylvania primary.

I think it‘s wicked smart of them to do this. You put something out there that will be non-controversial, that‘s not going to get any sort of push back from the Democrats, that‘s not going to give the Democrats anything to complain about or to put into their stump speeches. But it‘s still going to get this very positive side of the Republican brand out there. I think it is very smart, and I think it was smart for the McCain campaign to jump on “The View” opportunity on Monday after they found out Laura was going to do the “Today Show.”

HARWOOD: Especially since I don‘t think Colin Powell could handle that last hour of the “Today Show.”

MADDOW: Good point.

GREGORY: We‘re going to leave it there. Thanks to the panel. I‘m David Gregory. That does it for RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE for tonight. We‘re back here 6:00 Eastern time. Now stay tuned, “HARDBALL” coming up next on MSNBC.

Transcript & Video of 'Meet The Press' - August 19, 2007

Guest host David Gregory interviews Karl Rove and a press roundtable with Kate O'Beirne, Matt Cooper, John Hardwood and Ron Brownstein

Transcript:

MR. DAVID GREGORY: Our issues this Sunday: The architect of the Bush presidency is leaving the White House. After 14 years by Bush’s side, what political legacy does Karl Rove leave behind? And what is the future of the Republican Party? Our guest, the outgoing deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove.

Then, the presidential campaign in full swing: Still testing the waters, Republican Fred Thompson makes his first visit to Iowa; Obama on the offensive against Clinton; and Giuliani wants his strained family relationship left out of the campaign. Insights and analysis from our political roundtable—Ron Brownstein of the LA Times, Matt Cooper of Conde Nast Portfolio, John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal and CNBC, and Kate O’Beirne of the National Review.

But first, Karl Rove.

Good morning and welcome.

MR. KARL ROVE: Morning, David.

MR. GREGORY: You were here on this program the day after the president was inaugurated back in 2001. You were headed to the National Cathedral for a prayer service. Tim Russert asked you about that.

(Videotape, January 21, 2001)

MR. TIM RUSSERT: What are you going to pray for?

MR. ROVE: Wisdom and patience. Humility. That’s important, I think, for people who come here, to realize that we are here for only a time, and we have an obligation of service, and we need to keep things in perspective.

MR. RUSSERT: We’re going to save this tape, Karl Rove. Three good virtues.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: We did save that tape, and as you’re leaving the White House now, how do you think you measured up against those virtues?

MR. ROVE: Not enough wisdom and, clearly, not enough patience.

MR. GREGORY: Humility?

MR. ROVE: I’ll let others decide on that. I—I’m, I’m humbled because, I, I, I—I’m—I know what—I saw—I was there. I saw the incredible strength of the man that we serve, I saw the strength of our country in some very trying and difficult times. I saw colleagues who made huge sacrifices to serve and whose talents are, you know, put you in awe. So I’m, I’m—I was humbled by that experience, you bet.

MR. GREGORY: Your critics, would they think you were humble and patient?

MR. ROVE: Oh, well, my critics think all kinds of bad things about me. I don’t really care.

MR. GREGORY: Let’s talk about the state of the Republican Party. You’ve been called the architect of the second term by the president. Many people feel you’re the...

MR. ROVE: I don’t—I was, I was called the architect of the...

MR. GREGORY: Of the re-election.

MR. ROVE: ...campaign strategy for the re-election. Let’s, let’s keep it in perspective.

MR. GREGORY: But you had a big role in shaping the Republican Party during the Bush years. And let’s look at the, the plight of the GOP as it now stands and put a chart up on the screen. Back in 2000, 30 governors, now 22 governors; House members 223, now 202; senators down 55 to 49. Also a chart about public feelings about the Republican Party: Those who identify themselves as Republican back in 2001 at 41 percent, now 35; positive feelings, 57 in 2001, now 28; negative feelings, 22 percent back in 2001, now 49 percent. What’s happened?

MR. ROVE: Let’s take back—let’s step back and take an even broader frame. In 2000 this president won an election that he shouldn’t have won. Every one of the academic prognosticators that got together at a conference in September of 2000 said Bush is going to lose the presidential election. We’re at a time of apparent peace and prosperity. In fact, the best number I think the president got was 46 percent out of--46-to-54 in a survey—or in a, in a forecast done by Jim Campbell of SUNY Buffalo. Every one of them said we’re going to lose, and we won.

2002, this president led his party to victory in the off-year congressional elections. Only the second president, the other was FDR in 1934, who was able to help his party gain seats in the House and Senate in the first off-year election.

2004 he ran for re-election. Unpopular war, Democratic Party united. The Republicans outspent by $124 million because of the Democratic 527s. Not only did the president become the first candidate since 1988 to get a majority of the vote, win 81 percent of the countings in America, but he also did something that’s only been done one time before in American politics, and that is he helped his party gain seats in both the House and the Senate at the same time he won re-election.

MR. GREGORY: Nevertheless, we...

MR. ROVE: Let, let, let me finish. Let me finish. And in 2006, sure, we lost. But if you look at history, the second midterm elections, the White House party has lost an average of 30 seats in the House—excuse me, 28 seats in the House, we lost 30, and five seats in the Senate, and we lost six. And it was a very close election. Eighty-five thousand votes out of 82 million cast determined control of the U.S. House of Representatives. And control of the U.S. Senate was determined by 3,562 votes out of 60 million cast.

MR. GREGORY: All right, but if, but if we’re comparing the state of the Republican Party today vs. when this president came into office, it’s also has to do with the issues and whether there’s a party advantage for Republicans or Democrats on the issues. Look at this from the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Issue after issue, advantage goes to Democrats: global warming; health care; gas prices; reducing the deficit, a conservative principle; education, where you had made strides with No Child Left Behind; and it goes on from there, controlling government spending; Iraq, the Democrats with a 15 point advantage; Immigration; ethics in government. Let me just continue.

MR. ROVE: No, no. David, David, I accept all this. But, but here’s the fact. You go back and take a look at the polls in the summer of 1999, and you’ll see a similar advantage for the Democrats. At the end of the contest, let’s see how it all plays out. Is the Republican Party a little bit behind the curve? You bet. Do we need to take a clear and candid look at this and realize the American people want to know...

MR. GREGORY: Well, why is it behind the curve?

MR. ROVE: Well...

MR. GREGORY: What’s happened?

MR. ROVE: Well, look. I’ll tell you what’s behind—why. Because we’re in an unpopular war and because we got defeated in the last elections, but—you know what the number one issue was in the last election for people who voted Democrat in ‘06 and voted Republican in ‘04? It was corruption. They looked at what we did in Congress, they looked at all the scandals. They looked at Duke Cunningham, they looked at Abramoff, and they said, “We’re sick of it.” The number two issue was spending, particularly epitomized in earmarks, where they said, “Look, that’s foolish. We don’t want you to be spending our money that way.”

MR. GREGORY: On national security, a signature issue for this president, you said this past week the Democrats have a problem on that issue. Back in 2002 you said this is an issue that Republicans can take to the American people because they, they trust Republicans to do a better job protecting Americans. And yet today, which party would do a better job, according to our recent polling, it’s actually a tie.

MR. ROVE: Yeah. I—look, first of all, we could go to polls all day long, and I—you quote polls, I’ll quote polls. But here’s the fundamental line: At the end of the day, a contest is decided by the candidates talking about the issues and appealing to the American people on the basis of an optimistic, forward-looking agenda. And I am very confident that we’ve got good candidates who, at the end of the day, will carry—one of them will carry the day in the primary and will stand an excellent chance of carrying the day in the general election despite the fact it’s very tough for a party to win the White House a third time. But I’m confident we’ve got an excellent shot to do so because of the quality of our candidates and the nature of the issues.

MR. GREGORY: You talk about the candidates. Here is Mitt Romney, winning the straw poll in Iowa just as George W. Bush did back in 1999. He wasn’t talking about the Bush legacy at all. Watch.

(Videotape)

MR. MITT ROMNEY: If there’s ever been a time that we needed to see change in Washington, it’s now.

(End of videotape)

MR. ROVE: Good for him. Every president...

MR. GREGORY: He’s talking about change after the Bush years.

MR. ROVE: No, look, look. Every presidential election’s about change. Do you know who said something very similar to that in 1988? The vice president to Ronald Reagan, George. H. W. Bush. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson and all those—you know, all of our major candidates get it, that the election has got to be about the future. Democrats want to make it about the past. The Republicans want to make it about the future, and he was doing exactly the right thing.

MR. GREGORY: How difficult will it be, in your judgment, for a Republican to win next year?

MR. ROVE: It’s going to be a tough, contentious election year. It’s going to be tough for a Democrat or a Republican to win. One of them will win, but only after a very tough, long time.

MR. GREGORY: But why? You say the Republicans are now behind the curve. Will that make it harder for Republicans?

MR. ROVE: Well, just historically. Just historically. Look, it was...

MR. GREGORY: Is that simply a matter of it being, the country being at war?

MR. ROVE: No. No, it’s, we have a, we have a contentious war. And it just, look, it’s just difficult. That’s what American history’s about. It’s really—it was—you know, Andrew Jackson ran, served two terms. His vice president won. But it—that’s a rare incidence in American politics. It’s just tough. Ronald Reagan ran twice and won. His vice president won. But it’s just naturally tough. There is something about change, and if you have a candidate, like in 2000, who rested on his laurels and talked about the past rather than articulating a vision for the future, you become vulnerable. And we seized that vulnerability in 2000 and won an election we should not have won.

MR. GREGORY: Do you feel responsible for the fortunes of the Republican Party today?

MR. ROVE: I—look, I’m an avid Republican. I want my party to win. I’ve, I’ve spent my adult life fighting for the Republican Party because I believe in its fundamental principles and I believe it represents a, a, a optimistic and a hopeful way for America. So do I want my party to win? You betcha.

MR. GREGORY: But do you feel responsible for its current state?

MR. ROVE: Well, look, every, every person who identifies with the Republican Party ought to, ought to, ought to feel some responsibility.

MR. GREGORY: You, you do more than just identify with the Republican Party. You’ve been a key figure in shaping the party’s agenda.

MR. ROVE: Our party has a positive and optimistic—think about what we’ve been able to achieve. Our party, when this president came in, we faced a recession, we had corporate scandals, we had an attack on our, on our homeland on 9/11 that devastated our economy. A million people lost their jobs in the aftermath of 9/11. This president and Republicans in Congress cut taxes and have given us four years of very strong economic growth. Our economy is dynamic and powerful, providing jobs and increases in real income for people. This president, when he came into office, came in at a time of apparent peace. But on 9/11 we realized we’re at war, and this president has put us on a war footing in a, in a, in a dangerous new kind of conflict that will shape this new young century.

You look at education reform, you look at energy, you look at higher education, you look at welfare, and you look at the compassion agenda, you look at faith-based, you look at AIDS in Africa, you look at trade—on a whole range of issues, this president has been able to offer a bold and optimistic agenda and get it done. He’s also had the courage, because he understands the responsibility of a president to take on big challenges where it isn’t so easy to win—immigration and Social Security reform. American people don’t want a president to be sitting there wetting their fingers, sticking it in the air and saying, “You know, I’m only going to go for issues for which it’s an 80/20 winner or a 90/10 sure thing.” They want presidents to take on big challenges, and the challenge of entitlements and the resolving this thorny situation of immigration is vital for the future of the country.

MR. GREGORY: You list your accomplishments. A prominent Republican, close to this White House, I spoke to this week, said, “The issue for us was not vision and ideology, it was one of performance on the issues that mattered most, like Iraq, like Katrina.” You agree with that?

MR. ROVE: I, I—look, every president gets judged by their vision, by their accomplishments, by their record, by their performance. I—the—we’re in a tough war, no doubt about it. I remember, though, just a year ago...

MR. GREGORY: It’s not about it being a tough war. It’s the handling of the war.

MR. ROVE: May I finish? I understand, and I’m going to get to your question, if you wouldn’t interrupt.

MR. GREGORY: OK.

MR. ROVE: Think about a year ago. We had the leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate say Anbar province is gone, the war is lost. And today we know from every report that Anbar province, because of the—this president saying, “Let us implement a new strategy that will deal with this issue,” that Anbar province has made a tremendous turnaround, where the Sunni tribesmen have aligned themselves with the central government and have turned on the, on the, on the, on al-Qaeda and, and the terrorists. So, yes, OK, fine, judge us by our performance. But let’s not get in a society—let’s not be a society that says, “We’re going to judge these things instantaneously from moment to moment to moment.” Let’s have the ability to stand back and understand that wars are difficult.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MR. ROVE: Could you imagine sitting there and saying, reading the reports about the bungled U.S.—when the U.S. went into North Africa, which is heavily criticized, we had our, our—in World War II. What would’ve happened if we’d said, “Oh, you know what, our tanks were mauled there in Tunisia. FDR, you’ve done a lousy job of managing the war”? American troops go, go aboard, go ashore in Italy in World War II, suffer horrific casualties. What would’ve happened if, if we’d said at the end of D-Day, “Oh, you know what? We’ve suffered too many casualties. Let us, let us, let us step back from this important battle”?

MR. GREGORY: You talk about taking a wider perspective on the war. Then former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney spoke about the decision not to go into Baghdad during the first Gulf War, and he did this back in 1994, and I’ll put it up on the screen so our viewers can see. This is what Dick Cheney said. “Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? If you take down the central government of Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off.

“It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.” That was the former secretary of defense back in 1994. It seems like he’s...

MR. ROVE: And you know what? And you know what?

MR. GREGORY: Hold on one second. It seems like he’s describing Iraq of 2007.

MR. ROVE: And you’re right, 1994. He, he was describing the conditions in 1994. By 2003 the world had changed. It changed on 9/11, and it became clear—it should be clear to every American that we live in a dangerous world where we cannot let emerging threats fully materialize in attacks on our homeland. Between 1994 and 2003 Saddam Hussein ignored a total—between 1991 and 2003, 16 UN resolutions that said “live up to the agreement that you made in the aftermath of the first Gulf war to disclose your weapons of mass destruction and to account for them.” He didn’t. He was thumbing his nose at the international inspection regime. He was taking money from Oil For Food and putting it into programs to maintain his state security apparatus. He was funding terrorists. He was supporting terrorists, harboring terrorists. He became a dangerous threat, and people are entitled over time to look at the conditions and change their mind, and that’s exactly what Dick Cheney did...

MR. GREGORY: But were his words...

MR. ROVE: ...between 1994 and 2003.

MR. GREGORY: ...words, which don’t have to do with whether he’s a threat, it has to do with what you encounter when you take Saddam Hussein on and remove him from power, was that part of the debate about going in and taking over the government?

MR. ROVE: It—look, there, there are all kinds of contingencies that are discussed and, and, and evaluated and planned for and thought about. And—but look, the world changed. Again, I repeat, it is fine to have a 1994 mind-set in 1994. It is not longer acceptable to have a 1994 mind-set after September 11th. America needs to think and act differently. We face a brutal enemy who will kill the innocent for one purpose and that is to gain control of the Middle East and to use the leverage of oil to bring down the West, and to attack us again.

MR. GREGORY: And what—when you, when you think about how the war was executed and you look at misjudgments: WMD, there were none; we’d be greeted as liberators, we were not.

MR. ROVE: Can we—could we just—let’s, let’s take them one at a time.

MR. GREGORY: Let me—if I can just...

MR. ROVE: Can we take them one at a time?

MR. GREGORY: Let me, let me just lay it out. The cost of the war was misestimated, the level of sectarian violence was wrong, the, the depth and, and the force of the insurgency, the idea that oil revenues would be used to pay for the war. Would you acknowledge there were fundamental misjudgments in the execution of the war?

MR. ROVE: Let’s take these—let’s take these one at a time, if we could. Could you start the list again and give them to me one at a time?

MR. GREGORY: There were no WMD.

MR. ROVE: Absolutely. Absolutely were not. But you know what, the whole world thought there was. In fact, Saddam Hussein’s own commanders, we know now, in the moments—in the days after the invasion, thought they had weapons of mass destruction available to be deployed against our troops. Think about this. This man was under an onerous regime of inspections by the United Nations because he refused to cough up what he had in the way of WMD. He could have gotten out of that regime of inspections and restraints on his government and on his people if all he’d done is said, “I don’t have any anymore.” But...

MR. GREGORY: But, Karl, I’m asking you a specific question about whether misjudgments were made and whether you acknowledge those.

MR. ROVE: I understand. I understand, but I want to deal with each one of these because I want to acknowledge, I want to acknowledge the reality behind each one of them. You say, for example, you make the assertion that oil revenues are not being used to pay for reconstruction. You’re absolutely wrong.

MR. GREGORY: The predication was they would pay for the war.

MR. ROVE: The Iraqi—let me finish—the Iraqi government has a capacity $41 billion budget, $10 billion, most of which comes from oil revenues, $10 billion of which goes to reconstruction. And so are they using their own resources to reconstruct the country? You bet. But, look, it’s one thing to rattle off all of these, and it’s a nice tactic. I appreciate—I applaud you for doing so. But if you take a moment and look at each one of these you’ll find that in each one of these there is a reasonable—you know, look, was everything done perfectly? No. But it—was this the right thing to do? You bet. And has the policy worked out exactly as people planned? Look, Napoleon said that your battle plan doesn’t survive the first contact with the enemy, but you still have to have a plan. And did everything work out like people expected and hoped? No. But is it the right thing to do and is it vital for the security interests of the United States? If we were to leave Iraq with the job undone, we would be running the risk of seeing the entire region plunge into violence. We would see Iran emboldened. We would see Hezbollah, Hamas and the al-Qaeda emboldened. We could see a terrorist state emerge in the heart of the Middle East. Not in Afghanistan with no natural resources, but in the very heart of the Middle East with the third largest oil reserves in the world. And we could see an increasing danger for our friends and allies in the region from Turkey to Lebanon to Jordan to Israel to Egypt to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

MR. GREGORY: Let me move on to Iran. One of the things you said this week in, in some of your interviews was that one legacy of the Bush administration would be the Bush doctrine that would be—that would live on. This is how The Wall Street Journal reported it in Paul Gigot’s column. “On foreign affairs, [Rove] predicts that [part] of the Bush doctrine will live on: the policy that if you harbor a terrorist, you are” “culpable as a terrorist.”

And then we think about Iran. The State Department’s called Iran the world’s most active sponsor of terrorism. Just this week the administration sought to designate Iran’s revolutionary guard as a global terrorist organization. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell has talked about Iran helping terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. How does this square with the Bush doctrine?

MR. ROVE: It—you confront...

MR. GREGORY: When, when at the same time there are conversations, talks going on, between this administration...

MR. ROVE: Because...

MR. GREGORY: ...and Iran?

MR. ROVE: Because you confront terrorism by calling it by its name, and you use all your available tools—economic, diplomatic, intelligence and, if need be, military to deal with it. And what we’re doing here is, in a very measured tone, sending a signal that we will use all of these tools in an appropriate time and in an appropriate way. And, and I don’t want to get deeper into it. There, there are things that are going—that are being discussed, many of which I’m not privy to, though I’m confident the policy will be laid out at a—in, in due time. But the point is, is that we have a variety of tools, and we will employ all those tools to deal with the threat of global terrorism.

MR. GREGORY: Will Iran face serious consequences if talks break down?

MR. ROVE: Let’s, let, let’s have confidence that Iran will understand the difficulties that it will place itself in and that the talks will go well.

MR. GREGORY: Let me talk about the CIA leak case, of which you were obviously a, a central part. This is what the president said in 2003 after the identity of Valerie Plame was divulged in a Robert Novak column. Watch.

(Videotape, September 30, 2003)

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated laws, that person will be taken care of.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Robert Novak, who divulged Valerie Plame’s name in his column, appeared on this program with Tim Russert back in July, and Tim asked about his book. Watch.

(Videotape, July 15, 2007)

MR. RUSSERT: Then you go on to say, in the book, “Senior White House adviser Karl Rove returned my call late that afternoon [July 8th, 2003],” the same day. “I mentioned I had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in the counterproliferation section and that she had suggested Wilson be sent to Niger. I distinctly remember Rove’s reply, ‘Oh, you know that, too.’ Rove and I also discussed other aspects of Wilson’s mission, but since he never has disclosed them publicly, neither have I.” So you considered Rove’s comments, “Oh, you know that, too,” as a confirmation?

MR. ROBERT NOVAK: Yes.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Were you a confirming source for Robert Novak?

MR. ROVE: No. And I, I remember it slightly differently. I remember saying, “I’ve heard that, too.” Let, let me say this. There is a civil lawsuit filed by Mr. Wilson and Ms. Plame. It has been tossed out at the district court level. They’ve announced their intention to appeal. I think it is better that I not add anything beyond what is already in the public record until that suit is resolved. But, as I’m—my recollection is that I said, “I heard that, too.” We—I would point you to...

MR. GREGORY: Where, where had you heard that?

MR. ROVE: You’ll have to wait.

MR. GREGORY: But that’s an important distinction, because the—you—“I heard that, too,” suggests that you heard it from somebody else rather than knowing it yourself.

MR. ROVE: That’s correct.

MR. GREGORY: But he, he took those notes down just as you said them.

MR. ROVE: Well, but I—my recollection is, “I’ve heard that, too.” So—but the point is, if, if, if a journalist had said to me, “I’d like you to confirm this,” my answer would have been, “I can’t. I don’t know. I’ve heard that, too.”

MR. GREGORY: It, it, it’s important to point out that the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, declined to bring any criminal charges against you. But given the president’s emphatic statement about getting to the bottom of this, were you ever held to account by the president for what you did?

MR. ROVE: You know, I acted in an appropriate manner, made all the appropriate individuals aware of, of, of my contact. I met with the FBI right at the beginning of this, told them everything. You’re right, the special prosecutor declined to take any action at all. I was never a target. In fact, it’s—what’s interesting to me is that the person who did give the name, Richard Armitage, we found out at the end of the process, did, did have the conversation with Novak, took no action against him either.

MR. GREGORY: Was it an inappropriate investigation?

MR. ROVE: It’s entirely appropriate to look into these kind of things, sure.

MR. GREGORY: Should Armitage have come forward sooner, do you think, to the administration?

MR. ROVE: That’s—that was his decision, and those are the people who were advising him. That’s fine.

MR. GREGORY: The president seemed frustrated that he didn’t.

MR. ROVE: I, I’m, I’m going to leave it there.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think you owe Valerie Plame an apology?

MR. ROVE: No.

MR. GREGORY: You do not?

MR. ROVE: No.

MR. GREGORY: You considered her fair game in this debate?

MR. ROVE: No. And you know what? Fair game, that wasn’t my phrase. That’s a phrase of a journalist. In fact, a colleague of yours.

MR. GREGORY: Was she an appropriate target in this debate?

MR. ROVE: No.

MR. GREGORY: She was not.

MR. ROVE: No. Look, her husband wrote a op-ed that we now know by—in a statement issued on July 11th by the director of the CIA, backed by a report by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, was misleading and inaccurate. The vice president, the White House and the director of the CIA did not send Mr. Wilson to Africa to look into—to the question of uranium cake from Niger to Iraq. We also know that he did—he came—the information he came back with was not dispositive, was not conclusive, did not disprove the British intelligence finding that the Iraqis had attempted to acquire uranium cake. In fact, we now know that he brought back information not disclosed in his article that added to the belief, that confirmed the British intelligence report that the Iraqis had attempted to acquire uranium cake. He brought back information about a previously unknown contact where the Iraqis, working through a third party, attempted to bring and did bring to Niger a trade delegation. And since the only thing Niger had to sell was uranium cake that was on a U.N. sanctions list, they declined to do any business. He brought back information that affirmed the, the British intelligence report. After this all came out, the British did a study, did a review, appointed a commission to review their intelligence finding and came back and confirmed that they stood by their original assessment that, that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium yellow cake from Niger in—and exactly as was in the president’s speech.

MR. GREGORY: In our remaining moments, I want to talk about the 2008 campaign. Now, you’ve said—you haven’t ruled anything out, but you said you’re not going to go work for another candidate. But you also said that you’re an opinionated guy. And some of those opinions came flowing out this week, including your conversation with Rush Limbaugh this week about Senator Hillary Clinton. Watch.

(Audiotape)

MR. ROVE: I think she’s likely to be the nominee, and I think she’s fatally flawed.

(End audiotape)

MR. GREGORY: “Fatally flawed” how?

MR. ROVE: She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup Poll.

MR. GREGORY: The president has much higher negatives than she, however.

MR. ROVE: She enters the presidential contest with higher negatives. The only person who come close is—she—her’s are at 49--the only other candidate to come close was Al Gore with 34, I believe.

MR. GREGORY: And how does that hurt her?

MR. ROVE: Well, it just says people have made an opinion about her. It’s hard to change opinions once you’ve been a high profile person in the public eye, as she has, for 16 or 17 years.

MR. GREGORY: There are prominent Republicans, yourself included, who seem to be really talking Hillary Clinton up as a kind of inevitable nominee. Is that who Republicans want?

MR. ROVE: I, I, I—I’m, I’m just, I’m just responding from questions to journalists. Don’t ask me, don’t blame it on me. It’s you guys’ fault.

MR. GREGORY: Well, but you’re not the only Republican who has said that she is the inevitable nominee. Is there a desire by the Republican Party for her to be the nominee? Is that who you want to run against?

MR. ROVE: It’s going to be what it’s going to be. Democrats are going to choose the Democratic nominee, and Republicans are going to choose the Republican nominee.

MR. GREGORY: She responded this week in a campaign ad, not directly to that, but to—attacked the White House. And let’s watch that.

(Videotape of Clinton ad)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: And I never thought I would see that our soldiers who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan would be treated as though they were invisible as well. Americans from all walks of life across our country may be invisible to this president, but they’re not invisible to me, and they won’t be invisible to the next president of the United States.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Reaction?

MR. ROVE: First of all, it’s laughable that this president does not have a strong relationship with the military and military families. Most of the ad was devoted to health care, which really to me was a sign of defensiveness. She understands she’s got a weakness on this. Hillary Clinton voted against providing seniors with a prescription drug benefit. Hillary Clinton voted against allowing people to save tax free for their out-of-pocket medical expenses. Hillary Clinton voted against medical liability reform so that docs are not forced out of practice by junk lawsuits. She opposes leveling the playing field so that people who pay for health insurance out of their own pocket get the same tax break the big corporations get for providing health care benefits to their employees. She’s against allowing people to shop for health insurance across state lines like we do with auto insurance so the consumers would have more choices and there’d be competition to get your business, give you more for less.

She is a person who now—she was opposed to and voted against allowing seniors to have a choice of keeping their current doc and their current health care plan through a private form of Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and now she’s voting for penalizing seniors who have those private health care plans through Medicare. This woman’s got one idea on health care, which is to let the government do it all, and she’s voted against all these very positive reforms which would allow the doctor and the patient to be in charge of health care.

MR. GREGORY: Has Barack Obama measured up to the hype surrounding him?

MR. ROVE: You know what? I’m going to let you ask your—you’ve got an excellent panel coming on, I think, later in the program. Why don’t you ask them this question.

MR. GREGORY: You haven’t shied away from talking about Hillary Clinton.

MR. ROVE: Well, I’m just, I’m just going to let, I’m going to let—I’ve said enough. I’ve got to, I’ve got to save a little bit more for later.

MR. GREGORY: Do you really fear Barack Obama? That’s why you’re spending all this time attacking Hillary Clinton?

MR. ROVE: You know, I—you know, I read that in the LA Times this morning. Those, those guys really out in LA have got to get clued in. I mean, come on.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you quickly about the, the investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys. You have defended the firing of those attorneys. You’ve done so publicly. Why not then testify about that under oath as Congress wants you to?

MR. ROVE: Yeah, look, here’s the issue. There is a tension between Congress and the executive. Congress wants to be able to call the—this Congress in particular—wants to be able to call presidential aides up at its whim and convenience and have them testify. That would have a chilling effect on the ability of a president to get candid, straightforward advice from his aides. We have a constitutional separation of powers. The founders talk about this. They, they understood this issue, and they wanted to insulate the judicial, the executive and the legislative from each other in this respect. Imagine the outcry if the executive branch said, “We have a right to pull up any congressional aide we want and ask you at any time what advice you’re giving your member about a vote.” Imagine the outcry in the country if we said Supreme Court clerks can be called before Congress or called before the executive at any time to talk about what they’re, what they’re advising the Supreme Court Justices as they write their opinions.

The counsel’s office had made a very generous offer. If they want to find out what Harriet Miers and I said and did, we’d be happy to go up there and have a visit with them about it. But we would—have an obligation, when we’re sworn in as an officer inside the White House, a commissioned officer, we swear to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution has a separation of powers. It should not—the Constitution should not be weakened, and we should not weaken the prerogatives of the power of the presidency just because somebody wants to have kind of show hearing on the Hill.

MR. GREGORY: But...

MR. ROVE: If they want to hear from me, the counsel’s office had made a generous offer. They didn’t take us up on it.

MR. GREGORY: Before we let you go, if anybody questions whether politics has been in your blood for many, many years, they only have to go back to January 18th, 1972 when a much younger Karl Rove spoke about Richard Nixon. Watch.

(Videotape)

MR. DAN RATHER: Down in the basement of party headquarters is the operation aimed at embarrassing pundits who say Nixon doesn’t appeal to youth. The people in charge here are from the 18-to-21-year-old bracket.

MR. ROVE (GOP College Director): First of all, voter registration’s probably the most important function that we are undertaking now. We’re also seeking to train college students to run voter registration drives and, and to work towards involving young people in campaigns. You can’t get a 35-year-old to, to teach the Republican Party how to get the young people. You just can’t, can’t rely on it. Young people have got to reach other young people, and that’s what we’re seeking to do.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Even then, you were telling the Republican Party how to get it done.

MR. ROVE: I had a lot of hair back then, didn’t I? You know what—there was—I want to correct something. Once again, the media’s got it wrong. It was not the basement of the national committee, it was the sub-basement. It was under the parking garage. It was a fun time.

MR. GREGORY: Karl Rove, good luck.

MR. ROVE: Thank you.

MR. GREGORY: Thank you very much.

MR. ROVE: Appreciate it. Thank you.

MR. GREGORY: Coming next, Republican and Democratic presidential candidates descend on key voting states across the country. Our political roundtable—Ron Brownstein, Matt Cooper, John Harwood and Kate O’Beirne—are next right here on MEET THE PRESS.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: Our political roundtable with Brownstein, Cooper, Harwood and O’Beirne after this brief station break.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: We are back. Welcome all.

Ron Brownstein, the political legacy of Karl Rove, what do you think it is?

MR. RON BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think they came into office with a very clear strategy that linked together both their legislative and their political vision, and on both fronts their focus was on unifying their own party. And they accepted polarization of the country as the price for mobilizing their own side. And in his first term, in Bush’s first term, this worked pretty well. Republicans in Congress voted together at a rate not seen since the beginning of the 20th century, and he was able to pass much more than seemed possible, given the size of his victory in 2000 and their majority in Congress. And in 2002 and 2004, they generated an enormous turnout of the Republican base, and they were able to, as Karl Rove said, to gain seats and to win re-election, winning a majority for the first time since 1988.

But in the second term, I think the limits of this strategy have become increasingly apparent. Even when he won re-election, at his high point, his margin of victory measured as a share of the popular vote, was the smallest ever in American history for a successfully re-elected president. Left him very little margin for error, little, little cushion of good will when things started to go against him. And you saw also, in the second term, that the price of focusing so much on mobilizing their base was at times—Terri Schiavo, Social Security—pull—putting forward an agenda that drove away—energized Democrats and drove away independents. And it came together, I think, in 2006. They suffered a severe erosion among independent voters in both the House races and the big Senate races. They’ve become more of a regional party under Karl Rove. They’re strong in the culturally conservative parts of the country, but in the Northeast and the West Coast there—they’ve lost a lot of ground.

So on balance, I think that he has been a brilliant tactician in the service of a fundamentally flawed strategy, and I don’t believe another president will try to govern in a manner that accepts so much division in the country as the price of exciting their own side.

MR. GREGORY: Kate O’Beirne, is the Republican Party better off or worse off after the Bush years?

MS. KATE O’BEIRNE: Unclear. David, you could throw up the same kind of charts we looked at with Karl Rove when Bill Clinton left office, right? I mean, within two years...

MR. BROWNSTEIN: And many people did.

MS. O’BEIRNE: Exactly. Within two years. Of course, they had lost after holding it for far longer. He had lost the House. And the Democratic Party, I think, was demonstrably weaker following eight years of the Clinton administration. And yet, we have an unpopular war in Iraq, a Republican majority that seemed to run out of steam, and therefore, look at what these—the partisan advantage the Democrats now have. Those same polls, of course, show that the public is not thrilled with the Democratic Congress either, of course.

I think Karl Rove’s—the legacy, of course, is premature and mixed, but it certainly has to be said that he is largely responsible for three enormously successful races in 2000, 2002 and 2004. And even in 2006 the president did increase his margins across demographic groups, not just among conservatives.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: He lost ground among independents in 2000 and 2004, even while winning...

MS. O’BEIRNE: Well, it was the...

MR. BROWNSTEIN: ...re-election.

MS. O’BEIRNE: ...first president, of course, in a, in a midst of an unpopular war to win a majority of the vote. That hadn’t, obviously, happened since ‘88.

MR. GREGORY: Matt Cooper, let’s pick up on an aspect of the interview with, with Karl Rove having to do with the leak case, the CIA leak case, that you were part of as well. And something’s that’s very interesting, he, he went out of his way to say, “I would not have been a confirming source on this kind of information” and taking issue with, with Novak’s testimony in his column that he knew who Valerie Plame was. He said he would never confirm that information. That’s different from your experience with him.

MR. MATT COOPER: Yeah, I, I think he was dissembling, to put it charitably. Look, Karl Rove told me about Valerie Plame’s identity on July 11th, 2003. I called him because Ambassador Wilson was in the news that week. I didn’t know Ambassador Wilson even had a wife until I talked to Karl Rove and he said that she worked at the agency and she worked on WMD. I mean, to imply that he didn’t know about it or that this was all the leak...

MR. GREGORY: Or that he had heard it from somebody else...

MR. COOPER: ...by someone else, or he heard it as some rumor out in the hallway is, is nonsense.

MR. GREGORY: But he makes no apologies to Valerie Plame.

MR. COOPER: Karl Rove never apologizes. That’s not what he does.

MR. GREGORY: John Harwood, back to politics and Karl Rove leading the charge, in some cases, against Hillary Clinton. That was a very well-thought political attack on Hillary Clinton’s views in some of her past votes. What about the fact that he wouldn’t talk about Barack Obama? And some are speculating that just like in 2004 when they were building up John Kerry that the Republicans were—that’s what they want to do here, to run against Hillary Clinton.

MR. JOHN HARWOOD: Well, it’s hard to sort this stuff out. In some respects he’s making a statement of obvious fact. Hillary Clinton is the front-runner, she is the likely nominee of the Democratic Party, although we’ve got a long way to go in this race, and she is a flawed candidate. But, of course, we have an entire field of flawed candidates in both parties. So—and if you look at everybody running for president right now, her flaws are smaller than anybody’s else’s because she’s leading, she’s got a party that’s on the march in terms of public sentiment. So was he not going after Obama to—because that’s who he really fears? It, it’s hard to say.

I just want to point out a couple of things about Karl’s record. I agree with my colleagues he is brilliant, he’s driven, he’s unusually involved and interested in history and policy, fundamentally different in that way from somebody like James Carville, who was essentially a political tactician and strategist for Bill Clinton. But let’s don’t exaggerate what happened. Republicans won five out of eight presidential elections before George Bush won in 2000. It wasn’t long ago that we were talking about a Republican lock on the presidency.

MS. O’BEIRNE: Lock. Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. HARWOOD: He did adapt modern conservatism to the post-Cold War era, compassionate conservatism was a useful function. But he didn’t create the national Republican majority, and I think it also has to be said that he didn’t create the Iraq war, which fundamentally is the largest thing that is dragging down the president right now.

MR. GREGORY: Let’s, let’s move on. I want to put up some recent polling, look at the Republican field right now and look at some of the recent polling here. Giuliani still on top, but his numbers down a little bit. Look at Fred Thompson, who was out in Iowa for the first time this week. His numbers down July to July.

Kate O’Beirne, a lot of questions about whether Fred Thompson has waited too long to get into the race.

MS. O’BEIRNE: Well, it’s obviously he has to play catch-up here. He’s behind with respect to raising money, with respect to organization, not—people aren’t quite sure yet what that message is going to be, although he’s clearly going to be trying to attempt to appeal to conservatives. You know, none of that would be the case had he gone in a year ago, but a year ago there was no rationale for a Fred Thompson candidacy, right? McCain was the front-runner and when George Allen won his Virginia Senate seat, George Allen was going to be that conservative in the race.

So, exactly—exactly. So he has catching up to do. He’s a talented politician. The Republican field’s far more fluid than the Democratic field, so there could well be a perch for Fred Thompson. But the others have a real head start.

MR. GREGORY: And it’s very interesting, Rudy Giuliani still atop the polls, and it was striking this week when he was asked about his family—there’s obviously been a lot written about this—and this was his reply. We’ll put it on the screen for our viewers to see, as the Union Leader in New Hampshire reported it. “Giuliani was taken aback by a morning town hall meeting in New Hampshire by a question about his family. ‘I’m going to phrase it a lot more gentle than my nephew did, but he wanted to know how you could expect a loyal following of Americans when you are not getting it from your own family,’ a mother asked. Giuliani responded, ‘I love my family very, very much and will do anything for them. There are complexities in every family in America,’ Giuliani said quietly. ‘The best thing I can say is kind of leave my family alone, just like I’ll leave your family alone.’” Ron Brownstein:

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think it was a very genuine answer. Obviously the—there are other Republicans that think that family history is, is a vulnerability for, for Giuliani. But, you know, I think we learned during the Clinton impeachment that Americans sort of intuitively understand that in everybody’s life there are things they don’t want to read about on the front page of The Washington Post or The New York Times or the LA Times, and I think we saw that very kind of mature understanding. And, in the end, I think Giuliani will receive the same kind of verdict from the public. They will judge him on other grounds.

MR. HARWOOD: However, within the Republican primary, I think...

MR. BROWNSTEIN: There will be voters, sure.

MR. HARWOOD: ...Mitt Romney has fewer of those things that would be embarrassing to read on the front page of the paper.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: Mm-hmm.

MR. HARWOOD: And that’s going to help him. You see it when he talks about family at every opportunity.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Right. You bring up Mitt Romney.

And you wrote an article, Matt Cooper, in your, in your magazine, Conde Nast Portfolio, about Romney. And, and it was very interesting, a portion of it...

MR. COOPER: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: ...which I’ll put up on the screen about how a President Romney would approach the work at hand. “Romney’s always analytical,” you wrote, “the hallmark of the Bain”—Bain “Capital approach to both consulting and private equity. To this day, Romney likes his information ‘voluminous,’ says his campaign manager and gubernatorial chief of staff, Beth Myers. Romney might be a congenial panderer, but he isn’t someone who would look into Vladimir Putin’s soul and pronounce him a friend.” The contrast to President Bush. What do you mean?

MR. COOPER: That’s right. Well, you know, both he and George Bush, it’s irresistible to compare them. They’re both sons of Republican politicians who wanted to be president, they both got Harvard MBAs. But Bush is famously, you know, decides more from his gut. And Romney is very analytical and, to some degree, I think that’s a, that’s an enviable quality, a good quality in a president. But I, as I said in the piece, you know, he is also a panderer, and he’s clearly, you know, stretched his positions, to put it charitably. And, you know, that’s a—that may be a detriment.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: In addition to all of his analytical skill, he is the Republican candidate most going for the three yards and a cloud of dust. There is nothing very complex or nouvelle about the way he’s running for president. He’s making two assumptions. The way you win the Republican primary is to consolidate conservatives to the greatest extent that you can and to focus on those early states, in Iowa and New Hampshire. While Giuliani has talked about putting more focus later in the month, now you have this calendar shift where South Carolina is moving up to the middle of January, moving back Iowa and New Hampshire, and you have the possibility that this race could be largely decided, as it has been since 1980, by the continuum of those three states: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina. And he seems to be the most focused, at least initially, on those very first two states in a very kind of conventional way.

MR. GREGORY: John Harwood, Mitt Romney also answering questions about where some of his trust money goes. In a blind trust, he’s got a huge fortune, $250 million, according to estimates. Some of those investments, in conflict with his campaign positions, say on abortion or money in companies that may be investing in Sudan. Is this an issue for him?

MR. HARWOOD: You know, flipside of the issue affecting John Edwards, who’s got money invested with a hedge fund that had been involved in subprime mortgages, and he’s talking about championing the poor.

MR. GREGORY: Foreclosing on Katrina victims in New Orleans.

MR. HARWOOD: Exactly. You know, I think this is a minor issue for Mitt Romney. He does have his money in a blind trust. They’re now going about trying to dissociate that trust, the, the trustee has said, from investments that are at odds with Romney’s positions. But I think people realize that we have a large and complex economy...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. HARWOOD: ...and it’s not easy to sort all this stuff out.

MR. GREGORY: But he’s been aggressive about all this. Back when he was running against Senator Kennedy, he said “the blind trust is an age-old ruse.” He was quoted as saying, “You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, ‘Don’t invest in properties which might be in conflict of interest or, or where the seller might think they’re going to get an advantage from me.’” That was him going on the offensive about a blind trust against Senator Kennedy.

MR. HARWOOD: Well, on blind trusts, like on so many other things, that was then and this is now. The question for Romney, I think, he is a famous analyst of, of problems and issues. He did that in business. The challenge for him, he’s running in a belief party. How much does a belief party want to take somebody who appears to have calculated where he has to be on certain issues and decided to get there. He’s running against Giuliani. What Giuliani has going for him is the sense that there is some unbendable core inside him that’s—a spine of steel, if you will. That may be the—where we end up posing concerns.

MS. O’BEIRNE: Well, I—there’s an appetite, though, I think, on the part of Republican rank and file voters for that competence that they, that critics believe has been lacking. And I think Mitt Romney’s certainly going to be competitive in that respect. The implied criticisms, of course, are to these problems in the past couple of years. People used to say of Republicans, they might not like government very much, but they can run the place. Well, they’re no longer saying that. And I think Mitt Romney’s going to be extremely competitive there, based on the kinds of things Matt pointed out in his, in his article. He has a real track record with respect to management. And you’re exactly right, Ron, that is the kind of campaign he’s running.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Let me talk about the Democrats, and we’ll put up some of the recent polling numbers on the screen. First you look at the national poll numbers with Senator Clinton still with a sizeable advantage there. And now look at this California Democratic poll. Of course, California, one of the states in Super Tuesday, a significant margin there for Senator Clinton over Obama. And perhaps it explains some of what we’ve been seeing from Senator Obama on the campaign trail, really going after Senator Clinton. This is how The New York Times reported it on Friday. “Senator Barack Obama has moved in recent weeks to sharpen his tone noticeably as he fights for the Democratic presidential nomination, increasingly drawing sharp contrasts with his rivals and seeking to turn criticism of his foreign policy credentials into a fresh argument for change. The recalibration of the campaign is a marked departure from a laid-back tone Mr. Obama often had taken in the first six months of his candidacy. It comes as he is working to persuade voters of his judgment and erase perceptions among party leaders that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is establishing herself as the front-runner after a series of debates and what some Democrats have viewed as slip-ups by Mr. Obama.”

Matt Cooper, does he have to turn it on here?

MR. COOPER: I think he does. You know, my wife works for Hillary Clinton, so in the spirit of full disclosure. You know, look, I think Obama’s made this argument that she doesn’t really represent change and that he does. I think that might be compelling to a sliver of the Democratic Party. But I think Hillary Clinton is so different from George Bush, it’s hard to make the argument that a Clinton presidency would be a continuation of the Bush presidency. So I think this argument he’s gotten into is, is just not one that he’s going to win in the end.

MR. HARWOOD: But there’s no question, David, that he does have to turn it on. You look at the rolling averages at polls of these early states, Hillary Clinton’s now leading in Iowa, now leading in New Hampshire. If she isn’t stopped in one or both of those places by Barack Obama or John Edwards or both of them, she’s not going to be stopped for this nomination.

MR. BROWNSTEIN: In fact, she’s a real front-runner. And this is what you have when you have a front-runner. They, they lead everywhere. I think Obama has to make this argument. I think, I think the Democratic—the structure of the Democratic race is coming together in a way the Republican race isn’t. Basically, you have an argument about what kind of change and how much change. Obama is basically arguing that he can bring more fundamental change to Washington on a variety of different levels than Hillary Clinton. It’s not so much an ideological argument, because he’s talking about unifying the country after the Bush years. She’s arguing that she brings the perfect blend of change and experience, that she has the experience to deliver the change that others talk about. And you know, John Edwards is still out there, especially in Iowa, making kind of an edgier ideological argument, saying, “I’m going to have the big, bold liberal ideas,” in some ways reminiscent of Dick Gephardt’s indictment against Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. So those different kind of dimensions.

Right now I think the problem that Edwards and Obama has, as Matt suggests, is that Hillary Clinton is more competitive with them on change than they are with her on experience. She dominates them in all of these polls about who do you trust in a crisis, who’s the strongest leader, who has the best experience to be president? And I think as long as that dynamic is in place—I remember what one of Obama’s advisers said to me, “Strength was a leading indicator of success in presidential politics.” They have to challenge her on that ground or else it’s going to be very difficult.

MR. GREGORY: And yet, Kate O’Beirne, is he succeeding in some of these frontal attacks on her?

MS. O’BEIRNE: I don’t think so. I think his message about unifying the country is not a message for the Democratic primary base. It seems to be that Hillary Clinton better knows that, that, that population when she’s running anti-Bush ads, which is what she’s been doing lately now. Of course, she’s not running against George Bush. In fact, come ‘08 I don’t think she’ll even be running against a Bush Republican. But she knows what unifies the base, and I don’t think it’s a call for unifying the country.

MR. HARWOOD: You know, I think the real wild card in this race is going to be Fred Thompson, as Kate was talking about earlier, when he gets in. The way that he has tried to make up lately some of the lost ground, saying that he’s going to talk straight on entitlements, that sort of thing, how—what, what is he going to say that’s going to appeal to the Republican base, but also not hurt him badly in a general election?

MR. GREGORY: All, all right. We’re going to leave it there. Thanks to you all.

And before we go, we want to take a moment here to remember a legend in the political world, and that is Michael Deaver, who worked so closely with Ronald Reagan for so many years, one of his closest advisers. He died yesterday at age 69 after a brave battle with pancreatic cancer. In what was his last television interview, he appeared right here just three months ago, along with former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, and spoke about his final memories of the man he worked with for over 30 years.

(Videotape, May 20, 2007)

MR. MICHAEL DEAVER: My final memory of Ronald Reagan was actually the first day in the White House, when—the first day in the Oval Office, right off the reviewing stand, when he sat behind that desk and looked at me, and said, “Have you got goosebumps?”

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Our thoughts and prayers are with the Deaver family this morning. And we’ll be right back.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: Start today tomorrow on “Today” with Matt and Meredith, then the “NBC Nightly News” with Brian Williams. That’s all for today. Tim Russert will be right back here next week. If it’s Sunday, it’s MEET THE PRESS.