Two weeks ago, Illinois senator Barack Obama told NBC's Tim Russert that he was considering a Presidential run in 2008. Next, he speaks about that. As well as religion, politics, and the war in Iraq. For The New York Times, Bob Herbert. This talk is just over an hour. As a Presidential library, we are proud to attract speakers who are making headlines, but the headlines this week about tonight's speaker tell us that he may be poised not just to make news, but to make history. Our guest of honor is on this week's cover of Time magazine. His name is on the lips of democrats and republicans across the nation and his new book, The Audacity of Hope, published this month and now on sale in our bookstore, tells us about a brand-new form of political leadership. It's a great privilege to welcome Senator Barack Obama to the Kennedy Library. Senator, you are described by the New York Times as, and I quote, "That rare politician who can write," and write movingly and genuinely about himself. And your story is extraordinary, as this week's cover article in Time tells us, and I quote, "Senator Obama's father was from Kenya, his mother from Kansas, the senator has told the story in brilliant, painful detail in his first book Dreams of My Father, the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician." And I end quote. A central theme of the book is that Barack Obama learned from an early age how important it was to bridge the many divides of the world in which he grew up, which is the same world as the one in which we all live today. At Harvard Law School, he was the first African-American to be elected President of the Harvard Law Review, he was chosen for that prestigious position not only because he was near the top of his class, but also because he had a unique ability to win over conservative and liberal students alike. As one of his classmates told Time magazine this week, "Most of the class were liberals, but there was a growing conservative presence and there were fights between right and left about almost every issue. Barack won the election because the conservatives thought he would take their arguments into account." After graduating from law school, Senator Obama entered public service. He started as a community organizor and a civil rights attorney in Chicago, representing victims of employment and housing discrimination, and teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. In 1997, he was elected to the Illinois senate, where for the next seven years he played a leading role reaching across party lines on difficult issues to achieve results. He forged coalitions of democrats and republicans to help working families, creating programs like the state-earned income tax credit that provided over a hundred million dollars in tax relief for lower and middle income families. He pushed through a bi- partisan expansion of early childhood education, and he worked with law enforcement officials to enact legislation requiring that all interrogations and confessions in cases involving the death penalty, be videotaped. On the national stage, he spoke out early against the war in Iraq, and he supported the war in Afghanistan. Here in Boston he electrified the Democratic National Convention two years ago in the keynote address that charted the common ground that unites all Americans. "We worship an awesome God in the blue states," he said, "And we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and we've got gay friends in the red states. There is not a Black America and White America and Latino America and Asian America, there is the United States of America." Elected in an Illinois landslide to the US Senate in 2004, Senator Obama is now in a position to project his special brand of political leadership on the national level. Leadership based on consensus-building, not slashing and burning, leadership based on listening to opposing views, and responding with fact and truth, not destructive distortion. A brand of leadership, I might add, in great demand but very short supply in our political life today. Senator, again, it's a great privilege to have you here. To moderate this evening's forum, we're also privileged to have one of our nation's leading commentators, Bob Herbert, of the New York Times. Bob has been a star, as many of you know, at other Kennedy Library forums, and we're pleased to welcome him back here tonight. Bob joined the Times as an op-ed columnist in 1993, and twice a week he helps us understand what's important in politics and our national life. Bob Herbert began his career with the New York Star Ledger, where he became a city editor. Before joining the Times, he was a national correspondent for NBC, a founding panelist on Sunday Edition, the weekly discussion program on WCBS, and the host of Hotline, a weekly issues program on New York public television. He's won many awards for his reporting and commentary, including, recently, The American Society of Newspaper Editors award for distinguished commentary. Please join me in welcoming Barack Obama and Bob Herbert to the stage of the Kennedy Library. Senator, it's an honor to have you here. I know we're on a tight schedule, so we're not going to waste a lot of time. Members of the audience will see people coming around with pencils and we're going to take some written questions and we'll, if we have time, we'll answer a few at the end of the interview. I noticed upstairs I'm looking at the pictures of President Kennedy and I recall from your book that you were born, if I'm not mistaken, in the year Senator Kennedy was inaugurated, is that right? That is correct. Wow. He um--Are you getting enough attention lately? Well the first thing I have to say to everybody is, I'm sorry I'm late. I had forgotten how wonderful the Boston weather is this time of year, and we were delayed in a holding pattern over the skies for about half an hour or an hour back in New York, but I appreciate everybody taking the time to-- everybody's patience. Let's start with the war in Iraq, which is going horribly, and which seems to be the big topic in the upcoming election. We're very close to that. You are not in favor of the war, but you have not called for a precipitous withdrawal of US troops. So what should the United States do in Iraq, and if the Democrats take control of either or both houses of Congress, what could the party do to move us toward a more acceptable solution? Well, the-- as you mentioned Bob, we've talked I think before I was elected at that point I had made my position clear, I thought that the war was not based on reason and fact, but rather on ideology, and unfortunately most of my worst fears came to pass. My view had been at the time, and continues to be, that once we were in we had some obligation to try to stabilize the situation. And so over the last year, as I've watched the conditions continue to deteriorate, and I've made a visit to Iraq in January, my view was, Let us see if we can give this political process a chance, and try to buck up the passing of the Iraqi government to create some order. It's my view at this point, and I've been saying this now for several months, that there is no military solution possible in Iraq at this point. That what you have is a political problem that is going to have to be solved, to a large degree, by the Iraqis themselves. And so, to my mind it makes sense to now begin a phased withdrawal. Originally, I believed that withdrawal should have been started by the end of this year. Now it's unlikely that we can execute that that quickly, but I think early next year, we should the President should sit down with the joint chiefs of staff and should say, How do we do this in a way that causes the least threat to our troops, and maintains some semblance of stability, whatever's left in Iraq, and send a strong signal to the Iraqis that they are going to have to make a determination: do they want to live as Iraqis, in a unified national government, are they Kurds, Shiite and Sunni first? And force them to make some political decisions about what's going to happen. The second thing I think the President needs to do is to gather up all the regional powers, including Iran and Syria. Who, to some degree, are enjoying watching us flounder there, but will not enjoy millions of refugees if Iraq collapses completely. And say to them, "You have to take some ownership over the process as well." The international community, but particularly the Arab states in the surrounding region. And I think if we send a signal that we are not interested in permanent bases, we are not going to police a civil war, that we can provide support for whatever plans emerge from those discussions, but we are not going to be able to impose our will in Iraq by ourselves, then we can make some progress. Now keep in mind, and I'll finish up with this: part of the reason I thought this was a bad idea was because at this stage, I don't think there are any good options. I think there are bad options and worse options. And there are risks in a phased withdrawal. Because one can argue that as bad as the situation is now, it could conceivably in the short term get worse. The problem is that the alternative, which is to continue on the course we're on at this point, where what we're seeing typically is when US casualties get high, the administration pulls back troops into the large consolidated bases. The situation deteriorates, we send them back in, and so this month we're seeing a huge spike in US casualties. That kind of pattern is unsustainable, it's not serving our national security interests, and I think the American people had made it, at this point made it clear, that that is not a burden that they wish to bear. And is there a role for the Democratic Party, if you take one of the houses of Congress to move the administration or the country along. Well you know I think the politics of this election are not only going to embolden the democrats, somewhat belatedly, but I think are also going to cause a lot of soul searching from those Republicans that remain in Congress. I'm confident at this point that the House is going to go Democratic. I think the Senate is going to be close. [applause] I know this is a non-partisan event, but feel free to applaud. The-- and as a consequence, the democrats are going to be in a position now to at the very least, hold hearings and provide the kind of oversight that we have not been able to initiate because many chairmen have essentially refused. That, in and of itself, would put pressure on the administration to make a difference in the decisions. But I think more fundamentally the albatross around the Republican Party's neck in this election is going to cause them to step back and say, "We're going to have to figure out a new way of doing business." And the commission that is co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton may provide, if not the administration, at least Republicans in Congress the cover to start re-thinking what their positions are going to be. One more question on Iraq, this also relates to our obligations as citizens. Not too long ago I went to Tennessee to interview an American soldier who'd been sent to the combat zone three times. He went to Afghanistan and then served two year-long tours in Iraq. And he made the point that it's a very small percentage of Americans who are bearing the burden and making the sacrifices for this war. Most of us are free to go about our daily business, you can go shopping, go to the mall, do whatever it is you need to do, and it's only a tiny sliver of the population that's enduring the suffering. That seems fundamentally unfair, and I'd like to know what your views are about that. Well, I think it raises two points. The first and most immediate point is that in fact the burden of this war has been borne by a small segment of the population. And to some degree that's the only reason that we went in there in the first place. Had there been a draft, we would not have launched this war. I think that's fair to say. In fact, one could argue that had-- we wouldn't even need a universal draft, if there was a rule that all members of Congress' children were eligible for the draft, there would not have been-- we we would not have gone in. We can't have that conversation in the midst of war. It's too volatile for us to start thinking about, how are we structuring our military and what does an all-voluntary force mean relative to a universal service requirement. But I think it's one that we should initiate in times where we can be more reflective and less passionate. But isn't it likely in a time when we can be more reflective, meaning a time when we're not at war, that we won't have that conversation? Well, I would like to start a conversation, and this brings me to, I guess, the larger point. About what citizenship means. And what are our obligations to each other. And how do we create a stronger link between the decision making in Washington and the daily experience of people's lives? And this is not just true in foreign policy. The same is true with respect to the economy. This week we saw the DOW do over 12,000 points. If you're walking down Wall St, the economy looks great. If you go to Decater Illinois, or Galesburg, Illinois, or Peoria, Illinois, the economy looks very different. And the reason is is because the top 1% is seeing their incomes rise about 500% over the last decade, and the average working stiff is seeing their wages and salaries flatline. The top 1% is much more likely to participate politically than the other 99%. And so we had these distortions in terms of how decisions are made in Washington. I don't have a magic solution to it, but part of the reason I wrote this book was to suggest there'd have to be ways for us to re-engage the citizens around the project of Americans, both domestically and internationally. And the first step in that, I think, is to restore some mechanism for honest debate. Because the problem with the Iraq war was the debate was dishonest. The problem with our foreign policy right now is that we have posed the problem as either we're belligerent and the military is the only solution to any national security threats that we have, or, conversely, that we had this big multilateralism, kumbaya approach. And that's how it's characterized in the press. And in our politics. And what we have to do is to say, "Those choices are inadequate." And we have to return to the kind of serious policy discussions that characterized, for example, after World War II. When Atchinson and Marshall and Truman sat down and said, "What are our options," given a threat that by all accounts, I think historically, one would argue, was far more dangerous than the threats that we face now from terrorists. I mean, we had nuclear bombs pointed at every major city in the United States. And yet we were able to negotiate that because there was not only among policy makers a sense of seriousness and honesty about the nature of the threat and how we were going to approach it and so forth, but also among the population, at least in the early years, I write about in the book that the Marshall Plan involved an enormous PR campaign to explain to people why it made sense for us to invest in Europe. And why it made sense for us to build the kinds of alliances that ultimately shaped NATO and allowed us to lock in Japan as a long-term ally in Asia. That kind of conversation I think is one that, it can't just be left to the wise men in Washington, but has to be something that the population as whole is engaged in. Now the book, and I have to say, it really is a terrific book. Usually if I'm doing interviews He's got to say that. No, usually you go out of your way not to look like you're trying to promote the book, but this really is an excellent book, and you've titled it The Audacity of Hope, but, you know, we're in a pretty tough environment right now. You know, we've got this war that we just talked about, which is going badly. You mentioned that the stock market, well the dow, is at record highs but a lot of working people are feeling economically insecure, the poor have been literally left behind, and Americans are worried about things like terror and the spread of nuclear weapons. We've got a tragic situations like Darfur. A lot of people are really depressed. You seem very optimistic, you've titled your book The Audacity of Hope. Tell us why we should be hopeful. Make the case for hope. Well, first of all, where I got the title from, some of you remember I actually used the line in the speech that I gave here in Boston, but I actually pilfered it from my pastor. I'm making this confession publicly. He gave a sermon. My pastor's name is Jeremiah Wright, he's the pastor of Trinity Church of Christ on the south side of Chicago, and he gave a sermon about 18 years ago. I was a young community organizer. And the south side of Chicago this particular region this is the far south side of Chicago had been devastated because steel plants had been shut down. This is right when the Rust Belt era was rolling through the Midwest. And there had been massive layoffs and the communities had been devastated. People were out of work, there was a lot of racial conflict and racial turnover in the area, crime was on the increase, usual maladies facing inner city schools. And he delivers this sermon that had a very simple premise. He said, "You know, it's actually sometimes easier to be cynical. It's easier to feel hopeless. It doesn't require much from each of us. What's audacious, what requires risk, is to be hopeful. To believe that despite what we see around us, what is, there's this other thing that's possible. What could be." And that idea stuck with me, and I think characterized what not only I ended up finding most valuable in my faith, but also I think described an aspect of the American character that's pretty fundamental. I mean there's a reason why in that speech I talked about slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs. Or immigrants coming from distant shores, not really knowing what it was that they were going to find when they arrived in America. But believing somehow that across that ocean, there's something else. And as rough as our history has been, somehow we've continued to have that stubborn optimism that things can be better, and as a consequence of that, the trajectory of this nation has been in favor of justice and freedom and equity. As bad as things are now, they were worse at many times in our history. Certainly worse for many people who looked like you and me, worse for the women in this audience, worse for poor people before there was any safety net. In each juncture there were people who decided that it's possible for us to come together and solve these problems. And so the basic theme of the book is that most of the challenges we face: health care, education, problems we face in terms of globalization, foreign policy dilemmas as a consequence of rogue states and terrorism, none of these problems are easy. All of them, though, are amenable to good decision making, common sense, practicality, and improvement, and if we can focus our politics around what our common values are and our common ideals are, then it's possible for us to make progress, although progress will always be imperfect. Now one of the things you stress in the book, it's a theme throughout, is what you feel is the need to reach out to people who hold opposing views to your own, to try and understand what the other side is talking about even if you don't agree. To reach across the aisle, Democrats, Republicans, etc. But that's not what I want to ask you about right now, I want to put your partisan hat on, and we're very close to the election, and why is it, looking from the prospective of the American people, your constituents, why is it important in your view for Democrats to do well in the upcoming election. Well, I actually do talk about this in the book, and by the way I confess in the book that this book is not balanced, I'm a Democrat. And so some people are going to read it and say, That's not entirely fair, he mis-characterizes this or that, I strive to be fair but I still have a perspective. And what I believe has happened over the last six, eight, ten years, is that the Republican party has become captive now keep in mind I come from the land of Lincoln, so I don't think that any political party in our history has had a monopoly on wisdom or truth. But over the last ten years, at least, what you've seen is that the Republican party has become captive to a narrow band of highly ideological absolutists. Folks who see problems through pre-conceived notions about how the world should work, as opposed to how it actually does work, and so in the economy, we've had the victory of a radical lassez-faire that has result essentially in the working people you discussed earlier being entirely on their own. And each and every decision that's made, whether it's privatizing social security, or setting up private health, savings accounts, or diminishing regulation, or essentially eliminating anti-trust, or not enforcing civil rights laws. In each instance the basic premise is, you know what, anything goes. And folks'll sort it out in some fashion but the government does not have a role to play in the economy and that's defined in a very absolute way. With respect to foreign policy, the view is, we don't need anybody else, and any encroachment or restrains on our actions as a nation are absolutely unacceptable. Because we are the most powerful nation on earth, we should be able to dictate our role. In very absolute terms. In terms of how we think about culture and social issues, we've seen the rise of people who believe that if you do not subscribe to a particular interpretation of a particular religion, then you are suspect and potentially immoral, and that I don't think characterizes the majority of Republicans in the country, and it doesn't characterize-- I would argue that it doesn't characterize the best of the Republican party. But those are the folks who've been driving the agenda over the last ten years. And so there has always been a contrary set of ideas that at least since FDR have been at the core of the Democratic party. And that says, "No you are not on your own, yes we value individual initiative and self-reliance and the freedom of the market place. But we also affirm that we have some mutual obligations toward each other. That we had some fellow feeling. Some sense of solidarity. Some belief in community. And that has to express itself not just in our churches or mosques or synagogues, not just in our families or our neighborhoods or our ethnic enclaves, it has to express itself through our government and through our notions of citizenship. Now, the Democrats haven't always been true to that ideal and oftentimes we deserve criticism for betraying that ideal. But that idea I think continues to be what holds together the Democratic party. And so at this stage, when we look at the fact that 46 million people don't have health insurance, or we look at the fact that we don't have an energy policy that would not only help our economy but also strengthen our national security and deal with our environment, or we look at an education system that continues to fail large numbers of children, so that they have no way of accessing the global economy, then I think it's clear that things have swung out of balance, and the last point I'd make on this, that's why I think the Democrats should win. The reason I think Democrats will win, is that when I travel around the country what I'm struck by is a sense of soberness and seriousness among people right now. People want substantive responses to the challenges we face. And I know that this is a non-partisan event but I will go ahead and say, since you asked the question, I think that the election here in Massachusetts for governor is a prime example. Where my good buddy, Duvall Patrick, has presented an agenda and the reason people are responding to that agenda and not responding to the usual negative ads that have just been plastered all over television screens in Massachusetts, is that people want to know, what are you going to do about these problems? And you're seeing that all across the country. And that is a terrific turn of events. Now it forces the Democrats to actually have an affirmative agenda. It's not going to be sufficient simply to say, "We're not Bush," we can't try to flip the script and simply say, as bad as they are you should vote for us, because that means that the next election cycle, they'll take it out on democrats. Well the election's close, is that agenda in place? Well, I think the other side's so bad right now that we're going to get through the next three weeks. But so I was referring to 08...where I think if Democrats don't show some leadership and an affirmative set of solutions to some of these challenges, even if we can't get all of those solutions passed, I think we'll be punished. If people want serious answers to these problems and if you're going to talk about energy for example, the easiest thing in the world is to look at Exxon-Mobile's problems last quarter and say these folks are making 36 billion dollars in one quarter, the CEO's making 500 million dollars, and gas prices are high, and we're getting gouged. That may be sufficient because it does describe the degree to which the powerful have made out like bandits over the last several years. That may be sufficient to get us through this election. But after the election, people are going to say, Okay smart guy. What are we going to do about energy? And at that point democrats are going to have to say, Okay. We've got to sift through the range of proposals that are out there, you know your fellow columnist Tom Freedman, who's been pushing higher gas tax, what can we do to ethanol in the way that Brazil has done, to expanding bio-diesel and other sources of alternative fuels to reducing consumption by retro-fitting buildings and industry. We've got to make a series of proposals that actually make sense. And I think if we do, then the American people are going to stand up and say, "Keep going." And they will understand, and we can be honest with them that there's no...most of the challenges we face, there's no silver bullet. I have a lot of town hall meetings in Illinois. And one of the favorite topics that I bring up is the issue of the federal budget. Because typically what will happen is, sometimes we get town hall meetings of two thousand people, and I'll get one person who's saying, We need mental health to be included in health care coverage. Another person will say that No Child Left Behind left the money behind, and we need money for schools, and somebody else will say, The Bridge needs to be repaired. So forth. And then at some point somebody will say, Why are you supporting the death tax? And at that point I will say, Look. A basic principle of the federal budget, there's no free lunch. There's no free lunch. You want to eliminate the state tax, that will cost us one trillion dollars. It affects .5% of the population. If we completely eliminate it it costs one trillion dollars. We've got three ways of dealing with it. That one trillion dollars. We can make it up by raising taxes on the other 99.5%, we can borrow a trillion dollars from China and South Korea and Mexico, or we can reduce services by a trillion dollars. Those are our choices. And I think when you describe those choices to the American people, in an honest straightforward way, then I'm your representative. You tell me what is going to reflect our values. Because there's not a trillion dollars worth to waste in the federal budget. 90% of the federal budget goes to social security and Medicaid, the fence, and payments on the national debt. And about 10% is left over for everything else. We'd have to eliminate everything else, and we would still have to make further cuts. Is that reflective of your values, and your ideals? And most of the time, I don't care whether it's a Repub-- I'll have these town hall meetings and all Republican red state areas of Illinois, and people will say, No, that's not what we believe. The first time I met you, you were running for Senate, you were a state senator in Illinois, and you were not well-known outside the state of Illinois. I wasn't well-known inside the state. Although I guess by the time we met, I had won the primary. So some folks in the state knew me. Well in my ride over here in a cab in the rain this evening, a fellow pulled up here and said, "What's going on at the forum?" And I said, senator Barack Obama will be speaking. And he just said, "Oh, our next President." Just like that. If the election took place among cab drivers...I think I would have it. About half of em are from Africa, first of all, so they all have funny names, and so you know, I'd do well. He's ready to work for you. But you know I watched you on Oprah the other day, you're on the cover of Time magazine, you're in New York magazine, you're on Larry King last night, I checked into the hotel, turned on the television, you're on Larry King, you're everywhere... It's a bit much, isn't it.. That's for you to say! That's what my wife says, anyway. I am fed up with reading about you. In any event, the widespread assumption is that at some point you will run for President. So my question is, when you think about yourself and the Presidency, what is it that runs through your mind? What kind of thoughts do you have about that? Well, all the attention is flattering. And as I've said before, if you go into public service, then you want to have influence, otherwise you wouldn't do it. And I suppose just pure vanity can force you into politics. I have found, and I think this is something-- as you get older you discover certain things about yourself that you don't like so much. But every once in a while you discover some things that you do like. And one of the things I've discovered that I'm pleased with is that I actually find the attention and seeing my name in the papers, and the stuff that feeds your ego, less satisfying as time goes on. So the reason you go into politics, or any form of public service, is because you are going to have influence. You're going to create some sort of change. And obviously the President has the most influence. And so I think it would be disingenuous for me to say, or for that matter, let me tell you, any of the 99 senators, or any governor across the country, to say that at some point, they don't think about, what would it be like if you had that platform? That unique office? What I then also think is that that office is so different from any other office on the planet that you have to understand that if you seek that office, you have to be prepared to give your life to it. That your I said this on Charlie Rose last night Charlie Rose, I missed that one. In case there were folks that were watching, I'm acknowledging that I'm repeating myself here. But essentially the bargain that any president I think strikes with the American people is, you give me this office and in turn my fears, doubts, insecurities, foibles, need for sleep, family life, vacations, leisure...is gone. I am giving myself to you, and the American people should have no patience for whatever's going through your head, because you've got a job to do. And so how I think about it is, that you don't make that decision unless you are prepared to make that sacrifice. That trade-off, that bargain. And I think that what's difficult and important for somebody like myself who has a wonderful forbearing life, and two gorgeous young children, they end up having to make some of those sacrifices with you. And that's a profound decision that you don't make lightly. I think those who make mistakes, I suspect, in the president's office, make it because they haven't fully thought through the dimensions of that choice. Can you imagine yourself at some point making that kind of commitment? Sure. I didn't say I had, I just said I could imagine myself. Yeah. Have you ruled out running in 2008? At this point, and I'm not trying to be coy here, at this point I really am focused on these next three weeks, because I'm too tired and my mind is filled up with too many things, I literally finished this book, finished this session, went on the road, started to campaign for fall. So you have not ruled it out. We'll leave it there. That was his comment.
