The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; November 28, 2007

I'm Jim Lera, today's news, the Palestinian view, the Midwest rebound, and Democrat Krista, tonight on The NewsHour. Thank you for joining us tonight on The NewsHour. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us tonight on The NewsHour. Thank you for joining us tonight on The NewsHour.

Thank you for joining us tonight on The NewsHour. Thank you for joining us tonight on The NewsHour. Good evening, I'm Jim Lera.

On The NewsHour, tonight, the news of this Wednesday, then a newsmaker interview about this week's peace talks with Saib Erichat, a lead negotiator for the Palestinians. A Paul Simon report about manufacturing on the rebound in the Midwest and a conversation with another presidential candidate, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd. Major funding for The NewsHour with Jim Lera is provided by... Now headquarters is wherever you are, with AT&T data, video voice, and now wireless, all working together to create a new world of mobility. Welcome to the new AT&T, the world delivered.

Pacific Life. Chevron. The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. And with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. And this program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. A rally on Wall Street got new life today, stocks soared for a second day, as the Federal Reserve's number two official handed at another interest rate cut. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 331 points to close at 13,289. An Aztec rose 82 points to close at nearly 26, 63.

The market was also held by oil prices tumbling 4 percent to finish under $91 a barrel. Oil has fallen $7 since last week amid signs U.S. supplies are improving while demand is easy. President Bush promised full support today for a new Middle East peace effort. Israeli and Palestinian leaders agreed yesterday in Annapolis, Maryland to restart negotiations. They set a goal of reaching a settlement by the end of 2008. Today, Mr. Bush stood with Israeli Prime Minister Omar and Palestinian President Abbas in the White House Rose Garden and he made this vow. One thing I've assured both gentlemen is that the United States will be actively engaged in the process, that we will use our power to help you as you come up with the necessary decisions to lay out a Palestinian state that will live side-by-side in peace with Israel.

Later National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said the President will help build confidence but will not force an agreement. And Secretary of State Rice announced, retired Marine General James Jones will serve as special envoy to the peace talks Jones was once NATO's Supreme Commander in Europe. In his new post, he will focus on security issues involving Israel, the Palestinians, and neighboring states. The President of Iran today condemned the Annapolis Conference and Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, insisted Israel is doomed to collapse and he called the conference a failure. The Annapolis Conference holders just want to make a political show and say that they manage to gather leaders of Arab countries and the Zionist regime of Israel to sit at a table.

This is not an achievement. We should see what is happening on the ground. The Arab countries should ask for the opinions of their people. They should hold a referendum and see whether or not their people agree with the attendance of their leaders in this conference. The Iranian leader also said it was a mistake for Syria to take part in the conference. The Syrians are Iran's closest Arab ally, in turn Arab nations including Syria warned the U.S. must insist on progress in the talks or risk a backlash in the Arab world. We'll have more on the Middle East story right after this news summary. Authorities in Saudi Arabia announced today they've arrested more than 200 terrorist suspects. It was the largest such roundup yet in the Saudi Kingdom. The suspects allegedly had ties to al-Qaeda. Officials said they were connected to a series of plots, including an imminent attack on oil sites. The Interior Minister said they've been arrested in recent months. President Musharraf of Pakistan gave up his job as military commander today.

That paved the way for him to be sworn in for another term as president, this time as a civilian. He surrendered the post as head of the armed forces in an elaborate and emotional ceremony. And he reviewed the troops one last time. I today, after 46 years of being in uniform, say goodbye to the army. From tomorrow, I will not be in command, but I am definitely happy about one thing, and that is that I spent these 46 years with a lot of dignity and happiness. Musharraf seized power in a coup in 1999. The opposition had long demanded he resign from the army, and today, former Prime Minister Bhutto said he had finally done the right thing. We welcome Musharraf's decision to shed his army uniform. One person was holding two positions.

Now the Pakistani army has got a fully fledged army chief, and they can perform their duties in a better way. In Washington, White House folkswoman Dana Purino said President Bush considered Musharraf's action a good step. And in London, British Prime Minister Brown said it was an important part of plans to restore constitutional rule. In Iraq today, nearly 6,000 Sunnis formed a new security pact with the U.S. military against al-Qaeda, and others, they agreed to man 200 checkpoints south-west of Kirk-Kuk. militants have fled there from Baghdad and Western Iraq. The pact is the latest and possibly largest involving Sunni tribes who have turned against al-Qaeda. More than 800 Iraqi refugees were expected back in Baghdad late today. They were part of a government-funded convoy of buses that traveled overnight from Syria. The Iraqi government said today 60,000 refugees have returned home in the past month. It said it expects at least that many more in the coming weeks.

French President Sarkozy today denounced the riots in the suburbs of northern Paris. The violence lessened overnight after a show of force by police. Sarkozy vowed to punish rioters who had fired on police wounding at least 30. He spoke to reporters after visiting wounded officers today at a hospital near the scene of the trouble. So the things are very clear what has happened is absolutely unacceptable and won't be accepted. Those who take the responsibility to shoot a civil servants will be brought to account before justice. It has a name. It is called an attempted assassination. The riots first broke out Sunday after two teenagers were killed in a collision with a police car. That sparked new anger by ethnic minorities against the mostly white police force. Sarkozy said an investigation is underway into that incident. President Bush's top economic advisor, Al Hubbard, resigned today.

He planned to step down as director of the National Economic Council by years end. It was the latest in a string of departures from the administration. The council's new director will be Keith Innesi, who is now Hubbard's deputy. And that's it for the new summary tonight, now the Palestinian perspective. The return of the Midwest and Democrat Chris Dodd. A Palestinian assessment of the Annapolis peace conference and a Gwen Eiffel. Last night, we spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Ahud Omert about prospects for peace. Tonight we turn to a man who has since 1991, been involved in nearly every incarnation of the Middle East peace process. Chief Palestinian negotiators, Hayab Arakat. Welcome. Thank you. Yesterday, we heard President Abbas say that this was a test of credibility for Palestinians, for Israelis, and for the international community, including the United States.

So I want to ask you a version of a question I asked Prime Minister Almert last night, which is what's different this time? What's different this time is that after seven years of stalemate, seven years of killing fields between Palestinians and Israelis, President Bush, Dr. Rice managed to provide this opportunity for us, Palestinians and Israelis. And they literally brought the world to us yesterday at Annapolis, telling us, we're not going to negotiate for you. We're not going to make the decisions for you, but we are here for you. The difference between yesterday and Kim David seven years ago was the Arabs were here, all of them. And Syrian presence was very significant. And the Saudi presence was very significant. They all came to say we are with a comprehensive peace agreement in accordance with the Arab peace initiative. Totally Israeli withdrawal for total peace. The international community that's divided in so many issues, where United yesterday, they came from the five continents to say it's going to be a two-state solution.

Palestine, next to Israel, living side by side in peace and security. Now we should focus today on the day after, today we are the day after. And I believe the credibility that President Abbas talked about yesterday means three things. Number one is our ability to change the facts on the grounds through the bilateral committee led by the Americans, and I think today they appointed General Jones. And this is the first time since 1991 that the U.S. will be the judge. The Israelis must sub-settlements stop the wall, open Jerusalem. We must perform our security duties, meaning one gun, one authority, the rule of law. And today we're hopeful because it's the first time I cannot judge the Israelis. The Israelis cannot judge me, but when the Israelis violate their agreement, what can I do? If I violate, they have teeth, they close my towns, villages, refugee camps, they have the power, they occupy me.

I believe the American presidents here have to say to you, who's doing it, who's not doing it, is very significant. To check. Number two is that in December 12th, we would resume the German service negotiations, and I believe it's about decisions and not negotiations. We've been there before, we've turned every possible stone. We know the issues of Jerusalem, settlement borders, refugees, water, security. We have a year to do it, and we can do it. Number three is the upcoming summit for economic development that's coming in Paris, and we need huge bledges to revive our economy. It sounds like there's a chicken in the egg question here. What has to happen first? You've laid out the things which you think are important for them to be movement on for this to be real. But it sounds like already some of those things Israel's not wanting to move on, and you just said you don't have the teeth to make them. Well, this why we say that it's not going to be sequential, the best policy is a parallel policy on all three tracks. The things that Israel should do, they know what they need to do. It's specified very well in the first phase of the roadmap.

They just cannot continue their settlement activities, they cannot continue with the roadblocks, they cannot continue talking about these. What needs to be restored in the minds of Palestinians in Israeli today is the hope that's been missing for seven years. So I hope that General Jones will immediately move to the ground and start giving reports to the international community if we fail to deliver our commitments. He should say that. When I asked Prime Minister Almar to about the settlements and about roadblocks and about last night, his response was over already doing that. Well, I don't think he's doing that. I think he promised us in good faith, you know, it's five times to do the roadblocks. We told him in the last meeting that none of it happened and then they announced certain settlement activities stoppage but the settlement activities continue. They have obligations to stop settlement activities including national growth, either they stop or you don't. They have obligations to stop to open office in East Jerusalem, they didn't do it. They have an obligation to take the roadblocks out, to return the situation as it existed in the year 2000.

There are a lot to be done on their side and there is a lot to be done on my side. And this is why this trilateral committee that was formed yesterday and the appointment of General Jones to do today is a significant step. It's a different step. But let me ask you this. You were in the room and we heard that the statement that was read yesterday by President Bush, the statement to proceed, wasn't agreed upon until eight minutes before the president took the podium. Absolutely right. If you can't agree on something that basic, how do you believe that you're going to be able to agree on something more significant between now and a year from now? Look, it's our negotiating behavior as Palestinians in Israelis. We both wanted to get things in the document that will bring us the results for negotiations before they began. So we were actually playing with wars in order to get what we want. Had we agreed from the beginning to have this document just focus on the work plan, on the roadmap activities, the commitments, we've done it in 15 minutes, but I think we both clearly are in the lesson, that we have to come to the negotiating table, not to negotiate

in positions, but to negotiate in interests, and to try to build a common ground. And I believe the lesson is very well done by both of us. You heard in the news summary what President Amadej out of Iran said about this process. Do you think that Iran's perceived growing influence has sped this along somewhat? I disagree with the statements I heard from President in the Jedi, I disagreed with President in the Jedi when he called to Israel from the map. I went to President in the Jedi instead of talking about canceling Israel from the map to speak about adding Palestine to the map. I think this peace process serves the interests of all of us in that region, including the Iranians, and I think if we take the course of peace, that's the answer. Wars have been tested in this region. We have been living wars for decades, and the last thing we want is a new war in this region. And I believe the answer to the Middle East problems to the lies in two things, peace between Hobbs and Israelis and the Protestant track, Syrian track, and civil track. And secondly, I'm not less important to democracy in the Arab world, and I believe anybody

who says Arab's are not the default democracy is a racist. Should Hamas have been at the table yesterday? Well, they could have been at the table, Hamas is part of us, Hamas is Palestinian party that won the elections. Unfortunately, when they were handed the powers of the government and the council and so on, they chose not to abide by the previous commitments or the previous governments, which something doesn't happen in the transition of nation-states. This Hamas problem is a Palestinian problem today. The coup d'etat in Gaza is my problem. There is not a military solution for it, and I'll tell you, if I can deliver an agreement on a two-state solution by their 2008, I will win. Gaza will be, and the West Bank will be once again, part together. But if we fail to bring an agreement, I'm worried about the West Bank. Earlier, it's not an option for me now. It's my survival. Prime Minister Al-Mertan and Mahmoud Abbas, the President, both said yesterday in different ways that they trust each other. They've had these private one-on-one meetings with one another. Is that enough?

It's a good start. You have to see where they came from. We came out of seven years of killing fields, mistrust, total loss of any confidence between the two sides, and I believe the two gentlemen, President Abbas and Mr. Al-Mertan, really managed to rebuild the relationships between the two sides. I'm not saying we're even there yet, but that's the process that they begin. They have good chemistry and they have good relations, and they really define the interests. And once they both talked about these real issues, these core issues, and they realize it's doable, they form the committees for negotiations. But each of them has their own political weakness at home. You acknowledge the weakness that President Abbas has because of Hamas's control of Gaza, and there is weakness for Prime Minister Al-Mertan and President Bush is not in his strongest political position. Did they have the leverage to get this done? I believe because of what you said, what do they have to lose? I believe if President Abbas and Mr. Al-Mertan delivers a two-state solution upon a time to lose by side the state of Israel and the six-cylinder border, I believe that both gentlemen, President Abbas and Prime Minister Al-Mertan will be the most important persons in this region since Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem.

You have described yourself as the most disadvantaged negotiator since Adam negotiated with Eve. How do you get this done? What I meant to say, okay, if you're going to talk about Palestinians, we're a people with no army, no Navy, no economy, my people are fragmented, I'm cost-free, if it's my war against an Israeli New York Congress and your Senate, I don't stand a chance. We said, life is a bad person justice. But at the end of the day, it's not the balance of power and real political here. If they want peace with me, they know that a Palestinian state must be created. This Israeli occupation must end because the problems in the region at this stage, when it's not going to be solved by your Marines and gunships and might. This region today stands in a critical juncture in just cannot maintain the status quo. It either goes the path of moderation, peace, security and stability or the path of extremism, violence and deterioration and counterviolence. The key here lies in our ability, Palestinians and Israelis and Arabs to produce a comprehensive agreement which is doable and we don't need to reinvent that, we don't need to eat the

apple from the start and the second thing is that democracy I talk about. I believe if we'd ride the swamp or the Israeli occupation, we can take all the ammunitions from extremism and we can deliver the Middle East. But if we fail, God help us. How critical is President Bush's role in achieving their success? It's very critical. Nobody could have done what happened in an abolitionist part president Bush. Now people can say why did he wait seven years, why did he do this? But I believe that in the last two years, Secretary Rice, her credit has done a fantastic job in my opinion. She went all the way as she got the knowledge of all the little issues. She's very, very well aware now. She can sit with us and just memorize things I've been doing with my Israeli colleagues for the last 14 years. And the fact that they managed to bring this, an abolitionist meeting was a significant step. I just, a conference, wasn't just a meeting. It was a breaking of the stalemate of something that has stopped seven years ago, a peace

process between Palestinians and Israelis. And now I think we get, they, they're not going to do the negotiation for us, the Americans or anybody in the international community. As I said, it's us, Israelis who will do the negotiations, doesn't, as the Israelis will make the decisions. But you have now a support system that has never been there before. We'll not have this in Camp David. The Arabs were here yesterday. They were out in Camp David. The world was here yesterday. They were not in Camp David. Many of the mistakes that we commented in the past was, was corrected yesterday in an abolitionist. And at the same time, we should not undermine Camp David. In Camp David, we have turned so many stones with the help present Clinton. So we don't need to begin on December 12 next month from scratch. Does President Bush need to travel to the region in your opinion? Would that be helpful? I think it'd be a good idea. I did not mention it yesterday, but he said in our meeting with him to leave an image with President Abbas and the threat, the threat of our meeting with President Abbas and Mr. Omar Fina was there in both meetings. He said that he will spare no effort. He will not be hesitant to do anything to help us produce the end-game agreement, the

peace treaty between Palestinians and Israelis. President Abbas said yesterday that this is an opportunity that an opening that may not ever be repeated if it isn't season now. Why not? Why is this still or not? Because I think President Abbas is looking at the bigger picture of the region, and he knows that if we fail to produce the agreement, this region will go down the drain towards the deterioration, extremism. And once the lights are off in that region, we don't know when somebody will go back on. You think violence will ensue? I think it's much more than violence. I think that the consequences of failure will really go beyond Palestinians and Israelis throughout the whole region. I think it's a really a critical point, it's a critical juncture, and I don't think failure should be an option for any party. It's a genuine for the first time, it's a U.S. interest, Palestinian interests, Israeli interests, Arab interests, to make this process succeed. Saib Eirakat, thank you very much for joining us again.

Thank you. Next tonight, Paul Somman begins an occasional series of special reports on America's competitive response to globalization. Tonight, he looks at manufacturing's bid for a comeback in the Midwest. Another Rust Belt factory bites the dust. The demolition site is Milwaukee, Wisconsin, poster town for the death of manufacturing in the Upper Midwest, a tannery, a brewery, an auto parts plant, Randy Birth of the Wisconsin regional training partnership. They built Chuck frames mostly, thousands and thousands of jobs in Central City. All gone. Yet, just 16 miles from this lawn, where tower automotive once stretched for acres, multi-billion dollar manufacturer Buasyrus is booming.

This is an 85 cubic yard dipper for electric mining shovel. A mining equipment maker in Milwaukee for so long, its shovels were shipped to Panama to dig the canal, Buasyrus is now investing $150 million in a new plant here. After going the way of all business, manufacturing in China for years. So, Buasyrus has brought work back from China. And another Milwaukee manufacturer, Harley Davidson, has just kept growing, still makes its iconic bikes here, despite the siren songs from abroad. After which is it, Milwaukee manufacturing doomed, or something less expected, manufacturing on the rebound, and in the rust belt of all places, making someone's dreams, as the song says, come true.

TV's Laverne and Shirley from the 70s, already nostalgic back then for the sudsie job fest that once was Milwaukee. Now while it's easy to idealize manufacturing jobs, the Mrs. Dafazio and Feeney were not exactly living high off the hops. And this is where the unscaled workers take their break. Don't push her, Karen. You don't even need a high school diploma. I have a diploma and a punctuality pen. As you've heard before though, for Americans with no college degree, the mass majority back then, Laverne's Shirley jobs weren't bad. And if you had a union behind you, and were in a boom industry like autos, you could make real money. Where else are you going to get out of high school and make back then 18,000 a year, or

four an a quarter an hour, and everybody else is making too. But two familiar forces were driving down the pay for such jobs, if not snuffing them out. Productivity ever more mechanized plants and globalization, competition from abroad. Just in the last 10 years, the US has lost five and a half million manufacturing jobs. Dan Luria of the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center. The States of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. You look at that region. What it has in common is that it produces and makes the parts for automobiles, construction equipment, and industrial machinery. And in those industries, what we find is we have increasingly a difficulty supplying ourselves. More and more of the components that go into those products are coming in from outside. And that's not surprisingly why we're only one-fifth of manufacturing and one-fifth of the national economy, but we have lost almost 40% of the jobs since the late 1990s.

Luria and Joel Rogers of the Center on Wisconsin Strategy are leading proponents of what they call the high road strategy, high pay, high productivity jobs, to reverse the rust belts decline. In the past year, manufacturing has held its own in Wisconsin and added more to the state's economy than health care, retail, and high tech combined. At an industrial expo, Luria and Rogers contrasted the high road with the more familiar race to the bottom. High-skilled, high-road manufacturing really is a profession and not just the job for lots of the people in it. And that's very different from the roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of manufacturers that we would say are on the low road that are competing almost exclusively on cost, on price, trying to see if they can't make the same commodity products that others are making at slightly lower cost so that they can stay competitive.

And even if you turn out a commodity much like everyone else's says, Rogers, you can distinguish yourself by making it more cleanly, intelligently, efficiently. It's important to distinguish between a commodity product, a simple product that's relatively standardized, in a commodity way of producing that. The high road is not to produce to the lowest common denominator, but to substitute mind and machinery for muscle, worker management cooperation for conflict. That means workers and management both have to sign on. Unions, for example, long-resistant productivity because automation, as it used to be called, meant fewer jobs. But at Harley, for instance, where they're famously born to be wild, these days, they sound more like management consultants. Ultimately, without the company, the union won't be here. Richard Doyle is a local officer of the once-militant United Steel Workers. We have to have found ways to stop fighting with each other, both on the company and the

union side, and look for mutually beneficial decisions, which is something you didn't hear about 20 years ago. In Wyoming, runs another Steel Workers' local. We're more flexible in the way we operate. We look at the bottom line. We work with a company on how to best achieve that bottom line angle. It's a tough sell every month at every union meeting, at times to say that, you know what, the decisions we're making are the right ones, because they're securing our jobs here in America. It doesn't always feel that way, and I'll be the first to admit it. Change your face with the decision that is the evil of two letters. The point is, taking the high road means convincing labor that business is more bent fellow than Boogie Man. It also means convincing business that if you treat workers well, you buy something beyond a bronze, partners in productivity, you Cyrus CEO Tim Sullivan, $22 an hour, $22 an hour, all the overtime he wants, all the overtime he wants, all he wants at 22, or no, over times

time and a half, weekends, double time, and then obviously that's for a thing, triple time. How would you like to make 66 bucks an hour? Many workers here make $100,000 a year or more. That's the high road corporate strategy. The misconception really is that by paying a guy 20 bucks an hour, that's not cost effective. That's the wrong way to look at it. You pay a guy 22 bucks an hour, you expect 22 bucks a good productivity out of him. If you pay a guy 10 bucks an hour, you're going to get 10 bucks an hour. Actually given seniority in the like, the average worker here makes more like 30 bucks an hour, before overtime. And this so-called efficiency wage, a high wage to get efficient workers, seems to be paying off. In fact, you Cyrus is expanding right here in Milwaukee, increasing its manufacturing space by 50%, doubling its workforce, tripling its production. We used to build just three years ago, only eight of these shovels a year.

Next year we're going to build 24. Now these aren't Mike Mulligan steam shovels. They're mega machines that weigh four and a half million pounds, lift 100 tons of scoop and cannot fail. That's why do Cyrus has invested so much time and money in its workforce to make sure they get it right? Welling is not just welding. You've got, you know, small gauge welding that you and I could probably do with a little bit of training. This welding takes a special skill. It's layer on top of layer and top of layer welding. It's not done properly, obviously you get crack propagation when the machine goes into work. But when you look closely, you see a blue collar job paying good money that almost anyone with enough motivation and training could do. And yet get this. CEO Sullivan's biggest problem, not enough workers. We've got a fairly old workforce right now where we're spending a lot of money bringing young guys in, but there's such a little pipeline, such as people went into the service

industries, manufacturing, all those jobs are going overseas. We lost that installed base of people. We should have on this for today, fourth generation people coming in here to weld and the machine. They're not here. Indeed, the average age on the first shift of you, Cyrus is 58. Why no young folks? On their break, no camera around, these guys told us kids today are too soft. Your generation or the younger generation, younger people are too soft for this job. What do you mean you're too smart? You got the computers now. This is the hope. Places like Bradley Technical High School, which local businesses like you, Cyrus, supply with cutting edge equipment, hoping to lure and train the next generation of Milwaukee manufacturing workers. Now you might not think to look for hope in a Milwaukee school. The system graduates only about half its students.

Moreover, Bradley Tech is so tough that even a security guard wouldn't show his face when demoing gang signs. It's dangerous to wear your hat wrong here. When you get to the classrooms, the Cartesian coordinate system is X, Y, and Z. It's the engineering side, the engineering gang side. Which are what? The X, Y, and Z. Gang Hamsen. You've got your X, your Y and your Z. X with Y height Z depth. That would be a 10th, 100th or 1000th, 10th. These kids were engaged, learning, and not just how to weld. But perhaps most important, they were getting past the conventional wisdom of the past couple of decades that blue collar work has no future in America. How many people when you were younger thought, gee, maybe I could have a career in manufacturing? Any of you?

Not a one. By contrast, a basic premise of the high road strategy is that manufacturing can still provide good jobs at good pay. CEO Sullivan thinks part of the problem has been manufacturing bad PR. We're kind of like sheep in some respects. I mean, when somebody says, go overseas or, you know, the rust belt can't compete anymore. People start believing the press. But at this high road business labor partnership, former Union activist Randy Birth funnels young people, from places like Bradley Tech, into high road jobs at companies like Buse Iris. Last year, we placed about 450 people and we're on target to place about 500 people this year. If they're an employer that thinks their workers are the most valuable asset that they have and they're willing to invest in them, that's a kind of employer we're looking for. We end with one last image from the industrial expiry. The message here reports of the death of manufacturing have been greatly exaggerated. The hope is that it could be the high road to a good living in Wisconsin and the rest

of the Upper Midwest for quite a while. Paul's second report from the rust belt looks at company's efforts to make it cheaper to buy American. And finally tonight, another conversation with a candidate for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations, who is running and the primaries. The candidate is Senator Christad, Democrat of Connecticut, Judy Woodruff spoke with him yesterday in Iowa. Senator Dodd, thank you for joining us here in Des Moines. Thank you. You considered or were asked to run for president in most of the last election years over the last 20 years, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004. Why is 2008 the right year for Christad to run for president? Well there are a lot of reasons.

First of all, having two children, age 6 and 2 had a lot to do with the motivation. After 9-11, my daughter was born two days after 9-11, Grace. And wondering what kind of a world, what kind of a country she was going to grow up and after the world had just changed forever, two days earlier, certainly part of the motivation. Secondly, just looking at what's happened over the last six years. In previous years, it didn't make a lot of sense to me personally, in front of me with good people. I thought running. This time around, I just feel that experience is tremendously important here to have a nominee that can attract independence as well as Republicans who seek change, not to mention Democrats to win that election. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that any Democrat can win. And then secondly, to bring those same abilities and talents on January 20th together to get this country moving again in a direction both at home and abroad where there's a heightened sense of confidence and optimism about our future. I was on a plane about eight or ten months ago when I just really begun this process. It made the decision earlier, but really getting involved in it. Where a woman said to me as a plane was landing after a long conversation, she said,

Senator, what you don't understand is America's best days are behind her. And I remember getting very angry in the sense that someone would think that way. And then even angers, I began to realize she wasn't alone in those thoughts. I think an awful lot of people in this country think that way. And if people do, and that becomes a majority opinion that I think we're in for a lot more trouble in this century than one can imagine. So while the problems are mounting every single day, and if I had suggested any other campaign that I ought to consider me after 26 years in the Senate, I probably would have been rejected on that basis alone. But I think this time around, people are truly looking for a candidate that can win an election, but also has the ability and the proven ability to actually bring Democrats and Republicans together, independence, to accomplish things for the country both at home and abroad. You take him the fairly drastic step of moving your family from Connecticut, your home state, out here to Iowa and rolls your six year old daughter in school, your wife, your two year old daughter, this must give you more time with your family. Does it also help your campaign?

And what do you hear from your constituents, your Senate constituents about it? Well, it's about six weeks, and the decision was to either see them once every 10 or 12 days for a day and then leave again. And because of their ages, we could really pack up and come out here for six weeks, run to a little place, made the decision to put grace in a local public elementary school in kindergarten, which has been terrific and they've been wonderful tour. So I get to be with my family, and obviously having them around over Thanksgiving, we had a wonderful time in Iowa family, a farm family that have met for 60 years together as a family and invited us to join them for Thanksgiving Day, which was a great experience for the kids, as well as their father and mother, and then just being around with them. And I think it helps as well. I think people like to see the family. That has a lot to do. Jackie does a wonderful job campaigning. Is out almost every day doing her own schedule around the state, my wife. So that helps, but the real value of it was personally in a sense for me to have them around and be with them. It was really made a wonderful difference to be able to come home at night to a house, to be able to wake up in the morning and as I did this morning, take grace to school about four blocks away before starting the day, adds a dimension to this process, which

makes it more tolerable than what I'd otherwise be. You mentioned your time in the Senate. You've served in the Senate, what, 27 years before that, six years in the house, total 33 years in Washington, some would say that maybe that's too much time, that it makes you too much of a Washington insider. What do you say about that? Well, I think that's a legitimate issue. And as I said a moment ago, I think in any other race I can think of over the last 20 years, Judy, had I mentioned that at the outset, you'd be disqualified on that basis alone. But I think having been through on the job training, so to speak, over the last six years with one mistake after another being made because the lack of experience proven experience. It isn't just how many years you've served, what did you do with those years? What have you been involved in? Give me some evidence here that you know how to do this. This is a huge job, obviously. The presidency of the United States were tired of the country being divided politically. Over that last 26 years, I've prided myself in the fact that I've been able to bring Democrats and Republicans together on one issue after another that I've been involved in.

The very first thing I did 26 years ago as a new Senator, was to invite a guy named Marlon Spector, a new Senator from Pennsylvania, a Republican, to form a children's caucus with me in the Senate. It still exists to this day. But I wrote the first child care legislation. I did it with Aaron Hatcher-Vuteau. We haven't agreed on much since then, but we did on that issue. But I wrote the Family of Medical Leave Act. It took me seven years, three presidents and two vetoes. But Kit Bond and Dan Coates, two senior conservative Republicans, joined with me in that effort to pass the Family of Medical Leave Act. In every instance, it wasn't just how many years I've been there. But it did exactly what I think people are looking for this time around. Leadership that understands no one party can do this on their own. No one canity can do it. But the proven ability to actually reach across that divide here and invite people you might otherwise disagree with uncertain issues to be a part of a solution that people are looking for, both at home and abroad, foreign and domestic issues. And that's what I've done with those 26 years. And so my case that I bring to the people of Iowa and the Hampshire is that it isn't just

the years I've spent. But what did I do with those years was I able to create change in the country, to improve the quality of life, for people who care about things such as Family of Medical Leave, Child Care, and these other issues. One of your opponents has gone so far as to say he'd put Republicans in the cabinet. Bill Richardson said this. Would you put Republicans in here? Absolutely. When he rejects that at all, I think those kind of symbols are important. Franklin Roosevelt had Henry Stimson as the Secretary of War. Bill Clinton had Bill Cohen. I remember strongly recommending Bill Cohen as part of that administration. I think the American people are looking for that. This idea that 50% plus one gives you the power to lead the country. Maybe technically true, but you're not going to get much done. And today, I can't even begin to describe to you how angry people are in this country over what they see as nothing more than one-upmanship in the political process and how they want leadership with proven experience that not only says what they want to do, but it can demonstrate that they have done of bringing Democrats and Republicans together. Your chairman of the Senate, banking, greedy, oversight over, among other things, is a

mortgage and financial industries. How do you size up the state of the American economy right now? And what if anything should the federal government be doing it? I think it's very fragile right now. And I think many people feel as though the future doesn't look good for them. That sense of optimism, a consumer confidence, which is that's a critical element and a successful economy is in very fragile shape today. Most Americans working Americans believe that their children are going to have less opportunities than they've had. And that's a very troublesome statistic for me here when you look at the future. So we need to restore that sense of confidence, a fiscal responsibility in the country. The idea that jobs are going to be here that will have an administration that will be doing everything possible to increase those opportunities, not shrink them, recognizing we're in a global economy, that you have federal agencies that are going to be good cops on the beat here. This problem with mortgage foreclosures didn't have to happen in my view. A major federal agency sat back and did nothing at a time they should have known more of

what was occurring on the street with people being lured into home mortgages that they never are going to be able to meet with a fully indexed rate of once these adjustable rate mortgages kicked in. It was outrageous what people did. In fact, I now know having become chairman of the committee only 10 months ago that the federal reserve bank knew three and a half years ago that this problem was one that was growing here and the more steps should have been taken. So in my administration, I'll have people in charge of those agencies here that are on the beat watching what's happening to people every single day and not sitting back and allowing a laissez-faire attitude to take hold, which has created the problems today where middle income families see their future is not as strong as it ought to be. So in that connection, your home state newspapers and some national papers have taken note of the fact and even been critical of the fact that you've been absent, running for president while some of this mortgage subprime loan crisis has been unfolding, spreading now perhaps to other sectors of the economy. Is that fair criticism in your opinion?

No, I don't think so. Obviously, I'm busy doing this, but I would point out that in the terms of the hearings, the markups of bills we've had are equal to any leadership of that committee over the last 20 years. In fact, we've had hearings, major efforts here, legislation introduced to deal with the problem of the foreclosure issue, have had meetings with all the majors, stakeholders on this question, but had a very, very active committee on these questions. So it's not a legitimate criticism. When you look at actually what we've been able to do recently passed, the Terorsman Risk Insurance, which is a major accomplishment, the FHA legislation flood insurance legislation as well, sanctions against the Sudan for dealing with them, the Darfur issue. One issue after another, the committee has actually done a very good work. It was written that your approach has been less to pass legislation than to pressure the financial and mortgage industries to act differently, to behave differently. Is that an accurate? It part is, because I'm not a believer that legislation solves every problem. And in fact, the market forces can do an awful lot of good here.

We saw the market flush out a lot of bad actors in the mortgage business very quickly here. And so I'm one that believes that you ought to not rush to legislate in every area here, but to allow things to take care of themselves to some degree. Now, we also believe that there's been a huge gap here and how brokers have operated here, that no one has any skin in the game as they speak, some of these mortgages that they pass the problem on once they've made their profits. So we'll be introducing legislation. In fact, in the next two days, as we come back into session here next week, that'll deal very specifically with some of these issues. So there is room clearly for legislation here. But in some cases, letting the market work is also the appropriate way to approach this. Turning to international matters. The war in Iraq, still on everyone's mind. You voted for it, and initially you voted to fund it consistently, but then you changed your mind about the war last year. Now you want the troops out. I guess my question is, why should a voter look to someone like you to have the right answers on Iraq, rather than to somebody who was against the war from the beginning?

Well, look, I don't claim perfection here. And obviously, many of us drew improper conclusions based on a lot of cooked evidence and information that was false at the time we made the decision. In fact, I cautioned at the very time of it, including up in March, cautioning and urging the president to delay taking military action until the inspectors could complete their work. So I did vote in October of 2002 to give the president the authority, but simultaneously at the time of that vote cautioned that the administration used some patience and thought before rushing to that alternative as a way of dealing with what we believed at the time to be the case of weapons of mass destruction. But I've also admitted it was a mistake. I'd love to have the vote back, which I knew then what I know now here. One thing people in public life rarely do is admit mistakes here. We all make them from time to time, made one there. The more important issue, I think, with all due respect, and that's not an illegitimate question at all, is what do we do at this point forward here? This is going on longer than World War II. The whole idea behind it, not only was to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but to create the

space and Iraq for the political and religious leadership of that country, to be able to form a government, to develop the relationships necessary for them to become independent about their own future. They haven't done that, in my view here. But despite the efforts, the amount of money we've exhausted, roughly $10 billion every month, $2 billion a week, not to mention lives, lost, or changed, and altered forever as a result of what they've suffered, here. We're no closer today, in my view, to the Iraqis coming to a political resolution about their future than there was four or five years ago. And so I reached the conclusion over a year ago that we ought to begin redeploying. In fact, that may be the only way to convince the Iraqis that they have to decide their future for themselves, and I regret that other candidates here, despite what votes they may have cast earlier, or positions they took, when asked at the Dartmouth debate only a few weeks ago, whether or not at the end of their first administration in 2013 that we'd have our troops out of Iraq, and the so-called leading candidates in this race would not make that commitment.

I found that rather stunning here, considering how much we've lost, how damaged we are, both in terms of our safety, security, our isolation, our vulnerability as a nation here, that a Democratic candidate seeking the presidency would not make that commitment. We'd have our troops out without that assurance. In my case, I'll do it as soon as we possibly can safely and securely, obviously. But you do have now a reduction in the violence and some new polls are showing that the American opinion, public opinion is shifting back again. After a majority of people saying the war seemed lost, you now have a majority saying they believe the U.S. can succeed, could there be a basis for reassessment? Well, I wouldn't base my question. What's your foreign policy ought to be on polling? That's first line's dangerous here in my view. But I mean on the military success. I'm going to turn aside. If you put 30,000 people into a province, I'll guarantee you probably get some security for a few weeks or months. The question is, once they leave, what do you get? According to a father of a young Marine corporal serving in one of those provinces, he said to his father the other day, he said, the only thing I'm doing is I'm arming soonies

to kill Shi'as here. This was never a war we were going to win or lose. From the very beginning, we made it clear. This was only a military presence that would provide space here. It was not for us to win or lose. It's a civil war in Iraq. This is a war and a difference that goes back hundreds and hundreds of years. This is a neighborhood we're not familiar with, a culture we're not familiar with. And the assumption that we could win this war for the Iraqis in the middle of a civil war in that country is I think a false notion. And whether we've got to put aside and recognize there are only things we can possibly do, which we've done, create that space for them. But when the Iraqi parliament takes a month-long vacation, when they're unwilling to sit out with each other and decide they want to be a nation state, I don't think it's our obligation to stay there in perpetuity. You want U.S. troops out by April of next year. No troops in that area. You don't have any concern about Iran trying to destabilize the region or Iraq, falling into civil war.

You don't see any role for the U.S. in that part of the war. No, of course, I see a role for us clearly. This has been a one-dimensional debate about this, about the military presence here. We don't go any further than that, unfortunately, in these discussions. Clearly, the United States is very important in interest here. And there are many other tools in our hearts. The military presence. Well, I think we have huge military presence in the region. We have massive facilities in Kuwait and Qatar here. We have a huge obligation in Afghanistan that isn't going the way. We have allies in the region. We have economic interests in the region. I'm not suggesting here, obviously, embassy personnel, security forces. There are various things that would be a part I presume, assuming there was a rationale for us to be in Iraq after the end of our military participation at this level. But too often, we failed to understand that we have many more strengths and tools available to us to make a difference. This administration has created the illusion here that the only way for us to protect our interests is through military force. No other administration, Democrat, or Republican administration. The last 25 years has assumed that kind of logic here.

What about all these other tools we have available to us to make a difference? Yes, I'm concerned about Iran. I'm much more concerned about Pakistan today than I am Iran. And I believe there are ways and opportunities for us to deal with Iran, short of using military force to deal with their potential accumulation of military weapons and nuclear weapons. Today, North Korea is hardly discussed at all, because this administration finally came to the conclusions six years late that there are ways of dealing with North Korea short of threatening a third-world war. And they're doing it today, but late, and it's far more difficult today that it would have been, had they started earlier. I believe those options exist with Iran. I would not exclude the use of military force, but don't jump to that conclusion. And too often, that's what I think we're doing in this region of the world. And finally, you're elected president. The U.S. role in the world has clearly changed over the last eight years. What would you do to affect that role? Well, the first is dealing with Iraq, Judy, because every other issue we're dealing with here is seeing through the prism of Iraq.

Our ability to have an effect in Darfur, dealing with Latin America, even the Pacific Rim issues, are being affected because other nations lack the kind of confidence in us because we're still bogged down in Iraq. So you need to deal with that problem here. We need to change a direction here. If we're going to be successful once again, a building the kind of relationships necessary to deal with these global problems, international stateless terrorism is a serious issue. It's not going to be solved by us alone. It'll be solved if we're able to build those relationships that allow us to get the kind of cooperation we're going to need if we're going to be successful and dealing with those problems. I think it becomes more difficult every day if we don't realize that we're becoming more and more isolated as a result of this policy. So you have to begin there. If you're going to be successful in these other more serious matters that are threatening our security, we're less safe, less secure, more isolated and more vulnerable today as a result of this policy. So we need to change it. We don't need to leave the region. It's not a question of taking our troops out of Iraq and walking away. It's a question of what we supplant, what was the alternative to that idea that'll provide

that security and confidence that this country can once again reassert its moral authority. We're facing this false dichotomy and choice as well. The American people are being told that we have to make a choice. We can be more secure, we have to give up rights. In my administration, there won't be an Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo's. Habeas corpus will come back. Torch will be eliminated. We won't end up having candidates for the Attorney General's job in this country that believe presidents are above the law. I've talked about it for the last two years. I'm pleased to say that many people in this country are now recognizing how important the rule of law is. In addition to this nation's moral authority in the world and how we can reassert that kind of leadership, it begins in Iraq. All right, and we will leave it there. Senator Christad, that's good to talk with you. Thank you, Judy. We appreciate it. Thank you. For more on Senator Dodd, you can visit our Vote 2008 website at pbs.org. All of our candidate interviews and campaign updates are also available there. And again, the major developments of this day, stocks soared again as the Federal Reserve's

number two official hinted at an interest rate cut the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 331 points. And Bush promised full support for a new Middle East peace effort. And President Musharraf of Pakistan gave up his job as military commander. We'll see you online. And again here, tomorrow evening, I'm Jim Lara. Thank you and good night. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara is provided by every day, it seems, talk of oil, energy, the environment. Where are the answers? Right now, we're producing clean, renewable, geothermal energy. Generating enough energy to power seven million homes. Imagine that, an oil company as part of the solution. This is the power of human energy.

The new AT&T, Pacific Life, the Atlantic Philanthropies, and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. This program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. To purchase video of the news hour with Jim Lara, call 1-866-678-News. I'm PBS.

Thank you.

Good evening, I'm Jim Lara. On the news hour tonight, the news of this Wednesday, then a newsmaker interview about this week's peace talks with Saeed Erekat, a lead negotiator for the Palestinians.

A Paul Simon report about manufacturing on the rebound in the Midwest and a conversation with another presidential candidate, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara is provided by. Now headquarters is wherever you are, with AT&T data, video voice, and now wireless.