Palin ABC/Gibson Interview Transcript (9-11-08)

VP candidate Sarah Palin was interviewed by ABC News' Charlie Gibson. Read the full transcript. Update:(Part 2, 20/20 interview transcript)

GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?

PALIN: I -- I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink.

So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It's that important. It's that significant.

[...]GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.

That's what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It's an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

Obama on David Letterman: Transcript (9-10-08)

Barack Obama appeared on the 'Late Show' yesterday to talk to David Letterman. Read the full transcript.

Dave: “Let me ask you a question here. Have you ever actually put lipstick on a pig?”

Obama: “You know,” (audience laughs) “the answer would be no. But I think it might be fun to try.”

Dave: “I know the reaction to that was, ‘You were overreacting.’ You stand by that?”

Obama: “Absolutely.” (audience applauds) “Look, this is - if you - this is sort of silly season in politics - not that there’s a non-silly season in politics.” (Dave, audience laugh) “But it gets sillier. But, you know, it’s a common expression in at least Illinois, I don’t know about New York City. I don’t know where you put lipstick on here.” (audience, Dave laugh) “But in Illinois, the expression connotes the idea that if you have a bad idea, in this case I was talking about John McCain’s economic plans, that just calling them change, calling it something different, doesn’t make it better, hence, lipstick on a pig is still a pig.”

Dave: “Now what I like about this scenario is because they demanded, the Republicans demanded an apology.”

Obama: “Yes, they did.”

Dave: “So that means there had been a meeting at some point somewhere along the line.”

Obama: “All of them.”

Dave: “Yeah, they got together and they said, ‘You know what? He called our vice presidential candidate a pig.’” (audience laughs) “Well, that seems pretty unlikely, doesn’t it?”

Obama: “It does. But keep in mind that, technically, had I meant it that way, she would have been the lipstick, you see?” (audience, Dave laugh) “But now we’re…”

Dave: “I don’t know, you’re way ahead of me.” (audience laughs)

Obama: “Yeah, the failed policies of John McCain would be the pig.”

Dave: “Now, do you feel like for the last week and a half, last two weeks, that the campaign - ”

(audience laughs, Obama laughs)

Obama: “Now, I mean, you know, just following the logic of this illogical situation.”

Dave: “The fact that we’re talking about this now, do you feel like within the last week and half or so, there’s been - you’re derailed a little bit and now you’re campaigning against, not necessarily the Republican ticket, but John McCain, not him, but Sarah Palin?”

Obama: “Well, I - look, there’s no doubt that she’s been a phenomenon. I mean, you know, as somebody who used to be on the cover of Time and Newsweek, you know.” (audience, Dave laugh)

Dave (laughs): “Those were the days.” (audience applauds)

Obama: “Those were the days. I had a recent offer with Popular Mechanics.” (audience laughs)

Dave: “Take it, take it.” (audience laughs)

Obama: “Said they had a centerfold, yeah, with a wrench, you know.” (audience, Obama laugh) “But, no, look, she’s on a wild ride and there’s no doubt that she’s energized the base. But ultimately what we’ve seen over the last week is a concession on the part of the McCain campaign that this election is going to be about change. You’ll recall, you know, for the last two years, we’ve been talking about needing to change how Washington works, how the country is managed and people were saying, ‘No, it’s about experience, experience, experience,’ and over the last week and a half I think they recognized that, no, the American people want something fundamentally different and for a good reason. Because when you travel, it doesn’t matter whether you’re here in New York City or a tiny hamlet somewhere in the Midwest, what you find is people are just having a tough time right now. The economy is not working for middle class families, incomes have gone down, people don’t have healthcare, you’ve got foreclosures all across the country, and so people want something different, and whoever makes the better case that we have had enough of the last eight years, we need something fundamentally new, whoever makes that case to the American people will be the next President.” (audience applauds)

U.S. Government Employees Paid in Drugs, Sex, and Bribes

This video only reinforces the fact that we have a lawless government. The people whom run our country have public service last on their minds. The scandals are caught only when it gets out of hand. Don't want to over do it, after all.

U.S. Interior Department employees who oversaw oil drilling on federal lands had sex and used illegal drugs with workers at energy companies where they were conducting official business, an internal government report said on Wednesday.

Employees at the department's Minerals Management Service "socialized with, and received a wide array of gifts and gratuities from, oil and gas companies," according to the department's inspector general, Earl Devaney.

"When confronted by our investigators, none of the employees involved displayed remorse," Devaney said.

The alleged activities occurred between 2002 and 2006 and involved 19 former and current workers at the Minerals Management Service's offices in Denver and Washington. Devaney recommended that those still on the job be fired.

McCain, Palin Fairfax, Virginia Speech Transcript (9-10-08)

This partial transcript of a speech given by McCain and Palin while in Fairfax, Virginia, Today.

Americans, this is a time when principles and political independence matter a lot more than just a party line. He doesn't run with the Washington herd. He's willing to shake things up in Washington. And that is only one more reason to send the maverick of the Senate to the White House.

(APPLAUSE)

So I don't mind at all. The senator has called us a team of mavericks. And I'm honored to be considered on this team of mavericks, because he knows -- the senator knows that we've done some shaking up, up there in Alaska.

As the mayor of a small town, I shook up the old system. I took on the good old boys. And I reminded people that, no, government is not always the answer. In fact, too often government is the problem.

(APPLAUSE)

So what we did, simply, we put government back on the side of the people. What I did there was eliminate personal property taxes.

(APPLAUSE)

I eliminated small business inventory taxes and business license renewal fees. Those things that were getting in the way of the private sector, being able to grow and prosper and to thrive.

Property taxes were too high, so every year I cut that each year that I was in office. And those reforms worked, and our community was able to grow and to thrive. We really took off.

As governor then, I brought that same agenda of positive change to the state level. We took on the old politics as usual in Juneau.

I broke the monopoly that had controlled our state, and that was the lobbyists and the special interests that had controlled big oil. See, we had come to office promising major ethics reform to end the culture of closed doors and self-dealing, and today that reform, because it works -- that reform is the law of the state of Alaska.

(APPLAUSE)

And you know, as mayor and as governor, I tried to lead by example. So as mayor, I took a voluntary pay cut which didn't impress my husband at all. He wasn't thrilled. And then as governor, I eliminated the governor's personal chef position from the budget, which didn't thrill my kids at all. And I put the state's checkbook online for all the world to see, how we were spending the people's money.

(APPLAUSE)

Of course, that didn't thrill all the bureaucrats.

And then finally, that luxury jet that came with the office, it was a bit over the top. So I put it on eBay.

I had come to office promising to control spending, by request if possible, ideally, but by veto if necessary. And today our state budget is under control and we have a surplus. I had to put the veto pen to nearly half a billion dollars in reckless spending.

(APPLAUSE)

We suspended the state fuel tax, and we have a surplus. So what I'm doing with that surplus, I'm taking a big chunk of it and I'm returning it right back to the people where it belongs. They can spend it better than we can spend it for them.

We gave that money back to hard working Alaskans. And in these tough times, I'm ready to join John McCain in Washington. And we're going to do the same for you, tax relief for all Americans.

I championed earmark reform, also, to help Congress stop wasting money on those things that do not serve the public interest. I told Congress thanks, but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere. In Alaska, if we wanted that bridge, we'd build it ourselves.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, just the other day, our opponent brought up earmarks. And frankly, I was surprised that he did considering his record on earmarks. I didn't think he'd want to go there.

In just three years, our opponent has requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarks. That's about a million dollars every working day.

We reformed the abuses of earmarks in our state, and it was while our opponent was requesting a billion dollars in earmarks as a senatorial privilege. What I was doing was vetoing half a billion as an executive responsibility.

(APPLAUSE) And now, here again, I'm ready to join John McCain in Washington so we can end the corrupt practices of the abuse of earmarks once and for all. We'll do that.

Through competition as governor, I got agreements to build a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline. That's going to help all of you. It will help free America from foreign suppliers, as we're dumping so much money into some countries that don't really like America.

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

PALIN: In a McCain/Palin administration, we are going to expand new energy resources, the development of, and expand our alternative uses of energy, also. We're going to tap into the wind and the geothermal and the hydro and the biomass. Those things that God has blessed our country with also, those renewables. We're going to start plugging those in and funding those projects that will be good for America. We are going to make this nation energy independent.

-Related Post:
Palin's ABC News interview with Charlie Gibson: Transcript (9-11-08)

Is Venezuela the New Cuba?

Not only is Venezuelan strong man, Hugo Chavez, Anti-American, he is also erratic. This can make him very dangerous. He makes every effort to try and weaken the U.S. The Bush gang has contributed to the problem by antagonizing Chavez, just as they have Russia. Miscalculation could create a very dangerous situation.

Two Russian strategic bombers landed in Venezuela on Wednesday as part of military maneuvers, the government said, announcing an unprecendented deployment to the territory of a new ally at a time of increasingly tense relations with the U.S.

Could we have a new missile crises in the not too distant future?

Russia's Defense Ministry said the two Tu-160 bombers flew to Venezuela on a training mission. It said in a statement carried by the Russian news wires that the planes will conduct training flights over neutral waters over the next few days before heading back to Russia.

Also Wednesday, NATO said it ended a routine exercise by four naval ships in the Black Sea. Russia had denounced the exercise as part of a Western military buildup sparked by the Georgia conflict.

And it ain't just the Venezuelans Bush is antagonizing. It almost seems this neo-fascist administration is bent on war with everyone and everything. Will we survive until January?

President Evo Morales said Wednesday that he is expelling the U.S. ambassador in Bolivia for allegedly inciting violent opposition protests.

Morales' announcement came hours after his government said a pipeline blast triggered by saboteurs forced the country to cut natural gas exports to Brazil by 10 percent.

"Without fear of the empire, I declare the U.S. ambassador 'persona non grata,'" Morales said in a speech at the presidential palace. He said he asked his foreign minister to send a diplomatic note to Ambassador Philip Goldberg telling the American to go home.

The war of words just worsens along with intrigue.

President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday derided as a "show" a U.S. trial of a Venezuelan man accused of acting as a foreign agent in a scandal over an attempt to smuggle $800,000 into Argentina in a suitcase.

The comments by Chavez came a day after a Venezuelan businessman testified in a Miami federal court that Chavez had personally ordered the head of his intelligence service to handle fallout from the incident, which sparked an international scandal.

"The North American empire is again attacking Venezuela," Chavez said, dismissing the trial as an American attempt to embarrass his government.

Like I said, the war of words just gets worse.

White House drug czar John Walters said Tuesday that Venezuela President Hugo Chávez' policies toward the cocaine trade represents a ''global threat'' that puts Europe, especially, at risk.

Venezuela has rejected U.S. requests to resume cooperation in the war on drugs, insisting it has made progress despite an alleged fourfold gain in the amount of Colombian cocaine passing through its territory.

Walters said most of the cocaine passing through Venezuela ends up in Europe via Africa and that Chávez's policies therefore were a big threat to both continents.

McCain's "Lipstick on a Pig" Sexist Ploy

The McCain campaign wants to change the subject from the economy, the war, and Bush. So how do they do it - by making ridiculous allegations which the media plays up. The same press that decries negative campaigning is busy promoting every fatuous comment attack made by each side.

Last October, asked about Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care plan, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was blunt. McCain said Clinton's proposal was "eerily" similar to the ill-fated plan she devised in 1993. "I think they put some lipstick on a pig," he said, "but it's still a pig."A common expression, right? McCain surely wasn't calling Clinton a pig. After all, McCain's former press secretary, Torie Clarke, wrote a book called "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No-Spin Era." Elizabeth Edwards told some health journalists that McCain's health care plan was like "painting lipstick on a pig."

Tonight Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said of McCain painting himself as a change agent, "You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." ... "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change,'" Obama continued, "it's still gonna stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing! It's time to bring about real change to Washington. And that's the choice you've got in this election."

The press is to blame here. Our country is in crisis and they focus on this sensational stupidity.

The media seems to find all of this fascinating, as if use of an old American expression, utilized by all kinds of political candidates from both parties for generations, might be some kind of sexist insult -- not when McCain used it to slam Hillary Clinton, but only when Obama used it to criticize the Republican campaign in general.

It's honestly like being stuck in a "Twilight Zone" episode in which reality has no meaning at all.

If you want to talk about Palin, let's talk about her less than "maverick" governing practices.

Responding to criticism from Democrats, campaign aides to Gov. Sarah Palin on Tuesday defended her practice of billing Alaska taxpayers for more than 300 nights she spent at home in her first year-and-a-half in office.

Ms. Palin received a “per diem” expense allowance for 312 nights she spent at her home in Wasilla, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

The $60-a-day allowance is available for state employees when traveling on official state business to cover meals and other sundry expenses. Ms. Palin’s per diems, which included some charges for partial days, totaled $17,059, from Dec. 4, 2006, when she took office, through June 30, 2008, the most recent data available, according to Sharon Leighow, a spokeswoman for the governor’s office. Ms. Palin’s salary is $125,000 a year.

Ms. Palin was able to receive the allotment while she was at home because her official “duty station” is listed as Juneau, the state capital, aides said. That allowed Ms. Palin to file for per diems while she was working out of her Anchorage office and commuting from her home about 45 miles away in Wasilla. Juneau is nearly 600 miles away.

Ron Paul: Vote Third Party

I have new found respect for Ron Paul. He is doing the right thing in calling for his followers to vote against the two parties that are running this country into the ground.

Libertarian-leaning congressman Ron Paul is urging voters to reject John McCain and Barack Obama and support one of the third-party candidates for president.

Paul, a Republican who abandoned his White House bid earlier this year, is gathering some of the candidates, independent Ralph Nader among them, on Wednesday to make his plea.

Send a message now to two parties that busy only mouthing words of "change." How can you change a system that you've created. The people who run America aren't interested in change. Politicians always talk about "changing" things but always do the bidding of those whom write the checks.

"The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two party system," Paul said in prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment, principled candidates."

And don't be fooled by this nonsense about spoiling by the third parties. You can't spoil something that is already rotten.

Some Republicans have been concerned Paul could siphon votes from the party in the same way Democrats accused Nader of doing in 2000 when he ran under the Green Party banner.

But when Nader ran in 2004 as an independent, he garnered just 0.3 percent of the vote from 34 states. The Constitution, Green and Libertarian candidates received even fewer votes. Nader claims he has enough signatures to get on the ballot in 45 states this year.

You can bet that a year from now when the economy completely tanks people will want to hang the Republicans and Democrats.

Nader predicted the gathering of third-party candidates would "raise the eyebrows" of pundits who are skeptical of the viability of independent presidential campaigns. The candidates will agree on several common issues they believe are being ignored by the major parties.

"This is the beginning of the realignment of American politics," Nader said.

McCain, Palin Pennsylvania Speech Transcript (9-9-08)

Read the full transcript.

"GOV. PALIN: Now, to win, to reform Washington, to help reform our country, Senator McCain and I are going to take our case for reform to voters of every background, in every party, or no party at all. And with your vote, we're going to Washington to shake things up. (Cheers, applause.)

See, John McCain is a guy who's been through a few tough battles before, and he has served America in good times and in bad. (Cheers, applause.) He knows what it takes to overcome great challenges. And for the job of leading our country, he's the only man in this race who's got what it takes. (Cheers, applause.)

Remember it was just about a year ago when the war in Iraq looked very bad.

And the consequences of failure would have been terrible for our country, for our troops. Defeat at the hands of al Qaeda in Iraq would have left millions to a violent fate and would have left our own nation much less secure.

Some in Washington at the time said that all was lost. All was lost in the war, they presumed -- they assumed. There was no hope for victory. (Boos.) And they said there was no hope for the candidate who had said he would rather lose an election than see our country lose a war. (Cheers, applause.)

But the pollsters and the pundits, they forgot one thing when they wrote him off. They forgot the caliber of the man himself, the determination and the resolve and the sheer guts of Senator John McCain. (Cheers, applause.)

But you all knew better. You all knew better, Americans. The American people understand that there is a time for politics and a time for leadership, a time to campaign and a time to put our country first. (Cheers, applause.)

AUDIENCE: (Chanting.) Country first! Country first! Country first! Country first! Country first! Country first! Country first!

GOV. PALIN: John McCain is a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years. (Cheers, applause.) He refused to break faith with the troops who have now brought victory within sight. (Cheers, applause.)

And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. (Cheers, applause, chanting.)

Now, for his part, our opponent, he still just can't bring himself to acknowledge the coming victory in Iraq. He couldn't just the other day in an interview. He says he's for change, but look there in Iraq. Change happened, and that's a great thing for America, Senator. (Cheers, applause.)

Here's how I look at the choices that we have in this election. In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, and then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change. (Cheers, applause.)

Americans, this is a moment when principles and political independence and those things that this man will bring to the office -- those things that are going to matter a heck of a lot more that a party line --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah!

GOV. PALIN: He doesn't run with the Washington herd. He's willing to shake things up in Washington, and that is only one more reason to bring the maverick of the Senate -- put him into the White House. (Cheers, applause.)

Senator McCain has called the two of us a team of mavericks, and he knows that we've done some shaking up up there in Alaska. As mayor, I shook up the old system and took on the good old boys. (Cheers, applause.) I reminded people that government is not always the answer. In fact, too often government is the problem. (Cheers, applause.)

So -- so we got back to basics, and we put government back on the side of the people.

What I did was eliminate taxes on personal property and -- (cheers, applause) -- I eliminated taxes that were hurting small business. And property taxes were too high, so every year in office, we cut the mill levy. We cut that rate. And these reforms worked and our community took off. We started prospering.

And as governor, then, I brought that same agenda of positive change. We took on the old politics as usual in Juneau and we broke the monopoly that had controlled our state. And that was the lobbyists and the special interests behind Big Oil. (Cheers.) We came to office promising major ethics reform to end the culture of closed doors and self-dealing and today that ethics reform is the law of the state. (Cheers, applause.)"

Obama Dayton Education Speech Transcript (9-9-08)

Read the full transcript of Obama's speech on education given in Dayton, Ohio.

I believe the day of reckoning is here. (Cheers, applause.) Our -- our children and our country can't afford four more years of neglect and indifference. (Cheers, applause.) At this -- at this defining moment in our history, America faces few more urgent challenges than preparing our children to compete in a global economy. The decisions our leaders make about education in the coming years will shape our future for generations to come. They will help determine not only whether our children have the chance to fulfill their God-given potential or whether our workers have the chance to build a better life for their families, but whether we as a nation will remain in the 21st century the kind of global economic leader that we were in the 20th century.

And the rising importance of education reflects the new demands of our new world. In recent decades, revolutions in communications and information technology have broken down barriers that once kept countries and markets apart, creating a single, global economy that's more integrated and interconnected than ever before. In this economy, companies can plant their jobs wherever there's an Internet connection and someone willing to do the work, meaning that children here in Dayton are growing up competing with children not only in Detroit or Chicago or Los Angeles, but in Beijing and Delhi as well.

What matters, then, isn't what you do or where you live, but what you know. When two-thirds -- (applause) -- of all new jobs require a higher education or advanced training, knowledge is the most valuable skill you can sell. (Applause.) It's not only a pathway to opportunity, but it's a prerequisite for opportunity. Without a good preschool education, our children are less likely to keep up with their peers. Without a high school diploma -- (applause) -- without a high school diploma, you're likely to make about three times less than a college graduate. And without a college degree or industry certification, it's harder and harder to find a job that can help you support your family and keep up with rising costs.

It's not just that a world-class education is essential for workers to compete and win, it's that an educated workforce is essential for America to compete and win. (Applause.) Without a workforce trained in math, science and technology, and the other skills of the 21st century, our companies will innovate less, our economy will grow less, and our nation will be less competitive. If we want to outcompete the world tomorrow, we must out-educate the world today. (Cheers, applause.)

Let me -- let me be more specific. If we want to keep building the cars of the future here in America, then we can't afford to see the number of Ph.D.s in engineering climbing in China, South Korea and Japan even as it's dropped here in the United States. We can't afford a future where our high school students rank near the bottom in -- in math and science among industrialized countries, and our high school drop-out rate is one of the highest in the industrialized world.

Olbermann Obama Countdown Interview Transcript (Part 2)

This is part 2 of of Keith Olbermann's (MSNBC's Countdown) interview of Barack Obama. Read the full transcript (Part 1).

OLBERMANN: Let me switch over to Iraq and people's reaction to you and Iraq and Iraq as a subject in general. Your predictions about the surge, your language about the surge, seem to have turned out to be just about 100 percent on the spot. Simple facts: whatever is done to lessen violence against American troops and others in portions of that country, the Iraqis are still not paying for this war fully, either with money or personnel. And Mr. Bush has just been advised not to bring any more of our troops home this year.

If you are right, why have the Republicans and the conservative media been so effective in suggesting that you were wrong and somehow you need to atone for that?

OBAMA: Well, you know, it's interesting. It's not just the conservative media. I think that a lot of the mainstream media has picked up on this. Partly, I think, it is a legitimate surprise on the part of a lot of people that the immediate violence went down so significantly. And I think our troops deserve all the credit in the world for that happening, along with the Sunni awakening that occurred, the Shia militias standing down. There was a convergence of forces that have reduced violence in a way I think many of us didn't anticipate, including me.

What has not changed at all is the underlying fact that, No. 1, Iraq was a huge strategic blunder that strengthened Iran, took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, let al Qaeda off the hook, and we've got to make a strategic shift.

The second thing that hasn't changed is the Iraqi government still hasn't taken responsibility, that they aren't spending their own oil revenues. They've got $80 billion parked in New York banks while we're spending $10 billion a month. And I believe, and continue to believe, that until we send a clear signal that we are going to withdraw in a phased, systematic way, that they're not going to start getting their act together.

Now, Prime Minister Maliki has suggested that a timetable now makes sense. Even the Bush administration has been discussing a time horizon. John McCain is the only guy who still is trying to figure out ways to stay, instead of ways for us to go.

And it is important for us to understand that, unless we start putting more responsibility in the hands of the Iraqis, we are going to be hamstrung in dealing with the larger battle against terror that is so critical to our long-term security.

Obama O'Reilly Factor Interview Transcript (part 2)

This is part 2 of Bill O'Reilly's interview of Barack Obama as shown 9-8-08. Read the full transcript. (part 1)(part 3)

O'REILLY: You and Hillary both, you just want to take my money, and you can have it. I mean, I don't care if I live in a hut. Under President Bush, the federal government derived 20 percent more revenue than under President Clinton. Did you know that?

OBAMA: Well…

O'REILLY: Did you know that?

OBAMA: ...the economy grew, Bill.

O'REILLY: It grew, that's right.

OBAMA: The economy grew, so of course, the…

O'REILLY: Under President Bush, the economy grew 19 percent more than Clinton. See, this is what I'm not getting with you Democrats.

OBAMA: No, no, no. Hold on a second, Bill. Wait, Bill, hold on a second now. I mean, you know the famous saying about there are lies, damn lies, and statistics?

O'REILLY: Yes.

OBAMA: Well, you and I can — we can play a statistics game.

O'REILLY: I know it's bull. I know it is.

OBAMA: So let's be clear on the record, OK? The — during the Bush administration…

O'REILLY: Yes.

OBAMA: ...there was economic growth. Not as fast as during the 1990s, OK, but there was growth during the Bush administration. But what happened was that wages and incomes for ordinary Americans, the guys who watch your show…

O'REILLY: Yes.

OBAMA: …the guys who you advocate for and you speak for on this show…

O'REILLY: Right.

OBAMA: …their wages and incomes did not go up.

O'REILLY: Why?

OBAMA: They went down.

O'REILLY: Do you know why?

OBAMA: And the reason they went down…

O'REILLY: Yes.

OBAMA: ...is because most of the corporate profits and increased productivity went to the top, not just one percent, but the top one-tenth of a percent.

O'REILLY: Well, let me submit to you that you're wrong.

OBAMA: And part of…

O'REILLY: OK. We've been studying this issue because we want to be fair and balanced and give all sides.

OBAMA: Right.

O'REILLY: T he reason that wages have been depressed — and they're not that much. It's about $400 or $500 for the Bush administration, real wages up, and about $2,000 under the Clinton administration — is because there are 10 million immigrants, new immigrants in the workforce, most of whom are illegal aliens.

OBAMA: Bill…

O'REILLY: Those 10 million…

OBAMA: I totally disagree.

- Related Post:
Sarah Palin's ABC News interview with Charlie Gibson: Transcript (9-11-08)

Obama Olbermann Interview on Countdown: Transcript (Part 1 & 2)

Read the full transcript of Barack Obama's interview by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown program. (update: Part 2 transcript)

OLBERMANN: And Governor Palin hired a lobbyist to get earmarks to the tune of $27 million for a 6,000-person town which is — in its own scope, is kind of a neat trick, but it does seem to counterbalance the basic platform of the Republican Party.

You said that they're not telling the truth here, but when the stuff is a gross distortion, whether it's about their own positions or yours, or facts in your history or whatever, what can you do about it? And why do people hesitate to use the word "lie" about these things?

OBAMA: Well, look, we have been very clear about the fact that this argument John McCain and Sarah Palin are making, that they are agents of change, just won't fly. It defies their history and their background. And we saw it in the convention that they wouldn't talk about the basic issues that are really going to make a difference in the lives of middle class families.

So you know, I'm happy to have legitimate policy debates with them on where we want to take health care, what we want to do about energy, what we want to do about education, what are we going to do about the war in Iraq.

But you know, for them to run an ad that basically doesn't present an accurate record of their positions on issues I think should raise some questions about how they would approach an administration.

OLBERMANN: To something from your own convention, maybe the most compelling moment of your acceptance speech in Denver was that one strongly voiced word, "enough." A lot of people who have felt angry about what has been done to this country in the last seven or eight years have that same sense of urgency and simplicity to it.

Have you thought of using on the campaign trail and in your speaking engagements, more exclamation points? Have you thought of getting angrier?

OBAMA: Well, I'll tell you what, with two months to go, I think everybody needs to feel a sense of urgency. You know, when I hear John McCain suggest that he is going to bring about change, I am reminded of the cartoon that Tom Toles did in "The Washington Post" where he has McCain say: "Watch out, George Bush, with the exception of the economy, tax policy, foreign policy, health care policy, education policy, and Karl Rove politics, we're really going to shake things up in Washington."

You know, the fact of the matter is, is that not only has John McCain agreed with George Bush 90 percent of the time, this is the party that has been in charge for eight years. And they're now trying to run against themselves despite a few months ago having argued that — John McCain saying that, listen, I've been supportive of George Bush, boasting about it.

You know, I said, I think on Saturday in Indiana, the American people aren't stupid. They are going to get it. But we've got to make sure that we are being clear, not only that they will not bring about change, but the very specific kinds of changes we want to bring, in terms of green technology jobs in America, investing in our education system, making college more affordable, making health care accessible to every American, that contrast, if we go into November, with that contrast on the minds of the American people, I think we're going to do well.

White House/Dana Perino Daily Press Briefing (9-8-08)

Read the full transcript.

Q Dana, on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you've outlined the risk to taxpayers and the economy if these companies were to fail. But what about the risk to taxpayers now that the government has taken them over and assumed that debt? Is that a risk that the White House is concerned about?

MS. PERINO: President Bush thinks that the move that Secretary Paulson worked on is the right move at the right time. And this is not action that we wanted to take, it's action that we needed to take. The goal is to prevent additional risk to the taxpayers, and in this plan Secretary Paulson has moved forward to make sure that the taxpayers would be paid back first. If you're a shareholder or you're top management of these companies today, it's not a very bright day for you. And taxpayer money will be safeguarded to the greatest extent possible.

Secretary Paulson and others made the determination in working through the options, and then finally talking with the President, that this was the best way to prevent a broader financial problem for our capital markets here in the United States, but also globally.

Q And just to follow up on that, about the administration not being anxious to take that step, why is that? Could you flesh out a little bit more what the concern is or why this is a step that the administration was hesitant to take?

MS. PERINO: Well, going back years, this administration has advocated for reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has been reluctant to move forward on those for many years, and in fact, didn't even take it real seriously until this crisis emerged -- and we finally got some of that legislation I think in early August or late July.

The reason that we're -- we didn't want to have to take this action is we prefer for Congress to take care of its own business. Remember, these are congressionally chartered companies, and it's appropriate that Congress have a role in saying how they're going to move forward in the future. And that's why Congress will have a chance when they get back over this next period and also into the next administration to decide how to move forward with them.

Q Dana, could you expand a bit, in terms of the President's sort of philosophical underpinning -- this is not exactly limited government, this takeover. So how concerned was he -- just in terms of conservative political ideology, how concerned was he about doing something that seems to be sort of the opposite of all of that?

MS. PERINO: Well, it's again -- President Bush initiated a call years ago to try to reform this system because he did not want the status quo to continue. Unfortunately, Congress didn't act on that. And the systemic risk that was posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to our entire economy was one that the President felt it was more important to deal with now, and start to work on now, so that the next administration would be able to work with the Congress and figure out a way to make sure that this would not be allowed to happen again. And so far, cooperation with Congress since this announcement has been very good.

Q But, I mean, I imagine it's -- there are -- does this mark a change in the President's thinking, in terms of there are times where you do need big government action and intervention?

MS. PERINO: Remember, these are congressionally chartered companies, so the government is involved in these companies whether we've liked it or not.

Q There's a difference between charger and take over.

MS. PERINO: It became clear that these companies were not going to be able to continue to function the way that they were, and that the whole system was at risk -- not only here in our country, but also affecting global markets. And so given that they were already part of a quasi-federal government agency, it's only appropriate that the President take this action. And Secretary Paulson, he believes, came up with the right mix with this conservatorship -- which I'm not an expert in, but Secretary Paulson has spoken about it today.

Q Was there ever -- or to what degree were you hearing, was the White House hearing from opponents of the idea? How much push back was there about doing something like a big takeover?

MS. PERINO: As I said, I think that the cooperation we've had from members of Congress and from the companies, themselves, is emblematic of the fact that people recognized that the status quo was not going to suffice anymore.

And the turmoil that would have resulted from a failure of these two companies would have directly impacted households everywhere -- household wealth, our buying power, our ability to save for college or our savings for retirement, ability to get loans -- not just home loans, but auto loans -- everything that makes our economy work. So the President thought it was absolutely appropriate that we move forward. And as I said, the cooperation so far has been very good.

Q It's up to about $200 billion that's being guaranteed by this. What's the expectation of the administration about how much will -- how much taxpayer money will actually have to -- you'll actually have to come up with to help secure these companies?

MS. PERINO: I'll refer you to Secretary Paulson, who said this morning that -- he said it would be as little as possible, and I think the initial request was for $5 billion, but up to $200 billion. He said he doesn't know yet what that would ultimately be. But what he does know is that as soon as these companies start to turn around, it is the taxpayers who will be paid back first, not the shareholders.

Q And the money, however much it ends up being, is just going to be borrowed or is there another way to --

MS. PERINO: I'll refer you to Treasury for details; I don't know.

Q And what happened -- about six weeks ago, toward late July you said that there was not an expectation that you would have to do this. What happened in the interim that made it necessary for this to occur?

MS. PERINO: I think -- I would refer you to Treasury for details as to what they were looking at. But remember, we asked for a strong regulator who would go in and be able to look at the books in a full, transparent way. And over the past several weeks it became clear that they were not going to be able to continue to function and that this action was necessary.

Go ahead, Sheryl.

Q Just sort of following on Jim's question, you talked about the next administration would determine what the appropriate role is for these companies. Was the President uncomfortable at the outset with even the idea of these as quasi-governmental agencies? Is there a philosophical uneasiness with having the government play even a limited role? And I'm wondering is this kind of a bitter pill for him to have to swallow, that now the government has to take over the whole thing?

MS. PERINO: Well, look, he didn't create government-sponsored entities, these were -- he inherited them.

Q Right. Was he uneasy with that?

MS. PERINO: Well, he was uneasy with the whole system, which is why in 2002, I think it was, that he first recommended wholesale changes of GSEs -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- because he fundamentally thought that it didn't work.

But it's not something he invented, and so he was trying to work best with the Congress to figure out a way to reform it so that we wouldn't have to take such actions. As I said, this is not action that we wanted to take, it was action that Secretary Paulson and others, working with the President, determined that we needed to take.

So I would refer you back to what he had -- years ago he and members of his administration thought that we needed to make some changes. We do believe that the best way for this to move forward is to have Congress look at how they really want to be involved in the future. This was allowed to get out of control. And President Bush believes that however Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are addressed by either this Congress or the next administration, it is crucial that they not be set up in the same way as they were before.

Q Can you talk to us about some of the steps the President took since 2002, other than simply saying he wanted Congress to reform, to actually --

MS. PERINO: We proposed legislation -- we proposed legislation. We tried to move forward. I mean, there's lots of different ways, but there's only so much in our system that an executive branch can do when these are congressionally chartered agencies. You have to have congressional buy-in, you have congressional action.

And just the intrinsic nature of the way that the housing industry was woven into the fabric of inside the beltway was hard to break loose. But I think that, going to Jim's question, as you said, the fact that we have had good cooperation since this announcement was made, I think is symbolic of the fact that everyone releases that this was not a game that could continue to be played. And it had to be changed fundamentally.

Transcript: Rick Davis on 'FOX News Sunday' (9-7-08)

Read the full transcript of John McCain's campaign manager's interview with Chris Wallace.

WALLACE: Well, as a matter of personal privilege, I'm going to give you the opportunity to respond to David Axelrod, who said, you know, for all this talk about wait till we come in and shake the lobbyists, but the campaign team of McCain is filled with lobbyists or, in your case, former lobbyists. How do you respond?

DAVIS: Oh, I think that, you know, it's just more of the same from David Axelrod. I mean, they've been running against ghosts of the past all along. And I think it just shows that they don't really have anything to talk about.

If they want to run against Rick Davis or our campaign staff, let them. I think it's hilarious. I think it's a wonderful distraction from the real issues that we're trying to debate.

WALLACE: But aren't you vastly exaggerating her record as a reformer? Take a look. As mayor of Wasilla, she hired a Washington lobbyist and got $27 million in earmarks.

And in her less than two years as governor, Alaska has asked for $589 million in pork barrel projects. Her record as a reformer, particularly on the issue of earmarks, is far from clean.

DAVIS: Well, let's be clear about this. When she was mayor of Wasilla, there were already people in place who were getting those grants from the federal government. And small towns do a lot of that kind of activity because mayors...

WALLACE: She hired a Washington lobbyist who was supposed to...

DAVIS: ... mayors...

(CROSSTALK)

DAVIS: ... already involved in that, and so...

WALLACE: She hired a — she...

DAVIS: But let me also point out these...

WALLACE: ... she did hire a lobbyist.

DAVIS: ... these pork barrel projects that you talk about — these were not projects that she tried to get. These were projects that the Republican establishment in Alaska, who she campaigned against and beat many times over — were the ones picking those grants up.

Let me remind you, she vetoed more bills. She cut back on more pork barrel spending in the state legislature than any previous governor. She converted that legislature into reform because she passed ethics reforms and corruption reforms.

She railed against the establishment in Alaska and was able to accomplish great things like passing a significant energy bill that allowed them to create a natural gas pipeline.

These are all things that a true reformer is able to accomplish. So you know, I don't disagree with the fact that these — there were pork barrel projects coming to Alaska, but not from her. Within the state legislature, she beat back those efforts.

WALLACE: Wait a minute. First of all...

DAVIS: She's not a federal...

WALLACE: ... as governor, Alaska — during her 1.5 years, 2 years as governor, Alaska continued to get more federal money for pork barrel projects per capita than any state in the country.

DAVIS: Yeah.

WALLACE: And she was...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: This works better...

DAVIS: Sure.

WALLACE: ... if I get to ask the question.

DAVIS: OK.

WALLACE: And she supported the "bridge to nowhere," and it was only after the federal government dropped it out and killed it, the Congress killed it, that she then opposed it. And in fact, she still got the money for the approach, the ramp, to the "bridge to nowhere."

DAVIS: Congress didn't beat back the "bridge to nowhere." That funding...

WALLACE: I know, but she accepted the money.

DAVIS: That funding was in the grant, and she said, "I'm not spending that money." And what they did — they took a $500 million bridge and she turned it into a $2 million ferry. And that's what she did on her own without any help from anybody else.

WALLACE: Well, actually, it was Congress that killed the money for the "bridge to nowhere."

John McCain Face The Nation Transcript (9-7-08)

Read the Full transcript (pdf) of John McCain's appearance on CBS' Face The Nation.

Schieffer: Let's start right in with what you were talking about the other night. You did something really extraordinary at that convention. I've never been at a political convention where I heard a candidate get up and not only go after the other party, but go after your own party. You even said at one point your party had lost its way. You said that Washington has to change, and you're the one that can change it. But that's going to be a tall order, isn't it? I mean, because normally it's out in the wilderness, it's the group that's out that says, "Throw the bums out." You're saying it was your party that was part of the problem and that you can be the agent of change. How do you convince people of that?

Sen. McCAIN: Well, Bob, I think we have to show them my record. I think we have to show them that I took on the big spenders, I did campaign finance reform, I reached across the aisle to Democrats. And obviously, I was very unpopular in some parts of my own party, whether it be on the issue of climate change, or against Rumsfeld's strategy and the president's strategy in Iraq, or whether it be on campaign finance reform or a number of other issues that I have fought against the, quote, special interests. And the point is real. We now have former members of Congress
residing in federal prison. So it was corruption. And I guess I'll say again what I said, we came to Washington to change Washington--we came to power to change Washington, and Washington changed us. And I real--I understand--but I--the challenge. But I have to make a strong case that we're going to bring about that change, and it's the right kind of change. And I know we're going to be talking about my running mate, but I think I got the right kind of running mate who has that record also.

SCHIEFFER: We'll get to that in just a minute. But let me ask you just some specifics on how you're going to do it. Are you going to try to form some sort of unity government? Are you going to try to have Democrats within your administration as well as Republicans?

Sen. McCAIN: You have to. You have to. Look at the approval rating of both Republicans and Democrats now. Look at the loss of trust and confidence. When we do all the town hall meetings and people say, "I've lost all trust and confidence in government," they don't say, "I've lost confidence in Republicans, Democrats." They've lost confidence in everybody. And the way you restore it is obviously to have a very bipartisan approach. But they're in gridlock now. We all know that. They're going to go on to session tomorrow, actually, and they're going to be gridlocked for a month, and then they're going to go out. Whether it be energy or whether it be
passing the necessary appropriations bills, whatever it is. And then the American people will-frankly, who are hurting more, are going to be more disillusioned, if that's possible.

SCHIEFFER: So you're going to have Democrats in the White House?

Sen. McCAIN: Sure.

SCHIEFFER: Will you have Democrats in your Cabinet?

Sen. McCAIN: Yeah, of course.

[...]SCHIEFFER: Charles Krauthammer, the very conservative columnist...

SCHIEFFER: ...said the other day that the only constitutional job of the vice president is to be ready to become president at a moment's notice, and he said flatly, "She is not ready." How do you answer him?

Sen. McCAIN: Well, let me say first that, in all due respect to any commentator, this is the most popular governor in America. She has a clear record of doing what Americans want first and uppermost, reform. Reform. She's not only talked about it, but she's done it. And she took on the people in her own party. She took on a sitting governor of her own party and she reformed--and they passed ethics and lobbying reform. And they--and she gave money back to the taxpayers and they cut spending. They did the things the Americans want--she did the things they--that Americans want most. So in all due respect to any of the critics, what we want is the change in
Washington. Who better in the political landscape could do that than Governor Sarah Palin, whose whole life had been engaged in that, taking them on and winning? I've taking them on and won less than she has.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just quote him again.

Sen. McCAIN: Sure.

SCHIEFFER: These are his words, not mine.

Sen. McCAIN: Sure. Oh, I understand.

SCHIEFFER: He says, "Barack Obama is the least qualified presidential candidate in living memory."

Sen. McCAIN: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

SCHIEFFER: But he says when you picked Palin...

Sen. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.

SCHIEFFER: ...the case against Obama, that case evaporates.

Sen. McCAIN: Well, again, I--again, in respect to many of the critics--and I understand that criticism, it's part of the business. But I also would like to say that she's not only excited our base that you pointed out, she's excited Americans all over this country. We've been campaigning together, the electricity has been incredible. And I'd like to say it's all because of a charisma injection on the part of John McCain, but it's not. They're excited about this reformer, this lifetime member of the NRA, the person who's a point guard. She has it. I mean--and I'm sure
that Governor Palin has failings and I'm sure she's made mistakes, because she's had a long career, from city council to mayor to governor. But the fact is she's kind of what Americans have been looking for. And again, in all due respect to any critic, I think being mayor is a very important job nowadays, especially the way America's hurting. There's people who are mayors right now who are saying, "Hey, there's an abandoned house over on this street, the people have left it. What are we going to do?" You know, "How are we going to provide people with the goods and services they need with declining budgets?" So all I can say is I think that her experience and her background not only qualifies her, but brings to Washington a kind of an energy and a fresh wind that maybe is necessary in our nation's capital.

Joe Biden Meet The Press Transcript (9-7-08)

Read the full transcript of VP pick Joe Biden's appearance on Meet The Press:

MR. BROKAW: ...at the Republican National Convention. And when she used that line, being a mayor is like being a community organizer except you have actual responsibilities, you said, "Pretty good line."

SEN. BIDEN: Yeah, it was a great line.

MR. BROKAW: She had a number of good lines.

SEN. BIDEN: She had a number of good ones. Look, she's a smart, tough politician, and so I, I think she's going to be very formidable. But you know, eventually she's going to have to sit in front of you like I'm doing and have done. Eventually she's going to have to answer questions and not be sequestered. Eventually she's going to have to answer questions about her record.

[...]MR. BROKAW: ...in conventional terms. Make it tougher debating her than it would, say, Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, in, in the sense I know Mitt Romney and know his positions, and I know Tom Ridge and I really respect them. And--but you know, I, I've debated an awful lot of tough, smart women. A woman who's a judge here in our superior court was one of my toughest opponents ever for the Senate. And there's a lot of very tough, smart women in the United States Senate I debate every day. So in that sense it's not new. But what is new is I have no idea what her policies are. I assume they're the same as John's. I just don't know.

[...]MR. BROKAW: Or John McCain said, but the conditions are in place, and Anbar province, where you have been, where there had been so much difficulty, the Iraqis now have taken over that province. We have brigades that have Sunnis and Shia serving side by side...

SEN. BIDEN: Not many.

MR. BROKAW: ...fighting the terrorists. But it's a process, and it's beginning, and the surge made that possible, did it not?

SEN. BIDEN: No. The surge helped make that--what made is possible in Anbar province is they did what I'd suggested two and a half years ago: gave local control. They turned over and they said to the Sunnis in Anbar province, "We promise you, don't worry, you're not going to have any Shia in here. There's going to be no national forces in here. We're going to train your forces to help you fight al-Qaeda." And that you--what you had was the awakening. The awakening was not an awakening by us, it was an awakening of the Sunnis in Anbar province willing to fight.

MR. BROKAW: Cooperating with the Shia.

SEN. BIDEN: Willing to fight. Cooperating with--no, they weren't cooperating with Shiite. They didn't cooperate with the Shiites.

MR. BROKAW: Once the awakening got under way.

SEN. BIDEN: No, no, no. No, they didn't cooperate with the Shiites. It's still--it's a big problem, Tom. You got--we're paying 300 bucks a month to each of those guys. Now the problem has been and the, and the promise was made by Maliki that they would be integrated into the overall military. That's a process that is beginning in fits and starts now, but it's far from over. Far from--look, the bottom line here is that it's--let's--the surge is over. Here's the real point. Whether or not the surge worked is almost irrelevant now. We're in a new deal. What is the administration doing? They're doing what Barack Obama has suggested over 14 months ago, turn responsibility over and draw down our troops. We're about to get a deal from the president of the United States and Maliki, the head of the Iraqi government, that's going to land on my desk as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee saying we're going to set a timeline to draw down our forces. The only guy in America out of step is John McCain. John McCain's saying no timeline. They've signed on to Barack Obama's proposal.

Transcript: McCain Interviewed by ABC's Gibson (9-3-08)

Read the complete transcript.

GIBSON: Senator, since I've been following politics, every single presidential nominee has said that the first quality they look for in a vice presidential pick is the capability and the readiness to take over as president.

Can you look the country straight in the eye and say Sarah Palin has the qualities and has enough experience to be commander in chief?

MCCAIN: Oh, absolutely. Having been the governor of our largest state, the commander of their National Guard, she was once in charge of their natural resources assets, actually, until she found out there was corruption and she quit and said it had to be fixed.

Of course, it helps to be a mayor. When I think people compare her experience, in fact, and accomplishments, I think ethics in lobbying reform in a state that was beset by the influence of special interests, cutting taxes, giving the citizens back money.

I mean, she's got an incredible resume, including a beautiful family and a wonderful, loving, caring family. So I will think that, over time, people will compare her accomplishments with that of Sen. Obama, and his are very meager.

GIBSON: But he's been vetted. Nineteen months he's been debating...

MCCAIN: Sure.

GIBSON: ... in front of this country, 18 million times, the primaries people voted for him.

With her, we have your say-so.

MCCAIN: Well, the people of Alaska have vetted her. That's why she has an 80 percent approval rating.

The American people are going to vet her in the next couple of months, as we know, starting tonight. She has a proven record.

And, again, I don't like to make these comparisons. She's had positions of responsibility and authority. In all due respect to my friend, Joe Biden, he's never been executive of anything nor...

GIBSON: Neither have you.

Obama O'Reilly Factor Interview Transcript (part 1,2 & 3)

Barack Obama appeared on FOX News and was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. Read the part 1 transcript. (see video pt.1) (pt.2 video) (pt. 2 transcript) (pt. 3 transcript)

MR. O'REILLY: Okay. Let's start with national security. Do you believe we're in the middle of a war on terror?

SEN. OBAMA: Absolutely.

MR. O'REILLY: Who is the enemy?

SEN. OBAMA: Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam. So we have to go after them.

MR. O'REILLY: Is Iran part of that component?

SEN. OBAMA: Iran is a major threat. Now, I don't think that there is the same -- they are not part of the same network. You know, you got Shi'a and you got Sunni. We gotta have the ability to distinguish between these groups because, for example, the war in Iraq is a good example where I believe the administration lumped together Saddam Hussein, a terrible guy, with al Qaeda which had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

MR. O'REILLY: All right. We'll get to that in a minute.

SEN. OBAMA: And as a consequence, we ended up, I think, misdirecting our resources. So they're all part of various terrorist networks that we have to shut down and we have to destroy. But they may not all be part and parcel of the same ideology.

MR. O'REILLY: But I still don't understand -- and I'm asking this as an American as well as a journalist -- how threatening you feel Iran is. See, look, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, okay, to me, they're going to give it to Hezbollah if they can develop the technology. Why not? And so we don't have anything to do with it. So therefore, the next president of the United States is going to have to make a decision about Iran, whether to stop them militarily. Because I don't believe -- if diplomacy works, fine. But you've got to have a plan b. And a lot of people are saying, look, Barack Obama's not going to attack Iran.

SEN. OBAMA: Here's where you and I agree. It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. It would be a game changer, and I've said that repeatedly. I've also said I would never take a military option off the table.

MR. O'REILLY: But would you prepare for one?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, listen --

MR. O'REILLY: Answer the question, Senator. Anybody can say options. Would you prepare for it?

SEN. OBAMA: Look, it is not appropriate for somebody, who is one of two people who could be the president of the United States, to start tipping their hand in terms of what their plans might be with respect to Iran. It's sufficient to say I would not take the military option off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and United States interests.

But where I disagree with you is the notion that we've exhausted every other resource. Because the fact of the matter is is that for six, seven years during this administration, we weren't working as closely as we needed to with the Europeans to create --

MR. O'REILLY: Diplomacy might work. You might be able to strangle them economically.

SEN. OBAMA: Sanctions, maybe.

MR. O'REILLY: Maybe. But that's just all hypothetical.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, everything is hypothetical. But the question is, are we trying to do what we need to do to ratchet up the pressure on them to change their --

John McCain Republican National Convention Speech Transcript (9-4-08)

Read the full text of McCain's acceptance speech.

"...a word to Senator Obama and his supporters. We'll go at it over the next two months. That's the nature of these contests, and there are big differences between us. But you have my respect and admiration. Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, an association that means more to me than any other. We're dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. No country ever had a greater cause than that. And I wouldn't be an American worthy of the name if I didn't honor Senator Obama and his supporters for their achievement.

But let there be no doubt, my friends, we're going to win this election. And after we've won, we're going to reach out our hand to any willing patriot, make this government start working for you again, and get this country back on the road to prosperity and peace.

These are tough times for many of you. You're worried about keeping your job or finding a new one, and are struggling to put food on the table and stay in your home. All you ever asked of government is to stand on your side, not in your way. And that's just what I intend to do: stand on your side and fight for your future.

And I've found just the right partner to help me shake up Washington, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. She has executive experience and a real record of accomplishment. She's tackled tough problems like energy independence and corruption. She's balanced a budget, cut taxes, and taken on the special interests. She's reached across the aisle and asked Republicans, Democrats and Independents to serve in her administration. She's the mother of five children. She's helped run a small business, worked with her hands and knows what it's like to worry about mortgage payments and health care and the cost of gasoline and groceries.

She knows where she comes from and she knows who she works for. She stands up for what's right, and she doesn't let anyone tell her to sit down. I'm very proud to have introduced our next Vice President to the country. But I can't wait until I introduce her to Washington. And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: change is coming.

I'm not in the habit of breaking promises to my country and neither is Governor Palin. And when we tell you we're going to change Washington, and stop leaving our country's problems for some unluckier generation to fix, you can count on it. We've got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you.

You know, I've been called a maverick; someone who marches to the beat of his own drum. Sometimes it's meant as a compliment and sometimes it's not. What it really means is I understand who I work for. I don't work for a party. I don't work for a special interest. I don't work for myself. I work for you.

I've fought corruption, and it didn't matter if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. They violated their public trust, and had to be held accountable. I've fought big spenders in both parties, who waste your money on things you neither need nor want, while you struggle to buy groceries, fill your gas tank and make your mortgage payment. I've fought to get million dollar checks out of our elections. I've fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes. I fought crooked deals in the Pentagon. I fought tobacco companies and trial lawyers, drug companies and union bosses.

I fought for the right strategy and more troops in Iraq, when it wasn't a popular thing to do. And when the pundits said my campaign was finished, I said I'd rather lose an election than see my country lose a war."

Sarah Palin Republican National Convention Speech Transcript (9-3-08)

Read the full transcript.

And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.

Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.

The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.

No one expects us to agree on everything.

But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.

I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol' boys network.

Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.

But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.

And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.

I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.

While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.

That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.

I also drive myself to work.

And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary.

Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest - and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.

Our state budget is under control.

We have a surplus.

And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.

I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.

If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska.

And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.

As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.

I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.

And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.

The stakes for our nation could not be higher.