Transcript: Bob Casey On The Pennsylvania Primary And His Endorsement Of Barack Obama
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, April 4, 2008
|
 |
National Journal's Linda Douglass sat down with Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., for the April 4 edition of "National Journal On Air." This is a transcript of their conversation.
Audio of the full show is also available.
Q: I want to welcome Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who surprised a lot of people when he decided to endorse Barack Obama for president. Welcome, Senator Casey.
Casey: Thank you, Linda. Great to be with you.Q: Well, thanks for joining us. So you've been campaigning now around your state, a state in which you are personally very popular as a political figure, with Barack Obama. And yet the polls are showing that Hillary Clinton still has, for the most part, a double-digit lead in Pennsylvania. And Obama has been campaigning there, but her lead seems to be pretty much intact. What's going to change that?
Casey: Well, I'm not sure, Linda. We've got a real uphill fight there for a number of reasons. One is, Senator Clinton and President Clinton have been campaigning in Pennsylvania for the better part of 15 years, so there is a historical advantage there. But I have to say that in the short time that I was campaigning with Senator Obama, over the course of three days -- Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and then part of Monday -- he got a great reaction. I think he can make progress there in our state, but I do think it may be that we make progress now, and then build on that in the fall. I think whoever is the nominee, the fact that we have a competitive Pennsylvania primary will help our nominee, because the Republicans can lose Pennsylvania and win the presidency -- we can't.Q: Let's talk a little bit about the demographic groups inside your state. The Quinnipiac poll that was out a few days ago showed that Hillary Clinton continues to do much better with white voters, including white men, in Pennsylvania, where she leads by something like 12 points. You know your state very well. Why is that?
Casey: Well, I'm not sure I know the reason why one candidate does better with one demographic group, necessarily, but I do know that a lot of those voters that are still undecided or maybe saying they are still committed to one candidate or another -- there might be some movement there. But a lot of this is economic -- a lot of these voters are deeply concerned about the economy. I mean, it seems like every cost in their life is going up. You know, the usual list -- whether it's health care, or education costs or energy. Home heating oil in the last year is up almost 18 percent. The housing crisis -- we're not in the top ten, but we still had almost 35,000 foreclosures last year, and the numbers are projected to be much higher -- maybe 10,000 higher -- by the time we get well into 2009.Q: Just back for a moment to the racial disparities in that poll, which were similar to the things that were seen in Ohio -- is Governor [Ed] Rendell right when he says that some white voters in Pennsylvania won't vote for an African-American candidate?The economy is the number one issue, and I think Senator Obama, especially on his tour, has done a good job of articulating not just his concerns about it, but also his ideas for the middle-class tax cuts, eliminating taxes for seniors under the income of $50,000, focusing on an energy strategy that will create jobs, and also working very hard and having good ideas on the housing crisis. So I do think that -- whether it's one demographic group or another -- I think his economic message is going to play well. It doesn't mean he'll win the state, but I think he can lay a foundation for the fall.
Casey: I think that it would be better if public officials in Pennsylvania talk about the strengths of their candidate instead of being an analyst about how voters will vote or not. The most important thing that I'm going to do is focus on Senator Obama's strength.Q: Obviously, you've made it very clear that you don't think that Senator Obama is, necessarily, going to win Pennsylvania. But Pennsylvania, as you say, is a very important state -- it's a swing state in the general election. And the group with which Obama seems to have continuing trouble is the, not just white, but blue-collar, non-college Democrats. They used to be called Reagan Democrats, and in Pennsylvania, they are called Casey Democrats. So if he can't win them in your state, does he have a problem elsewhere?I have to say, when you combine his speech in Philadelphia on the issue of race, where he could have easily done what most Democratic and Republican politicians do -- which is, deal with the problem and move on -- he lifted the debate to a higher level. He challenged himself, challenged all of us as Americans, to be honest about race and to talk about it. I think between that and also the reaction he received from white and black voters in Pennsylvania in the last couple of days, I think he can unite the country, and I think he can win the race. But he's still got a ways to go to make some progress in Pennsylvania.
Casey: I think much has been made -- and I know a lot of people commentating on the race and also people who are deeply involved in this campaign have said -- that somehow if Senator Obama loses a big state that has to be won in the fall, like Pennsylvania, that that somehow is a harbinger of problems in the fall. I just don't buy that argument.Q: You know, it's obvious that both camps are trying to get the superdelegates to come into their camp, because it's pretty hard to see how either of them would somehow wind up with enough pledged delegates by the end of all the primaries. The Clinton campaign has reportedly been telling superdelegates that Barack Obama would not be a good general election candidate because of voter concerns about the statements of his pastor, Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright. What is your reaction to that tactic?Because it's really apples and oranges. In other words, because he lost California, does that mean he's going to lose California in the fall? Absolutely not. And I think the same is true of Pennsylvania. When you have a primary electorate -- we're just talking only about Democrats here in Pennsylvania. If he were to lose Pennsylvania, there will be legions of voters who may have voted for Senator Clinton, but he'll get them in the fall. I really believe that. I think it's an argument which doesn't hold any weight with me, in terms of comparing a primary vote with a general election vote. They are apples and oranges. There are a lot of Democrats -- I've been in three primaries in my state -- a lot of people who have voted against me in the primary come around and vote for you in the fall. It's just the nature of unifying our party, which we have to do, and I think we will do.
Casey: In a word -- ridiculous. I mean, look, I've been in seven statewide elections in Pennsylvania and four of them were general elections. I've won there, and just based upon my experience in Pennsylvania, if Barack Obama is the nominee, he will win Pennsylvania. It doesn't mean it will be easy, it doesn't mean we won't have to work very hard. He will win Pennsylvania, and if he's able to win Pennsylvania, that's a pretty good sign, I think, that he will be the next president.Q: Just a couple more questions, Senator, along those lines. Governor Rendell said to ABC News yesterday something along the lines of, well, look, voters know everything about Hillary Clinton -- there is only about 10 percent of things that they might not know. With Barack Obama, he said, there is probably 50 percent of the things about him you don't know yet, suggesting that that is a problem, that he's unknown -- that there could be something out there about him. How do you react to that argument?I think it would be better for those who are supporting Senator Clinton to talk about why she should be the nominee and the president -- not make predictions about why he can't win. I mean, there are a lot of people in Pennsylvania who will not react favorably to that, because they've been told in their own lives, you can't do this, you can't do that, you're not going to achieve. A lot of people in Pennsylvania have been underdogs and have been told you can't do things. They are not going to respond positively when a campaign starts telling people, you can't do this, and I think, just on its face, it's ridiculous. He'll win Pennsylvania, as she would -- I don't think there is any question Senator Clinton can carry Pennsylvania as well.
Casey: Again, I think it's a ridiculous argument. Barack Obama has been running for president for more than a year now. Every news organization, every journalist who covers politics, has been examining him, questioning him. You know all the horrific things that have been on the Internet about him. He has been vetted and he'll be vetted even more, as every presidential candidate should be. But the idea that we're supposed to just say that, (a) he can't win, and (b) there's something we don't know -- it's ridiculous.Q: So if the Democrats get to the end of the next several primaries, and say, she wins Pennsylvania, he wins North Carolina, she wins -- maybe even narrowly, maybe more than narrowly -- Indiana, Kentucky, and a couple more of the races; maybe he wins in Oregon. Neither one of them will have enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination at that point. What do you think should happen next?I think it's better if we focus on why he should be president or why Senator Clinton should be president, if her supporters want to do that. Because I really think the question is not just -- I think in this process we're picking a president, not just a nominee. With two strong candidates who could both be very effective presidents, who should we support in terms of being able to unite the country and unite the world? When most politicians get hot and angry and lash out, he's been very measured, and I think his leadership skills will help him as a world leader, but also will help him as a domestic president.
Casey: Well, the truthful answer is I don't know. You've set up a scenario where you're talking about delegates and votes -- there will be other factors as well. But at the end of the road, if Senator Obama has won more states than he has already, a higher popular vote than he has now, more delegates -- I would not want to be making an argument against that. Because I think he's already shown that he's got a significant lead, and we'll see what happens after Pennsylvania and after a couple more rounds. But I think it's best if we can arrive at a consensus, whatever that is, by sometime in June.Q: Well, thank you, Senator Casey. I really do appreciate your talking to us, and I hope you can join us again sometime.
Casey: Thanks, Linda.