President Obama: Good evening, everybody. Please be seated.

Before I take your questions tonight, I’d like to speak briefly about the state of our economy and why I believe we need to put this recovery plan in motion as soon as possible.

I took a trip to Elkhart, Indiana, today. Elkhart is a place that has lost jobs faster than anywhere else in America. In one year, the unemployment rate went from 4.7 percent to 15.3 percent. Companies that have sustained this community for years are shedding jobs at an alarming speed, and the people who’ve lost them have no idea what to do or who to turn to.

They can’t pay their bills. They’ve stopped spending money. And because they’ve stopped spending money, more businesses have been forced to lay off more workers. In fact, local TV stations have started running public service announcements to tell people where to find food banks, even as the food banks don’t have enough to meet the demand.

As we speak, similar scenes are playing out in cities and towns across America. Last Monday, more than 1,000 men and women stood in line for 35 firefighter jobs in Miami [Florida]. Last month, our economy lost 598,000 jobs, which is nearly the equivalent of losing every single job in the state of Maine.

And if there’s anyone out there who still doesn’t believe this constitutes a full-blown crisis, I suggest speaking to one of the millions of Americans whose lives have been turned upside-down because they don’t know where their next paycheck is coming from.

And that is why the single most important part of this economic recovery and reinvestment plan is the fact that it will save or create up to 4 million jobs, because that’s what America needs most right now.

It is absolutely true that we can’t depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth. That is and must be the role of the private sector. But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life.

It is only government that can break the vicious cycle, where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs. And breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that’s moving through Congress is designed to do.

When passed, this plan will ensure that Americans who’ve lost their jobs through no fault of their own can receive greater unemployment benefits and continue their health care coverage.

We’ll also provide a $2,500 tax credit to folks who are struggling to pay the costs of their college tuition and $1,000 worth of badly needed tax relief to working- and middle-class families. These steps will put more money in the pockets of those Americans who are most likely to spend it, and that will help break the cycle and get our economy moving.

But as we’ve learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone can’t solve all of our economic problems, especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans. We have tried that strategy time and time again, and it’s only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now.

And that’s why we have come together around a plan that combines hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the middle class with direct investment in areas like health care, energy, education, and infrastructure, investments that will save jobs, create new jobs and new businesses, and help our economy grow again, now and in the future.

More than 90 percent of the jobs created by this plan will be in the private sector. They’re not going to be make-work jobs, but jobs doing the work that America desperately needs done: jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, repairing our dangerously deficient dams and levees so that we don’t face another Katrina.

They’ll be jobs building the wind turbines and solar panels and fuel-efficient cars that will lower our dependence on foreign oil and modernizing our costly health care system that will save us billions of dollars and countless lives.

They’ll be jobs creating the 21st-century classrooms, libraries, and labs for millions of children across America. And they’ll be the jobs of firefighters and teachers and police officers that would otherwise be eliminated if we do not provide states with some relief.

Now, after many weeks of debate and discussion, the plan that ultimately emerges from Congress must be big enough and bold enough to meet the size of the economic challenges that we face right now.

It’s a plan that is already supported by businesses representing almost every industry in America, by both the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. It contains input, ideas and compromises from both Democrats and Republicans.

It also contains an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability so that every American will be able to go online and see where and how we’re spending every dime. What it does not contain, however, is a single pet project, not a single earmark, and it has been stripped of the projects members of both parties found most objectionable.

Now, despite all of this, the plan’s not perfect. No plan is. I can’t tell you for sure that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hoped, but I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis, as well as the pain felt by millions of Americans.

Now, my administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing little or nothing at all will result in even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income, and even greater loss of confidence.

Those are deficits that could turn a crisis into a catastrophe, and I refuse to let that happen. As long as I hold this office, I will do whatever it takes to put this economy back on track and put this country back to work.

I want to thank the members of Congress who’ve worked so hard to move this plan forward, but I also want to urge all members of Congress to act without delay in the coming week to resolve their differences and pass this plan.

We find ourselves in a rare moment where the citizens of our country and all countries are watching and waiting for us to lead. It’s a responsibility that this generation did not ask for, but one that we must accept for the future of our children and our grandchildren.

The strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate, but they endure when people of every background and belief find a way to set aside smaller differences in service of a greater purpose. That’s the test facing the United States of America in this winter of our hardship, and it is our duty as leaders and citizens to stay true to that purpose in the weeks and months ahead.

After a day of speaking with and listening to the fundamentally decent men and women who call this nation home, I have full faith and confidence that we can do it, but we’re going to have to work together. That’s what I intend to promote in the weeks and days ahead.

And with that, I’ll take some of your questions.

And let me go to Jennifer Loven at [The Associated Press]. There you go.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Earlier today in Indiana, you said something striking. You said that this nation could end up in a crisis without action that we would be unable to reverse.

Can you talk about what you know or what you’re hearing that would lead you to say that our recession might be permanent when others in our history have not? And do you think that you risk losing some credibility or even talking down the economy by using dire language like that?

Obama: No, no, no, no. I think that what I’ve said is what other economists have said across the political spectrum, which is that, if you delay acting on an economy of this severity, then you potentially create a negative spiral that becomes much more difficult for us to get out of.

We saw this happen in Japan in the 1990s, where they did not act boldly and swiftly enough and, as a consequence, they suffered what was called the lost decade, where essentially, for the entire ’90s, they did not see any significant economic growth.

So what I’m trying to underscore is what the people in Elkhart already understand, that this is not your ordinary, run-of-the-mill recession. We are going through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

We’ve lost now 3.6 million jobs, but what’s perhaps even more disturbing is that almost half of that job loss has taken place over the last three months, which means that the problems are accelerating instead of getting better.

Now, what I said in Elkhart today is what I repeat this evening, which is, I’m absolutely confident that we can solve this problem, but it’s going to require us to take some significant, important steps.

Step number one: We have to pass an economic recovery and reinvestment plan. And we’ve made progress. There was a vote this evening that moved the process forward in the Senate. We already have a House bill that’s passed. I’m hoping, over the next several days, that the House and the Senate can reconcile their differences and get that bill on my desk.

There have been criticisms from a bunch of different directions about this bill, so let me just address a few of them.

Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And, in fact, there are several who’ve suggested that FDR was wrong to interfere back in the New Deal. They’re fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.

Most economists almost unanimously recognize that, even if philosophically you’re — you’re wary of government intervening in the economy, when you have the kind of problem we have right now — what started on Wall Street, goes to Main Street, suddenly businesses can’t get credit, they start paring back their investment, they start laying off workers, workers start pulling back in terms of spending — that, when you have that situation, that government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy.

We stand to lose about $1 trillion worth of demand this year and another trillion next year. And what that means is you’ve got this gaping hole in the economy.

That’s why the figure that we initially came up with of approximately $800 billion was put forward. That wasn’t just some random number that I plucked out of — out of a hat. That was Republican and Democratic, conservative and liberal economists that I spoke to who indicated that, given the magnitude of the crisis and the fact that it’s happening worldwide, it’s important for us to have a bill of sufficient size and scope that we can save or create 4 million jobs.

That still means that you’re going to have some net job loss, but at least we can start slowing the trend and moving it in the right direction.

Now, the recovery and reinvestment package is not the only thing we have to do. It’s one leg of the stool. We are still going to have to make sure that we are attracting private capital, get the credit markets flowing again, because that’s the lifeblood of the economy.

And so tomorrow my treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, will be announcing some very clear and specific plans for how we are going to start loosening up credit once again.

And that means having some transparency and oversight in the system. It means that we correct some of the mistakes with TARP that were made earlier, the lack of consistency, the lack of clarity, in terms of how the program was going to move forward.

It means that we condition taxpayer dollars that are being provided to banks on them showing some restraint when it comes to executive compensation, not using the money to charter corporate jets when they’re not necessary.

It means that we focus on housing and how are we going to help homeowners that are suffering foreclosure or homeowners who are still making their mortgage payments, but are seeing their property values decline.

So there are going to be a whole range of approaches that we have to take for dealing with the economy. My bottom line is to make sure that we are saving or creating 4 million jobs, we are making sure that the financial system is working again, that homeowners are getting some relief.

And I’m happy to get good ideas from across the political spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans. What I won’t do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested, and they have failed. And that’s what part of the election in November was all about.

OK. Karen Boeing (ph) of Reuters?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. I’d like to shift gears to foreign policy. What is your strategy for engaging Iran? And when will you start to implement it? Will your timetable be affected at all by the Iranian elections? And are you getting any indications that Iran is interested in a dialogue with the United States?

Obama: I said during the campaign that Iran is a country that has extraordinary people, extraordinary history and traditions, but that its actions over many years now have been unhelpful when it comes to promoting peace and prosperity both in the region and around the world, that their attacks — or their — their financing of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, the bellicose language that they’ve used towards Israel, their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon, that all those things create the possibility of destabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests, but I think are contrary to the interests of international peace.

What I’ve also said is that we should take an approach with Iran that employs all of the resources at the United States’ disposal, and that includes diplomacy.

And so my national security team is currently reviewing our existing Iran policy, looking at areas where we can have constructive dialogue, where we can directly engage with them.

And my expectation is, in the coming months, we will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table, face-to-face diplomatic overtures, that will allow us to move our policy in a new direction.

There’s been a lot of mistrust built up over the years, so it’s not going to happen overnight. And it’s important that, even as we engage in this direct diplomacy, we are very clear about certain deep concerns that we have as a country, that Iran understands that we find the funding of terrorist organizations unacceptable, that we’re clear about the fact that a nuclear Iran could set off a nuclear arms race in the region that would be profoundly destabilizing.

So there are going to be a set of objectives that we have in these conversations, but I think that there’s the possibility at least of a relationship of mutual respect and progress.

And I think that, if you look at how we’ve approached the Middle East, my designation of George Mitchell as a special envoy to help deal with the Arab-Israeli situation, some of the interviews that I’ve given, it indicates the degree to which we want to do things differently in the region.

Now it’s time for Iran to send some signals that it wants to act differently, as well, and recognize that, even as it has some rights as a member of the international community, with those rights come responsibilities.

OK. Chip Reid?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. You have often said that bipartisanship is extraordinarily important, overall and in this stimulus package, but now, when we ask your advisers about the lack of bipartisanship so far — zero votes in the House, three in the Senate — they say, “Well, it’s not the number of votes that matters; it’s the number of jobs that will be created.”

Is that a sign that you are moving away — your White House is moving away from this emphasis on bipartisanship?

And what went wrong? Did you underestimate how hard it would be to change the way Washington works?

Obama: Well, I don’t think — I don’t think I underestimated it. I don’t think the — the American people underestimated it. They understand that there have been a lot of bad habits built up here in Washington, and it’s going to take time to break down some of those bad habits.

You know, when I made a series of overtures to the Republicans, going over to meet with both Republican caucuses, you know, putting three Republicans in my cabinet — something that is unprecedented — making sure that they were invited here to the White House to talk about the economic recovery plan, all those were not designed simply to get some short-term votes. They were designed to try to build up some trust over time.

And I think that, as I continue to make these overtures, over time, hopefully that will be reciprocated.

But understand the bottom line that I’ve got right now, which is what’s happening to the people of Elkhart and what’s happening across the country. I can’t afford to see Congress play the usual political games. What we have to do right now is deliver for the American people.

So my bottom line when it comes to the recovery package is: Send me a bill that creates or saves 4 million jobs. Because everybody has to be possessed with a sense of urgency about putting people back to work, making sure that folks are staying in their homes, that they can send their kids to college.

That doesn’t negate the continuing efforts that I’m going to make to listen and engage with my Republican colleagues. And hopefully the tone that I’ve taken, which has been consistently civil and respectful, will pay some dividends over the long term. There are going to be areas where we disagree, and there are going to be areas where we agree.

As I said, the one concern I’ve got on the stimulus package, in terms of the debate and listening to some of what’s been said in Congress, is that there seems to be a set of folks who — I don’t doubt their sincerity — who just believe that we should do nothing.

Now, if that’s their opening position or their closing position in negotiations, then we’re probably not going to make much progress, because I don’t think that’s economically sound and I don’t think what — that’s what the American people expect, is for us to stand by and do nothing.

There are others who recognize that we’ve got to do a significant recovery package, but they’re concerned about the mix of what’s in there. And if they’re sincere about it, then I’m happy to have conversations about this tax cut versus that — that tax cut or this infrastructure project versus that infrastructure project.

But what I’ve — what I’ve been concerned about is some of the language that’s been used suggesting that this is full of pork and this is wasteful government spending, so on and so forth.

First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then, you know, I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history. I inherited the deficit that we have right now and the economic crisis that we have right now.

Number two is that, although there are some programs in there that I think are good policy, some of them aren’t job-creators. I think it’s perfectly legitimate to say that those programs should be out of this particular recovery package and we can deal with them later.

But when they start characterizing this as pork, without acknowledging that there are no earmarks in this package — something, again, that was pretty rare over the last eight years — then you get a feeling that maybe we’re playing politics instead of actually trying to solve problems for the American people.

So I’m going to keep on engaging. I hope that, as we get the Senate and the House bills together, that everybody is willing to give a little bit. I suspect that the package that emerges is not going to be 100 percent of what I want.

But my bottom line is, are we creating 4 million jobs? And are we laying the foundation for long-term economic growth?

This is another concern that I’ve had in some of the arguments that I’m hearing. When people suggest that, “What a waste of money to make federal buildings more energy-efficient.” Why would that be a waste of money?

We’re creating jobs immediately by retrofitting these buildings or weatherizing 2 million Americans’ homes, as was called for in the package, so that right there creates economic stimulus.

And we are saving taxpayers when it comes to federal buildings potentially $2 billion. In the case of homeowners, they will see more money in their pockets. And we’re reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East. Why wouldn’t we want to make that kind of investment?

Now, maybe philosophically you just don’t think that the federal government should be involved in energy policy. I happen to disagree with that; I think that’s the reason why we find ourselves importing more foreign oil now than we did back in the early ’70s when OPEC first formed.

And we can have a respectful debate about whether or not we should be involved in energy policymaking, but don’t suggest that somehow that’s wasteful spending. That’s exactly what this country needs.

The same applies when it comes to information technologies in health care. We know that health care is crippling businesses and making us less competitive, as well as breaking the banks of families all across America. And part of the reason is, we’ve got the most inefficient health care system imaginable.

We’re still using paper. We’re still filing things in triplicate. Nurses can’t read the prescriptions that doctors — that doctors have written out. Why wouldn’t we want to put that on — put that on an electronic medical record that will reduce error rates, reduce our long-term costs of health care, and create jobs right now?

Education, yet another example. The suggestion is, why should the federal government be involved in school construction?

Well, I visited a school down in South Carolina that was built in the 1850s. Kids are still learning in that school, as best they can, when the — when the railroad — when the — it’s right next to a railroad. And when the train runs by, the whole building shakes and the teacher has to stop teaching for a while. The — the auditorium is completely broken down; they can’t use it.

So why wouldn’t we want to build state-of-the-art schools with science labs that are teaching our kids the skills they need for the 21st century, that will enhance our economy, and, by the way, right now, will create jobs?

So, you know, we — we can differ on some of the particulars, but, again, the question I think the American people are asking is, do you just want government to do nothing, or do you want it to do something? If you want it to do something, then we can have a conversation. But doing nothing, that’s not an option from my perspective.

All right, Chuck Todd. Where’s Chuck?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. In your opening remarks, you talked about that, if your plan works the way you want it to work, it’s going to increase consumer spending. But isn’t consumer spending, or overspending, how we got into this mess? And if people get money back into their pockets, do you not want them saving it or paying down debt first before they start spending money into the economy?

Obama: Well, first of all, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that consumer spending got us into this mess. What got us into this mess initially were banks taking exorbitant, wild risks with other people’s monies based on shaky assets and because of the enormous leverage, where they had one dollar’s worth of assets and they were betting thirty dollars on that one dollar, what we had was a crisis in the financial system.

That led to a contraction of credit, which, in turn, meant businesses couldn’t make payroll or make inventories, which meant that everybody became uncertain about the future of the economy, so people started making decisions accordingly, reducing investment, initiating layoffs, which, in turn, made things worse.

Now, you are making a legitimate point, Chuck, about the fact that our savings rate has declined and this economy has been driven by consumer spending for a very long time. And that’s not going to be sustainable.

You know, if — if all we’re doing is spending and we’re not making things, then over time other countries are going to get tired of lending us money and eventually the party’s going to be over. Well, in fact, the party now is over.

And so the — the sequence of how we’re approaching this is as follows. Our immediate job is to stop the downward spiral, and that means putting money into consumer’s pockets. It means loosening up credit.

It means putting forward investments that not only employ people immediately, but also lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth.

And — and that, by the way, is important, even if you’re a fiscal conservative, because the biggest problem we’re going to have with our federal budget is if we continue a situation in which there are no tax revenues because economic growth is plummeting at the same time as we’ve got more demands for unemployment insurance, we’ve got more demands for people who have lost their health care, more demand for food stamps. That will put enormous strains on the federal budget, as well as the state budget.

So the most important thing we can do for our budget crisis right now is to make sure that the economy doesn’t continue to tank. And that’s why passing the economic recovery plan is the right thing to do, even though I recognize that it’s expensive.

Look, I — I would love not to have to spend money right now. I’d love — you know, this notion that somehow I came in here just ginned up to spend $800 billion, you know, I mean, that wasn’t — that wasn’t — that wasn’t how I envisioned my presidency beginning. But we have to adapt to existing circumstances.

Now, what we are going to also have to do is to make sure that, as soon as the economy stabilizes, investment begins again, we’re no longer contracting but we’re growing, that our mid-term and long-term budget is dealt with, and I think the same is true for individual consumers.

Right now, they’re — they’re just trying to figure out, how do I make sure that, if I lose my job, you know, I’m still going to be able to make my mortgage payments? Or they’re worried about, how am I going to pay next month’s bills? So they’re not engaging in a lot of long-term financial planning.

Once the economy stabilizes and people are less fearful, then I do think that we’re going to have to start thinking about, how do we operate more prudently? Because there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

So if — if you want to get — if you want to buy a house, then putting zero down and buying a house that is probably not affordable for you in case something goes wrong, that’s something that has to be reconsidered. So we’re going to have to change our — our bad habits.

But right now, the key is making sure that we pull ourselves out of the economic slump that we’re in.

All right, Julianna Goldman, Bloomberg?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Many experts, from Nouriel Roubini to Sen. [Chuck] Schumer [D-New York], have said that it will cost the government more than $1 trillion to really fix the financial system. During the campaign, you promised the American people that you won’t just tell them what they want to hear, but what they need to hear.

Won’t the government need far more than the $350 billion that’s remaining in the financial rescue funds to really solve the credit crisis?

Obama: Well, the credit crisis is real, and it’s not over. We averted catastrophe by passing the TARP legislation. But, as I said before, because of a lack of clarity and consistency in how it was applied, a lack of oversight in — in how the money went out, we didn’t get as big of a bang for the buck as we should have.

My immediate task is making sure that the second half of that money, $350 billion, is spent properly. That’s my first job. Before I even think about what else I’ve got to do, my first task is to make sure that my secretary of the treasury, Tim Geithner, working with Larry Summers, my national economic adviser, and others are coming up with the best possible plan to use this money wisely in a way that’s transparent, in a way that provides clear oversight, that we are conditioning any money that we give to banks on them reducing executive compensation to reasonable levels and to make sure that they’re not wasting that money.

We are going to have to work with the banks in an effective way to clean up their balance sheets so that some trust is restored within the marketplace, because right now part of the problem is that nobody really knows what’s on the bank’s books. Any given bank, they’re not sure what kinds of losses are there. We’ve got to open things up and restore some trust.

We also have to deal with the housing issue in a clear and consistent way.

I don’t want to pre-empt my secretary of the treasury. He’s going to be laying out these principles in great detail tomorrow.

But my instruction to him has been: Let’s get this right. Let’s create a template in which we’re restoring market confidence.

And the reason that’s so important is because we don’t know yet whether we’re going to need additional money or how much additional money we’ll need until we’ve seen how successful we are at restoring a sense of confidence in the marketplace that the federal government and the Federal Reserve Bank and the FDIC, working in concert, know what they’re doing.

That can make a big difference in terms of whether or not we attract private capital back into the marketplace. And ultimately the government cannot substitute for all the private capital that has been withdrawn from the system. We’ve got to restore confidence so that private capital goes back in.

OK. Jake?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. My question follows Julianna’s in — in content. The American people have seen hundreds of billions of dollars spent already, and still the economy continues to freefall.

Beyond avoiding the national catastrophe that you’ve warned about, once all the legs of your stool are in place…

Obama: Right.

Question: … how can the American people gauge whether or not your programs are working? Can they — should they be looking at the metric of the stock market, home foreclosures, unemployment? What metric should they use when and how will they know if it’s working or whether or not we need to go to a Plan B?

Obama: I think my initial measure of success is creating or saving 4 million jobs. That’s bottom line number one, because, if people are working, then they’ve got enough confidence to make purchases, to make investments. Businesses start seeing that consumers are out there with a little more confidence, and they start making investments, which means they start hiring workers. So step number one: job creation.

Step number two: Are we seeing the credit markets operate effectively? You know, I can’t tell you how many businesses that I talk to that are successful businesses but just can’t get credit.

Part of the problem in Elkhart that I heard about today was the fact that — this is the R.V. capital of America. You’ve got a bunch of R.V. companies that have customers who want to purchase R.V.s, but even though their credit is good, they can’t get the loan.

Now, the businesses also can’t get loans to make payments to their suppliers. But when they have consumers, consumers can’t get the loans that they need. So normalizing the credit markets is, I think, step number two.

Step number three is going to be housing. Have we stabilized the housing market? Now, you know, the federal government doesn’t have complete control over that, but if our plan is effective, working with the Federal Reserve Bank, working with the FDIC, I think what we can do is stem the rate of foreclosure and we can start stabilizing housing values over time.

And the most — the — the biggest measure of success is whether we stop contracting and shedding jobs and we start growing again.

Now, you know, I don’t have a crystal ball. And as I said, this is an unprecedented crisis. But my hope is that after a difficult year — and this year is going to be a difficult year — that businesses start investing again, they start making decisions that, you know, in fact, there’s money to be made out there, customers or consumers start feeling that their jobs are stable and safe, and they start making purchases again, and, if we get things right, then, starting next year, we can start seeing significant improvement.

Ed Henry. Where’s Ed? CNN, there he is.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve promised to send more troops to Afghanistan. And since you’ve been very clear about a timetable to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, I wonder, what’s your timetable to withdraw troops eventually from Afghanistan?

And related to that, there’s a Pentagon policy that bans media coverage of the flag-draped coffins from coming in to Dover Air Force Base. And back in 2004, then-Senator Joe Biden said that it was shameful for dead soldiers to be, quote, “snuck back into the country under the cover of night.”

You’ve promised unprecedented transparency, openness in your government. Will you overturn that policy so the American people can see the full human cost of war?

Obama: Your question is timely. We got reports that four American service members have been killed in Iraq today. And, you know, obviously, our thoughts and prayers go out to the families.

I’ve said before that — you know, people have asked me, when did it hit you that you are now president? And what I told them was the most sobering moment is signing letters to the families of our fallen heroes. It reminds you of the responsibilities that you carry in this office and — and the consequences of the decisions that you make.

Now, with respect to the policy of opening up media to loved ones being brought back home, we are in the process of reviewing those policies in conversations with the Department of Defense, so I don’t want to give you an answer now before I’ve evaluated that review and understand all the implications involved.

With respect to Afghanistan, this is going to be a big challenge. I think, because of the extraordinary work done by our troops and some very good diplomatic work done by Ambassador Crocker in Iraq, we just saw an election in Iraq that went relatively peacefully and you get a sense that the political system is now functioning in a meaningful way.

You do not see that yet in Afghanistan. They’ve got elections coming up, but effectively the national government seems very detached from what’s going on in the surrounding community.

In addition, you’ve got the Taliban and Al Qaeda operating in the FATA and these border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And what we haven’t seen is the kind of concerted effort to root out those safe havens that would ultimately make our mission successful.

So we are undergoing a thorough going review. Not only is General Petraeus — now the head of CENTCOM — conducting his own review; he’s now working in concert with the special envoy that I’ve sent over, Richard Holbrooke, one of our top diplomats, to evaluate a regional approach.

We are going to need more effective coordination of our military efforts, with diplomatic efforts, with development efforts, with more effective coordination with our allies in order for us to be successful.

The bottom line though — and I just want to remember the American people, because this is going to be difficult — is this is a situation in which a region served as the base to launch an attack that killed 3,000 Americans.

And this past week, I met with families of those who were lost in 9/11, a reminder of the costs of allowing those safe havens to exist.

My bottom line is that we cannot allow Al Qaeda to operate. We cannot have those safe havens in that region. And we’re going to have to work both smartly and effectively, but with consistency in order to make sure that those safe havens don’t exist.

I do not have yet a timetable for how long that’s going to take. What I know is I’m not going to make — I’m not going to allow Al Qaeda or bin Laden to operate with impunity, planning attacks on the U.S. homeland.

All right. Helene Cooper. Where’s Helene? There you are.

Question: Thank you, sir. I wanted to ask you, on the next bank bailout, are you going to impose a requirement that the financial institutions use this money to loosen up credit and make new lending? And if not, how do you make the case to the American people that this bailout will work when the last one didn’t?

Obama: Again, Helene — and I’m trying to avoid pre-empting my secretary of the treasury. I want all of you to show up at his press conference, as well. He’s going to be terrific.

But this relates to Jake’s earlier question. One of my bottom lines is whether or not credit is flowing to the people who need it. Is it flowing to banks — excuse me. Is it flowing to businesses, large and small? Is it flowing to consumers? Are they able to operate in ways that translate into jobs and economic growth on Main Street?

And the package that we’ve put together is designed to help do that. And beyond that, I’m going to make sure that Tim gets his moment in the sun tomorrow.

All right. Major Garrett, where’s Major?

Question: Mr. President, at a speech Friday that many of us covered, Vice President Biden said the following thing about a conversation the two of you had in the Oval Office about a subject he didn’t disclose.

“If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, if we stand up there and we really make the tough decisions, there’s still a 30 percent chance we’re going to get it wrong.”

Since the vice president brought it up, can you tell the American people, sir, what you were talking about? And if not, can you at least reassure them it wasn’t the stimulus bill or the bank rescue plan and if, in general, you agree with that ratio of success, 30 percent failure, 70 percent success?

Obama: You know, I don’t remember exactly what Joe was referring to…

(LAUGHTER)

… not surprisingly. But let me try this out. I think what Joe may have been suggesting — although I wouldn’t put numerical — I wouldn’t ascribe any numerical percentage to any of this — is that, given the magnitude of the challenges that we have, any single thing that we do is going to be part of the solution, not all of the solution.

And as I said in my introductory remarks, not everything we do is going to work out exactly as we intended it to work out. You know, this is an unprecedented problem.

And, you know, when you talk to economists, there’s some general sense of how we’re going to move forward. There’s some strong consensus about the need for a recovery package of a certain magnitude. There’s a strong consensus that you shouldn’t put all your eggs in one basket, all tax cuts or all investment, but that there should be a range of approaches.

But even if we do everything right on that, we’ve still got to deal with what we just talked about, the financial system, and making sure that banks are lending again. We’re still going to have to deal with housing. We’re still going to have to make sure that we’ve got a regulatory structure, a regulatory architecture for the financial system that prevents crises like this from occurring again.

Now, those are big, complicated tasks. So I don’t know whether Joe was referring to that, but I used that as a launching point to make a general point about these issues.

Question: (off mic)

Obama: I have no idea. I really don’t.

Michael Fletcher from the Washington Post?

Question: Yes, thank you, sir. What is your reaction to Alex Rodriguez’s admission that he used steroids as a member of the Texas Rangers?

Obama: You know, I think it’s depressing news on top of what’s been a flurry of depressing items when it comes to Major League Baseball. And if you’re a fan of Major League Baseball, I think it — it tarnishes an entire era, to some degree. And it’s unfortunate, because I think there are a lot of ballplayers who played it straight.

And, you know, the thing I’m probably most concerned about is the message it sends to our kids. What I’m pleased about is Major League Baseball seems to finally be taking this seriously, to recognize how big a problem this is for the sport, and that our kids hopefully are watching and saying, “You know what? There are no short cuts, that when you try to take short cuts, you may end up tarnishing your entire career, and that your integrity’s not worth it.” That’s the message I hope is communicated.

All right. Helen? This is my inaugural moment here.

(LAUGHTER)

I’m really excited.

Question: Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan and — are maintaining the safe havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists? And, also, do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?

Obama: Well, I think that Pakistan — there is no doubt that, in the FATA region of Pakistan, in the mountainous regions along the border of Afghanistan, that there are safe havens where terrorists are operating.

And one of the goals of Ambassador Holbrooke, as he is traveling throughout the region, is to deliver a message to Pakistan that they are endangered as much as we are by the continuation of those operations and that we’ve got to work in a regional fashion to root out those safe havens.

It’s not acceptable for Pakistan or for us to have folks who, with impunity, will kill innocent men, women and children. And, you know, I — I believe that the new government of Pakistan and — and Mr. Zardari cares deeply about getting control of the situation. We want to be effective partners with them on that issue.

Question: (off mic)

Obama: Well, Mr. Holbrooke is there, and that’s exactly why he’s being sent there, because I think that we have to make sure that Pakistan is a stalwart ally with us in battling this terrorist threat.

With respect to nuclear weapons, you know, I don’t want to speculate. What I know is this: that if we see a nuclear arms race in a region as volatile as the Middle East, everybody will be in danger.

And one of my goals is to prevent nuclear proliferation generally. I think that it’s important for the United States, in concert with Russia, to lead the way on this.

And, you know, I’ve mentioned this in conversations with the Russian president, Mr. Medvedev, to let him know that it is important for us to restart the — the conversations about how we can start reducing our nuclear arsenals in an effective way so that…

(CROSSTALK)

Obama: … so that we then have the standing to go to other countries and start stitching back together the nonproliferation treaties that, frankly, have been weakened over the last several years. OK.

Question: Why do you have to speculate on who has…

(CROSSTALK)

Obama: All right.

Sam Stein, Huffington Post. Where’s Sam? Here. Go ahead.

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. Today, Senator Patrick Leahy announced that he wants to set up a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush administration. He said that, before you turn the page, you have to read the page first.

Do you agree with such a proposal? And are you willing to rule out right here and now any prosecution of Bush administration officials?

Obama: I haven’t seen the proposals, so I don’t want to express an opinion on something that I haven’t seen.

What I have said is that my administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture, that we abide by the Geneva Conventions, and that we observe our traditions of rule of law and due process, as we are vigorously going after terrorists that can do us harm. And I don’t think those are contradictory; I think they are potentially complementary.

My view is also that nobody’s above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen.

But that, generally speaking, I’m more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards. I want to pull everybody together, including, by the way, the — all the members of the intelligence community who have done things the right way and have been working hard to protect America and I think sometimes are painted with a broad brush without adequate information.

So I will take a look at Senator Leahy’s proposal, but my general orientation is to say let’s get it right moving forward.

Mara Liasson?

Question: Thank you, Mr. President. If it’s this hard to get more than a handful of Republican votes on what is relatively easy — spending tons of money and cutting people’s taxes — when you look down the road at health care, and entitlement reform, and energy reform, those are really tough choices. You’re going to be asking some people to get less and some people to pay more.

What do you think you’re going to have to do to get more bipartisanship? Are you going to need a new legislative model, bringing in Republicans from the very beginning, getting more involved in the details yourself from the beginning, or using bipartisan commissions? What has this experience with the stimulus led you to think about when you think about these future challenges?

Obama: Well, as I said before, Mara, I think that old habits are hard to break. And we’re coming off an election, and I think people want to sort of test the limits of — of what they can get.

You know, there’s a lot of jockeying in this town, and a lot of “who’s up and who’s down,” and positioning for the next election.

And what I’ve tried to suggest is that this is one of those times where we’ve got to put that kind of behavior aside, because the American people can’t afford it. The people in Elkhart can’t afford it. The single mom who’s trying to figure out how to keep her house can’t afford it.

And whether we’re Democrats or Republicans, surely there’s got to be some capacity for us to work together, not agree on everything, but at least set aside small differences to get things done.

Now, just in terms of the historic record here, the Republicans were brought in early and were consulted. And you’ll remember that, when we initially introduced our framework, they were pleasantly surprised and complimentary about the tax cuts that were presented in that framework. Those tax cuts are still in there.

I mean, I suppose what I could have done is started off with no tax cuts, knowing that I was going to want some, and then let them take credit for all of them, and maybe that’s the lesson I learned. But there was consultation; there will continue to be consultation.

One thing that I think is important is to recognize that, because all these — all these items that you listed are hard, that people have to break out of some of the ideological rigidity and gridlock that we’ve been carrying around for too long. And let me give you a prime example.

When it comes to how we approach the issue of fiscal responsibility, again, it’s a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they’ve presided over a doubling of the national debt. I’m not sure they have a lot of credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Having said that, I think there are a lot of Republicans who are sincere in recognizing that, unless we deal with entitlements in a serious way, the problems we have with this year’s deficit and next year’s deficit pale in comparison to what we’re going to be seeing 10 or 15 years or 20 years down the road.

Both Democrats and Republicans are going to have to think differently in order to come together and solve that problem. I think there are areas like education where some in my party have been too resistant to reform and have argued only money makes a difference.

And there have been others on the Republican side or the conservative side who said, “No matter how much money you spend, nothing makes a difference, so let’s just blow up the public school systems.”

And I think that both sides are going to have to acknowledge we’re going to need more money for new science labs, to pay teachers more effectively, but we’re also going to need more reform, which means that we’ve got to train teachers more effectively, bad teachers need to be fired after being given the opportunity to train effectively, that we should experiment with things like charter schools that are innovating in the classroom, that we should have high standards.

So my whole goal over the next four years is to make sure that, whatever arguments are persuasive and backed up by evidence and facts and proof that they can work, that we are pulling people together around that kind of pragmatic agenda.

And I think that there was an opportunity to do this with this recovery package, because, as I said, although there are some politicians who are arguing that we don’t need a stimulus, there are very few economists who are making that argument.

I mean, you’ve got economists who were advising John McCain, economists who were advisers to George Bush, one and two, all suggesting that we actually needed a serious recovery package.

And so when I hear people just saying, “Ah, we don’t need to do anything,” “This is a spending bill, not a stimulus bill,” without acknowledging that, by definition, part of any stimulus package would include spending — that’s the point — then what I get a sense of is, is that there’s some ideological blockage there that needs to be cleared up.

But I am the eternal optimist. I think that, over time, people respond to civility and — and rational argument. I think that’s what the people of Elkhart and the people around America are looking for. And that’s what I’m — that’s the kind of leadership I’m going to try to provide.
All right. Thank you, guys.

When Biden was announced as President-elect Barack Obama’s running mate, I remember thinking that it was a good choice in many respects, but America was losing its best candidate for Secretary of State on the Democratic bench.  I also remember thinking that I hoped Biden wouldn’t become relegated to the old-style vice presidency, state funerals and show-the-flag campaigns.  They guy is too smart, too centered and works too hard at understanding the world and America’s unique place in it to not have a seat at the big table of American foreign policy.  In other words, would be better served by keeping Biden right where we was, as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?

When Dr. Jill Biden let the cat out of the bag today that her husband had a choice, two more things struck me.  First, her explanation that part of the decision centered around their family.  I think this says as much about the genuinely good guy Biden is as anything.  Second, if he had a choice, he had some say.  Biden also understands what he has to offer and its more than ceremony.  If he had the choice and took veep, I’m betting he also go himself a seat at the big table.  We’re not going to see four years of a co-presidency, as with DICK Cheney, but I’m hopeful that Biden will be there, at the big table, for the biggest decisions regarding an Obama foreign policy.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hello again. We begin today with our exclusive headliner, Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

He’s been keeping an unusually low profile since the election. In fact, this is his first interview, so we had a lot to talk about when I traveled to Wilmington on Friday.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BIDEN: Thanks for coming up.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Sure.

(voice over): For the first time, Biden discussed what he’s been doing during the transition, and his role in the Obama White House. He opened up on Dick Cheney , Hillary Clinton, and his new puppy, too.

But we began with the new administration’s first order of business, enacting the most ambitious economic recovery plan since FDR’s 100 days.

(on camera): I’ve talked to several people on Capitol Hill who say that your team is talking about a package in the $700 billion range — it could rise, but in the $700 billion range.

BIDEN: What we’re doing is putting together what we think will be the economic package that will do two things. One, stem the hemorrhaging of the loss of jobs, and begin to create new jobs.

At the same, we provide continuing liquidity for the financial markets. The piece we’ve been pushing for, Barack and I, during the campaign, as you’ll recall, is that we need and economic recovery package, we thought, back in September, October, November.

And we still think we really very badly need it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Because then you were talking about $150 billion, $200 billion.

BIDEN: We were. We were.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what have you learned? What exactly have you…

BIDEN: What have we learned is the economy is in much worse shape than we thought it was in. It is — this is a spiraling effect. And what you’re seeing now is a whole — every economist that I’ve spoken to, George, from well-known economists on the right, conservative economists, to economists on the left, and everyone in between, says the scope of this package has to be bold; it has to be big.

But here’s what we — here’s how we look at it. Anything we put in this economic recovery plan has to be designed to create jobs, stimulate the economy quickly, get jobs moving quickly. And it has to be for something that has a long-range impact on our economic health.

Case in point, we want to spend a fair amount of money investing in a new smart grid; that is the ability to transmit, across high- tension wires, in the minds of most people in the public, or underground, on these wires, wind and solar energy.

You can’t do that now. That would create tens of thousands of new jobs, high-paying jobs. It needs to be done. It will have a long-range payoff, not just for next year and the following year, the economy from nose-diving and begin to turn the nose of that aircraft up, but it will also change our energy picture.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But how do you balance out the economic need for a big, bold package, several hundred billion dollars — some economists have said you need $700 billion just to keep the unemployment rate from going up — with this concern about a deficit of $1 trillion — could go to $1 trillion?

BIDEN: That’s a really good point. That’s really important. Look, we’re going to inherit a deficit that’s probably going to exceed $1 trillion, to begin with. We don’t do anything, nothing at all; nothing happens between now and the time we take office on January the 20th; we’re going to inherit the largest deficit in the history of the United States of America.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But then you almost double it with the rescue plan?

BIDEN: No. Now, here’s the second point. The second point is, what do you do? You know you have to infuse money into the system now.

Every economist, as I said, from conservative to liberal, acknowledges that direct government spending on a direct program, now, is the best way to infuse economic growth and create jobs.

The question is, are you going to create jobs that are just going to add to the deficit, or are the jobs you’re creating — are they going to be doing a task that can draw down the deficit in out-years?

Let me give you an example. If we were to put all medical records on electronic — be able to be electronically transferred, we could save — they estimate — I think it’s $78 billion a year.

BIDEN: But it costs money to put the entire medical industry in a position where they can put all those records on an electronic basis.

So we’re going to invest money in what they call IT, this new technology that’s going to create jobs that are needed to make this transition.

The end result, though, the money we’re spending, we’re going to get back three- and four-fold.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But in the short run, at what point…

BIDEN: There is no short run, other than keeping the economy from absolutely tanking. That’s the only short run.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And that’s why, as President-elect Obama said, we can’t worry about the deficit in the short run.

BIDEN: Exactly, cannot.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We won’t worry about it right now. But at what point on Capitol Hill — you know, the politicians on Capitol Hill…

BIDEN: Yes, very well.

STEPHANOPOULOS: … the sticker shock set in? What is the upper limit?

BIDEN: Let me tell you, first of all, I’m not sure, but I’ve been — it will not surprise you — I’ve been around the Congress a while. I’ve been on the telephone. Not promoting any particular package, but asking my colleagues, including more than a half a dozen senior Republican colleagues, folks, ladies, gentlemen, what do you think we’re going to have to do here? And every single person I’ve spoken to agrees with every major economist. There’s going to be real significant investment, whether it’s $600 billion or more or $700 billion. The clear notion is, it’s a number no one thought about a year ago.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And President-elect Obama can sign it into law as President Obama by February?

BIDEN: Well, God willing, because look, we can’t — the whole idea here is, the single most important thing we have to do as a new administration, to have — to be able to have impact on all the other things we want to do, from foreign policy to domestic policy, is we’ve got to begin to stem this bleeding here, and begin to stop the loss of jobs and the creation of jobs.

Our goal is, the combination of stem the loss and create new jobs. We — there’s 2.5 million jobs we need there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You mentioned being on the phone with other senators.

BIDEN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve been fairly invisible since the election. Can you lift the veil a little bit on what else you’ve been doing during the transition?

BIDEN: Sure, but look, let me start off and define for you at least the role that Barack and I have worked out for me as vice president.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your staff said you wanted to restore the office of the vice president to its historical role.

BIDEN: Well, its — I don’t — I don’t — my staff used historic. It’s not how I think of it. I think we should restore the balance here. The role of the vice president of the United States, as I see it, is to give the president of the United States the best, sagest, most accurate, most insightful advice and recommendations he or she can make to a president to help them make some of the very, very important decisions that have to be made.

When Barack Obama , Senator Barack Obama then, talked to me about being his vice president, I said we have to — let’s talk. And we spent three and a half hours talking. And one of the things I asked was, I said I don’t want to be picked unless you’re picking me for my judgment. I don’t want to be the guy that goes out and has a specific assignment to — an important assignment to reinvent government, which Al Gore did a great job of. You know, dealing with some specific, discreet item. I said I want a commitment from you that in every important decision you’ll make, every critical decision, economic and political, as well as foreign policy, I’ll get to be in the room.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Has he kept it?

BIDEN: He’s kept it. Every single solitary appointment he’s made thus far, I’ve been in the room. The recommendations I’ve made in most cases coincidentally have been the recommendations he’s picked. Not because I made them, but because we think a lot alike. I have been there for every one of those meetings. I have been asked and the president is going to announce today the formation, for example, of a middle class task force that is going — that I will chair…

STEPHANOPOULOS: So isn’t that a specific responsibility?

BIDEN: It is a specific responsibility in terms of — but it is — it is a discreet job that’s going to last only for a certain period of time.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What will you do?

BIDEN: What it’s going to do is it’s going to include other cabinet members, including Labor, HHS, OMB, Education, et cetera. And my focus is going to be– I’m going to chair this group — is design to do the one thing that we use as a yardstick of economic success of our administration, is the middle class growing? Is the middle class getting better? Is the middle class no longer being left behind? And we’ll look at everything from college affordability to after-school programs, the things that affect people’s daily lives. I will be the guy hunchoing that policy.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re going to have line authority? If you determine that a policy…

BIDEN: No.

STEPHANOPOULOS: … isn’t serving the middle class, you’ll have the authority to change it?

BIDEN: No, no. What I have the authority to do is to try to get a consensus among those people I just mentioned. If in fact there is no consensus, go to the president of the United States and say, Mr. President, I think we should be doing this, cabinet member so and so thinks that. You’re going to have to resolve what it is we think we should do. But we’re going to present him with a package as to what are the main elements of restoring the middle class.

For example, I’ve been asked by the president and I’ve been meeting separately and collectively with the foreign policy team. That is the national security adviser, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense. One of my tasks, responsibilities is to work with that group to come up with a baseline for the president as to what we view the circumstance we’re inheriting in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you prevent that from overlapping with the job of the national security adviser?

BIDEN: Well, the way you do that is it’s all the national security adviser’s job. I’m just the guy that’s hunchoing this baseline study. And so that requires coordination and — look, as you well know, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and the national security adviser have their hands full on a whole range of issues. So there are going to be things that have cross- jurisdiction…

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: I was told by several people in the position to know that you also played a key role in convincing Senator Clinton and President Clinton that this secretary of state job was a good idea that made sense.

BIDEN: Well, I don’t know whether I played a key role or not, but I have a long-standing relationship with Senator Clinton. She’s one of my close friends. And when this came forward, I did talk to her. She sought me out. I sought her out as well, to assure her that this was real, and that I thought that…

STEPHANOPOULOS: She was skeptical.

BIDEN: Well, look, there was a lot swirling around before she actually got asked. And so, she’s an old friend. I talk with her all the time. I have continued — I mean, there hadn’t been a time since she’s been in office I haven’t, you know, not many days go by I don’t talk to her.

So it wasn’t so much convincing, but I — they wanted to know my perspective, and I gave my perspective.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And the entire national security team met this week for about five and a half hours. You took some heat during the campaign for these comments that President Obama would be tested in the first six months. But as you listened to that briefing, as you participated in those five and a half hours of meetings, what’s your sense of where the test is going to come?

BIDEN: Look, I think whoever was president is going to be faced with the same test. By test I meant — and you know it from your experience — the president of the United States, no matter how well thought out their foreign policy is, there are things that are going to occur in the first month, in the first year and throughout the administration no one ever anticipated. And I think what is clear from the outset here is that we have a situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is urgent. It implicates India. It also implicates a whole lot of other very complicated issues.

And so, first and foremost, I think, if we want to talk about immediacy, I think that the Afghanistan, Pakistan track is a very immediate concern. But there’s also, it’s in a sense, it’s good, it’s less urgent, but it’s a real issue, is how to implement the SOFA and have that — excuse me…

STEPHANOPOULOS: The Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq.

BIDEN: The Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq that has been negotiated between Maliki and this administration, which is not at all inconsistent in principle with what Barack and I were talking about during the election.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it is inconsistent in details, because that agreement says all American troops have to be out of Iraq by 2011. You and the president-elect have said that you believe we’ll need a residual force. Secretary Gates says it could be 40,000 troops after (inaudible)…

BIDEN: If you take a look at that agreement, the agreement allows for the incoming administration and the government of Iraq, whatever it happens to be at the time these drop-dead dates occur in the SOFA, to be able to look at and mutually agree that maybe something else may be done. But look, our goal is to get American combat forces out of Iraq. That’s what our goal is and turnover responsibility to the Iraqis.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The New York Times reported that at your national security meeting this week, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen came forward with a withdrawal plan, prepared by the commanding generals, that would start the withdrawal. But they said that they could not meet the 16-month deadline called for by President-elect Obama. Did he say, go back to the drawing board, come back with a plan that’s going to meet that promise?

BIDEN: I’m not going to get into the detail, but the answer is, nothing was that stark at all. There is — there isn’t any — there isn’t any conclusion reached or presentation made that suggests that we cannot rationalize the Status of Forces Agreement terms and the objectives of the Obama-Biden administration.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But is he still committed to meeting that promise, all combat troops out in…

BIDEN: He…

STEPHANOPOULOS: President-elect Obama…

BIDEN: Yes. He is committed, within the context of what he said at the time. He said he would, at the time, confer with the military leaders on the ground.

We will be out of Iraq, in the same — in the way in which Barack Obama described his position during the campaign. That will happen.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But they are indicating to you that they can’t meet the deadline he set, aren’t they?

BIDEN: No. No, they’re not.

But I’m not going to get into the internal deliberations that we have under way now, the purpose of which is, when we are sworn in on January 20th, what is — what are the specific elements of the plan with regard to Iraq, are we going to implement, and how are we going to do that?

STEPHANOPOULOS: You mentioned earlier you want to restore balance…

BIDEN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: … in the job of vice president. And during the campaign, you called your predecessor, Vice President Cheney, “probably the most dangerous vice president ever.”

He was pretty defiant, though…

(LAUGHTER)

… this week, in interviews, with ABC, with Jonathan Karl.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Those who allege that we’ve been involved in torture, or that somehow we’ve violated the Constitution or laws, with the terror surveillance program, simply don’t know what they’re talking about. (END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

BIDEN: Well, I still — I don’t agree with the vice president.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It sounded like you were going to say you still stand by your characterization.

BIDEN: I — I — look, I think the recommendations, the advice that he has given to President Bush, and maybe the advice the president already had decided on before he got it — I’m not making that judgment — has been not healthy for our foreign policy, not healthy for our national security. And it has been consistent with our Constitution, in my view.

His notion of a unitary executive, meaning that, in time of war, essentially all power, you know, goes to the executive, I think is dead wrong. I think it was mistaken. I think it caused this administration, in adopting that notion, to overstep its constitutional bounds, but, at a minimum, to weaken our standing in the world and weaken our security.

I stand by that — that judgment.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He says, the more you learn about the threats, as you see the intelligence, the more you’re going to come around to the Bush administration’s point of view on their counterterrorist policies.

BIDEN: I’ll make two responses to that. One, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, unless they were lying to me all along, I knew the detail of the threat. I was one of those four people that had access to all that information — or, excuse me, one of those eight people that had access to that information.

Secondly, I have been getting what they call that presidential briefing you get every morning from the intelligence community, since the day we have been — since the day we were elected, not sworn in. I have learned nothing thus far that would change my view.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Nothing?

BIDEN: Nothing, thus far, that would change my fundamental view that Guantanamo should close, number one; that, number two, the way in which we have conducted our policy, in terms of both surveillance as well as the detainees, has hurt our reputation around the world.

And to quote from a previous national security report put out by the intelligence community, we have — we have created, not dissuaded more terrorists, as a consequence of this policy.

Nothing I’ve learned thus far has changed my fundamental view on the constitutional as well as the practical positions we should take relative to issues of torture and others. STEPHANOPOULOS: The Senate Armed Services Committee, last week, had a unanimous report that said that the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, at prisons around the world, is a direct and indirect result of decisions made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other high officials.

Should they be prosecuted for that?

BIDEN: First of all, that’s a judgment, you remember, four years ago on your program, I made. So I haven’t changed my mind, and this confirms it.

But the questions of whether or not a criminal act has been committed, or a very, very, very bad judgment has been engaged in, is something the Justice Department decides.

Barack Obama and I are — President-elect Obama and I are not sitting thinking about the past. We’re focusing on the future. Obviously…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But should the cases be reviewed?

BIDEN: Well, that — that’s a decision I look to the Justice Department to make.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you’re not ruling it out, at this point?

BIDEN: I’m not ruling it in. I’m not ruling it out. I just think we should look forward. I think we should be looking forward, not backwards.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Looking forward, switching subjects here to the inaugural. Quite a bit of controversy the last couple of days over the choice of Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inaugural.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICK WARREN: I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

QUESTION: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

WARREN: Oh, I do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Many in the gay and lesbian community simply can’t understand how you can give this place of honor to a man who’s equated gay marriage with incest and pedophilia. What do you say to them?

BIDEN: Look, Barack Obama , candidate Obama, Senator Obama, President-elect Obama has a stellar and outspoken record in support of equality for all Americans, including gay and lesbian Americans. And he also has made a judgment, I think correctly, that in order to heal the wounds of this country and move this country forward so we get out of this mind-set, overstated, of red and blue and the like, that he was going to reach out. He was going to reach out.

He made it clear, there are parts of the positions taken by the reverend that he strongly disagrees with. But there’s also some very positive things about what he did. So he believes, and I think he’s right, that this is a time to reach out, reach out to constituencies and people who don’t share the same view, in the hope that the end result of all this will be ultimate reconciliation.

And so — and look, he’s giving the invocation. He’s not making policy. He’s not part of the administration.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So on matters of policy, what do you say to the gay and lesbian community? They’re calling out for an action plan saying, have an action plan on revoking don’t ask, don’t tell within the first 100 days. Will that be done? BIDEN: I’m not making a commitment for the administration based on any timetable. But the commitments we made during the campaign, to deal with these issues of equity and fairness, we will deliver on in our administration.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But no timetable.

BIDEN: But there’s no — look, we are faced with the first, most critical, urgent problem. And the immediate, the day we’re sworn in, the thing that we have to worry about is the further collapse of this economy. We have not — no president raising his right hand will ever have been in a position by the time he says “I so swear” and drops his hand, will he have such an immediate, urgent obligation of consequence, since Franklin Roosevelt. And I would argue this is equally as consequential.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, you beat the president to the punch on the puppy.

BIDEN: Well, we’re going to have more than one puppy. What — from the time — we’ve always had two dogs. We’ve always had two big dogs, and so they can have companionships. And I’ve had German shepherds from the time I was a kid, and I’ve actually trained them and showed them in the past, my past life. So I wanted a German shepherd, and we’re going to get a pound dog that my wife wants who has a hopefully…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Very politically correct.

(CROSSTALK)

BIDEN: No, because it’s my wife — we already have a pound cat. We’ve had pound animals in our house already. And so — but it’s mainly so there’s companionship for the dog. So we’ve always said, last time around we had a golden retriever and a lab. And before that, we had a great Dane and a German shepherd, so — and the good news about the vice president’s residence is there’s a big fence around it…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I know.

BIDEN: Several acres.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Got a name for the shepherd yet?

BIDEN: No. My granddaughters are going to make that clear on Christmas morning. I gave it to them. They literally — my No. 2 and three granddaughter, Finnegan (ph) and Macy (ph) have been calling all the relatives, saying, Aunt Val (ph), this is — what do you think of this name, what do you think? So they’re really into this thing. So I’ll know the dog’s name Christmas morning.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I hope you have a great Christmas. Thanks very much for your time.

BIDEN: I’m looking forward to it. Thank you.

Our government – Democrats, Republicans – executive and legislative branch – fell over themselves to deliver for Wall Street.  John McCain even suspended his presidential campaign for about 12 hours.

The Wall Street/Main Street construct has been used so much as to become trite.  Well, here goes another one.  Washington, Main Street needs some help now.  It’s called keeping the Big Three U.S. automakers solvent in the worst economy since the 1930s. 

Forget about the entitled UAW-represented autoworker for a moment and think about that machine shop you drive by on your way to work every day.  Think for a moment about the truck driver living next door.  Ask yourself what’s going to happen to your cousin Bob who works at the Chevy dealership and his 75 co-workers.

This latest bailout isn’t just about GM and Chrysler, and perhaps eventually Ford.  It’s about all the spin-off commerce that the Big Three generate.  If GM and Chrysler are forced into even a “structured” bankruptcy, who do you think gets screwed?  Their vendors – the transportation companies, the parts makers and all the others that depend on what’s left of manufacturing in the U.S. to provide decent jobs.  Add to that the auto dealerships.

Today White House Press Secretary Dana Perino answered questions about what’s happened to the bailout.  In a nutshell, she said we’re all crazy to think that the Bush Administration was on any fast track to get this thing done.  She also said that there should be strings attached.  Strings that ensure the long-term health and vitality of the U.S. automakers.

Well, noone is debating the second point.  My complaint is that there have been business plans submitted, testimony given, corporate jets abandoned and government is not providing the same sense of urgency for the automakers that it provided the boys and girls in pinstripes with the MBAs.  The White House was willing to sign off on the bill that got torpedoed by the Senate, why not take the first $15 billion step along those lines?

What’s the hold up?

A Bit of Dana Perino Answering Questions Today

Q: When you say you’re considering options for the automakers, who are you talking to? Are you talking amongst yourselves? Are you talking to them? At what point are you going to present them with options? How far along is this process? We were led to expect that it would be almost immediate, and yet it’s sort of –

MS. PERINO: I think you all led yourselves to believe that it would be almost immediate. We did not signal that it would be almost immediate. I think that there’s been lots of rumors, and I know that stakeholders who are involved, either from the Hill or from the industry, have tried to push the story that something is imminent. I don’t know of an imminent announcement coming from us.

We are taking the time to try to do it right, and weighing all of the options. And, of course, we’re talking to them, and we’re talking amongst ourselves, and we’re trying to figure out how could we help companies, if we decide that we need to, become viable and competitive in the long term.

Q Well, it sounded like you already decided that you needed to. The President seemed to indicate that you already decided that you need to help the automakers.

MS. PERINO: The President does not think that we can sustain a disorderly bankruptcy. One of the options here is allowing the companies to go into a disorderly bankruptcy. That’s one of the options that is the least favored by the President. Put it at the bottom of the list, because he does not think that in the current weakened state of our economy, that we could sustain such a body blow. So that’s why we’re trying to see if there are other ways that we can try to help them, so long as they’re willing to make tough decisions about concessions they’ll have to make in order to become viable.

SPEAKERS: PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA; SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, D-N.Y.; SUSAN E. RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY WORKING GROUP LEADER, OBAMA-BIDEN PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TEAM; GENERAL JIM JONES (USMC, RET.) SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT M. GATES;
GOVERNOR JANET NAPOLITANO, D-ARIZ., ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER, OBAMA-BIDEN PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TEAM; FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER; VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

[*] OBAMA: Good morning, everybody. I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Last week, we announced our economic team which is working as we speak to craft an economic recovery program to create jobs and grow our struggling economy.

Today, Vice President-elect Biden and I are pleased to announce our national security team. The national security challenges we face are just as great and just as urgent as our economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. Our old conflicts remain unresolved. And newly- asserted powers have put strains on the international system.

The spread of nuclear weapons raises the peril that the world’s deadliest technologies could fall into dangerous hands. Our dependence on foreign oil empowers authoritarian governments and endangers our planet.

America must also be strong at home to be strong abroad. We need to provide education and opportunity to all our citizens so every American can compete with anyone anywhere. And our economic power must sustain our military strength, our diplomatic leverage, and our global leadership.

The common thread linking these challenges is the fundamental reality that in the 21st century, our destiny is shared with the world’s from our markets to our security. From our public health to our climate, we must act with that understanding that now more than ever, we have a stake in what happens across the globe. And as we learn so painfully on 9-11, terror cannot be contained by borders nor safely provided by oceans alone.

Last week, we were reminded of this threat once again when terrorists took the lives of six Americans among nearly 200 victims in Mumbai.

In the world we seek, there is no place for those who kill innocent civilians to advance hateful extremism. This weekend, I told Prime Minister Singh of India that Americans stand with the people of India in this dark time. And I am confident that India’s great democracy is more resilient than killers who would tear it down.

OBAMA: And so in this uncertain world, the time has come for a new beginning, a new dawn of American leadership to overcome the challenges of the 21st century and to seize the opportunities embedded in these challenges.

We will strengthen our capacity to defeat our enemies and support our friends. We will renew old alliances and forge new and enduring partnerships. We will show the world once more that America is relentless in the defense of our people, steady in advancing our interests, and committed to the ideals that shine as a beacon to the world. Democracy and justice, opportunity and unyielding hope because American values are America’s greatest export to the world.

To succeed, we must pursue a new strategy that skillfully using, balances, and integrates all elements of American power, our military, and diplomacy, our intelligence and law enforcement, our economy and the power of our moral example. The team that we’ve assembled here today is uniquely suited to do just that.

In their past service and plans for the future, these men and women represent all of the those elements of American power and the very best of the American example. They’ve served in you uniform and as diplomats. They have worked as legislators, law enforcement officials, and executives. They share my pragmatism about the use of power and my sense of purpose about America’s role as a leader in the world.

I have known Hillary Clinton as a friend, a colleague, a source of counsel, and a tough campaign opponent. She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and a remarkable work ethic. I am proud that she will be our next secretary of state. She’s an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence, who know many of the world’s leaders, who will command respect in every capital, and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world.

Hillary’s appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances. There’s much to do from preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran and North Korea, to seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, to strengthening international institutions.

I think no doubt that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our State Department and to work with me in tackling this ambitious foreign policy agenda. At a time when we face unprecedented transition amidst two wars, I’ve asked Secretary Robert Gates to continue as secretary of defense. And I’m pleased that he’s accepted. Two years ago, he took over the Pentagon at a difficult time. He restored accountability. He won the confidence of military commanders and the trust of our brave men and women in uniform as well as their families.

He earned the respect of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle for his pragmatism and competence. He knows that we need a sustainable national security strategy. And that includes a bipartisan consensus at home.

As I said throughout the campaign, I will be giving Secretary Gates and our military a new mission as soon as I take office — responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control.

We will ensure that we have the strategy and resources to succeed against Al Qaida and the Taliban. As Bob said not too long ago, Afghanistan is where the War on Terror began, and it is where it must end. Going forward, we will continue to make the investments necessary to strengthen our military and increase our ground forces to defeat the threats of the 21st century.

Eric Holder has the talent and commitment to succeed as attorney everyone from his first day on the job, which is even more important in a transition that demands vigilance. He has distinguished himself as a prosecutor, a judge, and a senior official. And he is deeply familiar with the law enforcement challenges we face from terrorism to counterintelligence, from white-collar crime to public corruption.

Eric also has the combination of toughness and independence that we need at the Justice Department. Let me be clear. The attorney general serves the American people. And I have every expectation that Eric will protect our people, uphold the public trust, and adhere to our Constitution.

Janet Napolitano offers of the experience and executive skills we need in the next secretary of homeland security. She has spent her career protecting people as a U.S. attorney, an attorney general, and as the governor of Arizona. She understands the need for a Department of Homeland Security that has the capacity to help prevent terrorist attacks and respond to catastrophe be it manmade or natural.

OBAMA: Janet assumes this critical role having learned the lessons, some of them painful, of the last several years from 9-11 to Katrina. She insists on competence and accountability. She knows firsthand the need to have a partner in Washington that works well with state and local governments.

She understands as well as anyone the danger of an unsecure border. And she will be a leader who can reform a sprawling department while safeguarding our homeland.

Susan Rice will take on the crucial task of serving as permanent representative of the United States to the United Nations. Susan has been a close and trusted adviser. As in previous administrations, the UN ambassador will serve as a member of my Cabinet and in integral member of my team.

Her background as a scholar on the National Security Council and assistant secretary of state will serve our nation well at the United Nations. Susan knows the global challenges we face demand global institutions that work.

She shares my belief that the UN is an indispensable and imperfect forum. She will carry the message that our commitment to multi-lateral action must be coupled with a commitment to reform.

We need the United Nations to be more effective as a venue for collective action against terror and proliferation, climate change and genocide, poverty and disease.

Finally, I am convinced that General James Jones is uniquely suited to be a strong and skilled national security adviser. Generations of Joneses have served heroically on the battlefield from the breech beaches of Tarawa in World War II to Fox Trot Ridge in Vietnam.

Jim’s Silver Star is a proud part of that legacy. He will bring to the job the duel experience of serving in uniform and as a diplomat. He has commanded a platoon in battle, served as supreme allied commander in a time of war, and worked on behalf of peace in the Middle East.

Jim is focused on the threats of today and the future. He understands the connection between energy and natural security and has worked on the front lines of global instability from Kosovo to Northern Iraq to Afghanistan. He will advise me and work effectively to integrate our efforts across the government so that we are effectively using all elements of American power to defeat unconventional threats and promote our values.

I am confident that this team is what we need to make a new beginning for American national security. This morning, we met to discuss the situation in Mumbai and some of the challenges that we face in the months and years ahead.

In the coming weeks, I will be in close contact with these advisers who will be working with their counterparts in the Bush administration to make sure that we are ready to hit the ground running on January 20th. Given the range of threats that we face and the vulnerability that can be a part of every presidential transition, I hope that we can proceed swiftly for those natural security officials who demand confirmation.

We move forward with the humility that comes with knowing that there are brave men and women protecting us on our frontlines, diplomats and intelligence officers in dangerous corners of the world, troops serving their second, third, or fourth tours, FBI agents in the field, cops on the beat, prosecutors in our courts, and cargo inspectors at our ports.

These selfless Americans whose name are unknown to most of us, will form the backbone of our effort. If we serve as well as they are serving, we will protect our country and promote our values.

And as we move forward with respect for American’s tradition of a bipartisan national security policy and a commitment to national unity, we have to recall that when it comes to keeping our nation and our people safe, we are not Republicans or Democrats. We are Americans. There’s no monopoly of power of wisdom in either party.

Together, as one nation, as one people, we can shape our times instead of being shaped by them. Together, we will meet the challenges of the 21st century not with fear but with hope.

Now, before I take questions, I’d like to invite my team to say a few words. And I’m going to start with my dear friend, Hillary Clinton.

CLINTON: Mr. President-elect, thank you for this honor. If confirmed, I will give this assignment, your administration, and our country my all. I also want to thank my fellow New Yorkers who have, for eight years, given me the joy of a job I love with the opportunity to work on issues I care about deeply in a state that I cherish.

And you’ve also helped prepare me well for this new role. After all, New Yorkers aren’t afraid to speak their minds and do so in every language. Leaving the Senate is very difficult for me. But during the last few weeks, I thought often of our troops serving bravely under difficult circumstances in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

I thought of those other Americans in our foreign and civil services working hard to promote and protect our interests around the world. And I thought of the daunting tasks ahead for our country. An economy that is reeling, a climate that is warming. And as we saw with the horrible events in Mumbai, threats that are relentless.

The fate of our nation and the future of our children will be forged in the crucible of these global challenges. America cannot solve these crises without the world, and the world cannot solve them without America.

By electing Barack Obama our next president, the American people have demanded not just a new direction at home but a new effort to renew America’s standing in the world as a force for positive change. We know our security, our values, and our interests cannot be protected and advanced by force alone nor, indeed, by Americans.

We must pursue vigorous diplomacy using all the tools we can muster to build a future with more partners and fewer adversaries, more opportunities and fewer dangers for all who seek freedom, peace, and prosperity.

America is a place founded on the idea that everyone should have the right to live up to his or her God-given potential. And it is that same ideal that must guide America’s purpose in the world today. And while we are determined to defend our freedoms and liberties at all costs, we also reach out to the world again seeking common cause and higher ground.

And so I believe the best way to continue serving my country is to join President-elect Obama, Vice President-elect Biden, the leaders here, and the dedicated public servants of the State Department on behalf of our nation at this defining moment. President Kennedy one said that engaging the world to meet the threats we face was the greatest adventure of our century.

Well, Mr. President-elect, I am proud to join you on what will be a difficult and exciting adventure in this new century. And may God bless you and all who serve with you and our great country.

GATES: I am deeply honored that the president-elect has asked me to continue as secretary of defense. Mindful that we are engaged in two wars and face other serious challenges at home and around the world, and with a profound sense of personal responsibility to and for our men and women in uniform and their families, I must do my duty as they do theirs. How could I do otherwise?

Serving in this position for nearly two years, and especially the opportunity to lead our brave and dedicated soldiers, sailor, airmen, Marines, and defense civilians has been the most gratifying experience of my life. I am honored to continue to serve them and our country. And I will be honored to serve President-elect Obama.

HOLDER: Thank you, President-elect Obama, for the honor that you have bestowed upon me. I look forward to working with you and the members of this national security team assembled here.

The Department of Justice plays a unique role on this team. It is incumbent those of us who lead the department to ensure not only that the nation is safe but also that our laws and traditions are respected. There is not a tangent (ph) between those two. We can and we must ensure that the American people remain secure and that the great constitutional guarantees that define us as a nation are truly valued.

For example, working with Republicans and Democrats in Congress, should I be confirmed, we look forward to actually structuring policies that are both protective and consistent with who we are as a nation.

HOLDER: I also look forward to working with the men and women of the Department of Justice to revitalize the department’s efforts in those areas where the department that’s unique capabilities and responsibilities in keeping our people safe and ensuring fairness and in protecting our environment.

This president-elect and the team you see before you are prepared to meet the challenges that we will confront. From my experience at the Department of Justice, I know that we cannot be successful if we act alone. We must never forget that in many ways those in state and local law enforcement are our first line of detection and protection against those from foreign shores who would do us harm.

We will need to interact with our state and local partners in new innovative ways to help them solve the other issues that they confront on a daily basis. National security concerns are not defined only by the challenges created by terrorists abroad but also by criminals in our midst, whether they be criminals located on the street or in a board room.

We must forge new ties and reestablish old bonds with our state and local partners. There is much that needs to be done in this new century. I am confident that working with our president-elect, the people on this stage and the departments that they represent, those of both parties who I know and respect on Capitol Hill, we can keep our nation safe, strong, and respected.

It is now my pleasure to introduce Janet Napolitano , a great governor and an old friend.

NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Eric.

President-elect Obama, I am honored by your confidence in me and your support. Your message of change has resonated with the American people as has the clarity and the confidence of our vision of a United States that is safe, secure, and effective in the world and at home.

The team you have assembled faces the challenge of protecting our homeland with constant vigilance and relentless work to prevent terrorist attacks. It also will plan carefully and thorough so that our domestic response to all hazards is fast, sound, levelheaded, and effective. Americans deserve no less.

To achieve this high level of performance, it will be my job and the job of this team to hold ourselves and our agencies accountable, to coordinate fully across the spectrum of government agencies and to ensure that we work hand in hand with state and local governments to share information, secure our borders, and keep our country safe.

We are a nation that will be proud, prepared, and resilient. Thank you for the opportunity to serve. And I would be remiss if I did not also thank the wonderful people of Arizona. Like Hillary, it is difficult to leave one job for another, but one must go where one can best serve.

It’s now my privilege to introduce to you the nominee to be it the ambassador of the United Nations, Susan Rice.

RICE: Mr. President-elect, Mr. Vice President-elect, I am deeply honored and grateful for the opportunity to serve you and our great country as the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations. I look forward to working with this outstanding bipartisan national security team to implement your visionary agenda, to strengthen our security, and renew American’s leadership in the world.

I want to take this opportunity to thank my parents who taught me that no dream is too bold to embrace. My husband and our children, Jake and Maris (ph), for their patience, love, and sacrifice.

With your election, Mr. President-elect, the American people have signaled to the world that our nation is on the path to change. Now, we must fulfill that promise by joining with others to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities of the 21st century to prevent conflict, to promote peace, combat terrorism, present the spread and use of nuclear weapons, tackle climate change, end genocide, fight poverty and disease.

All of these goals are vital to America’s security but none can be accomplished by America alone. To enhance our common security, we must invest in our common humanity. And to do so, we need capable partners and far more effective international institutions.

The United Nations was, in major part, America’s creation.

RICE: Mr. President-elect, I share your commitment to rededicate ourselves to the organization and its mission. If confirmed, as U.N. ambassador, I will work constructively within the organization to help strengthen its capacities and achieve needed reforms.

I can think of no more important time to represent the United States at the United Nations. Mr. President-elect, thank you for the confidence you’ve placed in me and for the opportunity to serve in this vital mission.

It’s now my pleasure to introduce General James Jones.

JONES: Mr. President-elect, Mr. Vice President-elect, members of this tremendous team assembled this morning, I’m deeply humbled to have been asked by the president-elect to serve as national security adviser especially during the challenging times we currently face.

And Mr. President-elect, I deeply appreciate your mentions my family’s contribution to our national security since 1939.

As has been previously mentioned, national security in the 21st century comprising a portfolio which includes all elements of our national power and influence working in coordination and harmony towards the desired goal of keeping our nation safe, helping to make our world a better place, and providing opportunity to live in peace and security for the generations to follow.

I am deeply humbled and deeply appreciative of this great opportunity, and I am very proud now to introduce a man who will play a key role in making this come to pass, the vice president-elect, Joe Biden.

BIDEN: Well, Mr. President, you’ve assembled quite a team. And I hope and believe that the American people will come to feel as I do that we brought together one of the most talented national security teams ever assembled. A team prepared to meet the serious challenges we face today and the emerging threats that will confront us tomorrow.

I have worked with and admired each of the members of the team some as far as back in days, Jim, when you were a Marine liaison to the United States Senate. And so we have a — I have a long relationship, as the president does, and I do with each of these folks.

And each has a clear understanding of the forces that are shaping this new century and the lives of our fellow Americans. As was mentioned earlier, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the emergence of China, India, Russia, Brazil, and the unifying Europe as major powers, the spread of lethal weapons to dangerous countries as well as dangerous groups, the shortage of — and scarcity of energy, water, and food, the impact of climate change, economic dislocations, persistent poverty. The technological revolution that sends people, ideas, and money around the planet as ever faster speeds. And, as was already mentioned, as we witnessed again last week with the terrible events in the India, the challenge to democratic nation states from radical ideologies.

That’s just a short list of the forces that are shaping the 21st century. And it’s been implied by all the comments thus far, no one country can control these forces. But more than any other country in the world, we have the ability to affect them if we use the totality of our strength.

And bringing together Senator Clinton, Secretary Gates, Eric Holder, Governor Napolitano, Susan Rice, and General Jones, the president-elect has assembled a national security team that is poised, in my view, to recapture the totality of America’s strength. Each member of this team shares the goals and the principles that the president-elect and I have attempted to advance.

Each member shares our conviction that strength and wisdom must go hand in hand. Each member believes, as we do, that America’s security is not a partisan issue. Witness the team. Each member understands that America’s military might and economic strength must married to the power of our ideas and our ideals if we are to deal effectively with dealing with the forces of change, some of which I’ve mentioned, and if we’re going keep this country we love so dearly prosperous and free.

These are extraordinary times. That’s not in a flight of fancy or exaggeration. These are extraordinary times. We face extraordinary challenges.

BIDEN: But I am, as the president-elect is, optimistic, absolutely optimistic that this team, with the president-elect at our helm, will see to it that America leads not only by the example of our power but by the power of our example.

And now, President-elect Obama is prepared to take your questions. And, again, Mr. President-elect, congratulations on assembling what I believe will be a first-class team to lead us into this century.

Thank you.

OBAMA: OK. Let’s start with Liz.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it’s important to reiterate that our condolences, our thoughts, and our prayers go out to the people of India, the families that have been affected, and, obviously, we’re heartbroken by the deaths of the six Americans that were caught up in this tragedy.

I’ve spoken to Prime Minister Singh and expressed these concerns to him. An investigation is taking place. I was briefed by Secretary Rice throughout the weekend. She’s on her way to the region. We’ve sent FBI to help on the investigation.

And this is one of those time where I have to reiterate there’s one president at a time. We’re going to be engaged in some very delicate diplomacy in the next several days and weeks. So I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

But what I can say unequivocally is that both myself and the team that stands beside me are absolutely committed to eliminating the threat of terrorism. And that is true wherever it is found. We cannot have — we cannot tolerate a world in which innocents are being killed by extremists based on twisted ideologies.

And we’re going to have to bring the full force of our power, not only military but also diplomatic, economic, and political, to deal with those threats not only to keep America safe but also to ensure that peace and prosperity with exist around the world.

So I will be monitoring the situation closely. Thus far, I think the administration has done what’s needed in trying to get the details of the situation. And my expectation is that President Zardari of Pakistan, who has already said that he will fully cooperate with the investigation, will follow through with that commitment.

All right. Karen?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve selected a number of high profile people for your national secure team. How can you ensure that the staff that you are assembling is going to be a smoothly- functioning team of rivals and not a clash of rivals?

OBAMA: Well, I think you heard Joe mention the fact that many of the people who are standing beside me are people who have worked together before, who have the utmost respect for each other. These are outstanding public servants and outstanding in their various fields of endeavor.

They would not have agreed to join my administration, and I would not have asked them to be part of this administration unless we shared a core vision of what’s needed to keep the American people safe and to assure prosperity here at home and peace abroad.

I think all of us here share the belief that we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet, that we have to support our troops and make sure that they are properly trained, properly equipped, that they are provided with a mission that allows them to succeed. All of us here also agree that the strength of our military has to be combined with the wisdom and force of our diplomacy and that we are going to be committed to rebuilding and strengthening alliances around the world to advance American interests and American security.

And so in discussions with this entire team, what I am excited about is a consensus not only among those of us standing here today, but I think cross a broad section of the American people, that now is the time for us to regain American leadership in all its dimensions. And I am very confident that each of these individuals are not going to be leaving the outstanding work that they are currently doing if they weren’t convinced that they could work as an effective team.

One last point I will make. I assembled this team because I’m a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions. I think that’s how the best decisions are made. One of the dangers in the White House, based on my reading of history, is that you get wrapped up in group think and everybody agrees with everything and there’s no discussion and there are no dissenting views. So I’m going to be welcoming a vigorous debate inside the White House.

But understand I will be setting policy as president. I will be responsible for the vision that this team carries out, and I expect them to implement that vision once decisions are made. So as Harry Truman said, the buck will stop with me. And nobody who’s standing here, I think, would have agreed to join this administration unless they had confidence that, in fact, that vision was one that would help secure the American people and our interests.

Jake?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President-elect. During the campaign, you said that you thought the U.S. had a right to attack high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan if given actionable intelligence with or without the Pakistani government’s permission. Two questions on that.

One, do you think India has that same right?

And, two, regarding what Karen just said, some people up there on the stage took issue with your saying that. They have strong opinions about issues ranging from Pakistan to the surge. And while they’re all committed to have a successful United States, what private assurances have they given you that they will be able to carry out your vision even when they strongly disagree with that vision as some of them have been able to do in the past?

Thank you, sir.

OBAMA: I think that sovereign nations, obviously, have a right to protect themselves. Beyond that, I don’t want to comment on the specific situation that’s taking place in South Asia right now. I think it is important for us to let the investigators do their jobs and make a determination in terms of who was responsible for carrying out these heinous acts.

I can tell you that my administration will remain steadfast in support of India’s efforts to catch the perpetrators of this terrible act and bring them to justice. And I expect that the world community will feel the same way.

Now, in terms of my team and carrying out my vision and my policies, as I’ve said, during campaigns or during the course of election season, differences get magnified. I did not ask for assurances from these individuals that they would agree with me at all times. I think they understand and would not be joining this team unless they understood and were prepared to carry out the decisions that have been made by me after full discussion.

And, you know, most of the people who are standing here are people who I’ve worked with, and on the broad core vision of where America needs to go, we are in almost complete agreement. There are going to be differences in tactics and different assessments and judgments made. That’s what I expect. That’s what I welcome. That’s why I asked them to join the team.

Peter Baker?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President-elect.

You’ve talked about the importance just now of having different voices and robust debate within your administration. But, again, going back to the campaign, you were asked and talked about the qualifications of the — your now, your nominee for secretary of state. And you belittled her travels around the word, equating it to having teas with foreign leaders. And your new White House council said that her resume was grossly exaggerated when it came to foreign policy. I’m wondering whether you can talk about the evolution of your views of her credentials since the spring.

OBAMA: Well, I mean, I think — this is fun for the press to try to stir up whatever quotes were generated during the course of the campaign. No, I understand. And you’re having fun.

But the — and there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not — I’m not faulting it. But, look, I think if you look at the statements that Hillary Clinton and I have made outside of the heat of a campaign, we share a view that America has to be safe and secure. And in order to do that…

OBAMA: … the statements that Hillary Clinton and I have made outside of the heat of a campaign, we share a view that America has to be safe and secure. And in order to do that we have to combine military power with strength and diplomacy. And we have to build and forge stronger alliances around the world so that we’re not carrying the burdens and these challenges by ourselves.

I believe that there is no more effective advocate than Hillary Clinton for that well-rounded view of how we advance American interests. She has served on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate. She’s knows world leaders around the world. I have it extensive discussions with her both pre-election and post-election about the strategic opportunities that exist out there to strengthen American’s posture in the world.

And I think she is going to be an outstanding secretary of state. And if I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t have offered her the job. And if she didn’t believe that I was equipped to lead this nation in such a difficult time, she would not have accepted.

John McCormack. Where’s John?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President-elect.

You’re known as a pretty good storyteller. Can you tell us a little bit of a story about how Senator Clinton was selected for this job? Was there a seminal moment? How was the offered extended? Can you give us some detail on how it was accepted and kind of the negotiation process that was involved here?

And, also, does Secretary Gates meet the requirement for a Republican on the Cabinet, or should we be looking for others as well?

OBAMA: Well, I mean, I didn’t — I didn’t — I didn’t check his voter registration. Secretary Gates, meets the qualification of being an outstanding current secretary of defense and somebody who is doing everything he can every single day to make sure that our troops are properly equipped and trained and organized in order to succeed at their missions and that their families are cared for.

So I have complete confidence in Secretary Gates being able to carry out his tasks. And I think the point here is that I didn’t going around checking people’s political registration. What I was most concerned with was whether or not they can serve the interests of the American people.

With respect to Senator and soon-to-be, Secretary of State Clinton, it was not a light bulb moment. I have always admired Senator Clinton. We have worked together extensively in the Senate. I have always believed that she is tough and smart and disciplined and that she shares my core values and the core values of the American people.

And so I was always interested after the primary was over in finding ways in which we could collaborate. After the election was over and I began to think about my team, it occurred to me that she could potentially be an outstanding secretary of state. I extended her the offer and she accepted.

I know that’s not as juicy a story as you were hoping for, but that’s all you’re going to get, John. Thanks.

Where’s Dean? There you are. Hey, Dean.

QUESTION: Sir, do you still intend to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq in 16 months after inauguration? And did you discuss that — the possibility of that — with Secretary Gates, before selecting him?

OBAMA: Well, keep in mind what I said during the campaign. And you were there most of the time.

I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months with the understanding that it might be necessary, likely to be necessary, to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support to protect our civilians in Iraq.

The SOFA that has been now passed by the Iraqi legislature points us in the right direction. It indicates we are now on a glide path to reduce our forces in Iraq. I will be meeting be not only Secretary Gates but the joint chiefs of staff and commanders on the ground to make a determination as to how we move that pace — how we proceed in that withdrawal process.

I believe that 16 months is the right timeframe. But as I have said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders. And my number one priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase and that the Iraqi people are well served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security.

It is a sovereign nation. What this signals is a transition period in which our mission will be changing. We will have to remain vigilant in making sure that any terrorist elements that remain in Iraq do not become strengthened as a consequence of our drawdown. But it’s also critical that we recognize that the situation in Afghanistan has been worsening. The situation in South Asia, as a whole, and the safe havens for terrorist that have been established there represent the single most important threat against the American people.

And we’re going to have to mobilize our resources and focus on attention on defeating Al Qaeda, bin Laden, and any other extremist groups that intend to target American citizens.

Thank you very much, everybody.

END

… And the Senate Democrats Got Punk’d

In April of this year, when asked by a Fox Radio host whether or not Barack Obama might be a Marxist, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-CT, replied, “I must say that’s a good question …”

He did stutter out a “I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist,” toward the end of an incoherent answer to the question, but come on – hesitate?  That’s a good question? 

Democrats, face it.  When Joe Lieberman went in with John McCain for president, he went all in.  That comment from April was just the beginning of a Spring, Summer and Fall’s worth of inanity from poor old Joe.  Oh, and Senate Democrats – face this.  You didn’t do the right thing and put Lieberman out on his pathetic ass and he made you all look like idiots today on Meet the Press.

Here’s one of my favorites from this mealy-mouthed, sanctimonious douche bag:

MR. BROKAW: You’ve always, as a public servant, held other people accountable. You were the only one to speak out on the floor, for example, against Bill Clinton during the time of the impeachment. Holding yourself accountable, looking back over the last six weeks, two months or so, what are the statements that you most regret?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well, I don’t want to go into the details. Let me just say this, I don’t regret having supported John McCain because I sincerely believed in his experience and his extraordinary record of working across party lines to get things done. …

What an ass!  Brokaw didn’t ask him if he regretted supporting John McCain.  He asked him if he had regrets over anything he said on the campaign trail.  The first thing Lieberman says in answer is essentially, “I support John McCain.”  Can someone ask this guy to shut up?  I can’t believe we had the chance to relegate him to the back benches and he’s still out there running his mouth – to no good. If you saw the interview or read the rest of the above quote or the whole transcript, you come away thinking that this guy will say anything – or nothing.

Here’s another good one:

MR. BROKAW: But you’re being judged not just by your fellow senators, but by Democrats across this country as well, because actions do have consequences. Here’s what you had to say at the Republican National Convention about the choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate, right after you disqualified, in effect, Barack Obama because he wasn’t yet ready. Here’s what you had to say about Sarah Palin.

(Videotape, September 2, 2008)

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Now, I’m honored to say just a word about the great lady that John McCain has selected as his running mate.

The truth is, she is a leader we can count on to help John shake up Washington.

That’s why I sincerely believe that the real ticket for change this year is the McCain-Palin ticket.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: Did you honestly believe that she was more qualified than you–you were on the short list for John McCain at one point–or than your friend Joe Biden to be the vice president of the United States.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: It’s so sweet of you to run that clip and ask me that question this morning, Tom. Look, I, I got into this in December of 2007 to support my friend John McCain, who I’ve worked with on a host of different issues–climate change, lobbying and ethics reform, national security–because I thought he was better prepared than any of the candidates at that time–because everybody was in the race–to be the president we needed. I’m going to leave the political commentary and analysis looking backward to others. I’m focused on going ahead, now empowered to be chairman of homeland security by my colleagues in the, in the caucus and empowered to work in the caucus with the president-elect and his team to try to get our economy going again and protect our safety.

Lieberman didn’t answer the question, did he?  To answer that question honestly, he would have had to have said, “I was wrong.”  Apparently Lieberman gave up straight talk at the same time his good friend John McCain did.

Lieberman says he hasn’t felt close to the Senate Democrats since the Democratic Party supported Ned Lamont – the primary-elected Democrat in Connecticut’s 2006 U.S. Senate race.  Lieberman lost to Lamont in the primary and ran in the fall and won as an Independent.  Since then, Lieberman has more often than not cast aside Democratic ideals and policies in a two-year fit of pique. 

I wonder if this has ever occurred to Joe: If he wouldn’t have lost a Democratic primary, perhaps he would have had the support in 2006 of the Democratic Party.  It would have seemed somewhat un-democratic to not support Lamont.  Elections do mean something, Joe. 

It’s too bad this 2008 election didn’t end up meaning more for Lieberman.  Thanks, Senator Reid.

• After the Imperial Presidency– Jonathan Mahler
• Payday Lenders, Check Cashers – Redeemed?– Douglas McGray
• Deprogramming Jihadists– Katherine Zoepf

New York Times

• Obama team weighs what to take on first
• Harsh words about Obama? Never mind
• Citing workload public lawyers refuse new cases
• How Merrill fell
• Pelosi, Reid want aid for U.S. automakers
• Op-Ed, Frank Rich: It still felt good morning after
• Op-Ed, Al Gore: The climate for change
• Op-Ed, Thomas Friedman: Show me the money
• Op-Ed, Nicholas Kristof: Obama and the War on Brains
• Rice visits West Bank
• U.S. electricity project in Afghanistan
• Back home, Palin finds landscape changed
• After push for Obama, Unions seek new rules

Washington Post

• Preparing for the Obama era
• Reid, Pelosi urge Treasury to extend aid to automakers
• Self-sufficiency evades Iraqi security forces
• Obama positioned to reverse Bush actions
• Medvedev calls Obama; Kremlin describes call
• Congressional Democrats say economy first priority
• Op-Ed, Rich Lowry: The right needs to get centered
• Op-Ed, Joseph Stiglitz: More pain to come even if he’s perfect
• Op-Ed, Ron Suskind: U.S. has power – it could use authority
• Op-Ed, David Broder: Governors know best
• Op-Ed, George Will: Democratic ironies and Republican Afflictions

Los Angeles Times

• Democrats set sights on Texas
• Public works on the table once again
• Obama relies on a close-knit inner circle
• Op-Ed, Norman Ornstein: The GOP’s deep hole
• Op-Ed, James Rainey: Right-wing media feeds its post-election anger
• Political blogger be nimble, be quick
• Election leaves gay couple feeling isolated

• Emails get state leader in trouble – Columbus Dispatch
• Jones-Kelley on paid leave pending investigation - The Plain Dealer
• Stivers event among topics of emails under investigation - Dayton Daily News
• Governor places family services director on leave – Dayton Daily News
• Agency chief put on leave -Toledo Blade
  

Politics & Elections News

• GOP’s grip on County’s suburbs slipping – Columbus Dispatch
• Editorial: GOP must make honest appraisal of its defeat – The Plain Dealer
• Obama’s victory in Cuyahoga was overwhelming – The Plain Dealer
• Obama won – so did shirt sellers – Columbus Dispatch
• Maureen O’Connor’s huge totals may lead to something else – The Plain Dealer
• Brunner calls summit on vote –Columbus Dispatch
• Ohio GOP to work on ‘identity crisis’ – Columbus Dispatch
• Dolan out of Minority Leader race – The Plain Dealer
• The new Ohio Senate and House – Columbus Dispatch
• Timing of Cordray’s start as AG uncertain – Columbus Dispatch
• Total state approach aided Obama – Columbus Dispatch
• No Treasurer replacement yet – The Plain Dealer
• Editorial: House Democrats in charge – Akron Beacon Journal

Other News

• Jobless rate highest in 14 years – Columbus Dispatch
• Hard recovery seen for Ohio – Associated Press
• Wilmington worried about pending DHL announcement – Dayton Daily News
• Glowing review earns Gee possibly $2 million – Columbus Dispatch