JE: Thanks for having me, Keith.
KO: One big picture question before we get you and your campaign and New Hampshire. At least 236,000 went to the democratic caucuses last night, a 90% plus jump from 2004 which was, as you obviously recall, a pretty activist kind of year itself. For you, for Senator Obama, for Senator Clinton, is that number the ultimate headline from Iowa and if so, what does it portend?
JE: I see a different headline, Keith, I think the headline is: The two change candidates won and the status quo was rejected.
KO: One of my old colleagues, Gwen Ifill, was just on PBS saying that you might be framing the remainder of the New Hampshire campaign in terms of a two person candidacy; two person campaign, yourself and Senator Obama. Did we just here that and if that is the case, what is the differential as you see it between yourself and the Senator from Illinois?
JE: well I think what you saw in Iowa, Keith, was that there were two candidates that had $100 million each and one who was grossly outspent there, and I managed to beat Senator Clinton, narrowly, but I managed to beat her and finished second to Senator Obama who outspent me 4 or 5 times. In Iowa, and what it means, it think, in practical terms, is that the things that I’m fighting for - the middle class, jobs, doing something about corporate power stranglehold on our democracy – it resonates with people. People care about it. So I think, now, to get to your question, voters in New Hampshire, who don’t like to be told what tot do, and are very independent minded, I think they’ll see this as a change primary and they have the difference between Senator Obama and myself as the two change candidates. Senator Obama, he’s a good man, but he has a more philosophical and academic approach, and I think we have a battle on our hands against these entrenched powers like the oil companies and drug companies.
KO: Clearly, whatever we heard last night, we even heard this to some extent with Mr. Huckabee and the republicans side, that word “change” seems to be front runner for theme for the entirety, right through to the general election in November. With that democratic turnout last night, do you think there is an opportunity to get that change no matter who gets the nomination and is there some requirement among all of you in this campaign right now to make sure that the others are sufficiently protected to go into November undamaged with the entire movement behind him or her?
JE: I think our responsibility is different from that, Keith, I think that our responsibility is that ensure that we are not just using the political rhetoric of change, but that we’re actually deadly serious about it. I just told you senator Obama is a change candidate, by any measure, and so am I. We have a very different view of how we should bring that change which I just talked about. I think senator Clinton is different, I think she is the status quo. And I think that’s what voters in Iowa saw. I think what’s more important than the three of us – I actually listened to your conversation about the Republicans, it just makes me laugh listening to them talk about change – but between three of us, I think the most important thing is that we nominate a candidate, and I think it’s either myself or Senator Obama, who’ll actually fight for the changes we need, and the country needs change, it’s not personal to any of us, it’s what America needs, that’s what this caucus is about.
KO: Again, specifically to your campaign, with all respects to my colleagues on the coverage last night, I said this a couple times last night, I didn’t understand the conventional wisdom last night, I don’t understand it now. If you finished second in Iowa, with more than support than the previous national frontrunner who dropped from first to third, many of the pundits meant, many of the so-called experts are describing you as being in trouble, rather than Senator Clinton. Do you know why that is?
JE: I have absolutely no idea. I think they’ve been in love with the idea of this being between just the two of them all along, and I’ve been battling, making my case. I’m the underdog, Keith. I have been for a long time. Everybody expected me to get wiped out in Iowa. I mean, they saw the millions of dollars that was being spent, and what matters here is the caucus goers said we’re with this guy. We like what he’s doing. We’re with him, and I think the same thing’s going to happen right here in New Hampshire, and people like you make a difference. It’s the reality of politics that as long as my voice is being heard and I’m speaking on behalf of all the millions of Americans who seems like they have no voice whatsoever, I’ve got a great chance in New Hampshire and in all the subsequent states.
KO: Alright, give me your specifics to this: your assessment of where politics and your issues most clearly intersected for you in Iowa. Obviously the big word is change, but inside that word, what one issue do you think most contributed to your finishing second in Iowa?
JE: I don’t think it was an issue, Keith. I think it was people. There is where they saw us personally. They could see the difference between somebody like myself, who takes this cause very personally, and who they know deep inside will fight for it every day that I’m president of the United States, versus somebody who talks about it, for whom it’s more of a political issue and they know that when the hard times come, the politicians are going to do the political thing. And I think they could see the difference, when they see you in their living room and in their towns and in their town squares. And I think that’s what happened in Iowa, and I think they same thing’s going to happen in New Hampshire.
