
Khue Bui for Newsweek
This week's print edition of NEWSWEEK boasts interviews with not one but two--that is, both--major party candidates for president. Since Stumper readers would never be caught dead reading articles printed on paper [shudder], we've decided to post excerpts here, in the safe, secure world of bits and bytes. Suzanne Smalley's chat with John McCain is first; Richard Wolffe and Barack Obama is after the jump.
JOHN MCCAIN by Suzanne Smalley
Smalley: You value straight talk.
McCain: I'll give you that.
Some
of your proposals seem a little gimmicky, like the $300 million prize
for inventing a new, more powerful car battery. If someone were capable
of inventing it, wouldn't they have done it already?
You
could argue tax cuts could be viewed as a gimmick; anything we do for
people to encourage American entrepreneurs and innovators could be
viewed as a gimmick. And I don't view it as a gimmick. I view it as an
incentive to address one of the most important challenges Americans
face today, and that is to become energy-independent and to have
automobiles that they can drive without having to be bankrupted.
You've
advocated for lifting a ban on offshore drilling. Why is drilling there
preferable to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
Because
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. I believe that offshore drilling is clearly called for. I think
we need to do it, and we have to do it.
You've
taken heat lately for a string of misstatements about foreign-policy
issues. Some news reports have suggested your age could be slowing you
down. How do you explain those gaffes?
I spend most of my
days with town-hall meetings and with people—people like you. And
occasionally there will be a misstatement. But you know, at a town-hall
meeting I've never had a person stand up and say, "Hey, Senator McCain,
you've made a gaffe." They stand up and they say, "How do I stay in my
home? How do I keep my job? How do I afford to drive to work?" Et
cetera. And, by the way, some of those "gaffes" have not been
[misstatements], but they've been portrayed as such. But I'm not
complaining. It's fine with me. The American people know me.
On torture, why should the CIA be treated differently from the armed services regarding the use of harsh interrogation tactics?
Because
they play a special role in the United States of America and our
ability to combat terrorists. But we have made it very clear that there
is nothing they can do that would violate the Geneva Conventions, the
Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits torture. We could never torture
anyone, but some people misconstrue that who don't understand what the
Detainee Treatment Act and the Geneva Conventions are all about.
What
should our policy be toward gays who want to serve in our military? And
would your decision be influenced at all by the needs of commanders on
the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially with more soldiers
needed?
Obviously, we listen to our commanders on the
ground, who are in charge and have a responsibility for those young men
and women. They say that "Don't ask, don't tell" is working, so unless
they recommend otherwise I'm certainly going to support their
recommendations, which were originated with Gen. Colin Powell.
Do
you think that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is a tool of Vladimir
Putin? And if our ally Georgia is threatened or attacked by Russia, how
would you respond?
Well, I can't get into hypotheticals,
but I can tell you that ... the relationship between Medvedev and Putin
is unclear, but it certainly is disturbing, the trend of their behavior
towards their neighbors, including their failure to cooperate with us
in face of the Iranian nuclear buildup.
How do you plan to win the votes of women? What policies can you point to that will help you win their support?
Job
creation is one of their No. 1 issues, and education and equal
opportunity. I have not only a very clear record, but I have a very
clear vision to restore our economy, to create jobs and particularly
small businesses and to protect America for their sons and husbands and
friends and cousins and [family] members, men and women, who are
serving in the military.
Are you worried being pro-life will drive them away?
The majority of women in America, in my view, respect the rights of the unborn.
BARACK OBAMA by Richard Wolffe
Wolffe: Based on what you've seen and heard on this
trip, is there anything that has led you to review any policy, tweak
things, rethink anything?
Obama: Our success in Afghanistan
is going to be deeply dependent not just on getting more troops there,
which we need, but also some sustained high-level engagement with
Pakistan—something that I discussed before but I think is significantly
more urgent than even I had imagined. Basically there doesn't appear to
be any pressure at all being placed on Al Qaeda, on these training
camps, these safe havens, in the FATA [Federally Administered Tribal
Areas].
In Iraq, it's not new that Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki has wanted to take control of his own country.
But there's always been this gap between his assessment of his
abilities and American commanders' saying he's not up to it. As
president, faced with that difference between what he says he can do
and what the commanders say he can do, how would you choose between
them?
Iraq is a sovereign country. Not just according to
me, but according to George Bush and John McCain. So ultimately our
presence there is at their invitation, and their policy decisions have
to be taken into account. I also think that Maliki recognizes that
they're going to need our help for some time to come, as our commanders
insist, but that the help is of the sort that is consistent with the
kind of phased withdrawal that I have promoted. We're going to have to
provide them with logistical support, intelligence support. We're going
to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We're
going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them
more effective.
You've been talking about
those limited missions for a long time. Having gone there and talked to
both diplomatic and military folks, do you have a clearer idea of how
big a force you'd need to leave behind to fulfill all those functions?
I
do think that's entirely conditions-based. It's hard to anticipate
where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and
a half from now.
When you went to AIPAC
you called for a freeze on settlements. As president, what would you be
prepared to do to persuade the Israelis to freeze the settlements,
something people have talked about for a long time but never achieved?
I
wouldn't have a discussion about settlements in isolation from the
larger issue of peace. So at the same time I was seeking observance of
the settlement pledge that the Israelis have already made, I'd be
insisting on the Palestinians to follow through on the commitments they
made for security. Our leverage in the region has diminished, and the
most important way to convince the Israelis to stop building
settlements is to give them a sense that they're getting something back
in return that is worthwhile, that is the prospect that rockets won't
be raining down and their borders will be secure—the borders of an
Israel side by side with an independent Palestinian state.
The
Roadmap and other peace plans have ground to a halt over the last
several years not just because of a lack of involvement from mediators
but also because of an insistence on security first, which may be
understandable for the Israelis, but the Palestinians have not had the
capability or maybe the willpower to deliver security. Wouldn't that
still be a stumbling block, even with the added attention that you
would bring? How would you deliver security without having the Israelis
come in and try to clean things up themselves?
That's why
the experiment that is being conducted to more effectively train the
Palestinian security forces is very important. We need to give them an
increased capacity.
But other efforts have failed.
It's
conceivable that the international community would be interested in
bolstering security efforts during a transition phase as part of a
larger peace package. I don't think that's an inherent barrier.
When you say bolster, would they come in as an international force?
There
are a range of things that are possible. But the point is that if we've
got a serious deal that addresses final status issues as the Annapolis
conversation has begun to do, and the parties are deeply invested in
that, then I think the international community can help the parties
muster both the resources and the capacity to make the deal stick.
You
wrote in your first book about the seductive nature of talking to big
crowds, getting them moved by your words. How does speaking to 200,000
people in Berlin not go to your head?
[Laughs]
Because most of them can't vote in a U.S. election. My overriding mood
during the course of this trip is a sober one. When you look at the
very difficult problem of Iran, the very difficult problem of
Afghanistan and Pakistan, continuing difficulties in Iraq, the
challenges of Middle East peace, the next president is going to have
his hands full. And that's before you start talking about climate
change, the economy, relationships with Russia, China and North Korea.
The point is it doesn't take much to puncture any euphoria you may feel
because of a speech you've given.
Your
conservative critics have suggested that with your focus on your own
story, and this campaign's focus on you, there's a narcissism in how
you've been campaigning.
How so?
Because you tell your story so often.
When have I mentioned my story over the last week?
Yesterday you started with it.
I had, what? Two lines? [Laughs]
I think to some degree every presidential race has a biographical
aspect to it. John McCain, I think people understand, has been
profoundly shaped by his war experiences in Vietnam. And it's right for
him to talk about that and it's right for the American people to draw
conclusions from it. I'm trying to describe to people who I am.
Ultimately I don't think that's a plausible criticism.