The Bourbon Room interviewed New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson late Wednesday on Barack Obama’s comments on Iraq.  I apologize for the late turn-around on this transcript, but on-air work load interfered. As many will remember, Richardson adopted the hardest line on swift troop withdrawals from Iraq. Richardson called for the removal of all U.S. forces by the end of this year, not the 2009 horizon Obama frequently repeated on the campaign trail. Richardson’s an enthusiastic Obama supporter now and, of course, that endorsement drew the wrath of many in Hillary Clinton’s camp, most memorably James Carville. Carville compared Richardson, who endorsed Obama just before Easter, to Judas Iscariot.

Here is the full transcript of my telephone interview with Richardson. The Bourbon Room is indebted to Fox’s Dominque Pastre for re-trying this transcript. I wanted everyone to see this interview to add to the debate on Obama’s Iraq comments.

Enjoy and Happy Fourth of July.

Q: Did you detect any reversal or change in Obama’s policy on Iraq? 

Richardson: Irecall in the Democratic debates and this is exactly what senator Obama said. It would take approximately 16 months. He wants to withdraw the troops securely and safely, combat forces. But he always said that he would listen to his military commanders on the ground. And he’s going to Iraq. He’s going to meet with our military there, he’s going to talk to our troops and he’s going to look at his policy. Not in terms of changing it but refinement also means diplomatic options — finding ways to get Iraq to have some kind of political reconciliation, the three groups, division of oil revenues, sharing power. No, this is not a walk-back. This is exactly what he’s said and it shows a responsible potential commander in chief saying he’s going to listen to his military and saying he’s going to talk to the troops on the ground. 

Q: How do today’s comments square with his promise to end the war in Iraq in 2009?

Richardson: He always said on the average he wanted to take 1-2 combat brigades out a month, that it would take approximately 16 months for this to happen – safely and securely. And the issue of, I think that he wants to refine his policy is look — our commanders there in Iraq, our troops, there may some different alternatives that are part of a future diplomatic effort. He’s, he’s not changing his policy. Refine means make it better. But I think he has been the candidate who wants to end the war. He won the Democratic nomination by being consistent, by being the candidate that has been consistent in his opposition to the war and trying to find a diplomatic solution. But ending the war in 16 months.

Q: Is he signaling he may walk-back his committment to remove 1 to 2 combat brigades a month by linking the pace of those withdrawals to security on the ground and the safety of troops?  

Richardson: The reality is that the senator’s military advisers in the United States and many other military and diplomatic and political observers that advise them believe that we can do this safely and securely in 16 months. You know, not every military person has to have one view. The senator is going to listen to our military, to our, to the people on the ground, to our troops and come up with refinements to his policy. Not change. We can make it better. He’s not walking back, but reaffirming his policy to listen to best military and strategic advise he can get being in Iraq.

Q: Do you think Obama’s remarks will generate any frustration within the Democratic party?

Richardson: I believe this is being drummed up by the opposition, by senator John McCain, by Republicans saying it’s a shift in policy. It isn’t. I think those that voted for Sen. Obama, his core supporters, many like myself believe very strongly that he wants to end the war he wants to do it as rapidly as possible. He wants to do it as safely and securely as possible and then pursue diplomacy — something that we haven’t pursed before in the region. You know, find some sort of date and agreement where the three Iraqi groups set up a political reconciliation, take over their security, share oil revenues, share power — which they’ve been unable to do. That’s what he’s going to learn on the ground. See perhaps some options that will give us a strong diplomatic effort to end this war too.

Q: Do you think in anyway he’s creating room to maneuver on troop withdrawals or policy in Iraq? 

Richardson: What he was very clear in saying is that he’s going to listen to his military commanders on the ground,  the brave men and women that are out there that who are every day dealing with this issue. And, he is gonna look at his policy, continuous policy. But if these individuals have some good, strong advice he’s going to listen to it. You want to listen to your people. That’s why he’s going. It’s not a change in policy.  

Here is a transcript of the question and answer session Obama had with the traveling press corps in Fargo, N.D., at the second press conference conducted that dealt with Obama’s positoin on Iraq troop withdrawals. The Bourbon Room is indebted to Bonney Kapp, the Fox Obama embed, for producing a partial transcript of Obama’s remarks. The Bourbon Room will shorten the questions for the sake of speed and readability without sacrificing content or context.

Q: In your opening statement you talked about obtaining training data on Iraqi forces, what can you learn in Iraq that you can’t learn in Washington, D.C.

Obama: Well there’s no doubt that a lot of this info I’ve been obtaining in Washington but I also think it’s important to be in discussions directly not only with commanders but also Iraqi officials. And other leaders in the region.

Q: Your website says U.S. troops will be out in 16 months. Is there a need to modify that information?

Obama : You know, I have to say that there is nothing that that website says that contradicts what I’ve said here. I will bring this war to close, I think it is important for us to do strategically.

Q: What did you mean when you said you might refine your Iraq policies? Does that mean no 16-month timetable?

Obama: No that’s not no, not refine the 16-month timetable, what I just referred to. For example, there’s been a major debate in terms of how we should structure training for Iraqi military and police what kinds of troop presence will we need in order for that to occur. What kind of troop presences will we need in order for that to occur? What kind of troop presence do we need in order to provide a counterterrorism strike force in Iraq that assures that al Qaeda does not regain a foot hold there? Those are all issues that obviously need to be determined by facts on the ground.

Q: Do you think it will be a challenge to explain to American people your Iraq policy over the next four months if you’ve had a problem over past four hours?

A: I guess I’m just puzzled. I mean I’ll be frank with you Jeff (Zeleny, New York Times). I think what’s happened is that the McCain campaign primed the pump with the press to suggest that somehow we were changing our policy when we hadn’t. And that just hasn’t been the case. I’ve given no indication of a change in policy. I haven’t suggested that we’re moving in a diff direction. I think John McCain’s gonna have a much harder time explaining how he is willing to perpetuate a presence in Iraq for 10, 20, 50 years. The American people understand that we have fulfilled our obligations in Iraq. They are not interested in seeing Iraq collapse, but they are interested in seeing this war come to a close and what I’ve said today, as I’ve said over the last 2 years, is that if you follow my plan to begin wthdrawing troops and having our comabt troops out in 16 months, we’re talking about approximately 2 years from now having our combat troops out. Add on the 5 years we’ve already been there and we will have been there for 7 years. I think the American people understand that that has been a significant committment both of blood and of treasure. So I don’t think I’m gonna have trouble explaining my plan. I thnk that what John McCain’s gonna have to do is explain why he wants to extend it even further than that.

Q: When you add the term stability in Iraq to conditions for safe wthdrawal, doesn’t that change qualfications for troop withdrawal?

Obama: No I - the - I have always said that it is important. I’ve always said and we can show you the transcripts that it is important - we have a strategic interest in Iraq and making sure that it doesn’t collapse. But what I’ve said consistently is that strategic interest is not served by having a permanent occupation there. That strategic interest is served by prodding the Iraqi factions and leadership to work together to negotiate, to negotiate a political accommodation, a politcal agreement. And making sure that the other powers in the region are bought into a stabilization plan. That can’t be imposed militarily and that’s the position I’ve been stating for the last two years.

Q: You’ve said you intend to end the war. Does that create wriggle room?  

In November of 2007 you said you would consult with generals but set policy.

Obama: And that, that, that, that is unchanged, that is unchanged. Let me be absolutely clear. As president I set the mission. This is a…I just had an interview with the Military Times yesterday in which I said one of the flaws in the president’s approach is to say that he is doing what General Petraeus tells him is the best thing to do. That’s not the president’s job. The President’s job is to tell the generals what their mission is. Because you have to take the entire strategic interest of the US in mind, not just one particular front when it comes to our national interest, and so the mission that I will set for our generals is to bring this war to close. That has not changed.

Q: But now it sounds as if you could hear different advice from generals and that could change your policy in Iraq.

Obama: Look and as I’ve said before and this was true during, you know, during the heat of the primary, it was true when we posted this website. I have always said, and again you can look at the language, that as Commander-in-Chief I would always reserve the right to do what’s best in America’s national interest and if it turned out for example that we had to in certain months slow the pace because of the safety of American troops in terms of getting combat troops out. Of course, we would take that into account. I would be a poor Commander-in-Chief if I didn’t take facts on the ground into account.

Q: You said that when you used the phrase “refine policy,” you were not refering to the 16-month timetable. Does that mean you can tell us today that you will not change the 16-month timetable?

Obama: (Laughs and pauses) Here’s what I can tell you—that I will bring our troops out at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades per month and at that pace we will have our combat troops out in 16 months. That is what I intend to do as president of the United  States.

Q: What about response to those who say pulling out a brigade each in  1 or 2 a month is pulling out too rapidly.

Obama: Well the individuals that youre suggesting, those are the same folks who said we can’t pull troops out because things are too violent. Now that the violence has subsided you can’t pull troops out because things have improved. It’s a Catch 22. At some point we can’t allow U.S. policy and our larger strategic interests to be dictated by the failure of the Iraqis for example to arrive at a political accommodation. And keep in mind, much of my concern here has to do with what’s happening in Afghanistan, which has seen more violence in the eastern portion of the country than any time since 2001. Despite the fact that we’ve got an extraordinary force there of well-trained, well-equipped U.S. forces and yet we’ve still seen a spike in violence. And ya know the president has talked about putting more troops into Afghanistan, but it’s very hard to figure out where those troops are going ot come from if we are sustaining the kinds of troop levels that we have in Iraq.

Q: Would critics argue that you might be sacrificing gains in Iraq for Afghanistan.

Obama: There’s is no indication that at the pace of gradual withdrawal that I’m talking about that you would lose some of the gains that have been made in Iraq.

So ended Obama’s lengthy second press conference on Iraq. The campaing made the decision not to state his policy and avoid questions but to take as many as were lobbed Obama’s way.  

This from McCain spokesman Brian Rogers, probably channeling new chief day-to-day strategist Steve Schmidt. Wait. Channeling Schmidt isn’t required. Remember, when Schmidt was a major force in the Bush re-election campaign his question of the day was “what are you doing to leave lead on the target.”

“Since announcing his campaign in 2007, the central premise of Barack Obama’s candidacy was his commitment to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq immediately. He campaigned in Iowa, New Hampshire and across the country reaffirming this pledge to the American people.

Today, Barack Obama reversed that position proving once again that his words do not matter. He has now adopted John McCain’s position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind when the facts on the ground dictate it. Indeed, the facts have changed because of the success of the surge that John McCain advocated for years and Barack Obama opposed in a position that put politics ahead of country.

Now that Barack Obama has changed course and proven his past positions to be just empty words, we would like to congratulate him for accepting John McCain’s principled stand on this critical national security issue. If he had visited Iraq sooner or actually had a one-on-one meeting with General Petraeus, he would have changed his position long ago.”

This e-mail just arrived from Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan, chronicling Obama’s earlier statements on Iraq troop withdrawals. Clearly, the Obama campaign sees a need to counter an emerging and unwelcome media frame, not necessarily visible on this blog, on his Iraq policy.

OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY SAID HE WILL LISTEN TO COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND IN IMPLEMENTING HIS POLICY

June 2008: Obama: I’ve Consistently Said That I Will Consult With Military Commanders On The Ground And Be Open To The Possibility Of Tactical Adjustments.  Obama said, “I’ve also consistently said that I will consult with military commanders on the ground and that we will always be open to the possibility of tactical adjustments. The important thing is to send a clear signal to the Iraqi people and most importantly to the Iraqi leadership that the U.S. occupation in Iraq is finite, it is gonna be coming to a foreseeable end.” [MSNBC, 6/16/08]

March 2008: Obama Said He Would Give Senior Military Leaders Opinions Great Weight In Implementing His Iraq Plan But As Commander In Chief Would Make His Own Assessment Of The Situation.  Obama was asked “what weight will you give to the counsel of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] commander, the combatant commander on the ground in Iraq and current intelligence chiefs on the ground in Iraq regarding an immediate phased withdrawal?”  Obama said, “I will give their counsel great weight. But, as commander in chief, it is my responsibility to make my own assessment of the situation. We must send a clear signal to the Iraqi political leadership that we are leaving Iraq on a timeline. Doing so will put pressure on those leaders to begin to resolve the political impasse at the heart of this civil war. But I also want to be clear about another thing. I am worried our Army is overstretched and that we have asked an awful lot from our military families. Many in our senior military leadership are worried about a plan that will keep 130,000 troops on the ground in Iraq for the foreseeable future. So, as commander in chief, I will also have to take into consideration the counsel of other senior military leaders who may be concerned that Iraq is undercutting our ability to confront other security challenges.” [Washington Post, 3/2/08]

March 2008: Obama Said The Size Of The Residual Force Will Depend On Consultation With Military Commanders And “Will Depend On The Circumstances On The Ground.”  Obama said, “The precise size of the residual force will depend on consultations with our military commanders and will depend on the circumstances on the ground, including the willingness of the Iraqi government to move toward political accommodation. But let me be clear on one thing: I will end this war, and there will be far fewer Americans in Iraq conducting a much more limited set of missions that include counterterrorism and protection of our embassy and U.S. civilians.” [Washington Post, 3/2/08]

November 2007: Obama Said He Would Leave Residual Troops In Iraq Based On The Levels Of Violence, “It’s Not My Job To Specify Troop Levels.”  Obama said, “If we see a serious effort by the Iraqi leadership to arrive at an agreement and an accommodation and you’ve seen continued reductions of violence, then you need one level of troop protection for the embassy…If things have gone to hell in a hand basket then you need another … It’s not my job to specify troop levels. My job is to tell our commanders on the ground, ‘Here’s your mission. Protect our embassy, protect our diplomats and our humanitarian workers in the area and make sure al Qaeda in Iraq, or other terrorist organizations inside of Iraq are not re-establishing bases there.”  [Fosters, 11/28/07]

November 2007: Obama Said U.S. Has To Make Sure “We Are Not Just Willy-Nilly Removing Troops” And That It May “Take A Little Bit Longer” In Some Areas Where There Is Less Stability.  “According to all the reports, we should have been well along our way in getting the Iraqi security forces to be more functional. We then have another 16 months after that to adjust the withdrawal and make sure that we are withdrawing from those areas, based on advice from the military officers in the field, those places where we are secured, made progress and we’re not just willy-nilly removing troops, but we’re making a determination – in this region we see some stability. We’ve had cooperation from local tribal leaders and local officials, so we can afford to remove troops here. Here, we’ve still got problems, it’s going to take a little bit longer. Maybe those are the last areas to pull out.”  [New York Times, 11/1/07]

November 2007: Obama: “If The Commanders Tell Me They Need X, Y And Z, In Order To Accomplish The Very Narrow Mission That I’ve Laid Out, Than I Will Take That Into Consideration.”  “You raise a series of legitimate questions. As commander in chief, I’m not going to leave trainers unprotected. In our counterterrorism efforts, I’m not going to have a situation where our efforts can’t be successful. We will structure those forces so they can be successful. We would still have human intelligence capabilities on the ground. Some of them would be civilian, as opposed to military, some would be operating out of our bases as well as our signal intelligence…But listen, I am not going to set up our troops for failure and I’m going to do something half-baked. If the commanders tell me that they need X, Y and Z, in order to accomplish the very narrow mission that I’ve laid out, than I will take that into consideration.”  [New York Times, 11/1/07]

Barack Obama held a second press conference today to respond to numerous web posts suggesting he was either backing away from his planned Iraq troop withdrawal timelines or laying the groundwork to do so.

See these posts as examples:

 http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/03/obama_softens_on_iraq_withdraw.html; http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/barack-obama-ir.html; http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/obama-open-to-refine-iraq-withdrawal-timeline/

As a result of this coverage, Obama met with reporters a second time to explain what he meant at his first press conference.

Here is his opening statement:

“We are going to try this again apparently I wasn’t clear enough this morning on my position with respect to the war in Iraq. I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill conceived that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end. I have also said that I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out, that I would bring the troops home at a pace of one to two brigades a month and that at that pace we would have our combat troops out in 16 months.

That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position. What I said this morning and what I will repeat because it is consistent with what I have said over the last two years in putting this plan together. I will always listen to the advice of commanders on the ground but that ultimately I am the person making the strategic decisions.

It is my view that strategically that for us to perpetuate this war in Iraq the way that John McCain has proposed and neglect the extraordinary problems that we are seeing in Afghanistan, to continue to spend 10 to 12 billion dollars a month, to continue to put enormous burdens on our military and military families is not the best way to make the American people safe.

So we are going to go visit Iraq. I want to have conversations with commanders on the ground and Iraqi officials. When I come back that information will obviously inform how we shape our plans moving forward. For example, what is the current training situation and how many residual troops might be needed in order to train Iraqis to stand up both the army and the police? What is the current posture in terms of negotiations between the various Iraqi factions on critical issues like how oil is distributed oil revenues are distributed?

But, you know, let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war responsibly deliberately but decisively.

And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month and again that pace translates to having our combat troops out in 16 months time.

So the last point I would just make is this is the same position that I had 4 months ago, it is the same position that I had 8 months ago, and it is the same position I had 12 months ago.”

More on the questions and answers soon…..

The Republican National Committee just released this statement in reaction to Obama’s Iraq comments in Fargo, N.D. The statement comes from RNC spokesman Alex Conant.

“There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience. Obama’s Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician.”

The Bourbon Room sent Obama’s full answer to Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and specialist in Iraq policy, to ask if he thought Obama flip-flopped on Iraq or was at least trying to create more flexibility in his approach to timelines for troop withdrawals.

O’Hanlon kindly wrote back as follows:

“The second question was good, (please see the post below on Obama’s Iraq remarks). It forced him back to the 1-2 brigades per month formulation and the 16 month (troop withdrawal) timeline.  He didn’t quite modify it but he certainly didn’t reinforce it. And his emphasis on Iraqi stability as a guiding criterion is important and would seem to open the door more–to an extent, anyway.”

O’Hanlon, in pre-taped interview with me earlier today, described Obama’s Iraq position as “ambiguous” because it defined a hard and measurable goal of withdrawing virtually all U.S. combat brigades within 16 months while at the same time saying Obama would consult with generals on the ground in Iraq for their opinion.

O’Hanlon told me these were positions at odds with one another because he said no general in Iraq now believes all combat brigades can be removed that rapidly without a sizable lose of stability in Iraq and without risking a possible resurgence of Al Qaeda activity or insurgent-fed violence.

When O’Hanlon — who told me he would welcome a modified Obama policy on Iraq — wrote that Obama appeared to “open the door more — to an extent anyway” he was saying Obama was intentionally creating policy wriggle room to manuever on the question of hard troop withdrawal timelines.

In essence, O’Hanlon would not call it a flip-flop but a path to a possible evolution, one he predicted would inflict short-term political pain but might win Obama support from those fearful of a rigid Iraq policy indifferent to success on the ground.

AP Photo

Breaking:

In a press conference moments ago in Fargo, North Dakota, Sen. Barack Obama was asked about reports he is considering modifying his commitment during the primaries to begin troop withdrawals within 60 days and seek to remove 1 to 2 combat brigades per month and have virtually all U.S. forces out of Iraq with 16 months. Obama has always said he would rely on the advice of military commanders but also made abundantly clear during the primaries that he dictated policy and while he would weigh the opinions of his commanders on the ground, his desire to end the war in Iraq was strong and he would do all within his power to start troop withdrawals as a means of encouraging Iraq’s government to accelerate the process of political reconciliation.

Today’s comments covered much of the same ground but included some phrases strong Iraq war opponents may find unsettling as they suggest new flexibility on troop withdrawal timelines and learning new facts on the ground during Obama’s as-yet-unscheduled trip to Iraq this summer.

The first question was whether his critics are correct and that he is considering changing his policy on Iraq troop withdrawal timelines.

Obama: “You know these critics haven’t based their comments on anything that Ive said or anything that my campaign has said. Its pure speculation. Were planning to visit Iraq. I’m gonna do a thorough assessment when I’m there. I have been consistent through out this process that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake.

That we need to bring this war to a responsible end. I have said repeatedly, although it was recently quoted as something new, that we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in and that view has not changed.

I continue to believe that it is a strategic error for us to maintain a long term occupation in Iraq at a time when conditions in Afghanistan are worsening, Al Qaeda has been able to establish bases in the areas of north west Pakistan,

Resources there are severely strained and were spending 10 to 12 billion dollars in Iraq that we desperately need here at home not to mention the strains on our military. So my position has not changed but keep in mind what that original position was. I have always said that I will listen to commanders on the ground;

I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.

That assessment has not changed and when I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure Ill have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

He was then asked if this meant he was open to a timeline for troop withdrawals that might take longer than 16 months.

Obama: “I mean we can chase this around you know for a long time.

What I’ve said repeatedly is that my goal is to end this conflict in a responsible way as quickly as possible. My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe. I said based on what the information we had received from our commanders that 1-2 brigades per month could be pulled out safely from a logistical perspective. And my guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable. And I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold and you know my job is to make sure that the strategic issues that we face, not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan in Iraq, and Pakistan that those are all taken into account and dealt with in a way that enhances Americas national security interest over the long term.”

These comments may suggest to some that Obama is leaving himself more room to maneuver on troop withdrawals and setting up a scenario where he could re-calibrate his Iraq policy after his sit down meetings there with commanders on the ground, especially Gen. David Petraeus. This could draw criticism for inconsistency from the anti-war left and the pro-surge right.

Time will tell.

The Labor Department reported this morning the economy shed 62,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rate held steady at 5.5 percent. A total of 8.5 million Americans are now jobless and last week 16,000 Americans filed applications for first-time jobless benefits. The number of those recently laid off and now seeking new benefits was 404,000 in June, the highest total since March. 

John McCain’s campaign released this statement at 9:05 a.m. EDT:

“Americans across this country are hurting and today’s job numbers are just the latest indication. From rising gas prices to home foreclosures, families are struggling to meet economic challenges that become greater every day. Washington can no longer abdicate its responsibility to act. Our focus must be clear: enact policies to create jobs today.

“To get our economy back on track, we must enact a jobs-first economic plan that supports job creation, provide immediate tax relief for families, enact a plan to help those facing foreclosure, lower health care costs, invest in innovation, move toward strategic energy independence and open more foreign markets to our goods.

“The American people cannot afford an economic agenda that will take our country in the wrong direction and cost jobs. At a time when our small businesses need support from Washington, we cannot raise taxes, increase regulation and isolate ourselves from foreign markets. These are the same old siren songs that have failed the American people time and time again.”

 Barack Obama released this statement at 9:18 a.m. EDT

“As we head into the 4th of July weekend, today’s report that our economy has lost another 62,000 jobs is a stark reminder that far too many Americans will spend this holiday out of work and struggling to provide for their families because of the failed policies of the last eight years.

Our economy has now shed 438,000 jobs over the past six months, while workers’ wages fail to keep pace with the skyrocketing cost of gas, groceries and healthcare.  The American people are paying the price for the failed economic policies of the past eight years, and we can’t afford four more years of more of the same.  That is the essential issue of this campaign because Senator McCain has fully embraced the Bush economic agenda.  I believe it has to change.

But, as these numbers demonstrate, the American people can’t wait another six months.  We need action now.

That’s why I’m calling on Congress and the President to enact real, immediate relief with energy rebates for working families this summer, a fund to help families avoid foreclosure, extended benefits for the long-term jobless, and assistance to states that have been hard-hit by the economic downturn.

 As President, I’ll move us in a new direction with policies to restore broad-based, bottom up growth that benefits all Americans. I will provide working families with a middle-class tax cut; fight for affordable health care and college tuition; work to help raise workers’ wages, and invest in infrastructure, education and a clean energy future to create millions of new jobs. That’s the change the American people need.”

Barack Obama has wrapped up the most important parts of his values week. He delivered a speech on patriotism Monday in Independence, Mo., a speech on faith on Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, and speech on national service on Wednesday in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

On Wednesday The Bourbon Room interviewed two pollsters on whether this week worked or failed.

One was Doug Schoen, a prominent Democratic pollster who worked for former President Bill Clinton after Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994. Schoen is credited with helping Clinton regain his political footing and win a second term in 1996. Schoen worked under Dick Morris, the top Clinton strategist in those “comeback” years.

The other pollster was David Winston. Winston was top pollster for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich from 1997 to 1998 and has polled for top Republicans in Congress in recent years. The Bourbon Room would like to thank Fox’s Allyson Walker for transcribing the full taped interviews that produced the quotes you see below.

Here’s Schoen’s take on Obama’s week so far:

“I think it’s a wise strategic move. I think it is critically important to the campaign and I think by moving to the right on values-related issues: national service, faith-based initiatives, patriotism he’s rebutting one of the central negatives he has. The fact that John McCain is letting him do this is a major strategic blunder on McCain’s part.”

Schoen said the week will go along way as the campaign progresses to minimize memories of Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Fr. Michael Pflager and others who have — at least in the minds of some — undermined or obliterated Obama’s image as a post-racial, post-partisan politician.

“I think it is eradicating the memory of those people who Barack Obama recognizes, quite rightly, have no place in the dialog,” Schoen said. “He wants to reengage and the fact that John McCain has apparently allowed this process to go forward without challenge is a huge benefit to the Obama candidacy. I think he’s going to be significantly advantaged by these initiatives in a way that, arguably, before this week there were major questions about his patriotism, about his commitment to faith-based initiatives, about his values. He ’s addressed them pretty successfully.”

While it might sound off-putting to some Obama supporters, Schoen said the values week looked to him very much like the strategy of “triangulation” the Clinton White House adopted to deal with the Republican majority in Congress.

“It strikes me as exactly what we did with bill Clinton successfully in 1996 and I think Barack Obama is moving to the center successfully in a way that will obviously be to his benefit. This is building for the future. This is what we call ‘inoculation.’ And by inoculation I mean he is able to cover his flank and say ‘of course I’ve made it clear I’m a patriot, of course I support traditional American values.”

Lastly Schoen said this strategy isn’t about moving poll numbers now but protecting Obama against a drop in poll numbers later if attacks on his character surface later.

“He doesn’t need a bump, he needs a bumper and by all accounts, he’s getting a pretty strong reinforcement in the last three days.”

Winston, as you might imagine, has a completely different take.

“Barack Obama’s got one big structural problem as he looks toward this election. That is he’s basically a far left candidate in a center-right country. What he’s now trying to do is what every typical politician does after winning their nomination and that is to move to the center. The problem that he has here, however, is that he is supposed to be an atypical politician and so doing a typical political move may sort of conflict with a lot of principles he’s trying to protect.”

Winston calls the week on values a mistake because it’s too late to reshape Obama’s image.

“People know who this person is so if suddenly you’re going to come in with a whole slough of different positions than what’s clearly been held before that creates conflict for a lot of people. That’s where I think they’re making a significant error. This is not reintroducing him or trying to shape who he is. People know who he is. And the question is ‘What’s he going to do?’ And that’s the question he’s not answering. I think it’s overtly naive. How do you re-define someone who’s 100 percent known? I think they’re making a fundamental error. The biggest problem that he has at this point is “what are you gonna do?” What are your policies that you’re trying to implement? I think what they need to do is he needs to develop his economic policy. It’s the number-one issue in the country. it’s what people are focused on, gas prices are driving, a lot of people’s perceptions of what’s going on with the economy.”

So there you have it, two veterans of 1990s era politics who see something very familiar in Obama’s general election strategy. Schoen, who did not for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and Winston, who is not working for John McCain’s campaign, see the week very differently. Winston’s delighted Obama hasn’t used a week with McCain out of the country to pound him on the ‘Bush economy.” Schoen thinks there’s plenty of time for that and Obama needed to shore up some weaknesses first.

Let the debate over these tactics begin.

The Bourbon Room, courtesy of Fox Chicago producer Ruth Ravve, has received this formal comment on the Obama loan from Northern Trust.

The statement is from John O’Connell, director of Northern Trust’s institutional public relations, North America.

Northern Trust does not comment to the media on client matters, as a matter of policy.

However, at the request of the Obama campaign we responded to an inquiry from the Washington Post on the Obama family’s home mortgage.

Beyond confirming basic facts about the mortgage, which the campaign has posted on its Web site, Northern Trust told the Washington Post:

- Northern Trust does not have a “VIP” program offering special rates on mortgages for celebrities or public officials.

- The process for determining the Obamas’ mortgage loan was consistent with how we structure Northern Trust rates, and the rates themselves were consistent with Northern Trust rates at that time.

- The bottom line is that this was a business proposition for us. Our business model is to service and to pursue successful individuals, families and institutions.