Automatic Translated
Obama reinforces differences to reach Hillary and defends a country of immigrants

Published on 05/11/2007 at 14h10m
Eduardo Amaral de Oliveira *,
BOSTON, USA - The tone of voice is still the same from start of the campaign, firm but calm. But the Senator for Illinois, Barack Obama, is shaping his speech according to the opinion polls to vote. In recent interview to the editorial board of the newspaper "Nashua Telegraph," in New Hampshire, in the northeastern state of the United States, Obama has adopted more aggressive tactics against competitors for the party's Democratic nomination for the presidency of the United States and advocated a country of immigrants and without walls at the border.

Click and see images of Obama

The latest numbers may explain why. While search of the Zogby published in January gave the Obama a brief lead on the candidate Hillary Clinton, figures from the end of October to give the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, an advantage of 14 percentage points on Obama in the voting intentions.

Learn about the life and the thought of Obama

But the comments of Obama on a central theme in the campaign of 18 pre-candidate for the presidency of the United States, the war in Iraq, frustrou many voters. The senator said that, if elected president, will not be able to return all troops during his first term.

Then, in 46 years the political shot against his critics: "Either the critics are desinformados, or are being harmed me. When I opposed this war, unlike my competitors, which have had to dramatically reverse their positions, "said he, in reference to rival Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, who in 2001 voted for the beginning of the conflict.

Below, gives you the full interview, granted with exclusivity in Brazil for GLOBO ONLINE:

You said in the debate in Spanish, in Florida, to approve immigration reform during his first term as president. Will there be political capital to spend on such controversial subject at the beginning of his administration?

I hope we have a great debate between the Democratic and the Republican candidate for the people to continue to be a country of laws and of immigrants. I do not think the two are incompatible. I was one of 10 senators who tried to pass the reform imigratória. As a sovereign state should have security at the border, which includes better patrolling, but no walls, because I do not believe that we are able to track them. We have to have a system of verification of documents. I am annoyed when I see families of immigrant workers being arrested and nothing happens to those who hired. And what we do with the 12 million undocumented who are already here? I have said to many audiences, many of them hostile, we do not hold 12 million and send them back home. This is not part of who we are as Americans. That to require almost all our capacity for police and agents. We see pictures on TV of mothers being taken of their children, many of them American citizens. Therefore, we have to open a path to citizenship. People pay taxes, would have to learn English and would for the end of the queue, while reformamos the rest of the system imigratório. What explains, in part, why people come here illegally, the system is so expensive to migrate legally. The American people accept this proposal, if we could give them the assurance of more security. As president, my mission will be to prevent the demagoguery block the resolution of this problem.

Then you do not agree with those who say that deporting 500 one thousand illegal, the rest would leave the country voluntarily?

I do not believe it. So why have economic consequences for this. If Canada were paying $ 100 per hour, you see many Americans going beyond. Part of the problem lies in the fact that while feed our family comfortably here in Mexico many families survive on $ 2 a day. This is an area in which the current administration has failed in assisting the Mexican economy to strengthen them. Another part is related to help the American middle class with the problems it (...) It is born largely of feeling antiimigrante. If they do not have the basic conditions of employment, health, etc., they see immigrants as competition.

Many people criticized the idea of keeping troops in Iraq during his first full term. Clarify your position on the matter.

We must use the same care we had to enter Iraq at the time of departure
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
I am opposed to this war from the beginning and have been a critical contumaz. However, we must use the same care we had to enter Iraq at the time of departure, as the country has strategic interests in the region. In January this year I tabled project so that we can have all the troops back until March 30, 2008. This time limit was approved by the Senate, but the president vetoed the legislation. Today I know that you can only return one or two battalions per month, which would take 16 months to complete the withdrawal. In the debate, I was asked if I would ensure that it is possible to withdraw all troops during my first term. I can not guarantee this because even after closed the phase of fighting there still some missions to fulfill: service humanitarian, diplomatic and even support for the population. The last mission that the troops would be attacking the possible cells of terrorists who seek to be installed in Iraq. These cells may even be outside the country, as in Kuwait, for example. Ensuring complete withdrawal would be irresponsible. It would be like saying here that all American troops will leave for France. A limited work still must be done.

But some of his opponents said that the total withdrawal is possible ...

Yes, some of them during the debate said that we can withdraw all battalions in up to six months. We have not spoke with any of the area military expert who agrees with that. We have to look at increasing the diplomatic work. We must send a message to the Iraqis so that they can solve their own problems, and involve the international community, such as the European Union, also called our enemies. We do not want to wash their missions of a super volatile situation.

Recently, he spoke to "finish the job in Afghanistan", it means reducing troops in Iraq to remanejá them to defeat the Taliban?

I believe we need more troops there. I already talked send two brigades. The government Kharzai is very weak. We have to ensure that Afghanistan remains secure, and there is no chance that the Al Qaeda return to form of training camps there. The military work is only a part. The work of reconstruction also requires more specialized civilians, mainly in the area of agriculture. We can include our allies in this process. We are not able to attend to Afghanistan back to what was before.

How will you deal with the growing power of Iran in the region?

There is no doubt that Iran has been a bad influence in the region and the world. They support terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. They are trying to produce nuclear weapons. Your attitude towards Israel is deplorable, and Ahmadinejd has been clearly a negative force in the region. With the situation in Iraq, they know they can not threaten them militarily as we rolled this war. But not yet esgotamos our options to contain the Irã. Because they remain a country that is unable to refine all of its oil, import gasoline, has great problem of unemployment. Our job is to contain its economic power to ensure that they do not achieve nuclear weapons. And yet the most important: we must not repeat the same mistakes with Iran that we commit in Iraq. What I would specifically: open dialogues with them; I would say that we are prepared to help them enter the World Trade Organization, expanding the economic power they could best help his people. In exchange, we would say that they must stop supporting terrorists around the world. If they reject our proposal, in unir*amos with countries like China and the European Union to press them further. If we increase the pressure as economic offer more diplomatic channels, might not work with Ahmadinejad, but hopefully we can convince more moderate clerics to restore contact us.

About the current ideological division in the USA, which will be your first step to reconcile the two parties which have been distanced both during this campaign?

Great question. I would start trying to find points in common. One example is the work that I did in Illinois. There the criminal justice system committed serious errors. Through the work of students of journalism was disclosed that in just two years 13 innocent people were on death row. So, I proposed that revisássemos recordings of the video interviews of prisoners who obtained confessions. I was criticized not only by Republicans but by the Democratic governor. The point in common, in this case, was the fact that everyone agrees that no one should be on death row without merit. After getting unanimous support, and the governor had to sign the proposal.

What would be the common interest in the Middle East, for example?

When you talk with people like Richard Clark, who participated in the Clinton administration, they say, on one hand, now there are around 20 to 30 one thousand radicals who would be willing to explode. You can not negotiate with them. Our mission is tirá them in action. On the other, there are 1.3 billion Muslims whose interests are no different from our: create their families have enough to eat, a strong community and security. If they knew that cooperating with us they will have more chances to solve mundane problems as access to health and acquisition of good jobs. The question is: are we treating these interests them. Focus on these points help, not solve the problem of radicals who want to kill us, but help change the environment in the country them. About Israel, the issue is more complicated. There are religious and territorial issues. One of the failures of the current administration is that we were not aggressive diplomatically to establish an honest conversation. It gives the Palestinians the right to operate as a state and israelistas the security they need. We can not determine the conditions of the treaty of peace, but we can also demonstrate that they have interests in common.

He believes that its passage by the Senate State of Illinois and a mandate in Congress is incomplete compare the careers of politicians like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton?

Of course. I started my career public there 20 years. I helped to solve all the problems that afflict their readers. In all levels of public life, I know what works and what does not work. If you compare my experience with John Edwards, who just completed a term as senator, or with Hillary Clinton, who served as first-lady, but had no role in a lot of leadership beyond the project of reforming the health, as well as your term as senator. Then, the experiences are quite combat*veis. Existem duas questões primordiais. First: which candidate is able to break the blockade of disagreements that in Washington, who can carry out the changes that people need. Second, who can escape the game of interests with the best solutions for the country.

In all levels of public life, I know what works and what does not work
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
The president has just approved an expansion in the internal investigation of phone calls from outside the country. He supports this measure even though it does not comply with any court order?

I do not support. There was a small error in the law that should be corrected, it was not a regulation of links that come from outside the country. As is typical of this administration they try to pass a truck on the inside of a breach, until now an American who is calling from outside can have your call grampeada according to the Prosecutor-General of the Republic. And this is abusive, typical of an administration that believes that the Constitution can be avoided, unlike serve as a practical guide to regulate our freedoms. I go I strongly oppose the measure. As President, I will use the powers necessary to maintain the security of the people, while respecting the Constitution. The first step will be half ask my Attorney-General to review all administrative actions to discover which are valid and which are not revert to this framework.

About coverage of health, does not need a proposed mandatory to ensure that adults under 35 years of health plans have?

If you look at my plan for the health of John Edwards, and the Hillary Clinton, they are 95% similar. The difference is on the mandate. We only support compulsory for children. That's because the vast majority of which have no coverage is not because they do not want to, but because they can not pay. If you apply a mandate for these, you are creating a situation of illegality to the individual simply because of a lack of financial conditions. Neither Edwards nor Hillary proposed how they will implement the mandate. And if you do not have to monitor this plan, which are left empty words. It may even consider a mandate if we lower the cost of the plans. Because we do not put anyone in prison because of this. For example, the California applies the car insurance mandatory, and even then 20% of drivers have no insurance. In NH, which is not compulsory, has a much higher rate of people with insurance.

I was shocked at how veterans of the war are returning to the country without conditions and are becoming tramps. What you want to do about it?

This is really to cut the heart, and it is shameful for us all. The population of veterans is seven times more prone to go for begging than the regular population. That's because they have to call post-traumatic syndrome. We have to do a screening with all the soldiers who return from combat. We have to allow them access to health services, and identify what kind of disease they developed. Currently, we do not invest anything about it. I already gave input on legislation that will address the issue. There are models of social service that providential legal aid, physiotherapy, among others, in the house of the veteran. As President I will include these costs in the budget for war. We have an obligation to take care of these people.

How he reconciles his faith with the voters in time to take political decisions?

In all these years there has been times when I have had problems with weight of conscience because of my public attitudes. If there is any conflict between my actions and my values, I do not think I can continue in public life, because they always tried to get my conscience clean. I have not found any circumstances so. When agi agree with my values. I think until I can be more convincing when I say things that
come from my heart. ... 028786.asp