TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Sen. Obama's official site
• Time cover story on Sen. Obama
• Article on Sen. Obama
• About The Audacity of Hope
• Sen. Obama in The New Yorker

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Pleased to welcome Senator Barack Obama back to this program. The Illinois Democrat is of course serving his first term in the U.S. Senate. A clear sign of his status in the Senate is a key seat he holds on the Foreign Relations Committee. But it is Democratic - I should say domestic issues these days, like Hurricane Katrina, that have consumed much of his time of late. Senator Obama joins us tonight from Washington. Senator Obama, nice to have you back on the program, sir.

Senator Barack Obama: Great to talk to you, Tavis. Hope you're doing well.

Tavis: I'm doing well, man. Nice to see you. Let me start with the news of today. As you well know, Michael Brown, the former head of FEMA, testified today before a Congressional panel set up by House Republicans. And before I get your thoughts on it, I just want to give a sense of, to our audience, of the way these hearings went today. I must say that Republicans and Democrats went after him today. This was nothing nice, as we like to say, with regard to his testimony.

I quote now Christopher Shays, a Republican of Connecticut who said, and I quote, 'I'm happy you left. That kind of look in the lights like a deer tells me you weren't capable of doing that job.' That's a Republican saying, 'I'm happy you left.' Of course, Democrats like Gene Taylor of Mississippi, who lost his home in the Hurricane Katrina said, and I quote, 'The - disconnect was, people thought there was some federal expertise out there. There wasn't. Not from you.' So, they went after him today. Too little, too late?

Obama: Well, here's the question. Why is the guy still getting paid?

Tavis: Yeah.

Obama: I mean - we learned that he is in fact getting a consulting contract still on the federal payroll. And it's not clear to me why we would want to rehire somebody through the private sector that has already performed so badly in the public sector. But let me make this point, Tavis. I think that Michael Brown is sort of an easy target. And I think that there's a reason why Republicans are willing to go after him. He's already been thrown overboard.

And the real question we've got to ask ourselves is, number one, what are we doing in terms of the Department of Homeland Security that Michael Chertoff is still the head of, to make sure that our responses in the event of crisis or terrorist attack is better next time than it was this time? Number two, how are we setting up the reconstruction process that ensures that it's not just various contributors to the Republican National Convention or - the RNC, that are making money down there. But, in fact, the people on the ground are getting jobs and helping to build their communities back up. Those are questions that have not yet been examined and I'm worried that are gonna be lost in the shuffle.

Tavis: Those are great questions. If you ever lose interest in being in the Senate, you should be a talk show host, although I don't need any more competition. But those are great questions. So, since you asked them, let me throw them back at you and get your sense of how we're doing in those two areas. I've heard a lot of people complaining certainly about the latter area of reconstruction and why it is that the people who were affected by it are not being included in the reconstruction.

Obama: Well, let me talk about that first, the reconstruction effort. Look, initially, you want to just - provide relief. And I understand the need for some immediate on-the-ground money to make sure that things are working. And that you're going to have some big companies that are better prepared to come in to deal with some of those immediate situations right after, to rebuild the levees, for example. But when it comes to, you know, contracting to clear debris, for example, as far as I can tell, the people who have received the contracts, this is according to experts that have been reported in newspapers across the country, apparently the price that's being paid for just clearing debris is extraordinarily high.

There's been no obligation to see if we can train the young men who were in the ninth ward in New Orleans to clear debris so that they can immediately get a job and get back on their feet. That kind of systematic process to involve those who have been displaced has not happened yet. I personally think that it's not going to happen until you set up some sort of regional authority down there with clear lines of authority, that has experience and capacity in rebuilding, and has an independent nonpolitical agenda. And there are many of us in - Congress who have already started to say that the President needs to assign somebody who's responsible for this outside of FEMA.

One last point I'd make, FEMA is getting about $50 billion out of the 60 billion that has been allocated in the most recent emergency supplemental. That's about 12 times its current budget. Now, if you don't have a sense that FEMA did a good job with the budget that it had, why would we think that FEMA is going to be prepared organizationally? We need something outside of FEMA to actually run this reconstruction process.

Tavis: All right. Let me get back to your first issue then. And with all due respect to your stature in the Senate, and perhaps even your trying to be nonpartisan on this issue, not trying to point fingers and assess blame, let me just flip it on you. Why not? Why not go after somebody? Somebody ought to be held accountable.

Somebody was responsible here, not just for the lack of response in the aftermath, but for the nonsense you're talking about right now, where people are being paid a bunch of money. And we're not including the folk who could do some of - this work to your point like moving debris. Why not go after somebody? Why not assess blame? Why not point fingers? If Michael Brown is the easy target, 'cause he got thrown over, who else are we going after?

Obama: Well, you know, what I'm interested in, you know, the President and his folks have been very effective with this whole blame game thing. I was reminded of one thing that I saw, I think it was 'The Daily Show' where Jon Stewart said, 'You know, usually when folks say they don't want to play the blame game, it's because they're to blame.' And - I think there's some truth to that. What I want to do is figure out how do you fix the problem. Let's take the Department of Homeland Security. We have put billions of dollars into the Department of Homeland Security.

Most federal programs have been flat lined during this administration because of these drastic tax cuts. One area where we put much more money has been Department of Homeland Security. It is now apparent that, in fact, the Department of Homeland Security is not prepared for the precise kinds of quick responses to crises that we thought they were going to be prepared for.

It strikes me that at the very least, if we're not firing Chertoff, then we should have him appear before Congress and explain very clearly where the failures were, what lessons have been learned, and how we're going to move forward with some ongoing accountability, not just to the President, but also to the American people. And that kind of process has not happened yet.

Tavis: You have - spoken, I should say, very aggressively, and I think poignantly, personally, about the issue of poverty. A number of us have been raising that issue of race and class and poverty. Let me ask you before I move on to some other things in the time I have left right quick, whether or not you think that out of these tragedies we really can get some traction in America on doing something on eliminating extreme poverty.

Obama: Well, one of the things, one of the little bits of good news that came out of the Katrina situation was that it wasn't just black folks that were ashamed of our government and our failure to respond to our fellow citizens. I think that everybody was embarrassed by it. And, you know, shame is always a good place to start when you want to change. Now, the only problem is we tend to have a short-term memory. And a lot of times we go from shock to trance very quickly.

So, my hope would be that we use this opportunity; George Bush has said he wants to do something about poverty. He's recognized that racial discrimination is connected to the poverty in the Gulf. And in the Delta. And if that's the case, my hope would be that we call him on his bluff and we say, Mr. President, we are ready to work with you in a non-ideological fashion to have a sustained effort to deal with poverty.

But my concern right now is if we're not using the $60 billion that we've already allocated to provide job training and opportunity to young men and women in the Gulf who are already displaced and dispossessed before the hurricane, that doesn't bode well for a long-term sustained effort on the part of this administration. It may be that we just have to make sure that the Democratic Party talks about this in a serious way during election time.

Tavis: We'll get a chance in the coming weeks and months, I know, to talk more about this process and how we navigate our way through it. Let me shift gears right quick in the two minutes I have left. Big vote coming up this Thursday on John Roberts. You've already come out and said that you are going to vote against John Roberts as the next Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Tell me how you think that vote is going to go ultimately, and what Democrats can do, since they still seem to be divided on this, what Democrats could do. What statement could in fact be made if they all voted against John Roberts?

Obama: Well, first of all, that's not going to happen. My colleagues have already come out. It looks like the Democratic caucus is about to split 50/50 between those who will vote for his confirmation and those who will vote against him. I have to say that it was a close call even for me, as somebody who taught constitutional law. I do not think that John Roberts is Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. That's not sort of his philosophical bent. I do think that he's very similar to Judge Rehnquist.

I think that the reason that we would not, and it would not have been wise for us to try to mount a filibuster against him, was not only is he a personable guy and a well qualified guy, but the truth is, he's replacing another conservative. It's the battle that's going to be coming up in the next seat where I think it's really going to matter.

And the question that's going to be interesting to watch is whether the President says, 'You know what, I had success with John Roberts, let me go with another person like that, who - isn't red meat for my right wing.' Or does he say, 'Well, you know what, I got this guy through, now I can really go all out with - a sharply ideological nominee.' If he does the latter, then I would not count out the possibility that the Democrats would try a filibuster

Tavis: I got a quick 20 seconds here. Tell me what you think - the President ought to do with this next appointment, a woman, a person of color?

Obama: I think diversity is always good. But I've got to tell you, Tavis, you know, that I would prefer a white man who had concern and recognition that it's tougher being a minority and a woman in this society, than I would have a minority or a woman that had no recognition or was in denial about those issues.

Tavis: Point well taken. Here's to white men. Barack - Obama, nice to have you on the program. We'll talk again soon.

Obama: Thank you so much, Tavis.

Tavis: All the best to you. Up next, actress and Louisiana native Faith Ford. Stay with us.