(The Herald Bulletin interviewed Sen. Barack Obama by telephone shortly after he wrapped up his Anderson appearance Saturday.)

The North American Free Trade Agreement caused a ripple effect here in Anderson that led to the loss of 26,000 jobs. You’ve said you would “fix” NAFTA for American workers. What does that mean and how would it affect the displaced workers here in Indiana?

I’ve been a consistent opponent to NAFTA, not because I don’t believe in trade, I do, but because it is an example of a trade agreement that was good for Wall Street and not very good for Main Street. It didn’t have labor standards to make sure that countries weren’t using forced labor or going after union organizers.

If a country doesn’t have strong labor standards, then U.S. workers are going to be undercut. We should have strong environmental standards to make sure that countries aren’t in a competitive disadvantage because they’re sending pollution into the air without restriction. We should have strong safety standards so that toys that are made don’t have lead paint in them. Those are all critical issues that should have been included in NAFTA. They weren’t. I will re-negotiate with Canada and Mexico to have enforceable provisions in NAFTA and all of our free trade deals.

We also have to get tougher with China. The fact that we’re not willing to negotiate on critical issues like them stealing our intellectual property or manipulating our currency. That’s a real problem and something that I intend to change when I’m president of the United States.

Some believe that a senator from Chicago cannot understand the needs of Indiana and its rural residents. What do you see as the biggest challenge facing Hoosiers today and in the future?

First of all, I’ve been the senator not from Chicago, but from Illinois, which means Springfield and places like Chester and Sparta and Shawneetown. So, I’ve been working on agricultural issues. I’ve been working on rural issues for a very long time, and I think the biggest priority is to make sure that the family farm is still strong. And that means not giving all these subsidies to big agri-businesses that are driving up prices, forcing farmers off the land. We should be focusing our payment support system on family farmers that really need it. That’s gonna change when I’m president.

I also think that we have to encourage the development of alternative fuels, but we have to recognize that corn-based ethanol is probably a transitional technology. We’ve got to move aggressively to using biomass and other ways of creating alternative fuels that are more sustainable and don’t affect the feed prices. We have to take conservation seriously and we’ve got to make sure that rural communities have broadband access, that rural hospitals and rural schools are getting good funding and the assistance that they need. That is all laid out in an extensive plan that I’ve put forward and developed with rural communities over the last several months and its on my Web site, barackobama.com.

A new ethanol plant recently opened in Madison County, which makes renewable fuel a big issue here in Indiana due to its population of corn growers. Do you have plans to invest in that type of renewable fuel and how would your plan help Hoosiers more than Senator Clinton’s plan to help farmers?

I’ve been a consistent supporter of alternative fuels, including ethanol. I helped to pass the renewable fuels standard that has created the market for alternative fuels. Sen. Clinton opposed renewable fuels measures up until she started running for president.

I’ve got much more consistency on this issue. People can count on me to continue to promote it. As I said, though, I think it’s going to be important for us to provide more incentives for bio-diesel and other sources that aren’t dependent on corn, because farmers are starting to see that as feed prices go up, that’s affecting the cost of food. It is affecting the cost of people’s groceries on a day-to-day basis. I want to make sure farmers are strong, but I don’t want to create a situation where consumers are getting hammered at the grocery store.

I also want to ensure that what we do is sustainable in the long term. That’s why I’m investing $150 billion in research and the development of alternative fuels, everything from bio-diesel to solar to wind, to making fuel efficient cars. All these approaches have to be taken if we’re going to get serious about our energy problems and that will be good for rural Indiana.

The Clinton campaign recently sent a mailing to Indiana households saying that Hoosiers can’t afford you because your health plan leaves 15 million Americans without health coverage, costing taxpayers $1,700 per newly covered person. How do you respond?

This is something that Hillary Clinton has been trying to peddle for the entire campaign, and it’s just not accurate. Here’s the difference between her health care plan and mine: She has a mandate that forces people to buy health insurance. She says that she will make it affordable, but the evidence says in places like Massachusetts, she put in a mandate that says you have to buy health insurance or you’re going to be penalized and people find themselves still unable to buy health insurance but now they’re also subject to penalties. I don’t think that’s the best approach.

I think it’s better for us to say that the reason people don’t have health insurance is not because they don’t want it but because they can’t afford it. That’s why we focus on lowering costs. If you’ve got health insurance, we’re going to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year. If you don’t have health insurance, we are going to make sure you are able to buy the health care plan that is similar to the health care plan I have as a member of Congress. We are going to make sure that nobody is excluded for pre-existing conditions. We’re going to make sure we emphasize preventative care, that people are getting regular checkups and screenings and one of my commitments is that we will get this done, not in 20 years or 10 years but by the end of my first term as president, which raises a broader question of who you trust to actually get health care done.