stay up to date on these and more. thank you for being a part of my week. >> i'm brian stelter, we are looking at how the news gets made. we have big stories. the national emergency to get the border wall built. what happens over the next few days. the former "time" editor saying the paper is anti-trump. we'll get the reaction. one family's deliberations about 2020, about running for president. the senator is married to the columnist connie schultz. she'll join me.

the u.s. government still partally shut down. still an embarrassment around the world. what may end up turning the tide is the coverage, the coverage of the personal stories and impact as more government workers share the details of what the shut down means for their bottom line or for the tsa if workers decide not to show up for work. let me level with you since the start of the new year, i thought about leading off this program about president trump's insults. his latest slur against elizabeth warren. then i thought, that is the problem. framing policies through trump's shots and smears is one of the things that is wrong about political coverage. let's start with a different conversation today. not about trump but about the

dems. p pelosi has been all over. and warren. repeating some mistakes made already? is sexism creaming in to the coverage? >> joining me now, three cnn commentators including one who is making her debut today. karen, welcome. she's been a part of several campaigns including stacey abram's bid in georgia. also joining me, simon and jerome pfeiffer. karen, what are you concerned about or keeping a close eye on on the news coverage of the dems taking control of the house and beginning 2020?

>> thank you. it is so great to be here and great to be with cnn. one of the things, we have to think about language. this will be the third time in a presidential where we have women running and where we have a diverse group of people running from different ethnic backgrounds and a much more diverse electorate. how the media cover candidates, we can't be afraid to call out things that are racist or sexist. we tend to get things that are racially continues or hints of sexism. yet when we talk about anti-semitism, we are very direct. part is not being afraid to call things out. the other thing is polling. so much of the polling focuses on the what and not the why.

the best exam people i can give you from 2016 is polls reporting on economic anxiety. we were missing what was driving that. fear of change, racism, sexism. that whole conversation was missed on the level in terms of what that meant for the country and how the candidates were being covered and perceived. >> there was not enough talk about racial resentment. we focused on a lot of financial anxiety and not racial anxiety. >> simon, you talk about distrust on the left, what are the main reasons why liberals who are passionate about these campaigns sometimes distrust the national media? >> i think part of it comes -- a

lot of times the things happening on the ground are not what people are talking about on cable news. a number of the uppundints on cable news. that's how we get conversations around. i think elizabeth warren was all around doing like four or five events. the conversation is, is elizabeth warren the best to take on donald trump. dna this and dna that. a lot of the questions were around her stance on the economy. around what she thinks about the president and how he's being a bully and what she thinks about health care or people of color in general, not related to the

dna thing. i think it is really important we don't just have conversations about what they think is going on. it is important that folks go on the ground and that we are talking to real people and mirror the real conversations that are happening. that's how we miss a lot of what is happening in 2018 and not just 2016. >> health care, health care, health care. the idea that if everything is framed or refrakted through trump that will hurt the democrats. >> i think trump's superpower, if he has one, he moves the conversation towards his base. he talks about the caravan and elizabeth warren. calls her pocahontas. focusing on the dna test and how we are going to move the

conversation back to things that matter to our voters. i don't think we can happen if we rely primarily on. the incentives to cover trump. trump drives clicks, so much of the media is a click-based economic model. we'll have to have alternative strategies. >> are you talking about podcasts like yours? >> of course. it is not just alternative progressive media. also candidates and campaigns that can develop alternative eco systems. >> barack obama started with that in 2008. you are seeing alexandria ocasio-cortez not relying on the media. beto o'rourke in texas doing simg all-st similar things. find ways to communicate with voters who sit outside of the

media bubble where too much of political coverage is focused. >> i think aoc, her first big interview of the year is tonight. she used that to talk about taxes and the green new deal. she tried in her own way to bring up policy issues. then, the question is whether or not the press will follow up on those issues. >> right. she's done a good job of moving the conversation around policy and around the green new deal into something every democrat who is running for president is being asked about. that is important. that has been the exception to the rule. you read the coverage of elizabeth warren's announcement, a coverage of how voters will project. who she is, what kind of person she is and what kind of

president she would be. that is a failure of the media. >> i will tell you in stacey abram's race, that was really critical. number one, even the national media and georgia-based media kept talking about vieibility, can she win versus what she was talking about which was three things. health care, jobs education. i would add to what dan is saying. campaigns have to have ways to have a direct conversation to talk to voters that goes against the other noise. it is click bait. eye balls. what is the latest crazy thing somebody said. in 2020, this is why the presidential debates are so critical. this will be periods of time where you have democrats have the opportunity to have serious

conversations. the focus won't be on those battles but what do those differences really mean for people? those will be the time when american people will hear directly from the candidates without the comparison of how does that stack up against donald trump which can't be the yard stick by which we measure who is a good president? >> and yet impeachment will still come up. there are two kinds of democrats. ones who want to say impeach now and ones who say that is not time yet. >> if i may, i think it was republicans who made impeachment such a topic of conversation. >> really though? don't most democrats want to see action? >> during the midterm elections. every time i would go on to do an interview, my republican

colleagues would bring it up. the only person running adds on impeachment was tom sire and he wasn't running. we have additional democrats who introduce articles of impeachment, it is not as prevalent a question in the democratic party. this goes back to democrats and even the media largely. we have having a conversation that has been framed by our friends on the right. the republican party has do that very well. they have framed the conversation. using the language and talking points and measuring sticks of the republican party when they may not even be the fact. >> one last thing before the break, we talked about golden age of journalism. tell me what you mean by that? >> we are living in a golden age of investigation and accountability journalism.

something "new york times," "buzz feed," cnn. when you look at political coverage, coverage of campaigns, it is bad. there are really good political reporters but the overall conversation is problematic. the question, is the goal of campaign coverage to inform voters who the candidates are and what kind of president they would be or is it to service a group of engaged political junkies who follow campaigns like sport fans follow the nba and nfl? that is the question. if it is the former, political journalism is failing. >> we should have both, be we need a lot more of the former. >> yes. i would argue that balance is out of whack. >> dan, simon, thanks for being here. hope you come back often.

karen, stick around since it is your first day. william ar kin is here to discuss the media's failure of what he calls perpetual war. and connie schultz who is married to senator brown says they are seriously considering a 2020 run. despite that, she is defending elizabeth warren. hear why after this. jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. >>got it. ran out of ink and i have a big meeting today >>and 2 boxes of twizzlers... yeah, uh...for the team... >>the team? gooo team.... order online pickup in an hour and, now buy one hp ink get one 30% off at office depot officemax

and, now buy one hp ink get one 30% off our because of smoking.ital. but we still had to have a cigarette. had to. but then, we were like. what are we doing? the nicodermcq patch helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. nicodermcq. you know why, we know how.

>> back now, we are sizing up how democrats are being covered by the president, which brings me to connie schultz. a nationally award winning writer and her husband is a democratic governor. he won reelection in november and probably running for president. schultz says they are seriously considering it.

here is what she told me. >> the way i put it. let's say you already have a dream job. let's say you would like to be the bureau chief in egypt. you have three kids and your wife has a great job in chicago. considering running for presidency is an earthquake for the entire family. >> politico ran an article saying if your husband ran, you would redefine the role of a campaign spouse. what would you bring that is different? >> i am not going to try to cast myself as the most unique woman ever to be married to a

presidential candidate. i do know this. i think of it more in contrast to who is in the white house right now. i love journalists. but i also married a man who understands and likes journalists a lot. he has always been accessible. >> do you look at the news coverage as a reason to say, gosh, this may not be worth it? is that one of the factors, the heightened scrutiny that comes from the press? >> this may strike you as naive. i trust journal iists. i worry about some of the narratives. i don't worry about that part. i worry about the horrible dirty tactics of the trump campaign.

worry might not be the word, i anticipate that. i expect that to be the worst. p emkeep telling us, long time activists are trying to get us to run and warn us that this will be the ugliest race perhaps we've seen in this country. >> i know about criticism from the right but there is also criticism from the left. do you have critiques of how dems are covered in the media? >> what i worry about is that we'll do what we did in 15/16. i'm not blaming the media in terms of elevating trump in the minds of voters but we were engaged in that at a level we had never seen before. we got really enamored in this quotable nonsense he was engaging in. there was a lot of serious coverage of him before the election. that ball was already so big.

it is a boulder, it's rolling down the hill. we ought to shove that aside. it was too late. i'd like us to not do that again. first of all, every time donald trump wants to insult somebody's intelligence or appearance. you know it is covering. the fact that he said it, we have to cover him. we have a responsibility to try to focus more on issues. we say this every presidential campaign. if we have not learned that less on from '16. i worry about the example of comparing elizabeth warren to clinton right away. why? they are the females. the reporters that covered them bush pack. >> saying warren battles the ghost of hillary and the tweet

wildly criticized, how does warren avoid a clinton redocument being coined unlikable before she even gets off the ground. politico is being ripped to shreds over this. do you think that is fair? >> i do. you cannot be a woman of any arj and go back to when barack obama said that. you are likable enough. like that was the test. why would the automatic comparison be to hillary clinton, why is likability only elizabeth warren's to own. not because my husband may be running but look, i'm a feminist

all the time. i understand she's the only declared candidate right now. i was encouraged by how many journalists pushed back on that headline. i emphasize, politico doesn't get it right all the time. the reporter we think may have not got something right, let's not castigate everybody and fuel the narrative of trump that none of us know how to do our jobs. we do know how to do our jobs. we are going to have mistakes. own them and move on and improve the coverage. >> you are describing constructive media criticism. >> yes, not just deconstructive but dangerous when you call the journalists the enemy of the people. >> do you have a time line?

when do you think there will be a decision? >> i think we are going to know within the next two months. i mean, we have to. i'm not trying to be coi. i wouldn't do that to a fellow journalist. that would be really bad. brian, it's incremental. at least in our case. think of any big decision in life, it is something you have to get used to thinking about. i am lucky and burdened with the fact that i am married to a man who won't do this unless i wholeheartedly and on with him. >> check it out on apple or whatever app you use. the wall dividing the dems and

gop is also a wall dividing the facts. we weigh in next. i wanted to fight back. my doctor and i came up with a plan. it includes preservision. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd. that's why i fight. because it's my vision. preservision. also, in a great-tasting chewable.

(client's voice) remember that degree you got in taxation? (danny) of course you don't because you didn't! your job isn't understanding tax code... it's understanding why that... will get him a body like that... move! ...that. your job isn't doing hard work... here. ...it's making her do hard work... ...and getting paid for it. (vo) snap and sort your expenses to save over $4,600 at tax time. (danny) jody... ...it's time to get yours! (vo) quickbooks. backing you.

hey, batter, batter, [ crowd cheers ] like everyone, i lead a busy life. but i know the importance of having time to do what you love. at comcast we know our customers' time is valuable. that's why we have 2-hour appointment windows, including nights and weekends. so you can do more of what you love. my name is tito, and i'm a tech-house manager at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. >> this just in on day 16, we've just learned the next meeting with white house staffers and hill aids is set for this afternoon. going over the white house's

budget justification for the money requested. this wall fight is partly a fight about facts and what is true at the border. since the president keeps spreading misinformation about the crisis at the border, the jobs of journalists are challenged here. one of the most deceiving statements coming out of the white house are these comments about threats from terrorists at the border. we have repeatedly seen threats. the white house is trying to stoke fear. the new ad running today about fear of drug and gangs. there is a lot to fact check and

address. let's bring back the panel. joining karen is david and frank. david, i want to ask you first about the fear mongering we are seeing. you just put out a new post and tweet. what do you think is going on here on day 16? >> the white house crisis, the president is losing. a test of political strength. if he relied on honest information. now he's talking about the crisis. had he been modest, the problems at the border are real. the united states has built a lot of fencing. that can be part of the

solution. let me show how sara sanders hyped this threat. >> we know roughly nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally. our most vulnerable point is our south earn border. >> wait. do you know where those 4,000 people captured are airports. >> it is by air, land and sea. all of the above. >> all i want to say is thank you chris wallace. >> god bless chris wallace. she took a number from here and

something over here and wed them. 4,000 bha a real number but those 4,000 are not streaming across the border. they are knowingly lying in the service of their political goal. >> to make people scared. >> the doj came out and admitted linking the border and terrorists is wrong. yet, they say they don't have to correct it. they are refusing to correct the errors. this is confusing no matter who is in charge, the government should provide accurate information. >> absolutely. trump has so manipulated the conversation to where he's merged opinion and fact and made everything into anything you say that may be -- whether a disagreement or calling out the lie is somehow anti-trump that he's the victim. it strikes me in our coverage,

we spend a lot of time playing and having the conversation in his turf. that cliff is great, he refused to do that because he had the facts in front of him. that's a huge piece we need to see more of. it is a fact that department of justice is not meant to be a legal arm of the president. right? it is not the president's lawyer. what is the job and the role of the department of justice? it is their job to put forward accurate information. it is not just a nice to do and they are doing a favor. there is a lane for us to be a lot more critical and not be so concerned with the idea that they are attacking. they've done so well. i say that as an american. i don't think journalists should

have to be defending and checking the facts and calling out the truth versus an opinion. . the soviet invasion of afghanistan in 1979. let's look at some of the headlines of the president's promotion of soviet propaganda. the "wall street journal" says we cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by a president. the nightly news casts didn't even talk about this. fox didn't even talk about this. i fear there is so much bs slipping through that unless you are a news junky. >> i disagree with that. every particular story is not

fact checked. the sense that things that the president says is not true has been consolidated. we talk so much from the trump base. you can't govern from your base. it can't fund $5 billion. you need a bigger chunk. i understand why the media stayed away. the fact that trump got something wrong is not news. how did this piece of misinformation get in the president's head? that is not anything you can report. we can only surmiez. with he know they've had many phone conversations more than disclosed. they've both said that. is vladimir putin another shawn

hannity. that is something raised. such a dark possibility. it looks like it may be true but we don't know for a fact. >> it also brings us more into speculation than reporting. you are wondering and thinking out loud but you can't back it up. >> right. implications are so serious if true. >> thank you to our panel. stick around. quick break and more to talk about about how the president is covered. former executive director of the "new york times" came out and said she believes the paper coverage is anti-trump. what does anti-trump mean in this day and age?

the question isn't whether he should be impeached any more. he's the most corrupt president in american history. and we all know it. the question now is, how fast can we move past this president so we can build a more just and prosperous future? please, join the more than 6.5 million americans who are demanding action now. because there's nothing more powerful than the unified voice of the american people. together, we will make this happen. need to impeach is responsible for the content of this ad.

>> anti-trump. what does that actually mean? in her new book, she says her former paper and media has an anti-trump bent. here is what she wrote about the editor who replaced her. quote, his news pages were anti-trump. some of the stories labeled as news analysis. she also labeled the "times" was

a mostly liberal audience. trump is out there saying she's 100% correct. i've read the book and i can tell you she praises the "times" at length. >> there is a lot of respect for jill. we accept criticism. most of us have seen more of the book or talked to her about it. i talked to her recently. this is a small part of what she said. if you look at what she says in full, it is respectful. when she asks questions about coverage and coverage of 2016, she spent more time with the way

we covered clinton. this little strand has been blown out of proportion as her minute. it's one of many points. >> this idea of news coverage of trump is too negative. >> i disagree wholeheartedly. he's a singular president. no one has lied like him at that at tutd, no one has had the ethical problems or the areas of ignorance. to call that out is a body of coverage that is unusually negative but accurate. >> so negative but accurate. >> anti-trump ka notes -- i think we've been negative. >> do you think the tone is off? >> yes. one way we are off is our tone can become mocking and smearing.

when we do that, we hurt ourselves. we give our supporters a way to say, look, we can't give our share shake. we have to watch our tone. >> where do you come down on this conversation? >> a couple of things, i'll look forward to reading the book. having worked for hillary: ton, i do think some of the ways she was covered and in 2016, the way trump was covered meant initially, there was an over-correction. this goes back to our no, an clay tur. we go to 2020 and the way language and our use of language has really shifted. it is not anti-trump when you say robert mueller is investigating him for potential collusion or that someone or

there is evidence that there was campaign finance violations. that is not negatively those are facts. >> are you saying anti-trump versus pro trump is the wrong axis? >> i do. what trump does so well is lumps it all together in his people and many republicans in their defense say, you are attacking trump, you are being anti-trump which makes it harder to look at fact versus opinion. >> he has booster network and outlets and cheerleaders are unlike anything we've seen that ever existed. is that part of the anti-trump conversation we have to include? >> i think the question is a false premise, relative to the

truth, the press tease press that's a pro president trump bias. the surest way on to the op-ed page is to come up with some angle to explain why something the president has done. networks give a lot of air time that would normally working for the home shopping network. they wouldn't be on at all. >> be nicer than that. you are saying coverage of trump is on a curve. >> things are so serious, you can't keep coming back. >> "new york times" reported and used the word fraud that the trump family had been engaged in multigenerational fraud. it is not possible to keep talking about all of this all the time. one of the patterns of the trump

years is the controversy distracts you from the scandals. it distracts from the truths. >> i want to say something about the use of the word distraction. it is important. with he were talking about tone, we cover so many of these as theater. when we are talking about that, we almost have a bucket of popcorn in our lap. no it is our actual washington government. we do distract by covering too much of this as marvelous theater. >> when in fact it is gravely serious. >> we need to spend more time talking about the consequences and the context and not the words themselves. >> last word from you? >> trump is very effective with having a conversation with the public on two levels. he is committed to having one

conversation via twitter and his random statements. often times we will see people say something wildly opposite or completely indifferent. because it all gets framed as any criticism pointing it out. it goes to what frank just said as the theater instead of the seriousness of having your national security advisor say something very different than what the president himself has said and what may be good policy for the country. >> right. when the president contradicts himself everyday and spews out nonsense, his words become worthless. how to cover that is difficult for the president. >> coming up, william arkin talks about his choice to leave

nbc. after this. ah, uh...for the tea. >>the team? gooo team.... order online pickup in an hour and, now buy one hp ink get one 30% off at office depot officemax and, now buy one hp ink get one 30% off our because of smoking.ital. but we still had to have a cigarette. had to. but then, we were like. what are we doing? the nicodermcq patch helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. nicodermcq. you know why, we know how. the doctor just for a shot. with neulasta onpro patients get their day back... to be with family, or just to sleep in. strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it

or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $5 per dose with copay card.

a love a good good-bye note, and this was remarkable. a 2,200-word memo from veteran military analyst william arkin. he sent it to his colleagues at nbc a few weeks ago, complaining why friday was his last day at the network. arkin's worked with nbc on and off for three decades but described in his memo a national news media held hostage by trump, obsessed with the trump circus and failing to cover the perpetual wars that america is engaged in. but he wasn't just criticizing nbc. far from it. his critique really applied to the mainstream media in america as a whole. so, arkin is here now for his

first interview since departing nbc. bill, thanks for joining me. >> thanks, brian, for having me on. >> i don't want to summarize the memo anymore because i want to hear from you directly. i think what you're bringing up that's most important is the way the american news media does or does not cover the forever wars that we are engaged in. what do we need to do differently? >> well, we need to have trump-free days. we need to have actual investigative correspondents working on actual investigations. we need to have some courage to criticize the military and criticize the national security community. and i think part of what happens when you're involved in the circus on a day-to-day basis is that you don't have an opportunity to develop the kind of deep sources that are necessary to do these investigations, to actually get beyond the spokesman, to get beyond the congressional critics. and by not being able to develop those sources, i think ultimately you can't report the story as deeply as it needs to be reported.

>> and that's because so much of the oxygen is sucked up by trump? >> well, i don't think it's just the oxygen being sucked up by trump. i also think it's the nature of the tv world these days. it's the nature of social media. we just don't give enough credit to experts, to academics, to people who might not be so conversant with tv, who can't talk quickly, who can't give the sound bite. we just don't have them on. i mean, when i started in the world of television, we had a hell of a lot more academics, professors, experts on. and today we've basically given up on that. journalists are the ones who speak, and journalists are not necessarily the most skilled or the most expert in terms of talking about foreign affairs. >> but you are an expert. why did you decide to not renew your deal at nbc, rather then, stay in nbc, stay in the fight. >> in 2016 during the presidential campaign, i contributed to about four dozen stories that were on "nightly

news" and the "today" show dealing with russian interference in the elections. in 2017, i had a fifth of that number of stories approved. management decisions, the need to cover the horse race, the immediate. investigations just fell to the wayside, and i needed to go and do something else. look, i am concerned about the world. i am concerned about the status of our national security. i just don't believe that donald trump is the complete and utter story behind it. the national security community itself has gotten stronger and has gained strength under donald trump, and part of our responsibility as journalists is to cover the government, not just the president. >> great point. >> and so, i feel that people should know more. >> it's a great point, and you describe in your good-bye memo the feeling that there is this reflexive opposition to trump that actually supports the government, right, it supports

the fbi, it supports the military, and that may not actually be a good thing for viewers if we're not holding the government accountable, the military accountable for perpetual wars. >> well, i just think it's ironic, even amongst liberals today, that they look at the cia or the fbi as institutions that are somehow going to save them or that these are institutions that somehow are above reproach. i mean, all of these institutions, whether they be the pentagon, the cia, the fbi, deserve the same kind of scrutiny that the president receives, and it just doesn't happen. and then you have on top of that the real problem, which is that on a day-to-day basis, right now, right now, brian, we are bombing nine countries around the world, and i defy you to even name what they are. >> i can't. >> that's how bad our coverage of warfare is. >> i'll be honest with you, i cannot. i think there is some incredible pentagon correspondents and some outstanding outlets like defense one that cover the military

every day, but it doesn't seem like news rooms make it a top priority every day. >> no! we're at war, and we have been at war for 18 years, and we essentially don't pay attention to it right now until the president tweets something or until there is a catastrophic industrial accident or a human tragedy. but on a day-to-day basis, we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and we are mucking around in all parts of the world. frankly, when donald trump says why are we in syria or what are we doing in africa or can't we change the situation in north korea, i am sympathetic to him. i would just like to have a more intelligent debate about those very issues. >> the way he does it, for example, in syria saying we're going to do it right away, 30 days, now he says that's not the case. such a mess, but you're saying the overarching point should be taken more seriously, not just assume it's wrong. >> i think we have a knee-jerk reaction to donald trump, in the

case of syria and james mattis' resignation as secretary of defense. the immediate response was protocol was broken, it wasn't done in the right way. the contract didn't have all the right words in it. the president didn't give the proper notification of the allies, et cetera, et cetera. yes, okay, the guy just does not know how to sit down at the table in the right way. we all know that by now, but the truth of the matter is most americans couldn't articulate for their life why we're in syria or what we're accomplishing there. and so, i think the fact that the president brings it up and that even the secretary of defense says he is resigning because of syria? it's like, no, i don't really believe it anymore. i want deeper reporting to understand what's really going on here. >> right. >> trump did the wrong thing in not consulting with the allies, in not listening to his advisers. i accept that. but at the same time, i want deep reporting to understand the

issues. >> yeah, amen to that. >> i don't want to just gloss over the surface. >> william arkin, thank you so much for being here. great talking with you. that's all for this edition of "reliable sources." we'll be right back here this time next week. thanks for joining us. but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. chicken! that's right, chicken?! candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken!

i am a techie dad.n.

i believe the best technology should feel effortless. like magic. at comcast, it's my job to develop, apps and tools that simplify your experience. my name is mike, i'm in product development at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. feeling the pain. day 16 of the federal government shutdown, and president trump says it could go on for years. >> if we have to stay out for a very long period of time, we're going to do that. >> as hundreds of thousands of workers go without pay, is either side close to making a deal? we'll talk to acting white house chief of staff mick