terrorists is not something to be complacent about. if they are just jv, they seem to have half of russia on lockdown. a very credible threat against the u.s. embassy. is a little too much cockiness there on the part of the obama administration that they are on the run. i am worried the whole country is to complacent. talk.e cavalier we probably do not need to be listening to all of the stuff. just collecting the metadata. all these phone calls and messages, i am not so sure about that. one reason we have had -- we have had -- we've been safe is that we have had a pretty good handle on where these guys are in their networks and who they're talking to. we are starting to lose the ability to connect the dots. back to before 9/11, i think. >> samantha is on the line. go ahead with your comment.

tomy question is a follow-up one of the other questions. you mentioned two things republicans avoid going in to the next election. you think they will be strong. my question was, what do you strength?he biggest >> 2014 is off year as an election. i believe as strongly as anyone the importance of having important conservative ideas. they will on their a more -- unveil a more comprehensive version of their own health care reform that will be better than obamacare. people are working on that and doing good work. ,istory suggests the election it is about that party's tenure

on the white house. do you want to have -- to help them?ut, or check senators that will not go along with president obama and given like his approval rating, it looks to me like republicans are in good shape. i think republicans hold the house. different from 2016. presidential elections are about the future. nonincumbent presidential elections, particularly about, president obama will have been there for eight years. or do we go now? -- where do we go now? very important for what they want to do and what their agenda is. the governors start on the state level. publicans are probably a little slow on this but it is now beginning to happen, developing serious government agendas and domestic and foreign policy at the national level. it happens in magazines like

national affairs and others. think tanks. a little slow to pick up. so until we get into the 2015 and 2016 election cycle. important for republicans at this point. to say, ok, whatever happens, happens. if you are public in, you do not like it, if you are democrat, you like it more. that is the key question for 2016. i do not really distinguish. the dynamics of the off year election, which, already, you can see a pattern, is good for republicans. that is one set of dynamics. it does not translate to 2016. midterm elections, they lost. not much correlation. the good news for republicans is voters tend to want to replace

the party in power after eight years. relapse incumbent after one term and then kick that artie out of the white house. out kicked the democrats after two terms of clinton. think the forward-looking agenda is really important for 2016. these are political offers, mostly. they are not really going to be discussing in detail how to reform higher education loans or how to get rid of obamacare. tax reform and so forth. they will talk more of candidates. they will try to adjust the primary process and the debate process to make it more manageable for the party, in better shape, when it produces a nominee in 2016.

personally, i am interested the house is in pro forma session. we go to the house. >> without objection the house stands adjourned until noon january 27, 2014 for debate.hour host: with that the pro forma session ends. have students from texas christian university joining us on the line right now. richard from texas christian university, a journalism student there. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning. mr. kristol i have a question. why is it that today more than the partisan divide is wider than it's ever been. compromise the very word? >> for reasons beyond anyone's this,l no one intended things are more different.

they are more ideological, amonge more united themselves in their world view. in the old days the parties were theral republicans in republican party, there were southern conservative democrats, old fashioned machine democrats, as well as reformed democrats. some of the most interesting fights of my youth in politics parties.in both on the democratic side there were all these reform democrats democrats inachine new york or chicago. then of course there were the scoop jackson democrats, they went away. so various social why logical, political trends led to this sorting out of the two parties. and it's just a fact that they further away from each other. everyone now, a lot of people

now think it a bad thing and it has its down sides. is 50, 60 years ago, political scientists were all fact that voters didn't have a clear voice. totally parties, but confusing, democrat and republican don't mean anything. clarity, ad is political science associates about a report about a system ine two-party the 50's, and its point was we need to have two parties like parties we have today that really stand for something different. pro-choice. now, we have that, we see it's in some ways not bad. for democratic accountability. but in other ways it can lead to deadlock, especially when voters elected barack obama and a democratic congress, they thought they had a mandate, they did a lot. aesident obama thought he had mandate obviously the second part of his first term. suddenly the 64 republican house seats that were democratic and

the republicans in the house thought gee we have a mandate to obama, and then in 2012 president obama gets republicanbut the house gets reelected. a lot of my conservative friends are annoyed that president obama liberal.govern as a a lot of media types are annoyed that republicans in the house supposed to behave like conservatives, that's what they ran as. come tonot supposed to washington and say forget what i said on the campaign trail. led lock is a result of the voters' indecision. neither party has really presented a convincing way forward. begin tolock could break in 2014. i think 2016 becomes a very lex.r 2016 is really a fork in the road. democrats win a third term, for conservatives like me it you get things back. the supreme court goes in a more

liberal direction. foreign policy i suppose continues on this track. if republicans written in 2016 the houseue to hold and maybe the senate, then suddenly you have a did it situation. so 2016 becomes maybe a moment gets broken.dlock host: tim is from beaver falls, he's on our, democrats line. you're on, go ahead, please. morning.ood bill, i'm curious, where do you think the energy comes from for the tea party? and another question, short, if indiana when dick even was being primaried, though i'm a democrat, if he had won that primary, i would have decision to make statesman, man is a and he was defeated.

it's like there's some kind of on in the country that i don't quite get. lugar, he's take dick was defeated in a primary in and then murdoch lost the general election. lugar probably would have won general because he had a history of getting democratic votes. i know dick lugar, i respect him, but i don't agree with him on some issues. hes with a pretty moderate republican on some issues and conservative than a lot of republicans would like. he also was 80 years old, being 80rong with years old, but certainly may be a time for a change in your senator. i don't think it was crazy for indiana republicans to i thought they, thought he would be a better

candidate. one thing that happens when you have a party that's in turmoil lot of energy from the grass roots from the pea party, with different funders coming in. there used to be money only on the establishment side. that's not the case any more. i was, i would take the energy in return for some of the losses of seats that maybe didn't have to be lost. otherwise i think you just have party, you reelect dick lugar, you reelect the 75-year-old bob bennett in utah, is that going republicanew of the party? so obviously some mix of experience and youthful energy thing.od but this is what happens when parties under turmoil, it difficult to go through it but for the party. if you look at american history these periods of turmoil and even some defeats sometimes do with or -- host: clarify. the generation al

change and to some degree the ideological change within the party. host: our next student from texas christian university, haveed in 1873, we students from the bob sheaf fear school of journalism on the phone. schmitt, go ahead, please. caller: my question is, in the election, do the demographics prove that the majority of the young generation are voting democratic, so i my question is i want to know how the republican party has taken this into consideration and what campaign strategy reforms we should expect to target that the 2016 election. guest: that's a good point, do think that's the most of all president obama's groups he did the best in cali, the young are persuade.t to try to the great thing about being young is that you can change of you voted for president obama, but the great thing about growing up is you mistakes. your

and a lot of them certainly are happening with obamacare, with the economy, and i think foreign policy as well wondering maybe this path that i thought might be a good idea.sn't such a good i know many people in my vote forwardo mccoverage, carter and ended up voting for reagan and republicans since then. very doable.'s it would be crazy if peel didn't try to learn anything from experience. it would be christmas if parties didn't try to change their image and also try to adjust to the times. where thebe issues republican party has to say look, the country isn't there so we're going to change our position or at least change the on we presently our position some issues. but i come back to the

generation al change. one problem republicans have had pretty obvious, the democrats are running, the 43-year-old the 44,nton and then 45-year-old president obama first time he ran. their 40's. young tickets, clinton-gore. runningrepublicans were president bush and then senator dole, then senator mccain, and romney, they're all people i voted for. but if you're a young person, think the democrats look like they're a little more in touch with me and my generation. time republicans won since the cold war was with bush who was younger, maybe two years older than gore, and younger than kerry. so i don't think it hurts to have younger candidates, that's why i'm a little skeptic about clinton. it's either in the nomination fight or the general election, not so sure about that. the pattern of the last several years is better off with a young heernor, young senator, but

seems on dealing with issues, i'm not sure voters like looking days.rd these host: another student from t.c.u., michelle. caller: good morning, here in that it's estimated latinos will outnumber any other ethnic group by 2019. were also found in several important swing states like florida. latinos will be an important demographic in upcoming elections, so how do you see the g.o.p. changing their strategy address this demographic concern? guest: the main thing you have groupss speak to these and respect them and show that you care about them, and people for you. a lot of the problem republicans have had that's been less latino working class.re think, and again it's maybe not their fault, it's

the wealthyey, it's finance.the world of i think seemed out of touch with middle class, working class concerns. romney, whom i respect as a person, spent all this time talking about entrepreneurs, people who are building businesses, but didn't spend a lot of time talking about the people who are working 8, 10 hours a day as nurses, teachers, whotruction workers and will never start a business, but they're equally valued, they're up their kids, contributing to their communities. it important for republicans to connection with those voters and citizens. so that requires some fresh thinking. but genuine thinking about how to have policies that are better for people like that, not simply pandering or thinking that this batch of immigration that if

immigration,e for so many people change their vote. hostile,ou can't be obviously, to -- the republicans made a mistake some of their rhetoric in 2006, 2007. but i don't think you need to views about path to citizenship and so forth. i do think being serious about middle class and concerns is awfully important. into ethnic groups come american life, italians jews, their own mind to some degree, they also just become different as groups. every latino is theirng a latino, i think intermarriage rate is pretty high. point there, they are americans already if they're voting. i guess i'm less concerned about

appealing to this group or that group and more concerned about republicans having a really serious message that appeals to all americans, but especially i say middle class working class americans who have had a rough time the last few years. to alex in go tennessee, republican line. morning.ood actually i have more of a comment. my daughter says i'm the oldest person she knows, old fashioned that is, and i just wonder why words likeear patriotism, god and country from today. these politicians i vote every year, every time an up.tion comes hear the same old garbage, but i abouthear anything patriotism and i'm very disappointed in our country right now, because they're taking church out of the schools, and everything. i guess i'm just too old fashioned, can't keep up with times. but i just don't know what to

do. mybrother died in vietnam, ancestors fought in the revolutionary war, and i guess i patriotic to my country and i love my country. host: thanks, caller him. guest: that's very well see. i wouldn't be too despairing. problem that politicians speak about god and country and seem insincere, and it turns out they are sincere. do maybes what they more than what they say. and i think there's a lot of there.ism out i'm struck by that when you see about's attitudes returning veterans, compared to war.ietnam i just did a panel discussion former -- where we discussed the civilian do, we didn'td to really fight the war here, but i can do toe's more we

integrate civilian and military lives, make sure we're doing a good job for our vets and also our active duty military obviously. but i think the patriotism is think.than people but it's an interesting question, sort of how everyone the millennial generation, as they're called, interested iness that, i'm not so sure about. i think a candidate who can god, country, community, family, in a way that hollow, that didn't seem pandering actually would have a great appeal any time, 2014, 2016. i don't think people are just interested in my paycheck, my this or that. tea party for all the people criticize it, the pea party was a patriotic effort. certainly i think the obama camp, the people who rallied to president obama also thought thingere doing the right for the country. tea party didn't have any self didn'tt in this, they ask for taxes to be cut, and i

remember watching earlier in reporter on cnn bewildered by what are you doing here at this, obama is not raising your taxes, he's only raising raising the taxes on the wealthy care about this, he said i think we're damaging the country. so i think there's more out there than people realize. i think there's too much, too professionals have told too many politician as peel to this group that way, 18 to with this promise, and obama was good on this, you can stay on your parents' health plan. wantre about you if you contraceptive coverage. i think for republicans, they've got to elevate the discussion to about something bigger than what government program is going to do this little thing you or out. host: the students today were chinbull.y professor our next student is matt

jennings, good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning, thanks for us on. i just was wondering with all the talking the last couple years about national deficit and finally creating a national budget, what's going to be the strategy moving forward regarding managing the deficit and deal with the national debt? guest: that's a very good wastion, and the debt which so huge in 20092010 has receded a little bit. the deficit has been reduced some, but we're still running up amazing amounts of debt each year. bond like so far the markets and others haven't penalized us for that, but that in my opinion him so i think everyone would be wise to continue focusing on the debt we have an think important development, which is the republicans, paul ryan put seriousbudget that had reforms. everyone said it political whatever, ryan and

romney didn't win in 2012. but there's no evidence that it hurt the campaign, the medicare attacks, the attacks on ryan's reform plan didn't seem to work, republicans held the house which is the body that had budget.his republican candidates in 2014 are on board with that budget and i think they're doing fine. i think at least the republican party, i think is getting more serious about debt and deficit. now in practice people have bill,interests, the farm subsidies, they don't want to give them up, so it's easy to it's hard in general, to do it in reality. way to testey, one the next republican feel of presidential candidates, and i inclined to will be do this to say what really are you going to do. i think voters will require a degree of specificity in 2016 that they haven't particularly presidentialecent elections, i think they're distrustful now of everyone's stuff and will say show me what your plan is

about federal spending. not down to every tiny detail. but basically with a is your platform. and i think republicans who try, votersocrats too, the may not like that as much. host: we want to thank charter helpingations for arrange the visit at t.c.u. today. one more student, this is on withmorris, you're bill kristol. caller: good morning. my question is in the 2012 more women voted for president obama than mitt romney. what is the republican party women foreach out to the 2014 and 2016 elections? well, look, women have always been a little more liberal than men, it goes back of reagan,y days they're a little more more compassionate, a little more concerned if someone says these asicies will hurt the poor opposed to gee we can't afford this any more. gender been a consistent

gap. wasn't any bigger in 2012 than elections andus republicans won a lot of those elections with reagan and bush amonge they did very well mening anded acatly well among that youo i'm not sure need to reach out to one gender as opposed to the other. most women want what's right for the country, their rightes, not just what's for individual members of your own gender. i think it doesn't hurt to have and as,en as candidates you know, the governors and congress women, and senators and that's happening in the republican party. and it's happening kind of as a reflection of developments over the last 20, 30, 40 years and now it's really hitting. it hit the democratic party a little earlier, but now it quite widely. leading --

barbara come stack has a distinguished record in the virginia house of delegates, i she's likely to win the general election. sheo one recruited her, decided to run, no one tapped her on the back and said you're a woman go out and do this. i think it's naturally happening in the republican party and i think that will help the democraticke charges which are pretty demagogic charges him. host: we want to thank the texas christian university for joining us today with their questions and

>> watch out program. saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span followed by a recent interview at her home in houston and 8:30 p.m. and live monday her series continues. >> began there teaching careers, came right after graduating from yale in 1973. hillary came a year later. her career began right inside this building. suez a professor and talk glasses like criminal law, criminal procedure, trial procedure and the prison project >> hillary was willfully educated, ivy league, law school grad that had worked in d.c. is

part of the nixon campaign. at the time nixon had been impeached about two weeks before hillary taught her first class. >> first lady hillary clinton monday night at 9:00 eastern live on c-span also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> vice president biden spoke today at the opening session of the families usa health action complex where there was up parting passage of the affordable care act. this is 35 minutes. [applause] [applause] >> i told you this was a tough crowd. [laughter]

mr. vice-president, the friends, colleagues, welcome to a health action 2014. [applause] the theme for our conference and, indeed, the theme for our work ahead is making the promise real. starting this month for the first time in our nation's history, the law of the land is that health care is right, and not just a privilege. for people who are sick or have a chronic condition or a disability, health coverage is now available, as it is for everyone who is healthy. for families with modest incomes who cannot afford health care,

help is on the way. it ..

>> in the words of a kindred movement celebrated earlier this week we must keep on keeping on. so to help us remember why this work is so important plays will come kathy stokes who will tell her own story about why the affordable care racked isolde meaningful for her life and roll introduced the vice president. [applause] >> my name is kathy stokes and when i started my adult life i could not have a badge and one day i would go my own business, be a mom

and a single bomb to twins it ever could have imagined that would stand here before you this morning as of breast cancer survivor. this is my obamacare survivor story. made the jump in to self employed to start a consulting business. it was scary but i could get health coverage through my husband's work camp we both thought it was a good time to make the leap. it was a great plan and tell my marriage ended 2010 regret that ever tried to get health insurance to the private marketplace but i was the night due to a minor pre-existing condition. however was eligible for cobra benefits from my ex-husband is a light do i would have coverage for three years. fast forward 2012 i found a

locked on my breast late august and is several days a.m. tass later i was dumbfounded to hear my diagnosis. i had aggressive breast cancer. was of a double mastectomy at the end of 2012, a five don'ts of chemotherapy eighth and one years of antibody infusions i've lost my appetite, my hair, in my will to keep going at times. validity time i faltered my twins were there to give me the push id did to get to the next day and get through that next treatment. in july had reconstructive surgery then i alludes the id to by the infusion cause heart damage. the good news is it is

reversible but requires regular visits to a cardiologists with echo cardiac -- echocardiograms was to defer or heart medications. this was not a good time for me to lose cobra coverage but i did december 31st, 2013 but because of obamacare i am happy to say when you coverage peaky of the very next day jay refers , a 2014. [cheers and applause] with obamacare insurers could have denied me because of the temporary heart condition my premium is affordable because i could get tax credits and that $8,000 antibody infusion i

got on january 2nd to was covered in full by my health insurance. [cheers and applause] without obamacare 2041 has been a disaster. new insurance company would have taken riyadh but with obamacare i started a new year with great hope. i am the obamacare success story. i am my own success story. thank you. but now ladies and

gentlemen, the vice president of the united states. [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] >> faq very much. [cheers and applause] what a and inspiring story. even with the affordable care act, obamacare, it is a rough road. even with a totally adequate health care coverage it is a rough road. and your courage is amazing. you are an inspiration. you really are. i hope women who are now all

covered with breast cancer get a chance to hear your story because i will repeat this again, one of the things that we believe every has been doing this a long time and he doesn't more than i have, it is not just about physical coverage but peace of mind to turn to your twins to say it will be okay. when ron spoke it reminded me of something i had not thought of something in over four years. for us to say in a hotel auditorium in washington

d.c. without any fear of being contradicted that health care is a right, not a privilege is amazing for you a hand to me. because that used to be the fight. that old loan. that people have a right to public education, they have a right to be safe in the street. somehow it is a basic human right. no one has carried the fight mike you personally have inside this organization and outside the organization. [applause] the us founders of carry the fight the u.s. were up in the trenches making the fight. the devil is reminded i was elected to the senate at 29

years old. i come from a state that has a lot of major corporations. i come from a state everybody calls it blew but it is fairly read. i remember when i would go to the major constituencies at the chamber of commerce and the afl-cio and united autoworkers and the naacp at the beginning of the year. with two of the largest companies in the state of delaware and there were 10 companies at that time. and i would listen to what their concerns were for the coming word -- coming year. business, labor activist groups, i was in the

boardroom of one major corporation in everybody was nice except the ceo. he was upset up with me but i had forgotten this. i finally said because he was being close to brood. i said what is your problem? the ideal that does not sound like me. [laughter] i have always been very pliable. [laughter] if i am not mistaken in you invited me here. i did not ask to come. in a burst of honesty he said all you are going to do is go to washington and work with teddy kennedy to try to get health care done a socialist programs. i thought of that that is the god's true story i have

not thought of that and close to 40 years but because of fraud and your troops we're not arguing about that anymore either republicans do not use the rhetoric is not a bright they just say they want it better. so i just want to personally thank you. you were there when teddy buses fighting. you owe this guy around of applause. [cheers and applause] i came for three reasons. one, i wanted to. [laughter] to. the president wanted me to. [laughter] seriously. he said you are going, are you? number three.

on behalf of the president began to me to say thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. you have been the ones that demanded a fair shake for millions of families who have hard-earned dollars in health insurance only to find the premiums have gone up at 2 percent per year in benefits were disappearing at the exact moment. you were the voices that said it is not okay for someone like kathy who worked her whole life to paid premiums and raised her family to start her own business to be left without insurance at the moment she needed it would it was life-and-death. you have been working for decades some of your very yum! working to improve health care for tens of

millions of americans. to make sure health decisions were made by doctors not insurance companies. it was included in the affordable care act. you fought the programs for the premiums for medicare. we were talking on the way in nuking greenwich wanted medicare to whether of the fine and medicaid to be a block grant you were there. in a dilemma resulted in kicking leg -- millions of pregnant women and and middle-class seniors in nursing homes because they had no one else. they were alone. you stood with teddy and then you will come senator

obamacare 2007 where he pledged his commitment to make health reform a reality a and he did. he did. [applause] i get credit but he deserves all the credit because i was with him every minute through the bitter fight at least half a dozen times when he could have compromised he would say every time joe, if we let this go it will be another generation before 24 billion yen people mostly of color color, the polar will ever get the coverage that they need. i take every one of you in this room whether fully and

shorter underinsurance had no insurance at all have a story of your own. i am sure you have stories of family members there close associates were friends and neighbors those who were fully covered my remember what it felt like if you do someone or if you had catastrophic illness for i was hospitalized for seven months with two radial a aneurysms all less than yvette shot to live and spend 60 days in did icu in between the craniotomies. i can tell you what i remember. even though my aid bills exceeded half a million dollars i have insurance but what would have happened to my family had not made it or

had i not had insurance? a big chunk of why i so strongly believe it is a right and we have covered it now, is a peace of mind. mark my words i spend a lot of time with the board and all the nobel laureate's about the future in medical breakthroughs of coming. i am a lawyer. not a doctor. but i will bet you will find by the time you are my age say 5.that stress plays an incredibly dominant role in your health and and tuned system. don't underestimate the

peace of mind piece of this. the fact is an addition to worrying if you had a catastrophic event whether not you had insurance what would happen to your family but also you will find how many times have you thought to yourself read you were moving along that all the people you have met, how the the people do you know, , personally who's literally went to bankrupt because of their medical bills? the single biggest reason for bankruptcy. that means they lost their homes in many cases. all their savings, how many of you thought in the last

10 years there but for their grace of god, i assume that is what motivated you in this room. lot of public interest questions that are out there because of the intellectual excitement matters. but to get involved emotionally as well as intellectually. i suspect you are determined to see the system change. the four stories you have heard a and witnessed will not continue. what you did is you went out into the field and a knock down the doors and change people's minds and argued unabashedly every american has the right to, as a god-given right to have

adequate health care coverage. in the process with the most consequential all health care bill was passed in history from roosevelt, kennedy, and it to nixon tried to do. but i guess that is because they did not have you that it did not get done. there is an old expression expression, the greatest gift god gave mankind is the ability to forget. but right now it is important to remember. it is to remember immediately before the affordable health care act. we already dismissed it it is done. , a lot of americans were in good shape if they worked for large companies that provide a decent health care plan as part of compensation. but even there there were

hidden cost. even these families pay higher premiums because hospitals were passing on $40 billion of losses they incurred every year to treat uninsured or underinsured people. to put into perspective, the average cost of one visit to the emergency room by the way is the only recourse for your mom and dad when the kid has something wrong. they had no doctor to call. what did they do? they go to the emergency room. those ever presented by a whole life as a public defender, a that is where they go. the average cost for all patient is $1,200 a visit. told a dollars.

that asset to tens of billions say of dollars there is an article even those covered by medicaid still go to the emergency room. as if that is something weird. many of these people never do a doctor other than the emergency room. they don't know how to manage the system that covers them. emergency people or rooms are for trauma or where people go when they don't have insurance and their children get sec. even some of the good plans has annual limits so fed you really needed it with extended alzheimer's treatment of or what she needed for treatment for breast cancer, or for

surgery they were not covered. lowe's that were self-employed they did not have the clout to negotiate a good deal. did they have negotiating power? when you represent 300,000 people you can say i will not pay. 1 penny per aspirin. if you know, what my business i will go somewhere else. but if you are a small business for an individual with 30 people level only pate -- pay a penny but they say you will pay 1.five is a marketplace proposal for every to see a

representative 50,000 people there is now negotiating power. the same plan is more important or more expensive than the same plan covering the large business. but as you know, 70 percent of the adults that was either difficult or virtually impossible to find affordable plan. 129 billion people have pre-existing conditions in the united states. bendy were covered by the company health care plan when they did not have a pre-existing condition. what did you see in the manifestation of the great recession as companies downsized of a bankrupt bankrupt, employment dropped off?

favor cover before that had a pre-existing condition i won't take the time because i could give you at least 15 story saugh -- of people i know who were devastated. for those who could not afford a plan. because the cost is prohibited. i the way of until we came along domestic abuse them pregnancy was considered pre-existing condition. , you helped us to change all that. they cannot do that anymore but in the past they could be charged just because of said gender or childbearing age could be whether to 50%

more for the same coverage your the same plan. prior to the affordable care act those that could buy individual health insurance could not buy a plan that covers prescription drugs they also don't call a mental health services cover maternity care, i have been doing this a long time. i can tell you and i am sure how many people including my closest friends over the last 30 years climbing into bet at night to look at their spouse then stare at the ceiling the early stared at the ceiling thinking, my god, know what happens if my wife gets breast cancer? what happens if i have a heart attack? what happens if my son or daughter gets ill?

will be be able to sleep in this bet? in this room? in this house one month from now? two months after? three? this is not a scare tactic but how real people had to think about it. part of our objective is not only to reach you have adequate health care but to give people peace of mind. for a bomb or a red dash to say with confidence when they look in their eyes to say it will be okay. just to be able to say it with certainty. it will be okay. somebody parents purpose of the families up until now have not been able to say it is going to be okay.

these people, all our people, the people we grew up with cover these people they did a voice and you have done that voice. you still are. it is not an exaggeration and to say because of your voice is these people are in much better shape. because of the affordable care act. they'd make the case generally, you organize, got people out, you organize rallies, arizona, iowa, mich igan, ohio and others to take advantage of the medicaid program expansion. that is a big deal. [applause] you gave them the facts to counter the noise and organize teleconferences it collected 20,000 stories that got the nod to the media and generated stories in hometown newspapers all

across america you change the conversation and i am here to say thank you. thank you. thank you. think you. [applause] and if republican governors and the state legislatures from florida, north dakota and a north carolina would act as possibly we could immediately cover another 5 million people with the stroke of a pen. [applause] three years ago a man who had more character in his finger spoke here senator barack obama and said change does not come from the top down but the bottom up and it you activated the country. you did. you got to it passed. stay at in a. we have a long way to go. of long way to go.

it was off to a rocky start. 2.2 million americans have selected private plans in the house insurance marketplace and when we release the figures it will be much higher. based on new data released 6.3 million americans were determined eligible for medicaid in the past three months. to be totally honest not all of these are new to the medicaid program because some qualified before passage but 6 million people. but how many would not have been recovered? we cannot do that at this point. but they all have peace of mind that comes with high-quality insurance. and some states have not taken that opportunity to expand even though the federal payment plan is one manager%.

the states of have not acted just 5 million more would have access to affordable coverage. as surprising as it may seem after the republicans and the congress voted to repeal the law 40 times, they still have not given up on the message. after disastrous effort to shut down the federal government, they didn't get the message. i am confident they will might get the message i am about to deliver to them. [laughter] but here is the message. we will not go back. we will not go back. america has turned to the page. we will not go back to days of the affordable care act when pre-existing conditions were a barrier to coverage. we will not go back to the table and mental health was not covered. we will not go back when people pay benefits to

50 percent more we will not kick 3 billion adults of the parents' policy will not go back to the day when the patients lie in the hospital fighting for their lives and told saree your coverage is over we cannot cover you many more. we will not go back to america will not go back. [cheers and applause] let me close by saying thank you for what you have done what we will need you to do and as my grandfather says jovi, i keep the faith and my grandmother would say no, a spread it. spread the faith. god love you and god bless our troops. [applause] [applause]

>> some of you have been marching over 40 years and haven't george many setbacks including the recent expansion of abortion coverage of obamacare. but it is important more now than ever we remain strong and stand together. we cannot allow the opponent

to continue a week in the moral fabric of our country. they need to know and understand that we will continue to march, we will continue to educate we will continue to advocate and we will continue to fight for the unborn. >> despite the fact that president obama is using deception and of the coercive power of the state to promote abortion violence , the pro-life movement is alive and well over a sustained progress

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning. i am the acting director in vice president of the foreign policy program here. welcome to today's event of a foreign policy recommendation for 2014. in five days the president will stand before the u.s. congress and the american people to deliver the sixth stage if he did address. he is likely to focus mainly on domestic, political and economic issues. this reflects the rising concern for nation-building at home and the judge declared the interest on the american public to get involved in other nations business. bombing came to office 2009 on a wave of optimism about

his transformational presidency. five years later it is fair to say the mood has soured and hopes have dimmed. no doubt the deep economic recession of 2008 delts a week hand. more profound political and social changes have also conspired against him growing polarization, a gridlock period dysfunction in our political system high on the list for a good despite these challenges at home the president has set forth the ambitious list of priorities coming to foreign policy national security to draw down troops in iraq and afghanistan in refocusing the fight, reducing nuclear weapons, negotiating with iran, watching trade talks in europe and the pacific and restarting direct negotiations between israelis and palestinians. he also faces enormous

challenges posed by the uprising of the arab world the prologue to economic downturns in europe, the continued rise of china unpredictable north korea and russia. to data for a policy program have brookings is using its own assessment of these questions and the steps the administration will take to make the most of his remaining three years in office. we're excited to preserve the present as he did last year to identify what the president should make to a finance u.s. security interest in the world. real soul set forth five out areas where the hell should double down to move the agenda for word on iran, syria, cuba and a show. we also pointed out a number of black swans low probability but high impact events that could derail the president's plans to add a

new category of nightmare scenarios that is more likely to unfold. finally be pointed out for the president should hold his cards a and stay the course for the before introduce the panel i will flagler virtue overarching points in the introductory memo on u.s. leadership of the global order. in our view over the last year the global situation has deteriorated and america's role looks more uncertain. americans are disillusioned about the traditional leadership role and with cuts in defense are raising questions to the rules based international system. the revelations of our own country and around the world reinforces a sense of doubt about the underbelly of the

predominance of of world. to restore u.s. leadership obama should reinvest in the global order in which norms are not only articulated articulated, but protected and in force wherever possible. this means do a double down like higher standards of the trade arena to rollback nuclear weapons development development, and protecting civilians from the ravages of civil conflict in authoritarian violence. it also means to make new bets for rules for governing the internet that protect our profound interest that is under increasing pressure and threats. we should also make the most up of regional and international peacekeeping efforts in africa to protect our investment in the stable afghanistan. while pursuing these opportunities to administration must mitigate potential damage post by the

turmoil in the arab world world, alliances with germany and korea and japan and provocation from russia and china. we believed with dedicated presidential leadership properly resources by congress, these threats can be managed to the united states will remain the leader of the liberal global order. let me introduce our panel then i will turn the floor to the moderator. david is saying there. he is the national security correspondent for "the new york times" the chief washington correspondent. reporting from the york, in tokyo from a wide variety of issues of foreign policy, globalization, nucle ar proliferation and asian affairs and has been a part of to reporting teams that won the pulitzer prize and known for his work in tokyo coverage appeared in

southeast asia, north korea and secret nuclear weapons program and got his start working the economic arena of "the new york times." david will moderate from the podium and pose a set of questions to the panel and i will quickly introduce them. in no particular order starting with bruce senior fellow of the intelligence program here. we also have a senior fellow also from the center to do for centuries security intelligence focusing in particular on afghanistan to day battle solis said networks around the world. steve is the senior fellow of and also directs our arms control and arms proliferation project.

next we have the director of the center from the east policy and also a senior fellow who will cover all the various things going on in that part of the role. next we have the senior fellow at the center runs his block among other things and will speak on iran. and chaco is just off the plane from korea will be our experts focusing on a genuine to china and korea and in japan and he is the director at the us senior fellow here. think you for your attention. >> this is one of my favorite defense every year

at the brookings because this is one book i keep on my desk all year because i can refer to a nekton deadline that i have on many occasions when i talk to my friends i can remind them in december what they wrote in jittery. sometimes it is well come. sometimes it is not but with two observations reading through this year it is quite excellent. the first it is half as thick as last year. the official explanation is last year was the beginning of the second term but unofficial their group has also been the of the world's problems that brookings saw fit to narrow the scope of the book. the second thing that struck me was if you read through this thematically what jumps

out is the absence of american leverage in conflicts around the world. there are a few exceptions and i would say iran might be one of them but through so many of the others their recommendations for what the president should do then the frustration that the united states right now, despite its status but it seems to have a hard time convincing other nations what is it the world's interest or america's interest is also in their of. so as i ask questions to each of the authors sam scholars to ask them to focus where the american leveraging is or if it is gone where it went.

i thought i would start with you. you have the fascinating paper here on egypt you write they cannot prevent the radicalization of the muslim brotherhood but we can seek to mitigate the effects. one year ago of course, we thought since the muslim brotherhood was in command with the country with morsi still there, the question was could read moderate dash as leaders but now kids to moderate from breaking into of four from the military? it was interesting to note that the foreign aid cuts basically had no effect of the military and leadership.

the law and dial the could turn turned out not to be connected to anything. tell us why that was a of what it is you think we could create leverage over the egyptians in coming weeks and months? >> with the question of u.s. foreign assistance all that was finally made in october last year because it took so long. chuck hagel secretary of defense warrant the egyptian military prior to the takeover said the aid is a risk they were not dissuaded a andros wants the u.s. did not immediately cut off assistance even though is strongly suggested that was

what they should do. having to failed to exercise or failing to establish the credibility of the threat that had made by the frustration finally made the decision they just tried to have the problem or thought that it would have the defect but the broader problem you identified of reduced american leverage is not about the choices made here in washington but the decisions made by the brotherhood and a very troubling event heavy-handed manner without mass uprising

that is driven by the political competition in taking place in egypt at this point the brotherhood then military is engaged in the struggle. the military believes they had notorious in what they did you as the stability and to now face eight the wrath of the military and a full audit crackdown believing they are fighting for their organizations survival. there is very little that in the outside actor could do to affect things but what can the u.s. do to protect his own interest? radicalization of brotherhood supporters orbiters would present a significant upswing of five

atlantic stream reason in the region and what the united states can seek to do today is set limits on its own -- matt and culpability of what is a far reaching campaigned but only extended to the brotherhood and that are a real problem for the united states as well but has extended to all kinds of peaceful political defenders. the united states at this point is to correct the fundamental error head-to-head over invested each leadership the council after the revolution revolution, president garcia after his election and its

but instead to clarify it counter terrorism extends to threats against the united states the u.s. interest. there with wholesale investment of the egyptian war on terror to include all political opponents. >> bruce, we have heard the chance is to influence the egyptians are relatively low land to suggested with leadership fortunately to be offered vested what it jumped out abbey said your essay was spent a $25 billion over the past

year and 30 this year and ended and pakistan in a tour of city thank we are spending in the region. but sometimes with vegas contrary to american interest in full support did egypt that we were just discussing the cut would tell us where president obama is to influence the saudis and tell us as well about his concern with he becomes convinced negotiations with every about work. >> this saudis are deeply disappointed in president obama they were very optimistic like everyone else in the beginning with the first arab country that

obama went to. but the saudis have become very disillusioned he refused to take their seats at the u.s. security council and argued some hall that was us bite to the united states. i assure best americans feel that way but they promised to give the government of lebanon on $3 billion worth of arms to buy them from the french it is also to be a spy to the united states that we don't get the arms from the united states it is filled with saudi eager a huge disappointment. at the end of the day the relationship is not broken. this is the oldest alliance dating back to 1945 and continues to function despite public irritation to the reason it does the reason we don't have that

much leverage is we need each other. it is important not only to global energy debate not provide very many americans it is critical to use the function of the global economy and without it being distributed at a reasonable price ribby savvier energy disruptions. second, of the soft power remains important they are the two holiest mosques then they're very important to fight against the al qaeda the united states homeland was thwarted by intelligence nobody else can provide them with that kind of shield. so the relationship we both need each other and cannot push too hard the other way.

with the arab awakening did was exposed the fundamental values it is not its at all it is an absolute monarchy with gender equality diametrically at the other end of the spectrum. we support democracy they make no pretense resawed that did the this year in egypt to the saudis are critical to the coup take place with richer committed to recognize today orchestrated the bow tie billion dollar aid package to the government don't worry what the americans to be well out did them we will make sure you get $6 million. that gets us to the other leverage is our do have leverage of a country with

as much money. but when it comes to iraq by on view at the end of the day is if the united states and they succeed to get a deal the saudis will accept it as well they do not want to be the odd man out with their primitive five members of the security council. where they are the odd man out the things the saudis hate more at the end of the day with israel with some global issue. fed don't want to be partners so at the end of the day they will except to

deal and criticizing it along the way but that the a part of the process. >> if there is no deal? direct that is up to the americans to fix it. the position will be you tried, it didn't work, now use force we will be happy to hold your coat this is. >> what about the pakistan these? to immigrate a nude is the already have to deal with the pakistan these but with the contemporary middle east why are they producing more by a double or triple? is there some extra oil partner they have a commitment to? eric is of lot of smoke but very little fire but my bottom line there has been

discussions in of the saudis have the pakistan the committed to provide a bond you can be sure they will cash that at the bank for nothing. [laughter] >> let me turn to steve. we don't have full lot of leverage in egypt or the saudis but we are awash? you have written a couple of different essays but the two areas where we are of most concern for the immediate question of the labatt and -- the olympics if'' putin milfoil the larger objective

to bring down nuclear weapons around the world with the chances of going beyond the deal? talk to us about those two elements. >> in the paper of the roche that russia may go broke this is a question about vladimir putin is concerned with the association agreement from moldova and georgia last november. the russians were pleased the ukrainians froze the process. but to take punitive actions from if he gets back contract you could find him in the target site. there isn't a lot of leverage chair exercised one

is the deterioration of the relationship we don't have much leverage to say we may have to undercut but it is a huge imbalance of interest to do it is the number one priority that russia is a great power it is important with the constituency and looking at the european that i will push back. with the case of the ukraine we may have some leverage their but that will be maximized and it would not be used with the russians

but targeted and it saves to view of yesterday's they announced some have been revoked because those fees the connections were with use of force there is more to be played the of threatening sanctions and also for a vigil sanctions and here is wearing it is important if they vacation in europe and go to school in europe. they want to travel to europe. . .

with the russians have done is say, if you want nuclear reductions you have to solve missile capacity. and the obama administration makes offers they say that is not good enough and they have to solve. the russians have tied up the nuts, but they don't seem to be devoting any thing to solve the issue. the case of nuclear weapons there may be an opportunity to move forward on this at the rushes change in mind, but until they do there is not much the president obama can do. he should not get into a negotiation with himself. there maybe a couple of small steps, one would be to go ahead and a seven -- accelerate the new start limit.

the treaty requires that be accomplished by 2018 which can be a compasses year. it would be something the president could use to say, i've talked to reducing the role of a number of weapons. we will move on this, but you would that do that with the vision toward affecting that you in moscow but basically going back toward the president and his nuclear posture the positioning the united states to have a demonstrated deliverable that the npt review province in 2015. >> what follow-up question, any possibility that president to unilaterally cut down significantly below the news? his plenty studies of his desk that suggest a dozen weapons are even fewer would be perfectly sufficient. you can rotate some of these in and out. that all have to be on call at the same time which is a good news to people of the airforce. maybe having fewer than that the silos might help.

what is the downside to acting unilaterally? >> at this point the joint chiefs of staff validated the president's proposal last summer to reduce the number by about one-third which is pretty levels at about a thousand 1100. at think there are some in the administration are beginning to say come with that is the number the u.s. military says for american more plans, why should that keep us at the higher level? my guess is that in the minority view i think it will probably be a stance in the administration that is let's see for a year or so. maybe when you get into 2015 or so at that point it is to the russians are stuck in libya might be that discussion within the administration about to receive something unilaterally? but there are two consequences.

potentially undermining demand negotiating with the russians, but also given where republicans are in congress that potentially it provokes a fairly big fight with congress. >> one afghanistan, the big news of the past couple of days have been the pentagon saying, welcome of we're going to keep the force in afghanistan after to facebook.com/booktv the bases should be is 10,000 which includes other nato allies. but we are prepared to live with zero if we simply cannot get president karzai to operate with us. two questions for you. first of all, does it make any difference? clinton doesn't have any significant effect in afghanistan from other a security or a development he. secondly, if you go back to last year's report or other reports

like this, you will find discussion about negotiations with the taliban. so far the only what is interested in the right now is karzai himself. have we lost interest in that issue? >> the chip number is linked as well as independent of leverage. unfortunately the troop number is acre within a critical triangle of the bilateral security of the elections that are coming up this year in afghanistan as well as negotiations with the taliban. and so the tragedy of the u.s. policy in afghanistan is that this is one place now we have had significant amounts of leverage and often chose not to exercise it, the progressively greater and greater repudiation of both governments in afghanistan as well as u.s. relationships.

and, indeed, we are seeing collapse of leverage, not the least in the negotiations of the bilateral security agreement which is the yield that would allow u.s. forces to stay in afghanistan after 2014. our assumption heading into the negotiations was that it would be obvious that to the extent that we are kind enough to devote any troops to state, the afghans would have to jump on that. and we have found ourselves shocked and perplexed by the fact that president karzai has refused to find -- sign the deal making up variety of conditions, some of which cannot be satisfied and is itself turning the bilateral security agreement into what he believes his leverage in this part. to go back to your question, the 10,000 troops to my would say, let's see where we are with the

security situation in afghanistan. the afghan security forces have made great strides. there are far more robust, competent than they were a year ago. they had -- here are now providing security in afghanistan on their own. the tell ben over the past several months launched a very intense campaign that will struggle to sustain that the current level. afghan security forces have love bugs, and the scene the territory, and they show themselves at the tactical level to perform probably better than many of us would have found. but that said, that television is still entrenched. the afghan security forces are nowhere close to defeating it. the insurgency has great military as well as blue capacity, and the afghan security forces are critically suffering from a host of key deficiencies. these deficiencies are not surprising.

our effort to let stand off the afghan security forces, these deficiencies would be here in 2014. we have been telling the afghans , don't worry, we will provide critical enablers which would be the 10,000 force number. now we're telling them maybe not. you are on your own. dear logistics' a deeply troubled. well, too bad. your intelligence capacity and strategic planning troubled, well, too bad. we have been promising we will help, but now maybe we are not we are really risking both overestimating the troubles and difficulties and jeopardize in the potential to strengthen the real accomplishments that have taken place by prematurely pulling from afghanistan. that said, let me come back to

this number. i agree with the pentagon's assessment. either we have a meaningful commitment that can help the afghan security forces tackled the television insurgency and other associated insurgency groups, or we go out. the number is somewhere in between simply for the show were because the only hope to use the forces left to strike a very narrow, we are only turning our troops into sitting ducks, provoking difficulties in the relationship between afghanistan and pakistan, and we are further justifying the taliban and answers in. so either we recognize that we can still contribute and then make a contribution meaningful to protect our interests in the stability of the country, pakistan, and the regional

corporation are we decide these interests are no longer work anymore and go out. that the come back to the elections. afghanistan is at the moment a profound uncertainty. as i mentioned what has been accomplished, but the future is deeply troubling and uncertain. afghans are watching what the united states will do. they are -- their obscenely hoping that the united states will stay with the military assistance in afghanistan, but they are also watching the elections. the elections are a moment of opportunity to renew the profound governance and deficiencies that have plagued the country for the past several years. the momentum of rigidity to resurrect both confidence and legitimacy, with the elections can also proved disastrously wrong.

either violence or extended political crisis, when even if they do not overly go wrong, the process will likely be dragged out well into the fall of 2014 into october, perhaps november 2014, even the major crisis. but if in that case we do have a bilateral security agreement in their waiting on the next government to sign a bilateral security agreement, we might find ourselves in december 2014 with 0 bilateral security agreements, and as your option will in fact emerged defacto as it goes as a result of a strategic decision on our part. my last point is that the u.s. policy should get away from constantly badgering president karzai. unfortunately, it only makes them believe that his intransigence is an extremely

smart play that gives him leverage. we should reduce the pressure and lay our cards out. if they're is a bsa, this is our commitment to look like. our commitment would not be simply about narrow, selfish interests. it would also meaningfully contribute something to the stability in afghanistan commanded is up to the afghan leaders to find it. as long as we continue in a negotiation with president karzai, he continues to believe that he has leveraged and that he can milk more out of that leverage. he unfortunately completely discounts the very meal -- very real zero option because he is strategic perspective is fundamentally different than the u.s. washington, the united states government is increasingly

asking themselves, do we have an interest in afghanistan? is this all about rebalancing? president karzai believes that afghanistan is the fulcrum of u.s. foreign policy with the occupation being the great game in central asia. consequently cover he is persuaded that the u.s. can never walk away from afghanistan it forever needs afghanistan as a strategic platform for engaging with pressure and for engaging with china. it is a profound misconception that leads to paralysis of policy. >> thank you. let me turn to a friend here. what president karzai has in common with the kim family is a to believe that the center of u.s. policy has always been about their country.

we have had this discussion. two questions. first, did we get in rhode? two years ago the intelligence estimates to you were hearing about or that his uncle was really going to running the country to the military would not put up with what they viewed as a spoiled, untested leader. second, did we get the chinese are here to acquire we understood that there was stability more than anything else on the grand peninsula coveted we believe that they would have the capability, the desire to rein in the north koreans in a way that has made clear during the bush and ministration and the obama administration that this simply cannot to. >> good questions. at the with the latest events in

north korea and yet again demonstrate just how often our knowledge is about the north. even though, frankly cover it is a little luckier than it used to be. in the purge and execution of the south korean intelligence anticipating in disclosing this a few days in advance. it is not as if there is no information, but i think there was a misreading in many circles of the way power is structured in the north, the capacity for a member of the kim family to dominate because it is a dynasty. and the fact that he may have been a young, impetuous kid at the end of that it did not seem to matter. even as he seemed to take on various kinds of deeply entrenched in his. in a short amount of time he is moved against all of those core

leaders who supported his father, including a number of people in uniform. he has had his uncle executed, which is extraordinary, and he has defied its chinese repeatedly. so there is something going on here that we still don't fully grasp. the counter argument may be that the very fact these extraordinary to villages within the north korean system have now been disclosed that in effect here was someone appointed as his close aide and he was a trader in our midst of our family but is a signal to the people of north korea that maybe they are not all wise and all seeing about what goes on within their own borders. whether they're is a lasting effect are not, we don't know. some people said it will. for the moment and probably for the foreseeable future we see him have consolidated power and killing his own way to a

building a ski slope, inviting as robin, all kinds of unusual gestures. >> i worked out really well, didn't it? >> given the irony caught they have long insisted tustin to others that they did not have the influence that we believe they could have or should have of the peninsula. this little to suggest that china had advanced awareness of what was going on. the eminence of the purge in the execution. the irony being of the chinese are the last for five years and invested hughes the north korea in terms of a much heightened economic role clemens significantly enhanced presence to of the presumption being that when he turned tail, had a stroke, this was an opportunity in a moment in time that they could, in effect, make their

influence felt. >> be prepared further collapse. >> be prepared further collapse. what i think it does illustrate is that the failures with perspective. with intelligence and privacy are collected failures. no one has been able to get this place right or to understand whether indeed there even are levers that can be turned. now we're stuck. as i try to argue with the question is whether overtime the chinese see a month to about enough of a risk and danger that they can be nudged toward higher levels of cooperation with us caught. >> one last question and then we will turn to suzanne.

the other interesting assessment that we -- the usf last year was that the chinese and cost there would be consolidating the power of focusing of the domestic economy to a warrior but the slowdown in growth. instead we have the uncertainties that come out of their declaration of the air defense and its vacation zone with continued tensions with the japanese in to some extent the south koreans. is this surprising to you that the chinese are pouring all of that effort into this early? >> i think what she's trying to do is to reinforce his authority at home and abroad. he is a different kind of leader committee seems much less hesitant about.

the chinese are juggling a very, very complicated agenda, but he and those around and do not want to make any suggestion that there is weakness and vulnerability on the part of the chinese. the other aspect of this is that this is a phenomenon not just in china but all across northeast asia. it is the intent of our policy, the rebels that we wrote with jeff pater. if the intent was that the united states could find a way to deal credibly, not only with china but all the other states in any effective way and give them shared incentives, as it turned out that way to a palpable tensions between japan and south korea to of course the issues between china and japan, the fact that you have more assertive leaders in of a critical capitals is probably not exactly what the administration had bargained on to say the least.

>> suzanne, one area i think it is fairly clear that leverage has worked is a run. sanctions cover up. the sabotage cover-up up. that combined with the election of a new leader brought about the negotiation that a year ago i think many of us would have that would not have gone this far. my question is, how much time do we have to actually strike a real deal here? cop -- before president obama runs that a room with congress. >> thanks. i think you're exactly right. we have seen is the success of strategy that was built of the assemblage of real and powerful american leverage. it was while we would like to see in american foreign policy,

but the long-term investment, but justin sanctions are a covert program, but also in the assembly of the world wide consensus for isolating the rod and eliminating the trade and iranian access to the international financial system that was so incredibly powerful in changing the priorities. there was also @booktv this should be credited, really and nimble exploitation of an opportunity presented. only notable is the administration was committed facto pursuing diplomacy, attempting to get engaged even at a time when the pressure was ramping up to its highest levels , even at a time where that public image was of a strategy that was almost entirely pressure to a very little engagement. the fact that those efforts in the gauge a continued even when i think expectations were lowest

enable the strategy to pay off once the average into the cave through. i tend to think in terms of the time, the opportunity today that the balance of opportunity is on the iranian side. he was not an accident. he was elected as part of a shift within the iranian to put forward a more moderate with the explicit objective of getting a new deal. everything that has transpired since the early days of june, and it was clear on the night that he was elected that this was going to be his preparation. everything that he has done since that time, the team that he put in place, the speeches that he made, the trade of setting made in terms of his own domestic priorities are he has moved much more slowly and muscles progressively been many of those who came on the streets to support him and came to the ballot boxes topped. the iranian has given him a mandate to get some sort of a nuclear deal.

the other evidence of that comes in the interim agreement, not just that it was concluded with relative rapidity. the idea that diplomacy would pay off in any kind of nuclear deal, it would have been left off the stage. it instead we did get a fairly comprehensive interim agreement in terms of what the iranians agreed to do as confidence-building measures. never before every scene and agree to sign on to such a wide range an array of constraints of their program, although it is nowhere near where we will be looking for in the final agreement. >> that actually takes me to my follow-up question if you view this as an agreement with tiny bits of rollback, the filing a grievance has to be mostly about rollback of the expanding the amount of warning time you would

have if the iranians raised from tell us about how that will play out inside the iranian political theater. >> said think it will be in excruciating negotiation. we saw how it was. it took two months and several attempts to walk with the table. it clearly provoked quite a bit of backlash here in washington. the fact they are signed on at this point. they've been relatively little in terms of sanctions relief. a couple of billion dollars and some temporary openings in sell-off the important but certainly not existential areas of the economy. that will not overcome the pain that they experience. the loss of million barrels a day of exports over the course of the several years. they need a final deal to deliver to their people of the expectations. they needed to be will to

deliver to the supreme leader because he is given a lesser number of running room. there is a debate. it is now meaningless. it is not wholly fictional half. i'll take that it is in that the states that it is likely to undercut roe money and it probably will not get to the stage and it will prevent it from making a deal until and unless he starts filling of the domestic agenda which is why his been so cautious. i don't need to understand the technical and logistical constraints that are ahead of us if you read the piece by bottle einhorn and ken pollock committee will see a sort of nightmare scenario where those talks break down which is certainly not outside the room a possibility, but at this point they're in it for the long haul because that is where the payoff is. on the flip side, the difficulty will be here in washington. clearly the administration has a fine of its hand shift that is nowhere near over.

and it also some of our key allies in the region. i don't think any of those disputes or obstacles to the administration here are likely to get easier in the short term. >> before i turned out to the audience, the one where we have not brought up in this discussion is syria. and so i just wanted to ask to step in and this. talk first of the question of given the incredibly warm collegial atmosphere the visitors opening in geneva, what you expect to come out of this. steve of the question of how the russian president will play this >> i'm curious to hear steves answer because i actually think that a lot of the american diplomacy pushing forward to

this geneva to a conference which is taking place has been premised on the notion fix that a u.s.-russian concert could create leverage over the actor's fighting in syria that otherwise could perhaps produce a negotiated instead is fighting in that otherwise would not be. by of question that promise for a long time. they have been incredibly skeptical fast that the russians could be persuaded to change their view then second, even if they change their view, would they be able to exercise any significant leverage. the end of the day the reason this is happening is because he is feeling relatively competent, filling confident in his ability to persuade more and more actors

internationally that the threat of suny extremism in syria is sufficient, that he himself is not necessarily the greatest threat to stability, and i think he is feeling comforted militarily in the balance on the ground. the syrian opposition meanwhile had the power of leaks going into this conference and to refuse to show up. reportedly they ultimately did decide to come because they were threatened with withdrawal of western assistance. this does not bode well i think for any country out company stocks and indeed as the conference has gotten closer and closer, the bar for success to find by those to convene his gun low or lower. in my own view : that the history of civil war backs this up sadly, realities will be driven by the military balance

on the ground, not by negotiators in europe. >> assure you would have liked a been a file low wall and the conversation yesterday between president obama and president and on the phone, but how do you think that way? says. >> you have had a time of of three months with his been the degree of american russian cooperation with some success to start the processing that the chemical weapons out of syria and routed towards elimination. that cooperation on that one part of the syrian problem should not disguise the fact that when you're talking about the broader future of syria their big differences between the way the united states as a future version and the russians. the russians don't want to see the sort of tossed out. they also see him as representing a degree of stability. from their point of view the west is none of go