about what the appropriate venue is, and i would say a reminder that the strategic and economic dialogue didn't exist beyond five years ago. and so this is one issue that's getting left behind in the discussion. the importance of creating a framework and a venue for greater multinational dialogue around the surveillance issue. and i think the pclob and its recommendations could have a dramatic effectiveness. >> it's not the we have an international definition because the countries are two different did however in the country, international law, european law and other legal bodies, these definitions are emerging. and, of course, they have to develop. what is sure is that there is a core area of privacy that we all would agree that privacy is infringed, for example, if you directly, due in intelligence gathering on a socialite gathering on a socialite of

someone who is not a suspect. so there's no reason. that's a clear area infringement of privacy. now, if you go further it's becoming, of course difficult. [inaudible] would be one aspect we have to investigate. another one is to create a complete picture of the private life of somebody going back to his birth, have a duty to come to be demonstrate our collective enormous mass of the this will be another aspect just illustrating, there are cases which fall under something like that and we should work on this definition. and the fact that we do not have something like that would not leave me to the conclusion we shouldn't go in these things. it's the same with this attitude on extraterritorial application of things like that. that. these questions are so new that you cannot find any government

position. that's another valid argument. there are pioneers on these questions. the government are not get there. i agree with you it's a political question on this issue. one final point where i do not agree what was said, the question with respect to territoriality. if you are collecting data in a foreign country from the orbit, it's clear that legal. you're not infringing the foreign territory, but if you go to a foreign territory and to switch on service your download countries the electronic pulses come your changing and you do a function but you police that. this is a clear infringement of territoriality and you can see the cybercrime convention where we are fighting about these questions. we have 30 qb -- article 30 qb with a big struggle between u.s. and russia which is bringing down the complete process of

cybercrime convention. we all agree that accept these cases mentioned in article 32 of the subprime which was ratified by the u.s. any police activities to doing access to foreign countries are of course an infringement of privacy. nobody would claim that this is illegal, would stop the process of cybercrime in which the restatement would be all right like that in this generality. so i would say we have to rema remain, these activities do not in any case infringed territoriality but there are many cases where, especially looking at the cybercrime convention, our agreements which we have on these committees, we all would say that clear infringement of the sovereign territoriality of country, and it is also undisputed that the

protection of territoriality is guaranteed not only by article ii of the u.n. charter but also by customary law, one of the basic footprints. >> i'll be brief. on the second point, again i was i don't think any country in the world would say that the article to of the u.n. charter, protection of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of states would mean that they cannot conduct essentially espionage activities from anywhere. i just don't think that's what the u.n. charter says. but more important, the first thing you said is the thing that goes to the heart of our discussion, where you said this is an evolving national dialogue about privacy. and it is a dialogue that is going on nationally in different countries. and it therefore is going on internationally. but the question at least that was put to several of us come to me and laura in particular, is there binding international law

standards right now in the adjective that is clearly no. germany may have lost inside germany because of its particular passed to other countries may particular national laws. sooner or later country make it together and agree on things, but right now there's not an international legal standard either in the iccpr or anywhere else that limits electronic surveillance from the united states or again, from any other country. other countries would not agree because there's not an international legal standard or that there is international legal standard. >> we have time for just a quick round. let me just ask to clarify one point. the treaty, i think it is not self executing. what does that mean and is there any form in which enforcement an action could take place? >> that means it would require implement the legislation for it to be -- its binding as a matter

of international law, and we've implemented it already and are in compliance with it in certain ways because of laws that we already have on our books or might thereby have our congress passed. but it doesn't have automatic legal effect merely by the united states becoming party to it. >> is there any forum in the world where we be held accountable for compliance with iccpr? >> the u.n. human rights committee monitors our compliance and comments up on things that we are doing. that's what happened last week when we presented our report, and the united states commented on, or responded to these comments. but that's not judicially or legally enforceable. >> thanks. judge wald? >> just a quick comment. am i not right, john, that not

in this context of surveillance but hasn't anyone at times relied in some of its judicial decisions on the iccpr to disallow certain -- i think indian with some of the detainees or asylum, et cetera. so my impression was that our courts who have actually relied upon the iccpr. not in surveillance but in of the context. >> you and i would have to look at those together. it may have been the european convention on human rights. there's been a fair amount of jurisprudence recent on the extent to which the european convention on human rights creates obligations on british and european forces to actually do have someone within their control of their military outside of britain or germany or elsewhere. >> i'll -- very quickly. quickly for mr. garfield.

and that is that the statement that your organization provided to us spoke of the need for meaningful oversight by an independent body and government as to the surveillance program, including access to collected data. just wanted it very quickly, though you had in mind was at the igs, us, fisa, congress? did you have particular independent bodies who would provide the meaningful insight, which included in your statement oversight of collected, access to the collected data. >> we did not. spent that's a succinct answer. >> rather than a question, i'll just offer an invitation, which is if any of the witnesses could provide us with guidance on, the

question i posed, what would be a better way of structuring a foreign intelligence system? i think at the end of the day, any concept of law, any set of rules, is going to recognize that different countries are going to have somewhat different structured. so the german structure is robust but different from the united states'. the united states believes it has a robust system with different elements and germany has, et cetera. has anybody put together, or could anybody put together a list of the elements of a system, and then some sense of how you come up with what is the minimum?

we talked a lot about judicial oversight, but germany does not have, the cour court reduce stay structure but not the individual implementation, does not do individual targeting on strategic surveillance in germany. in the uk, it's all ministerial, not judicial. secondly, if any further thoughts on how we get from here to there? so several witnesses have said it's an evolving situation. we have new questions, questions which, to my view, are not answered in the existing documents. let's just say it's not answered, they don't apply, no one thought about this but it hasn't been answered. how do we move forward -- we, the world -- or maybe u.s. and

europe, which have more shared values than we sometimes admit, how do we move forward in getting that kind of commitment and industry, and garfield's paper, is it a global, i think implicitly recognizes we need global understanding, even if not all the laws are the same. so any thoughts that you can offer us, not right now because we want to move along, that any further follow-up thought you could offer us in writing, please, would be very helpful on both of those points. >> i just wanted to thank you all for coming. as i said at the beginning i think it's important to have these discussions. i won't assign homework or request any follow-up, but it's an education process for us as well as for the american people, particularly on these issues. so if there is information you think should be a part of the

public record, which will remain open i'm sure david will explain, it is welcomed. >> i won't take up any more of your time. we are at the end of our schedules are but i want to thank all of you for coming. it's very helpful to me. so thank you time bashing thank you for taking time to prepare. >> thanks again to all the speakers and the board that made this hearing possible to the boards activity today are now complete. support encourages all of those who are interested in submitting palace and member of the public, submit questions at www.regulations.gov and the deadline is march 28. all comments submitted will be available for review by the public. transcript of today's hearing will be posted on e-5.gov and i will now move to adjourn the hearing. all in favor of returning the hearing please cite imac. upon receiving unanimous consent to adjourn.

we will adjourn. the time is 340 imac. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

tonight on booktv primetime we focus on technology and privacy concerns. peaking at eight eastern. all coming up tonight on c-spa c-span2. >> later today at five eastern on c-span the center for strategic and international studies host a forum about russia. bob schieffer, zbig brzezinski, and print scowcroft -- brent scowcroft all share their views about russian intervention and ukraine and crime is about to join russia. again that is today at 5 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> during primus' question time today and the british house of commons, prime minister david cameron and labour leader ed miliband talk about sanctions against russia for its intervention in ukraine.d here is a bit of their exchanged >> i think the primaries are fos the answer, mr. speaker, but i'd like to ask chim about meetinge that are coming up.ed their the white house is indicated that there sanctions will berain expand i'm sure the whole house will support the idea that theab list of ukraine and russia'sou official targeted by assets wila also be extended to the councilm tomorrow. can ask the prime a minister to the house the circumstance inl e which he will be supporting also additional wide economic sanctions on the russian federation? house the european t out some very clear triggers. we said if the russians did not take part in a contact group with the ukrainian government to take forward discussions, then asset freezes travel bans should follow. those should be put in place at

foreign council and i previous further action should be taken at the european council of ministers which i will take part in on thursday. i also think we should be responding to the fact of this annexation. that we said that if there was further action to destablize the ukraine and this annexation is that action, further consequences need to follow. we need to set that out, on thursday, in concert with our european partners and at the same time i think we need to put down a very clear warning that if there was further destabilization for instance, going into the eastern ukraine in any way, then we would move to a position of sorts of economic sanctions that we discussed in the house last week. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister knows from this side of the house we'll have our support for the toughest possible diplomatic and economic measures against the russian federation given the totally illegitimate actions they have taken. i also welcome to the announcement yesterday that the g7 allies will gather next week in the hague.

mr. speaker, given russia's actions it remains inconceivable that they remain in the g8. should this go further and explicitly decide to suspend russia from the group of g eight economies? >> i was one of the first people to say that it was unthinkable for the g8 to go as planned. we were one of the first countries to sus spend all preparations for the g8. i strongly support the g7 meetings of countries on monday. i think it is important we move together with our allies and partners. we should be discussing whether or not to expel russia permanently from the g8 if further >> and prime minister's questions from the british house of commons airs live wednesday particularly at 78 eastern, but 8 a.m. next week due to daylight savings time. also sunday nights at nine east pacific and its event on our website to be anytime at

c-span.org. >> c-span to providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy defense and weekend booktv. now for 15 years he only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> a look now at the worldwide energy situation to a council on foreign relations weaselly hosted dennis blair who co-owned and energy and geopolitics commission the recent release a new report on oil security and former bp ceo john browne, author of a new book on energy resources just released. from new york city this is about one hour. >> good afternoon. i'm bob blackwill, i'm to henry kissinger senior fellow for american foreign policy here at the council your and on behalf

of the council, let me welcome you to this particular event with admiral dennis blair and lord john browne on this strategic conferences of the american oil boom. the way we will proceed is, we'll hav have a conversation. among the three of us for about half an hour, and then we'll turn it over to you for comments and questions. and we will and probably at 2: 2:00. -- end promptly at 2:00. again, thank you for coming on this cold, wintry new york afternoon. let me start, john, if i could with you your we often read about fracking. i think not all of us are technologists in the energy industry. can you tell us what exactly is it speak with well, good

afternoon. fracking was invented i think just after the american civil war by the colonel robert torpedo company. rather remarkable thing. it wasn't what we do today, using explosives to break up rocks. i point this out in the book i've just written called the seven element. but it was later revived by amoco. amoco corporation, now part of bp. invented a way of forcing sand, high pressure, propelled by water into rocks that need space to let the oil and gas that's in them flow out. it was creating pathways for flow. the big thing that happens that's changed everything was when you combine that with something called horizontal drilling, which opened up more of the reservoirs, the earth as it was, beneath.

so that when you fractured it comes opened up even more pathways for the oil and gas to flow. and that's what is commonly now called fracking. it's horizontal drilling with what is technical, technically called hydraulic fracking. using water, hydraulic, under high pressure withstand and is to force open the rock. that's the state of the art at the moment. let me say it's only at the moment. perhaps in the future it will be done with gas and no water. it used to be done with chemicals to make the water more slippery. and nowadays it's not made with those chemicals in more. it's pretty benign stuff. >> thank you, john. admiral blair has just co-chaired a national commission on this subject. how big a deal is this, this

american energy boom? >> it's a huge deal. it concerns both gas and oil. oil, for instance, in the last five years, the united states has increased its oil production using fracking to the 3.5 million barrels a day, the largest increase in the time period ever enjoying. so that's big on oil. on natural gas it has taken an entire set of construction that was done in the last summer used to be able to bring liquid natural gas into the united states, liquefied natural gas because we're going to be running out of gas it has made that completely obsolete. so this is hundreds of billions of dollars worth of the big deal. >> let me ask then, john, why didn't the industry see this coming? i remember probably some of you do, too, seven years ago we were reading about shortages and so forth. we weren't reading about this

extraordinary boom in u.s. energy. why didn't the industry experts see it coming? >> when i was running bp i was i disappointed that we lost a case i think which eventually went to the supreme court to build an import terminal to liquefied natural gas on the delaware river. i was delighted about the outcome of that case in retrospect. i think almost every pundit around said that the u.s. had to import a lot of natural gas. because it was running out. and principally was running out because the new areas where hydrocarbons were found, the deep water gulf of mexico, for good technical reasons doesn't have much gas involved with the oil. so oil was doing okay, but there was no gas. so everyone looked at the day, and they i think noticed what

mr. george mitchell was doing with hydraulic fracking. and being a lot of engineers basically said, well, we will believe it when we see it. and step-by-step because it all looked very risky. so conservatism second. and people said, well, really we better ensure the future by importing gas. this is not the first time the energy industry, i think i'm qualified to say this can has made a bit of a mess of forecasting the future. the recent ones were of course importing natural gas which is no longer needed. the one just before that was peak oil. recall, we're going to run out of oil. i don't think we're going to do that either. and then there were plenty of other similar themes which became fashionable, but actually

the quality of forecasting is very poor. i think it is probably with innate conservatism. i think we should remember perhaps going in the other direction now, but who knows spent it does make one cautious about the forecast we read today. look what you just said spent i think if we were to face very important foreign policy on single point forecast, we would make a very bad mistake. >> good. dini, why did it happen here? sensibly that lots of countries and will get into this in a bit have the capacity to develop shale gas and oil. why did it happen your speakers i think was a combination, one, of george mitchell's personal persistence, the clear demand in the united states for gas, and, but also there's some technical

capabilities. the gas people talk about below ground and above the ground passes. below the ground you were right lots of countries have tight gas and tight oil, but above the ground you need the right kind of companies. unique pipelines to be able to get the gas out if it's gas you're talking about. you need the right regulatory structure. you need the right legal structure as to who owns the gas and oil itself below property owner on the surface. these things existed in the united states. it remains to be seen whether they will be developed in other countries so that they can replicate what's been done here. >> where else is it, john, and how likely is it -- chime in here, too, but how likely is it also that other countries will replicate what we are doing in this regard to? >> i think one of the interesting things about the

u.s. revolution in this area is that it was conducted not by exxon or bp or shell or chevron, but by a lot of countries -- some of you may know the names but most people wouldn't. very small companies indeed. the reason for that is that they have local skills. local skills and local relationship skills, embodied in a set of people who are called landman, local negotiators. all of whom were probably fight off by the big companies when the big companies thought that there were better things to do. so local is very important. i also agree that there are tremendous incentives for local owners to assist in development because they take a direct economic interest in the success of the development. now, in the rest of the world there's a lot of shale which is very perspective.

i'm personally involved in a lot of that through a company i'd share, with tremendous prospect for the future. the same technology can be applied. but there are a couple of things. first is under the ground. all shales are different. one size does not fit all, and you have to spend time making it work. secondly, aboveground all the circumstances are different. so a crowded island like the uk is not the same as the wide open spaces in north dakota. just not. and it's been at development for a very long time. so technology of the ground has to change as well. ..

about this who were quite skeptical that the political will would be president to do it for the reasons you mentioned. >> i am a business man and i think that if you get nothing done at all at the moment the uk

imports a lot and it is importing the payments, the energy account and that money is going to russia if we could do our own thing. here ihere's the good news and d news. it's opened up a great potential for the world and the bad news is that among all of the people that have done it very well there've also been bad stories of people doing bad things in the u.s. and i think it is true to say the good news stays home and bad news channels fast.

the information base in an independent way no one is going to be leaves me because i have a vested interest that they might be leaves other people who can say we can do this. it's a very different approach. the regulatory base all great things need a great regulation and the bas base is very good ad it's learned from the u.s. so let's see if the combination of those things and all the political parties that are behind it may not be as good as it sounds. poland and china all have a lot.

what you expec do you expect the countries to proceed along the lines the u.s. has done and if so. first in the western hemisphere places like mexico and argentina have enormous potential resources and i would expect certainly mexico would be opening to spend. we would add a further diversified source. >> i think in europe people will pursue. russia has a lot of shale potential lead. so as much as anybody. ukraine does, poland does, they all do. i think )-right-paren to see that ukraine will provide a stable source of gas in this

area would be the wrong place to focus on. a lot of places in europe can do this and indeed should do this. we can add one more source of supply. and i think it sounds simplistic but as long as they are all economic i think that rule should never be forgotten. >> how big of a deal is this in the u.s. economy? in general, you said it's millions. i think i read a report saying that it would add more than 2% to the u.s. gdp over the next ten years. and i think i remember reading 1.5 million jobs would be created, high-paying jobs is that the conventional wisdom now that it's going to have a big impact on the u.s. economy?

>> the gdp is in the one to 2%. there is a big effect on the balance of payments right now as recently as a couple years ago half of our overall balance of payments deficit every year was due to payments in petroleum overseas on the order of 300 million a year and that comes down rapidly of course when you are drilling it here there are jobs within the industry itself on the scale and then of course the availability of cheaper petrochemical feeds and other industries added jobs and make it makes it more compee and then there is a spinoff from that. so it is a tremendous benefit to the u.s. economy which we are seeing every year.

you mentioned bad actors. how much should we worry about the environmental impact of this because there are that worry about those effects. >> i think that with almost anything that looks at the resources in the development should always worry about the empowerment. so, whether that is cole, or ao, gas, uranium they are all bad and they are all good, and that transforms from bad to good through good regulation and practice. i think the same is true. it is very much a matter of getting the best practice and the right places but if done badly we could release a lot into the atmosphere. that's not good. it shouldn't happen because operators know how to stop that

from happening. we spent years tightening up and thinking about the different ways of doing things and saving a lot of money and reducing the amount. a very small amount. it's about protecting the water tables. it costs a bit so if you don't spend the money you might make a mistake. it's a few things like that. so keeping -- having good regulations stops the freeloaders. people taking a free ride on good practice is important but it's very clear you can do this with a minimal impact on the environment and what's more you are producing gas and sometimes all you and its better under all

circumstances. it burns very efficiently far better than coal as a source of energy or electricity. >> i would just add in the armed forces where i spent 35 years we carry a lot of dangerous stuff around all the time and we have extraordinary procedures to make sure that we can do that safely and that when explosions have been rather than ones that have been on our own ships the keys are independent of regulators and the qualification of your regulators and following through on the checklist continually as you go. there is no magic and every time we see an environmental damage caused by resource extraction you do the investigation we have

to be hard on it and put the resources. but it can be done. >> we have to come back to have a debate on information on what is pure made up activity. a lot of this stuff about gas coming out of the pipes and the kitchens and catching fire. this is demonstrated as not on the basis. it's basically things rotting in the water system. so it's getting the information right and having a debate into the industry has to say again we agree and we want regulation. we want good regulation and independent supervision and want to be held to account. >> a question that i think will affect everyone in the audience in a direct way, what is this

oil boom in particular going to do to the price of oil? all of you can reach for your cell phone to call your broker to hear what he has to say. >> in this study we basically took four different scenarios, and when you look at the variables in the scenarios we will roll the dice and choose which one will be more important, but the trend is that on the planet we need more energy primarily driven by developments in china and india and other developing countries. and the balance between that demand and the price of the fuels that produce it they are fairly cheap and the deepwater drilling and so on is much more expensive and that will way out in that area, so i would, if i

were to make a bet on the price. >> but you're not willing to make a number of? i spent 45 years trying to avoid the question but i don't think it would change much. what's interesting is every time you think something is going to happen unintended and unexpect unexpected, said today in the world there is quite a loss of oil as a result of the issues to do with various countries in the world and you as members are well aware of those issues so they're sort of 3 million barrels because of issues to do with the government and the war and conflict and there is probably a bit more available which is managed outside of the system.

so it looks like there is a lot going around. in theory and in practice it hasn't. and then there is a limit to the amount because of the immediate needs of many countries but just produce hydrocarbons and economic activities and the rate of expenditure so the so-called break even number is quite high for many countries including russia who spend a lot of the money that they make by exporting the hydrocarbons. so with one thing and another the best forecast you say i can't. there are so many things that will change. for example the world will get better and more efficient at using energy. whether that a deficiency will be used to reduce the amount or take the efficiency and spend it

elsewhere remains to be seen. whether there is a moment where there is no conflict but also remains to be seen. and whether there are more discoveries to be made which makes it more available in the world that remains to be seen. it's important to remember that portions. the most important source of legal in the united states is the deepwater gulf of mexico, not shale oil and that is to be remembered. that will be the case for quite a lot of time so everything counts. i would always prompt for looking at today's price and say around the price isn't a bad number at least for the short-term. >> it on the part here if you

look at the literature there is a very wide spectrum of projections. there are i would say it's not e majority at least a substantial number of the cvs studies to write about $70, 70 to 80, but there are so many here as danny and john have said. the united states is a big winner in this technology. are there losers out in the world? as john said russia has to deal with whale and $70 a barrel this is a different set of russian problems than we have now. do the air any iranians are

there any winners and losers as you look forward? >> i don't think the trends are sorting out losers in the hydrocarbon producers. the political flow for those that are heavily hydrocarbon dependent certainly does have an affect, but the 70 or $80 a barrel rejection that you see are pretty optimistic. they are a stone being able to produce a lot of that convention and relatively inexpensive oil that is almost all of north africa producers. it depends heavily on iraq coming online in a big way who

forecasts a peaceful iraq in the future as quite a chance. so i think that the losers i think they are a sort of self-regulating as the price goes down, the countries that are the swing producers that are preferably in the middle east and africa have tried to ratchet down on their variable ability in order to keep the price what they need in order to meet their federal budget. it's hard to see the scenario of tremendous supply restrained demand price going down with this sort of political score on oil that we see by the companies. >> what about opec isn't affected in the long-term by

these developments? >> most important thing is natural gas. if you think about the u.s. situation with natural gas, for the unit of energy it is 75% cheaper than the energy that comes out of oil. 75% discount. and this is dramatic. so anyone who is dependent on expensive gas that is priced on the same basis as oil is actually spending three times as much as they could do as the u.s. does for a piece of gas and since gas is the fundamental driver for electricity and for petrochemicals it is a very big disadvantage not to have

domestic supplies big enough to compete to allow tax to compete with itself to pick up the price of oil. i say that because i don't have how that will work out in the long term but right now it's given a huge advantage of gas that gives the manufacturing and industrial base and advantage that is affecting at the moment. it is being disadvantaged by the cost of its energy. opec is one of those things everybody has written about are often than i can remember. every wishful thinking says we would like it to go away, and indeed one of the founding members is about to decouple. mexico is about to decouple its industry from the state control.

i think the main point is that opec is into a well oiled machine when things get tough for people whose livelihood is based on oil and from time to time it comes into the frame to say enough is enough and that's very much in the hands of saudi arabia primarily with a couple of other fellow travelers. we would be wrong to say it's bad. to say that it's been in use for some time. on a final question was asked or colleagues to chin chime in. with less or no dependence on the middle east, the entrance

but as possible and advisable even from their. what is your feeling about that? >> the study that we conducted i referred to stress to that question and the answer is that although greatly increased domestic production of oil gives us more options come it doesn't did that option. the oil market is still in international market. the transportation sector is still some 90% dependent on that's so if there is a supply interruption and a price spike in oil around the world that affects the u.s. economy for example can and 2011 when libya's oil production went off it is only a million barrels per day but that basically stalled the u.s. recovery from the 2008, 2009 recession and we plateaued for about a year in an agreement

to relieve the petroleum reserves and the partial presumption of the production and other areas. the price came down and we got back on track. the united states has opportunities, but i'm told we can change the basis of the transportation sector from oil to natural gas and electricity which is based on a variety of sources including natural gas we will be subject to the international market and the swing producers will be in the middle east could barely saudi arabia and other countries will have to pay attention to what their. so it's good new a good news bus not enable us to walk away from that area of the world. but there are lots of things that we can do to make our economy less susceptible in the term and then over the long term

we should change the basis of the transportation sector a way and then we are truly secure. >> i suppose we all think about the other issues that have to do with the middle east. of the terrorism much of which emanates from the weapons, the state of israel and other reasons the united states should stay involved. i want to now turn to you all and invite members to join the conversation. just to remind you this meeting is on the record. wait for the microphone, speak directly into it if you would, stand, state your name and affiliation and if you could actually ask a question we would be grateful and perhaps only one. ] here we will start and then go

back and forth. >> given the nature of the north american energy industry shouldn't we begin looking at these issues that you have raised in the north american perspective? >> yes. in fact the entire market is connected worldwide much less in the country we can run pipelines back and forth. and in fact the u.s. and canadian hydrocarbon resources are quite interconnected. whether they will be more interconnected with the controversial pipeline coming down we will see. i think the bigger change would be with mexico and whether the changes in the government of the

mexican national oil company will in fact make a difference in terms of accepting other north american partners in order to do mechanical fracturing or the other techniques whether the financial and technical cooperation to in fact bring mexico into a bigger role. >> i think your question is the question almost every government of the world is being asked. it is what strategy do you have and most people would say we want lots of choice. when we fill in the gap we want to do it it reducing the carbon dioxide emissions or we don't

care about them. other than that there are very few things we want as cheap as possible it is as secure as possible. you don't need as much connection as possible around the world. the u.s. is heavily dependent on imports of products that are made here. on the electricity that comes from canada and indeed the wheel and gas from canada. europe is interconnected completely but i just think we need to understand that these interconnections will get more complicated, not simple or and we need to understand how to make them work in the future. >> former world bank. to pick up on something that was

raised which is with hydraulic fracturing in orbis usage of water which is another issue in the world today. but you indicated that there may be some opportunities in the future to use gas to propel as opposed to water. there is enormous work going on. technology for recycling bathwater and i wonder if that is going to be one of the good effects of this technological breakthrough that will apply to other areas such as agricultural irrigation as the oreo and gas industry is better able to use and clean water. thank you. >> the amount of water used is large, but i think it is why the amount used for the water golf courses which i think is a rather larger user of water. so we need to get things into perspective.

you may all have a different view that you prefer. but nonetheless, that is the case. cleaning up and recycling and then substitution. and i think the other one, the other area is of course the juicuseof the water by technolos which allow you to target into places more accurately and overtime as possible as well. so i think it is an important consideration that should be dealt with responsibly. i do not believe it is a common strand. co. -- constraint if handled properly. >> you mentioned that the energy content of natural gas is about 20% of that of oil.

given the economic arbitrage how does that persists and what are the costs and what is the long-term outlook for the discrepancy? >> of course two things. first i think everyone has to be the will of the relative pricing value of the energy, will it last? and people are always very uncertain about that so they are not prepared to commit to the gap last thing for a long time but if they are then a lot has to happen to infrastructure. you can wish to have natural gas vehicles all over the place, but the time it takes to get that to happen is very long. so people will always worry about the capital expenditure required to make these changes. some of that is happening at a summit that has happened over the long distance past. but i think the arbitrage exists for quite a long time because

the markets for the use of the different products are so separated. that i think is what is happening. so i think it will last for some time. question and the rest of the world is why are the markets so linked that oil and gas are priced on the same formula? but again are used in different markets? they used to be used in the same one for the so-called to make electricity, but that doesn't happen anymore so that is a question people are asking in places like europe and japan, same thing there about why should we price of gas on the same basis as oil? >> right here down in the front.

it's obviously the stated policy of the u.s. government that you're not going to allow but in case the current negotiations failed it seems the only option would be a military option. can you educate us that in such an event what should we be prepared for, what will happen and as a businessman obviously, what should be explained? ..

keep it open. if you look at the history of events like that there me -- as the political temperature eats up there's a spike in oil because people -- out of uncertainty people fear what might happen. then as seven the late 80's and someone, when it's clear at the rest of the world that depends on the oil coming through the strait of hormuz can, in fact, keep it relatively safe, insurance rates come down, priced as backdown. think we would see -- i think we would see that again. i think that been -- i think that the scenarios that -- that

come out of the middle east that really keep the price heidi series of events, reactions, and other events which give a sort of uncertainty to the whole situation which is interconnected. what happens in syria is connected to what happens in iraq to iran. i think it's the frequency and the size of these individual military political events in that part of the country the sort of keep the price high and spiking. it will be of most concern of the long term, but if you look at any individual event there are countervailing forces that come to bear pretty quickly to take care of it. unwatched so i think -- almost impossible to predict. and that is where the world's -- unit, roughly 50 percent of the world's oil comes from and virtually all of it backup

supply unwed. >> over here. >> christopher dickey with the daily beast. can we come back to ukraine for a minute? ukraine supposedly has huge reserves of shale gas. poland was supposed to have had huge reserves, but it seemed that did not pan out. think the estimates when from 44 down to 9 trillion cubic feet in the year one. is there any hope that ukraine can gain some kind of energy independence from russia in the near future? howdy use the they ukraine dynamic playing out with europe? if we are talking about sanctions against russia because of what has been happening, is there any prayer that europe can wean itself of russian gas and the time in the near future?

>> let me -- i think we should take that together. >> let me start, i think, with first resources. ukraine clearly has some potential sale. not being tested cobham it seems from most analysis that it has got a significant resource. poland has a resource. it is unclear what size it is. i think it would be a little wrong to write off the scale of pollen on the basis that i think it's a little bit too much a reaction. i don't know what the answer will be. been keep an open mind. and maybe something there. ukraine, of course, today, worry about ukraine is that it is, of course it takes a lot of gas from russia. russia can change the price of

that reasonably easily. the apparent discount to the ukraine, where red means. but ukraine also is the conduit for gas. that is much less than it used to be because of other pipelines piece. another one was just taken away, the bottleneck for europe. so that's, i think, the facts. the other factor is that for the principal part of your, as it were, not mainland europe, but europe has not has not had a gas interruption resulting from russian action. and the only place i think that is the case is georgia and ukraine. but as to the rest of europe i

think since 1975 -- and not trying to be an apologist. i think there has been no interruption in gas supply. so the question we have to ask ourselves is will there be one given this long track record? there are many different regimes so 13 europe pass to, i believe, open up its share of gas resources. they could be very significant. they will take time. we are dealing with decades of lost time. but you know, a decade is a decade when the delay in of the aeronaut. so you have to start to get to the end. so i think developing european shell gas is very, very important. europe has also developed a large number of import terminals for lng which has diversified its sources, and it still has a lot of domestic and indigenous

natural gas, not least in knowing, for example. so diversification is taking place in one way or another. i think it must not stop. we should continue to diversify. not least because it wagman retention of currency. also it's potentially if there is enough gas to help the press along. >> i think that is quite comprehensive, but there is one other aspect of diversity which is not just where you get them the different types of gas or oil from, but it is the diversity of value can use energy sources for different purposes within the country. right now the u.s. transportation sector as i mentioned is 90% dependent on oil refined petroleum.

diversity within that makes of the transportation sector would be good in the united states as it would be given any other industrialized country. so if there is -- because we can't predict the future, because someone things may yet get tight in one sector or in one type of petroleum, you want to have as many different ways to work around that as you can. europe has been working to reduce its dependence on russian gas for a long time. it can also look at other ways to reduce its dependence on gas for heating and houses which is where it has the greatest effect this internal diversification of energy use as well as external diversity of energy sources is really the only key for an individual country or region to be able to be proof against some of his political economic events that tend to really cause problems. >> i think the colonel and now,

it is unlikely that shell gas in the ukraine will have any effect on the current crisis or the one that follows that of the one that follows that, although in the long term as john and daniel said, it might substantially and to ukraine's capacity to defend itself over time. we will go right -- let me go back and the furthest one back and. yes, sir. exactly. >> lester would look, morgan stanley. do either of you see any meaningful role for any of the grim alternatives like solar or wind generations to play a major role in providing energy? would it be sufficient without the major subsidization is currently receiving? >> i think most people -- it gets worse as looking at a global data. as far as the world concern,

more electricity is produced from renewable energy right now than from nuclear energy in the whole world. so it is quite big already. very important. sustainable production of electricity from renewable energy requires renewal energy they get cheaper. and that is what has to happen. those of the last pitbull the price of electricity has gone down by about 60%. and from wind between ten and 20. however you calculated. there is absolutely no reason why that would not happen again. it would be amazing if it didn't given the normal strands in engineering. so you would expect renewable energy to get cheaper over time. we have to invest in the technology, and you would expect different countries that have

different levels of subsidy or not so sitting depending on its cost and their sense of security and so forth. now give you little example. in july for example alternative cost of managing, importing from brunei. right across the pacific ocean. so a lot of wind and solar. it's obviously very beneficial. i think putting wind turbines where the wind hardly ever blows or solar panels where the sun hardly ever shines and you rely on subsidies to make up the difference. it's not a good idea. in the end you have to get the resources right. that's where i think subsidies been really taken out for what they should be. so i think it's going to be -- it's here to stay and i think it will become a bigger proportion of the world energy market.

it's a good thing, and i think that it can be done. in my own experience and and and and now i can tell you that you can do it and make it profitable . mom. >> i would only add that it is -- when you think about the role of government and the larger role of government in the energy sector, with doctor of regulation, extremely important to make sure that it is done safely. we just talked about the renewable energies in terms of both security and in terms of the environment. but do think that there is a strong government role available for security. and in insuring this diversity of supply that we talked about to simply said the market will handle it is going to lead to better results. has to be smart to action by the government, but if you allow the market as far as we can see it to determine your gas and petroleum import picture you

will be a tremendous national security vulnerabilities and economic vulnerabilities. i think we need to look at the whole picture, not just whether we can increase renewals at an affordable cost. >> right here, sir. >> jerrold pollak. my question concerns the transportation sector in the future that uc for the old electric car. i see that mercedes and bmw are now producing an electric car. this -- nissan has one also. of course there is the tesla. do you see that this has a bright future? and is it going to make much difference in the energy balance considering that electricity has to be generated in some fashion? my. >> yes, i think it makes -- it would make a tremendous difference. the price of energy is basically gone down in recent years, the price of oil which feels our

sector. and with natural gas in a bun in u.s. and by the price of energy in the united states will continue to be balanced. there is an economic argument in that sense. the problems with electric vehicles are well-known, price and range. both of those have to do with batteries. about half the price of an electric cars and the batteries. batteries now are limited in their range. range depends on infrastructure, where the recharging points are, how fast they can recharge a car you can get back on -- you can get back on the road. all of these are manageable problems. we are not talk about going to the men here. we're talking about setting up structures right in court said -- in order to get there. and the benefits are just tremendous. if you look at -- from 2001 to 2012 the money that was returned to the american taxpayer of the

average family in terms of tax rebates and payroll taxes and so on was exactly matched by the amount of money that same american family had to pay for the gas overseas in addition to price spikes. so the benefits are sherman is if we can get off of oil as a 90% fewer of our transportation vehicles. and i would just add that in addition to electrical vehicles which are really the answer for light trucks and cars, the fleet vehicles, buses and cities like new york and for the 18 wheeler's that are on the interstate become a liquid natural gas or compressed gas itself can be a good fuel. so we can do this lou. and the benefits to the country both from the national security point of view and from an economic point of view are very, very compelling. >> if i made, we have been

involved in several adventures in this area. and i think the problem is this. of course most people don't buy mercedes and they don't buy a bmw. they don't buy tesla. what they're really want is a very cheap, small car which is not too small that will work under all circumstances and places. i was amazed at the piece of technology called an automobile, so getting to that point, cheap, affordable, reliable, always ready and is going to take some time i think. and it is unclear to me whether we will actually get their with electric cars are whether we will get there with gas carson or whether the internal combustion engine will get so efficient that we will use only a fraction of the gasoline that

we use today to drive a car. i think there will be a makes. right now i am not sure that what tesla is doing, which is great, is an indicator of the future. >> i am afraid we are near the end here. perhaps one more question and then weigh in the back. i am sorry, but we have not heard from this quarter and over here. weigh in the back. >> thank you very much. kristine baker, formerly of bp, author of a forthcoming book about my time there. i am hoping you walk and talk a little bit more about the social and environmental risks. we mention smart regulation. the mention hiring luckily, getting good information out there. can we talk a little bit more about what's more regulation looks like and internally from the corporate perspective what companies need to do to a, perhaps, better integrate some of those considerations and to have a go about the business. >> a big question, two minutes.

so whoever wants to take that long. mom. >> well, it seems to me the best regulation, of course, is one which is not written by industry but one which is informed by industry practice, engineering and then it takes time to get right. but i think it all has to be around economic as well. there are no absolutes. since you mentioned your book, i'll mention mind. i talk about in my bachmann now which i think starts from a very simple viewpoint. in my experience the mining and petroleum space, everything is bad and everything is good. what stacks the deck is the ability to contain it through grade regulation. and there is no other choice, of course, available. >> i would just add that based

on my experience with then we spend too much time thinking about the regulations as they are written and published in the federal register and commented on an end to my mind the regulation, good regulators. that means that these cannot be the castoffs from the industry could not get a job and therefore they're hired to inspector comes as it did get the job. you have to the have and may -- you have to pay him your regulators, maybe of the civil service bail and ordered to get really good ones. you have to have a continual retraining capability. and they have to have -- if they walk into a mine and find something is bad they bring it to a halt and several be back next week to see if you have it back up to snuff for naught. you can screw around with the $50,000 penalty that think it's going to get -- i said the quality of the inspectors which means training and the compensation and i was a really

tools that they are given in order to make sure that the best practices are being followed. >> well, i think we reached the end. perhaps some of your struck by the fact that we sit in this room often and walk away hearing disturbing, troubling line, and worse news. we actually had a session today where we heard a lot of optimistic news. i want to commend the book. i read it in preparing for this session. it is elegantly written and a very creative, interesting read. and also femoral blair's commission report which will tell you a lot more about the subject. so let's thank them and thank you all for coming. [applause]

won't. [inaudible conversations] among. >> the center for strategic and international studies as a conversation about russia the saponin. speakers include cbs's face the nation banker and former national security advisers and lieutenant general. live coverage at 5:00 eastern on c-span2. now time magazine editor at large as senior political analyst discuss the campaign and fund-raising operation the symbol for a possible hillary clinton presidential run. from washington journal this is 40 minutes. >> joining us from new york, time magazine editor at large and senior political analyst calls a senior political analyst for msn bc. thank you for joining us.

>> great to be here. thank you. >> we invite you want to talk about a recent piece in time magazine. the headline, but not very quiet campaign for hillary clinton. give us some background on what this is about. >> well, you know, this is one of the strangest presidential campaigns a potential presidential campaigns we have seen. secretary clinton has not made it clear that she will run, although most of the people around her suspect she will be caught up and the momentum of this and will run. this is a super packaging that has been organized by young supporters of for now being advised by an older supporters that is doing something no super pak has ever done at the presidential level, doing grassroots organizing, not what we think of them as doing normally, which is getting big checks, million dollar checks or more from all the donors to pay for television advertising. this is an attempt to address what was hillary clinton's biggest weakness as a candidate against barack obama in 2008 when she ran for president which

is building a grass-roots organization all over the country which has a helps you not just when the nomination but if you can keep your organization together, keep those activists engaged you can more directly fund the nomination, the primaries, and caucasus. and what i found in reporting the story is that hillary clinton, although publicly has been quiet of the super pak, is watching what they're doing, supportive of what they're doing, and believes that it is helping if she does wrong address the sleekness of how she has the kind of foot soldiers they really need to do well. >> it is called ready for hillary. tell us a little bit about who is behind it as far as the key people. are these people that we know when the political world? >> mostly not in terms of the sort of original organizers. and number of young people very dedicated to her, some have worked with duran past who want to see her run, but it is being

advised by a number of people who are more familiar to people who watch the cleanse closely. the person i have focused on in my article is a guy named craig smith who was someone who as a teenager met bill clinton in arkansas and as work with the clintons and every one of the presidential campaigns, work with them in the white house. he is now senior adviser to this one. he is someone who, you know, the clintons been unwilling, he has been with them every step of the way. i quote him in the article talking about how they're basically trying to build a ferrari of grass-roots organization. he says, which is this on the steps on the gas. he has cut off all contact with hillary and bill because although he could have contact with them under lock he once there to be no questions raised. as i said, of the people staffing a day-to-day, they have a staff of several dozen.

the people staffing in day today are not really well known, some of the advisers and donors are people who are pre big in the democratic party and part of a big group of people who would like to see secretary : run for president. >> what kind of campaign finance rules apply? >> well, there are no limits on what people can give. but it has imposed a limit. they don't want unlimited contributions. abilene the limit is 25,000. one of the real powers which has been under discuss is not the grass-roots organizing, although that is a potentially big deal. i think the goals i have millions of supporters of 5 million supporters, 2 million active volunteers. if they have that that would like the door for anyone else, when all the other people running for president combined have in terms of people at their disposal. the real power hear me is the contributors.

they do a lot of fund-raising events with a charge a low dollar events. they don't feature hillary, but people who are supportive of firm, $20.16 a 2016. and those kind of low dollar some, small donors to can give and give again and give again if she does run for president, president obama really specialize in abbott. it is something that no other republican with the possible exception of rand paul is a potential presidential candidate has at their disposal. while big contributions are part of running for president, president obama has shown that the small contributions are a big deal. this is raising a lot of money, they're selling merchandise, taking in larger checks. they have a fund-raiser coming up in washington featuring lobbyist. president obama interline then said he did not want lobbyists raising money for him or controlling money to him. this is not trying .

they are capping contributions. >> to receive there influence in places like iowa and new hampshire? >> they are in both of those states. a did a big organizing events last weekend at the site of the caucus meeting at the county level. you know, they show up and basically try to collect information and e-mail addresses, contact confirmation. there are also organizing in new hampshire, but as i said before part of what they're doing is focusing on a longer-term strategy. president obama, one way he beat hillary clinton 2008 after those early contests, he was organized in some of the caucus states and primary states further data and the calendar which she did not have an organization. your team did not serve her well in building a structure in multiple states. they are organizing in all 50 states as best they can, both to preclude a nomination challenge that might threaten harm because they now the expectations recesses you have to not just

win delegates in contests to win in big. also as i said before, very important, having those organizations carryovers general elections. a state like missouri, if you build an organization there there will be a primary caucus and leave bill that organization, you give it a test run and even against minimal opposition in the nomination season. stay in touch with those people, keep them active and keep them going. that's what they're trying to do if she runs in nine -- there is disagreement among people about how impact will this could be. i tend to believe that if they do it right it could be quite entitled. >> our guest to talk about this effort as part of a lead up to a potential 2016 run. you want to ask the questions about it here is a chance to do so.

you can also tweet us. as secretary of state clinton either directly or overtly referenced this group? >> she does not in public. she wants to try to tamp down the kind of band-aid speculation about whether she might run. as i said before, she said difference years following what they're doing is appreciated of it. it is also being followed by the current president and by the current first lady. they are both kind of interested obviously in his 60's the president. michele obama is very much concerned that the president obama is not replaced by democrat that his legacy could be undermined. also a republican president could try to undo some of the president has gotten done including affordable care act. michele obama is someone who is

in touch with the grassroots, underrated as not just a political actor but also in terms of someone who understands the mood of the country in the party. alice childress he is said to people that she hears a popular hillary is. she hears some much there is interest in her campaign. you don't hear the obama's declines talking publicly, but they're paying attention. neither wants to distract from the midterms. they know how important that this. as i said, they are both aware that what organizing now done for hillary clinton and can be done with the balance for 2014. there understand why that is to comes from.. our first call eric, georgia, democrats want. you are on with mark halperin. caller: good morning. issuelperin, there is one that is never brought up on tv. none of the pundits bring it

up. the base of the democratic party. the base of the democratic party is the african-american community. this is what i would like to ask you. president obama won the race with less white to have swiped hoaxing history of any democratic president. he wants like 35% or something. the base you never mentioned of the democratic party never gets old, which is the african-american community. i would like to know, what is hillary clinton planning on doing to mobilize african-american folks like me because the first time i voted in 2008, this is a great step for black voting to a high percentage like 66.17%. what is he going to do with the

african-american vote? >> host: will get the answer, mr. halperin. >> guest: thank you for the call and for participating. a huge fan of this network in c-span and brian lamb and pedro and steve scully that whenever i come i like to say thank you for doing what you all do and collars for participating. is the unique program. thank you for the call. and no, when bill clinton ran for president, had great relationships within a late level of the african-american community as well as the grassroots. i think one of the real shocks for hillary clinton in 2000 eight what she urges that she ran for president she would get a large percentage of the african-american community. i think you are rdc with the super pac we are talking about, or already seen a real focus on african-american voters, both with specific agenda items in outreach, but also just in general as the caller suggested

to face the democratic party. i think you will see, without a doubt, hillary clinton do that. you'll also see whoever the republican nominee has come a real average to the african-american community because they've been kind of shut out of that boat because a president obama strong attachment to the community and you're going to see republicans try to get some of that vote that. people in both parties who are not just pure partisans recognized that all americans, all communities benefit if there's a rigorous debate about ideas and a rigorous competition for the votes of every group and every individual. >> host:post go up next on cook, tennessee. cowell, republican line. hello. >> caller: it's been a while since i've called. it's crazy the american people are smart enough not to go for this woman. she is not qualified. the comments on benghazi with the investigation of talking

about was what does it matter? they don't care about you or me. all they care about is themselves and their power and that's it. we don't have another full year extension of the obama administration. we don't need that. bowl for some reason or another decide not to run maybe because of sickness or death or whatever it is, we hope she'd never get in office. it will be the destruction of america. >> guest: well, first of all, i couldn't like your last comment go by without commenting on. i don't think anybody should wish secretary clinton any health problems or anything like that. i shouldn't be what this is about for anybody. you know, there's an article in "the wall street journal" today about some people around secretary clinton thinking maybe she shouldn't run, maybe she won't run in part because she's been at times a unifying figure. she was a senator, his secretary of state, but she's also been in

the national spotlight one of the most polarizing figures in the country. the caller's intensity of his post is focused on benghazi. those are things you see all across america. literally tens of millions of americans feel that way about hillary clinton. balanced on the other side by extraordinary enthusiasm amongst tens of millions of americans. we live in a polarizing time where whoever the democrats nominated 2016, where the republicans nominate will face tens of millions of americans who feel passionately that they shouldn't be president. but hillary clinton brings to the table this built-in history of the clintons having to do some being used to make a lot of people on edge, inspire a lot of people. the benghazi issue is one where they're still unanswered questions. it's an important topic to debate. i think some republicans, some conservatives make the state of the leaving if they somehow just talk about benghazi that will

later terminate secretary clinton or she does run will cause her to lose the white house and as tragic as the events surrounding benghazi art, as much as they're still unanswered questions, smarter republicans see that stopping hillary clinton if she runs would involve talking about more than just that one episode. >> host: mark halperin, the same article you mentioned talked about her rage, the grueling nature of campaign and there is a tweaked this morning saying basically the former secretary of state is too old to run for president. >> guest: well, should be almost as old as ronald reagan was when he got elected. she did have health issues towards the end of her time as secretary. she, like her has this incredibly energetic person. but you know, there is the reality, not necessarily so much better he should limit what she could do in the office. for me, just thinking about someone who's looked at why people run and don't run for president, if she does run,

scattered year-to-year proposition to run. for years to be an office in and presumably run for reelection. that is basically the rest of her professional life, given her rage. it is just possible on a human level as to the point of this comment that maybe she doesn't want to do just that. maybe after a lifetime in public service should like to do other things could be at the foundation or choose already started. other opportunities for travel, family, et cetera. it is clearly a consideration for her whether she decides to go forward and will be for some voters feared i don't think if you look at the age of leaders in other countries, if you look at the rigorous schedule she kept his secretary of state, i don't think it's a barrier or something disqualifying it all she did that she wants to run. host christopher massachusetts, independent line, good morning. >> guest: yes, thank you. the sons of hillary clinton for me and i think many others was

in 1995, the conference on women and of all places, beijing, china, what a sign. it was certainly not a rebuke to china, her feet and her, but not from a shutout when it supposedly liberated their families can be turned into a common times in a permanent underclass. most women, you know, who has been born of this feminist trend has end up underpaid service workers. i think hillary clinton has spent her entire life serving the population control agenda, ensuring the killing facilities will already exist were babies can be exterminated like pass. she's got more blood on her hands and lady macbeth. >> guest: well, i will just say again the caller's passionate intensity he feels is reflected in tens of millions of

other people dealing with negative feelings about hillary clinton. if she runs for president, she goes into that knowing that people, like the caller can't exist in the country feel passionately about her. she has been on the kind of issues the caller is talking about, very outspoken in a leader and those who support her agenda look at the conference the caller referenced as one of the great moments in her entire career. the caller has a different view and again it shows the hard, intense rather feel and bachelor clinton spares amongst her supporters and detractors. >> host: mark halperin, one of the things that she decided to run for president, as the secretary of state, first lady gets looked at as part of the process. >> guest: in arkansas, their questions razor has been did run for president when she was first lady about the work at her law firm, her service on corporate boards, personal financial

investment she made. as you know, viewers here know there have been documents released by the clinton library. there are more coming. there will be a lot of scrutiny. i will say, although she did run before and although she got more scrutiny than anyone thought in this country when she was first lady, i guarantee you there will be no information about her past that comes out of she runs for president. the way the clintons are treated, i've covered them since 1991, they are held to a different standard, often a higher standard. there's no doubt that if she runs shall be facing the same kind of travail she went through a national life and that's why there are people around her who either don't want her to run or hope she doesn't want to think maybe she won't run because right now she's got a life where she can disappear for a time and go to the theater and travel and do all sorts of things that if she runs for president and of course if she wins would be off

the table for these for years. >> host: , gemini said miller has been the issue decides to run? >> guest: well, a pretty huge asset. john hom and i wrote about the 2008 campaign and our boat on and change come the chronicles how president clinton who had been rusty was at times an asset for her first presidential campaign, but at times was a complication to say the least. based on his performance lifecycle, in 2012 for barack obama, i think he would be a pretty big asset. he is now gone three general election campaign, which he hadn't really done in any significant way since his own reelection in 1996. i think he's one of the great minds we've seen in this country politically in the country's history. i say that without fear of contradiction. i think he'll have learned lessons from what happened last time and is more popular now in his stewardship in the white

house, particularly related to economic growth is something that a lot of americans that very favorably on. as is always true with the clintons, nothing is funnier, nothing is simple. certainly president clinton would also provide the complications in the past if she ran, but on balance there is no doubt he would be a pretty big asset for her. i'll say again, fundraising, such a big part of american presidential politics. president clinton would help her raise a lot of money, more than any spouse of anyone thinking for running by a country mile quote. >> host: mark halperin, we see grandpa making comments going back to monica lewinsky and we aren't even into the campaign yet. >> guest: yes, senator paul has been pretty outspoken as was his wife and at least one interview. i think again, it reminds some people around hillary clinton as a type of issues that would be brought back up from their past they should have to address. it also reminds some republicans

did in 1998, when the republicans try to run against bill clinton and bring out aspects of his personal life as well as questions about his honesty and legal proceedings that it seemed to backfire and that the clintons, you know, the clintons have had mixed root mary series of political successes, some failures. when bill clinton was running in 1992, when i was covering, he would say any fact the republicans want this election should be about my yesterdays and i want this to be about your tomorrows. i suspect if hillary clinton runs, bush and bill clinton when confronted with things from the past, including mono w-whiskey, theater or some version from the clintons and their supporters. >> host: this is kelley from oregon. kelley, go ahead, please. >> caller: yes, good morning. mr. halperin, thank you for using the vitriolic callers.

first of all coming handle them very well. i would like to say i support hillary clinton 100%. i will be proud to vote for her. i'm going to say she is going to be the next president, but also, given that lack men were given the right to vote 70 years before any women were, okay, i would've really liked to have seen a woman get elected before a black person. i made 70 years, that is like three generations before white men gave their wives and daughters a chance to though. i don't know, i think we are way overdue for a woman president. i think hillary would be wonderful. i hope she decides to continue to make the world a better place, but i could also see if she didn't want to, that would be okay. >> guest: well, the caller's

monologue is representative of what a lot of women feel, particularly in the issue of history. if you look at other females in politics and business and other bombs, a lot of impressive people. the glass ceiling has been broken in a lot of ways and yet if you look at the other possible female presidents, no one comes close to hillary clinton in terms of experience, fundraising capacity, their name i.d., dare by all the measures used to say can someone actually get to the highest public office in the land? for a lot of women who see that, this is not just the best chance, but perhaps they'll may chance for quite some time and that is part of why hillary clinton has such a strong base of support without declaring a candidacy and also why some people around her think in the end she will run. there's almost a responsibility to go forward to try to become the first female president to break that glass ceiling in

public life at least, the ultimate glass ceiling when she is the opportunity to do it. i think, you know, she has her detractors and there's no perfect candidate as there has been used to like to say. there is no doubt that today there is no one more likely to be the next president of the united states and hillary clinton. i would say by a lot. if she runs, she is a strong chance to have the democratic nomination. while there are plenty of talented people in the republican people thinking about running, i don't think any today has nearly as good of a chance that she does. that having been said, look at the electoral college, there is no guarantee of an easy run for the white house as the republicans nominated a serious credible person, the electoral college is going to be close as it was the last couple of elections -- the last few elections come and just because of the divided country now. there's a lot of support particularly amongst women, a lot of men as well that the

historical thing is a big deal think it's fair, as save or annoy the best chance to be the next president if she decides to run. >> host: if she decides to run, could that be merged with the president's ground operation? and as far as the ability to reach out to voters? >> guest: well, there's other superpac has supported president obama that is a more traditional superpac that is big checks for television ads. the strategists and consultants are people who did work with president obama. the website has a right in the article in time magazine was revamped last weekend to include tools, better organizing tools and the obama folks above say they're even better than president obama had because technology evolves so quickly, algorithms get more sophisticated. so you see in the obama world an extraordinary level of support for mike's post the grass roots

but also amongst the organizers. jim messina, who was president obama's campaign manager in 2012 sign-on to work with the other superpac and mentioned priorities u.s.a. action. i quote one of the president's top political advisers, president obama said nicer in the peace saying that he is struck at how amongst donors and activists and elected officials who supported president obama, there's extraordinary enthusiasm for hillary clinton. not to support, the enthusiastic support in part because hillary clinton as a member of president up on this cabinet was seen as a lawyer member of the team is someone who got integrated into obama world after the top fight they had for the nomination in 2008. part of why she is so formidable is the people around president obama for the time to the grass roots are really for her. they like her. they support her. they are looking at her as the person they would like to see

run. now vice president biden for the most part. while that's a little bit of a nod man out, he is aware of the reality is i said before. so is the current first lady, michelle obama. in the party amongst the groups that make up the party, including labor and african-americans and hispanics and younger voters, there's just a lot of support for her. >> host: jeff, franklin, georgia, republican line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. just a couple comments and i will let you talk. there's one question that needs to be asked. what does it matter? what does it matter? what is the matter in the early 1990s than the supposed disappearance of all the records in whitewater that hillary had. what does it matter that she did things inside the presidency to get martha stewart put in jail. what does it matter? benghazi, definitely what does it matter? is talk about the embarrassment

but the russians right now, the great secretary of state in syria. what does it matter? let's talk about things she allowed slick willie to do when he was president and she condoned it basically what does it matter? this country needs to asking two years, what does it matter? >> host: mr. halperin. >> guest: that's a very sophisticated caller using alina secretary clinton years when she was testifying on the desk of ghazi and awareness on the colors part of a lot of things from secretary clinton's past that i do think would be and should be part of the debate if she runs again. bioassay for the good of the country and the good of the republicans who'd like to win the white house, the debate issue and shouldn't be just about those things. every candidate who runs things in the past past decade scrutinized. how they handle those things is a big deal. as i said before, quoting president clinton, there are no perfect candidates. if you want a perfect candidate,

hillary clinton is happy to have you vote for someone else. i think that the main thing from the previous caller is there an intensity, tens of millions americans feel about her. they don't want her to be president and she would have to run knowing that. some other candidate don't start with the built-in base of just intense level of disapproval. again because we are polarized time, they would catch up to hillary clinton or get pretty close in terms of the intense level of disapproval. she also comes with a lot of support. i'm a journalist and i think part of the responsibility of people in my business is to give scrutiny to hillary clinton and i hope i've made clear in every area the caller mentioned, there's still unanswered questions. the democrats and hillary clinton supporters will do their best to say assaulters, move on. if she runs, she's the democratic nominee, there will be more scrutiny and there should be. elections will be about other

things as well and or so job, economy, international relations. her record as secretary of state is part of that. elections should be and are generally about the future, who's got the best ideas and i guarantee you anyone who spent running for president on the republican side and i clued jeb bush is part of an experienced political family as well, anyone running on the republican side doesn't have a third of the experience hillary clinton has in dealing with how you handle scrutiny of your past. and so, republicans who can intimidate her out of the race for them she couldn't possibly win because there's so many problematic areas in her background i think are its official i sufficiently thinking through what the candidate is going to go through. >> host: destroyed the "washington times" today taking a look at jeb are, has potential to run. the headline says bush looms over the 2016 presidential field. what does he say? >> guest: i think jeb bush is

in a class by himself as a potential candidate. he is not a potential candidate. there are people who don't like his family. he's got some problems at the grass roots party on issues like immigration where he's been accommodationist. i like to joke at a time when the country is searching for fundamental change what says more than a clinton bush general election. there's no laugh track on c-span, i always forget. jeb bush and hillary clinton are two of the most serious people i've ever covered. if we had a jeb bush hillary clinton general election, they both would aspired to make it not about the politics of personal destruction, but a dignified serious conversation about education and health care in the economy and international relations, national security. i'm not endorsing either of them are saying they are the only two candidates who could bring this about, but i've a fairly high degree of confidence that if they were their party's nominee, that we would have a serious and

important and substantive debate in the context of the general election as we've had during my career. i'm not sure at jeb bush to run. he's got to decide whether he wants to do a personally, whether he wants to put his family through. i think if he runs, he is the exact kind of establishment candidate with support from large donors, elected officials, business community. i think he would be the frontrunner for the nomination by a lot. i think people who underestimate into it at their peril. one thing i'll say that is really underrated in a polarized time in which we live, i've never met a democrat who spent serious time at jeb bush talking about the country who didn't come away thinking i like him. i may not agree in every issue, i'd be comfortable as president and i wish he would run. that is extraordinary. you don't hear that about too many people in public life today as they do with the other party. his decision as the headline to

read suggests really does loom over the field. it's a much different race at jeb bush and it do and is about jeb bush. >> host: without jeb bush, who is the frontrunner on the the republican side? >> guest: well, they don't really have one in the modern era that's never been the case. analyzing how the republican nomination fight with slow, it's impossible to do with any degree of specificity because when the world with different dynamics. every cycle since president reagan has an early front runner already identified at this point in the cycle who holds on to win it. some games easily, sometimes after a big scare. that's been the pattern and will be the pattern again if someone can emerge. if governor christie survives the political controversy he's going through now, he'd be a big player and i think paul ryan will be a big player if he decides to run. they both might sit it out. the other person underrated and strong as mike huckabee if he decides to run in governor casey in ohio if he wins reelection i

would add to the list. after that, it's hard to say. you've got a lot of people with strengths and weaknesses. a lot of people who could play for media attention, fundraising , early states like iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, but no one dominating. as i said before, the party is never had that. that is why i think jeb bush is facing a fair amount of pressure to run in why he is intrigued because he would be able to step into that role pretty easily. particularly fundraising right away, in a manner that none of the others i mentioned to do. >> host: up next is very from ohio, independent line, go ahead, please. >> caller: yes, i voted for clinton twice, but at the time i was uninformed. i didn't realize that a bunch of democrat leaders and almost all

of the people i was in charge of the money or the other 43 people that died that was real close to the kennedys. i didn't realize that arkansas was the center and where they peddled that guns for years and years and bush was in their wisdom. so i mean, this never comes out. if this is wrong, i would like to know if that's wrong. ready to get your information on all back, collar? just curious. >> guest: it was a e. television show that they wouldn't let in the united states. that's where it came from. >> host: mark halperin, any thought? >> guest: pedro, i am having

was caught a c-span acid flashback with some of the other controversies in the collar reference were discussed and touted the clintons have faced a lot of accusations in their career in their search for things they've both done for which they have been and should be held accountable. i'll say it, passion to bring up things about them with little or no supporting evidence to suggest they are immoral and should be disqualified from public service is something hillary clinton would face if she ran and that is daunting because she has been through it all before. on one hand she's been battle tested. as i said before, better able to handle it on her experience than anyone else. on the other hand, why would she want to go through it again? i was much run for president under tens of millions of people around the country who feel as passionately negative about her is that color does. >> host: mr. halperin, the ready for hillary can send campaign do they have any on the

2014 elections coming up? >> guest: they have aspirations to be a hit. one of the interesting things going forward this year is what will hillary clinton herself to? who will she campaign went? who will she endorse? who might she help raise money for? in cases where she does that, ready for hillary plan is to go in aggressively to help raise money for candidates she's raising money for, to put a lot of soldiers on the ground. in other races around the country, they hope to use this year as an opportunity to build a the skills of their army, to have people enthusiastic about hillary clinton's work on other campaigns, volunteer and staff level give political experience so she does run that got people not just enthusiastic, the well-trained. real speculation amongst people, even within the supporters of hillary clinton say how much can not effort actually bear fruit? how much of a resource will that be a shortly after the midterms

hillary clinton announces she's going to run for president? i'm not sure what the answer is. it's curtly better than nothing and certainly more than anyone else has. you don't see in the republican side against the more aggressive people running for president, people like ted cruise or marco rubio or rand paul, the level of organized effort to say, how do we channel whatever it is yes and exist for a potential candidacies into the practical political experience you can get participating in a midterm that can then quickly be turned and channeled towards the presidential campaign. >> host: one more call. sheldon, washington d.c., independent line. >> caller: mr. halperin, i enjoyed meeting you. and the women who called imitating that a black man had a right to vote to a woman spoke.