the obama has that beat by a couple months at least with regard to nomination. i would just@@@@@@@@&@ @ @ @ @ r the obama administration is ahead of previous administrations. >> the only two so far, right? >> so far. >> do not over claim. we are up to four. >> things are moving along. there were only a few nominations in the bush administration and most of the people when we talk about confirmations, september, that kind of thing. >> that is it on timing. we were up to four. what kind of people will be put on the court? to

counterbalance and balance out the conservative judges particularly on the court of appeals that president bush and previous republican presidents have put on. what kind of attributes to uc president obama looking for in selecting judges? >> i can speak from the transition standpoint where we worked on this. it was clear that he was looking for very capable, intellectually gifted lawyers, jurists, law professors. that was first and foremost. clearly superior qualifications. i think my sense of the extra factor that -- the distinguishing factor was more just a sense that this was a person who understood -- who had a sense of why they wanted to be a judge. not just a pristine piece of paper, not just reading bricks, but understood and had some interest in the human dimensions of judging, who wanted -- had

some life experience dealing with people and i have this sense the president was not that interested in -- was more interested in people who had litigated real cases and worked with people and did not have to be in the context of litigation. someone who had a sense of the human dramas and stories behind the cases. that was the extra factor. >> he has been involved in the supreme court nomination. the word empathetic has come up a lot. the president cares about this is someone who thinks about the impact of a law. these cases involve people. they're not just abstract legal questions when they come before the court and these people have had a real world experience that lets them and an approach when they think about the impact of the decisions they are making on

people. it is not a squishy i feel sorry for this person. it is about a real world understanding about how is this decision going to play out? what does it mean in the workplace? is it realistic to say that someone should be able to complain about discrimination when she has not seen enough in a paycheck to recognize it is there? it is a practical understanding of how these cases come up and what it means and how something will play out. >> you have selected a batch of judges during the beginning of the clinton presidency. >> some of whom are here tonight. >> do you see any difference? what do you think president obama is looking for? >> there is some similarities and differences. with president obama, you start off with someone who is a brilliant lawyer himself, who was a litigator himself,

himsand taught law and brings intellectual firepower and legal perspective to this decision. this was the choice that he spent time on. he reread a tremendous amount of material on her. in the end he came away with the person he thought combined great legal acumen and great life experiences and great practice experience. a divorce practice experience as a private lawyer and prosecutor and appellate court judge. the best rounded. it was that combination of things the president was looking for in the case of judge sotomayor.

president obama is the only president ever who spoke individually to every single member of the senate judiciary committees. all the democrats and republicans before he made this choice. i do not know of that means more are likely to vote for his nominee or not but the effort to reach out and listen to people, understand what was on their minds, factored into his decision making is a kind of approach that hopefully will set a better tone as we go forward in this process. >> i am trying to group the questions and combined them because we have so many. there is a number of questions that the president is doing too much but there is a decidedly the strain of questions that he is not doing enough in one particular area. that is the question of gay rights. including marriage, adoption, medical insurance, several

questions about how he could have filed the doma race that was filed. i cannot know whether -- and do not know whether i am directing this to the right person. does anyone want to take that up? i do not know whether it has come across your desk, spencer or, ron, you want to discuss what the reaction is to do not ask, do not tell. >> i will work on the matter. >> somebody has to be brave hear. >> it was an awful lot better than the brief that was written in the bush administration. there is no question, a personal statement. there were some things in there that should not be in there. they did make an effort --

they are trying to make arguments and eliminate arguments the bush administration has made. the administration is trying hard and moving slowly. they announced yesterday he asked for presidential memorandum extending benefits to same-sex couples for travel benefits and health benefits. it is a complicated area of law. we are constrained by doma so he is trying to do what he can do within the confines and extend those benefits and said clearly he wants to be working with congress to support the legislation that would extend benefits and to repeal doma. no one thinks it is fast enough right now. i know the president cares about

this and is working on, he wants to reverse do not ask, do not tell. >> what she said. in the stand when people are impatient with the pace of progress. i would say in our defense progress is mostly in the right direction and there is a question of pace. we have only been here 125 days. in those 125 days we have had many irons in the fire. i share lisa's view. of the frustration that people who care about these issues field. i hope that next year when we have this conference, and the question gets asked what it does not elicit the same kind of applause that it elicited.

i hope we have more progress. there is applause about the accomplishments we have made. >> i hope you're right. i will read this question. much of the administration's political policy and legal agenda seems to be strategically responsive to the success of the federal society legal agenda. [unintelligible] rather than the one that we can achieve and how can we move toward that society? in the heart of the context of legal policy, where do you think we need to be going? >> as you watch how he

approaches the enhanced interrogation techniques and the military commissions of those issues, this is somebody -- i cannot know if you heard his speech on this report of issues. he believes in this document and understand what it means for people in this country. because of who he is and where he comes from, you are going to -- you already see part of the fabric of the decision making that is happening in the administration. as we come into office, we have come in with a number of serious problems where we are having to react which is what leads -- it is reactive on some issues and a clear agenda on health care and

education and the economy. over time, hopefully, we will see more of a movement out of your office. >> but that certainly is our hope. one thing that is interesting that i did not appreciate before is how much is reactive. how much you have matters that are coming to you and how you have a finite time of the day and you have to figure out what i have to do today and what i have to get crossed off the list and what can i do tomorrow. the kind of thing. certainly, thinking about this in terms of the big picture is important. it is also important to react and deal with what is on your plate on a given day and that is something i did not have full appreciation before. >> i think in terms of judicial legal philosophy going forward, so much of progress of legal

doctrine in my lifetime has been set by a sense of courts as being lovers of social change. i think -- president obama has revitalized politics. we have the executive branch of government. there will have to be more developed and continued developed thinking about the role of courts and politics and the intersection of democracy and using political processes and persuasion to politics as much as through the judicial around. the other piece i would add, this feels to me and maybe it is because where i am. this feels like a unique and different time in terms of the modern regulatory state. we're at this transformational moment almost like after the civil war or the new deal. we are seeing that in the restructuring of a lot of government and that will have to

shape our judicial philosophy going forward. i was reading again a while ago the metaphysical club about the rise of pragmatism that came about after the civil war as a judicial philosophy. i was struck by that and it strikes me as a similar moment that it maybe less ideologically driven. courts can play a role in promoting. >> the president has shown his desire and his ability to be quite aggressive in using executive authority. some of that is invested in the task force with respect to the recovery bill.

where do you think the limits of that are or would you say we're not going far enough yet? congress will have to get its act together? >> i do think that because of the kinds of problems we face, you do have a president and vice-president focused on working with congress. in terms of energy policy and financial reform and education policy, they are things that are going to be done in conjunction with congress. when you look at what the president did in his first 100 days in the 25 days since then and the days since the that, there is going to be a period of

legislative outlook. -- output. i think that@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ the president has issued some executive orders some of which have reversed bush policy. we can look at areas where he can act to do that. the vast majority of our focus is on policy issues and we're working with congress to bring about real change in health and the economy and energy and education. >> do you think the president really ought to take the full sweep of the power that he can exercise under the constitution and push forward with it under the statutes of the united states? >> it depends on the circumstances. ongress that is

of your party, there is no reason why the president politically should put everything on his shoulders, because if things go wrong, he bears the blame. you have one president and when the president's actions are based on his decision, he alone bears the blame and reaps the glory. when you are in a position of sharing it with another branch of the government and congress, that makes sense to do that. that is what president bush did tha. i am not surprised that is what president obama is doing well he has a congress of his own party. i expect there are going to be areas where president obama just like with president bush cannot accomplish his policy goals working with congress. a good example is that do not ask, do not tell policy. i do not know where the majority of congress is. if the congress is not where the president is, as i am understand the law, the president could

change that policy fairly quickly if he wanted to. i think the president ought to be prepared to fully assert his power when he needs to. you do not have to be stupid about it and you should not do it when you do not need to. >> does anyone want to take that case sap? -- case up? you guyus are cowards, come on. [laughter] i can't get a rise out of you all? ok. i can't get a rise out of this crowd. often the questions about transparency is about the of ministration communicating with the public and the public seeing what the administration is doing. the question is, how does the public communicate with the

administration? how does a regular citizen or member of acs make their concerns known to the administration? >> one of -- it goes along with transparency. the illustration is using technology in ways you have not seen before and has a vibrant website and is encouraging interplay on the web site. i think that is obviously one way. the other way is the traditional way especially for members, talking to us. we really do want to hear ideas. this is an administration that is eager to hear good ideas. i do not recommend regular mail to the white house. i received an invitation to an inaugural party. it was being irradiated someplace. e-mail and through the website and talking to us. >> this white house's office of

public engagement is of a vibrant part of the white house. just in terms of being involved in substantive policy. they have an e-mail that is -- someone actually checks it every minute. it is checked and someone processes it. the technology peace is going to be more vibrant. it turns out for the folks on the campaign, there were restrictions that did not apply. new rules are being promulgated as they need to to make sense. there is a process under way and the technology tools will get better as the year progresses. >> i think it may be fair to characterize this and i am trying to pull a couple

questions together. the bush presidency ended up being consumed by iraq and a single-minded in its focus on the war on terror. particularly the war in iraq. this president may be is going in the opposite direction. he has health care and education and the budget. he has financial regulatory reform. he has iraq, iran, the middle east, north korea. is there a danger in the public kind of losing the idea of what he is trying to do? how do you balance bringing a transformative drive to policy- making with remaining in touch with people's concerns and peoples preferences and understanding about where this presidency is going? >> the president is doing -- as he receives every night a dozen

letters from people who have written to the office of presidential correspondence. he reads them every night. i have seen him put a note on and say to timothy geithner, is our program helping this person? he is fighting the bubble in a way that i have not seen and i do not know with president bush but because of coming in as he did, he is trying very hard to stay in touch with people and what people are thinking. that is one concrete way that he is doing it. >> i think in terms of the agenda, as the president is fond of saying, he does not have a choice. he cannot tell the economy to wait until he has fixed health care and cannot tell health care to wait till he has fix the economy. he cannot tell financial reform

to wait until he has fix these things. these are problems that demand solutions now. i think the strategy is going to prove to be extremely successful. the same thing with global problems. we have two wars going on its. they cannot be told to wait. in the first year of the clinton administration, we spent an enormous amount of time debating what order in which to attack different problems. long meetings about welfare. for health care, nafta before this. we spend more time fighting over the order in which we were going to approach problems than we did in getting the problems solved. sometimes we out-thought ourselves in this sequencing game to our detriment.

both out of necessity and out of a sense that it is possible and in some ways, more effective. the president is attacking these problems simultaneously. we will have success on all of them were majority of them in bringing about change in these areas. >> where do you see the biggest potential, biggest pitfall for stalling in the tremendous agenda he is putting forward? >he had a rough week on health care. >> through all these things, there is a certain quality of perils of pauline. the ominous music playing in the background and finally a happy ending. we will get to a happy ending on health care and energy. regulatory reform also will come out good. these are problems the country needs to address. we need to solve them. these are not optional exercises. these are not things we're

tackling just because they are good sport or good fun. that necessity of addressing them is going to compel action. >> back to the cards. how can progressive activists who are lobbyists for workers' rights and health care and the like, persuade the administration to treat lobbyists no differently than other representatives and leaders of their organization when it comes to government employment and policy engagement? can we make it distinction between lobbyists for nonprofits and lobbyists for commercial interests? do you want to go after that one, spencer? >> i worked on these issues during the transition. it was difficult. there are some issues that we struggled with. it really came down -- it is difficult to say these are the

good lobbyists one likes and these are the bad lobbyists and lets them get -- let's get them out of here. the president made a commitment to clean up washington in terms of not focusing on special influences and special access but listening to all americans. he has been strong in his commitment and there has been some criticism across corners. in a stand and appreciate, -- i understand and appreciate, can i come back to acs -- the message to the american public that we are going to do things differently. we will not have a closed door session with some executives from a particular agency or

particular industry. no one will have access to that that public will not have access to which is making a sea change with regard to those issues. i am understand that is complex. i understand that there are some people who are committed goose -- who devoted their life to public interest lobbying and other issues. there are some difficult cases. in terms of the overall change of the administration and what we're doing with regard to ethics and what we're doing with regard to sending a message to the american people. i think we are in the right place and we're moving in the right direction. >> we are basically about out of time. i want to go down the line starting with you, spencer. i would say that there is as i am looking at these questions, there is a significant amount of

skepticism about military tribunals in the crowd and questions about that. there are a couple questions about whether the administration is being too tepid in its support for [unintelligible] and there is skepticism about the continuation of policy on state secrets and more questions about that. these are some of the things we talked about. here is my favorite question. i offered you time to close up and get some final thoughts and maybe reflect on this which is my favorite question of the day. what does the obama presidency mean to you? so take any of those topics. we had hundreds of questions here and i am sorry i did not get to them. if anyone wants to talk about military tribunals and why they are necessary, or state secrets, feel free but answer that question. what does the obama presidency

mean to you? >> i think it really does mean change. there are some things that are government things and components, turf battles, all this kind of stuff. i think it really does mean change and i -- for me, it means the fact that there are so many people that are in this room who are going to have an opportunity to contribute and participate in terms of government service. i look at it as an opportunity for all bus. whatever time we have is finite in terms of making a difference, whether it is four or eight years or maybe longer. i do not know. it is finite. for those of you who have been engaged in one way or another,

maybe you are not part of the administration. i would say please just stay engaged. we have got a period of time. maintain the faith. continue to pay attention and -- this is a marathon. it is not a spread. the days seem like sprints. we're going to need you. in i would encourage you to stay engaged, offer your talents, offer your talents in terms of support but also your service in terms of joining the administration. please stay supportive and engaged. >> i did not get a chance when i started to tell you how honored i am that you invited me to be here and i am. i can remember eight years ago when we in