[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] host: heading into today's special election in massachusetts, republican scott brown has widened his lead over democrat martha colkley. independent turnout is the key -- independent policy favoring brown 65% to 30% according to one poll. massachusetts has not elected a republican senator since 1972. it is tuesday, january 19, election day in the bay state. we want to know the impact of this race for republicans, democrats, massachusetts, and that president obama. here are the phone numbers.

remember, you can send us a tweet @ twitter.com. joining us on the phone as brian mooney from of the boston globe. let me show you the front page. all eyes on bay state ballot. what is the turnout strategy for both candidates today? guest: i think on the democratic side, martha coakley's supporters -- democrats tend to have an evanish on the ground on election day because they outnumber republicans but they are trying to stop this surge of brown that sort of dominated the race recent days. i think the turnout is going to be quite high. the secretary -- secretary of

state says it should mirror a general election turnout. host: what is each candidate doing specifically to get out the vote? what do their turnout machines look like? guest: the democrats always have the advantage. a lot are from out of state on both sides -- the usual blocking and tackling, making phone calls to people you think will vote for your candidate and make sure you get to the polls. it is not rocket science. host: how are these two candidates spending their last day, the last 24 hours before people go to the polls today? guest: mostly in rally mode. trying to travel as much through the state as possible, organizing events to get their supporters jazzed up to go to work today and make phone calls and get their supporters out. it is the usual, really. but it is just a lot of energy

here, a sense that there is something important and the stakes are very high. host: what is the congressional delegation doing on both sides of the aisle? guest: we only have democrats and the congress here in massachusetts, because they are all working for coakley. host: water dadoing specifically? guest: i think a lot have lent their support to her candidacy and trying to get the workers to come out. only one of them supported her in the primary, all the rest supported the congressman -- he was the candidate for the congressional delegation and the primary, but the democrats have pretty much fallen and line here in the general. host: what about outside influence? you touched on a little bit -- on the republican side? guest: there has been a sense that this is an opportunity to strike a blow against president

obama's agenda, and scott brown declared he would be the 41st vote in the senate to kill the jerez carol -- health care bill by a filibuster. they are sort of a aroused did they send money. a lot of people have come in from out of state on both sides really, but for republicans, very unusual. people spent the weekend here, came in from nearby states. there was a busload from michigan apparently that came in over the weekend, too. and democrats have sent out a call -- massachusetts generally exports field operatives for democrats on election days -- new hampshire primary, places like that, but it is working in reverse now and they have been called in. host: what about money? you have an estimate, ball park figure on how much money has come into the state from outside sources as well as how much of

these candidates have raised and spent? host: many organizations on both sides -- guest: many organizations have lined up to pay for television ads, mainly negative. the estimate was 5 million, it is probably higher. there are television ads wall- to-wall and have been four days. billboards, even newspaper ads, which is something different -- radio ads. direct mail. just every voter in the state has been touched. the country is playing here in massachusetts, the only game in town. host: going forward, what happens with whomever is elected, when did they come to the senate here in washington? guest: there is some talk -- the secretary state says there will take 10 days to certify the results. the senate decides exactly when

-- actually when members are seated. if it wanted to, it could exceed the winner shortly, in the next few days. there is a lot of talk that the democrats would try to devise a strategy in the event brown wins, to enact a health care before he takes the seat. there is a tremendous reaction to that, and we will see if that happens. the voters haven't spoken, of course. host: brian looney, political reporter for "the boston globe." appreciate your time. now we turn to you. the impact of the special election. texas, fred on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i want to talk to the democrats in massachusetts about what happened in 2002 and how it ties to today. if you recall, released

september of 2002, a propaganda blitz by the republican party began to invade iraq. remember that? only a month later, the congress of the united states voted to allow president bush to invade and occupy iraq. we now are in a second phase of the gop propaganda blitz, and it is even worse this time. this time the folks in massachusetts are the target. i'm a texan, i'm a democrat from texas, a state where we don't have a single democratic statewide official, which is directly opposite massachusetts. if you vote against the democratic candidate today, you

will be joining the republicans in their attempt to bring down this obama administration and possibly even the united states government. host: open but the houston chronicle," home state paper has this front-page story -- "the houston chronicle." host: raleigh, north carolina, jim on the republican line. caller: thank you. i would just have to counter

fred's argument and say that perhaps this election is somewhat like the shot heard around the world, the first election where the american populace and the voters are going to stand up and say no to the obama socialism machine. i just watch with curiosity. i just hope for the democrats say, they don't try to finagle some way to in june at this election or stall the installation of mr. brown if he gets elected because that will only look worse on them in 2010. so, i encourage all of the independent voters and the state of massachusetts to stand up for liberty and capitalism and say no -- obviously, they are. look at the poll numbers. the voters in massachusetts aren't a bunch of slouches.

they know what is going on. and they are obviously on the side of liberty and i commend them and i encourage them to vote for brown. host: jim, did you contribute to state senator scott brown? caller: not financially. but i did sign up and do some volunteer phone calls. that was just what i could do. host: what group approached you to do the volunteer phone calls or did you reach out -- caller: i reached out. host: who did you call? caller: just numbers of people up here in west -- massachusetts. host: what did you hear from the people you called? caller: typical response -- as soon as they hear your southern accent, they know you are calling from out of state but they were very courteous and

nice and said, you know, we've got a handle on it, we are watching what is going on. that is why i have faith -- that is the cradle of liberty up that way. host: be now if the people that you called were republicans or mostly independent? -- did you know? caller: i did not go for party identification. i was just happy that they listened to what i have to say. i just left it at that. host: northampton, massachusetts. jack, democrat line. would you vote for marcella coakley this morning? caller: and every good democrat needs to get behind martha coakley and don't allow massachusetts to have a republican representative in a ted kennedy's seat. that is just a travesty. host: why do you think martha coakley lost the wide lead she had coming into this race?

caller: obviously -- this weekend i was pretty much all of around the state and it seemed like all we heard on especially the radio was nothing but scott brown adds. everything was him all weekend. and i think what helped it, too, was that we have -- three weeks ago she had a 40% side lead. so, nobody ever expected to say, i don't think, to ever go republican. i don't think nobody really in massachusetts thought that scott brown had a chance. but i would like to say to the people of massachusetts, we put scott brown in and definitely you are telling people that we are giving away a woman's right to choose. everybody remember this in massachusetts when you are voting today that this vote is really important. and we need to keep the democrat in so we can get health care.

host: here is the piece in of "usa today." it says -- but texas, james on independent line. good morning. caller: to start off with, i dislike to state i don't like the republicans or the democrats any more. i am an old man and i remember back before we had all of this backbiting. but what i think about the massachusetts election is that this is a repudiation of the socialist communist agenda of barack obama and the democratic

party. and i think it is a really good thing that america is waking up, that they are seeing through this because of the tyrannical dictatorships, the way that nancy pelosi and harry reid are trying to push through this against the will of the american people. but if mr. brown loses the election, jamming down health care down the throats of the american people is nothing compared to what they are going to do. they will find some crisis, some way that they will continue to keep the power and before we know it we will have a hammer and sickle for a flag over the white house. host: on the republican line, joining us from san francisco. caller: good morning. it is a wonderful morning when we can have massachusetts, a historical state, help us, the american people to fight back what we see here. we have been so betrayed, we feel.

the nation is in a mess. we all know what happened when we went into this financial crisis. we know that president clinton put out a lot -- that he change what existed in the banking system. and there he put in larry summers to deregulate everything. that is when our country's banks started -- started to go down because they were forced to give loans. that is the man you had on yesterday, indicated, a banking representative, that he was pressured to giving these loans. we now know barney frank participated in this. we saw it on television. so, we think that kind of betrayal, when we keep hearing everything was president bush was to blame -- we know there is no change. there is corruption in our government, and we need massachusetts, the people who gave us the boston tea party, the people who are standing up

for themselves, we need them to vote to the correct way, to get rid and change the people who are in there and of the next group of dust the same thing, we will change them. we thank you the run much for the show. host: the caller mentioned the boston tea party. in a "of the houston chronicle" peiece, they note this is where the boston tea party took place. now the new generation of tea party patriots hope to dump candidates to raise taxes and increased federal spending. again, a big symbolic thing. that is "of the houston chronicle -- "the houston chronicle." conn, moses on the democratic line caller: i'm wondering if the so-called tea party -- care

so much about this the responsibility, where were they when the republicans and george bush jammed down our throats the afghanistan and the iraqi war. that we don't need. that has cost us a dollar trillion. that my children -- caused as $1 trillion, that my children and grandchildren have to pay for. president, president obama came to power or. the republicans, the publicly declared that they want to see this president failed. they said they want to derail health care. i'm wondering where america people -- did they forget -- host: phyllis from boston. much coveted it independent. caller: i am certainly voting for scott brown. we have to do this as unenr olled, as the college, and i

believe this will be the shot heard around the world one more time for massachusetts. i am so proud to be from massachusetts because we have been an laughingstock which the amount of democrats that we have brought to congress and to our own legislature. it is about time we stand up and we say, we don't want it to be a kennedy seeks, as mr. brown has said over and over again, this is the people's seat. and because we have been taking for granted for so many years in this state, i believe that finally the people have said, enough of this. we need to go forward. and if forward means we have to change -- and that it that terminology because both our governor and the president ran on it and both have failed this state, our common wealth, and the country miserably. please, if you are unenrolled,

or whatever denomination of voter, please go out and vote and make sure massachusetts one more time leads the country. host: 10 i ask you, have you voted for republicans in the past -- can i ask you question caller: i am proud to say i am old enough to have voted for ed brook once and passed and i am prompted what one more time. host: since then have you voted democrat? caller: i really go for a person that is why i'm unenrolled. host: did you vote for kennedy? caller: i honestly, no. i voted for his brother. he did a lot for a state. i really had a division with his politics for many, many years. i, again, thank the kennedy

family for their service but i think at this juncture we got to go in a new direction. we have been the laughingstock for the country to many times, they take a map that we as a democratic, which we are, and we get stepped on. and i think finally the voters of massachusetts can make a loud, clear statement, not just here but in our country. and i urge everyone. i'm an older woman. it is snowing. i hate walking out and there but if i have to crawl to the polls, i'm going to vote for scott brown and urge everyone listening from massachusetts to please do the same. host: can i ask what the weather is like? caller: snow showers, which, to us, after a bad ice storm yesterday, really will not be that much of an impact. it might hurt the older sister -- citizens. i am included in this category. but i really do feel we have to

make a statement and i do believe the voters will come out. there are predictions it will be a heavy vote, a large turnout. and i hope that is the case. it is really a statement of what has gone on in our country. i am only a second generation from one side of my parents, for a generation on the other side, and i was taught to love this country. i still get lumps in my throat when i hear the national anthem. i still love to watch that red, white, and blue flag that flies very beautifully in the wind. and i ask people to understand, we cannot be stepped on. host: i'm going to leave it there and get another voice. north carolina, ted on the republican line. caller: i would like to say i really don't think coakley -- it is not because she ran a bad

campaign, it is just the americans are finally, thank god, starting to wake up to the socialist agenda of this administration. i don't think anybody in their right mind want to see the president failed, no matter what affiliation a republican or democrat, but when you are doing things behind closed doors, when c-span was promised -- or we were promised that c-span will cover these health care debates, and the inner workings, and then they are being done behind closed doors, giving certain states and certain senators million-dollar bribes, $300 million bribes, and then the real kick in the teeth with the unions getting the tax break for five years, i am glad to hear that there are so many american starting to wake up and thank god for that. host: the "houston chronicle" peace says -- it could get a

jump-start to gop recruiting efforts. host: newton, massachusetts, louis on the line for democrats. caller: can you hear me? greta, can you hear me? i'm calling from newton, massachusetts, and i just wanted to say that i'm a strong supporter for martha coakley and when i hear republicans from north carolina on massachusetts or anywhere called the obama agenda socialist, it is ridiculous. our state, have led the way. we might be blue, might be

democratic, but the media has overplayed the elections in virginia and in new jersey, and i think it will be close tonight but i trust martha coakley will pull it out. i'm from middlesex county where she was district attorney since 1998 before becoming our attorney general. she is smart, she is confident, somebody who can take that seat and do us proud and do our country proud. she is pro-choice, she will support the health care plan that we so desperately need. we led the way, massachusetts, some of the issues including that. i don't want to be a laughingstock. we are not a laughing stock but i think we would be a laughingstock if we elect scott brown who is just lucky in the last few polls. host: are you still there? caller: before you go -- when did you start paying attention to this race? all along?

-- d host: when did you start paying attention, all along or when it got media attention? caller: i will be honest, as someone who pays close attention to politics, not until after the democratic primary in december when i really got involved action in the coakley campaign. i was a supporter of hers in the primary because of my knowledge of her local record, in middlesex county when she was the a. -- d.a.. i will be honest with some of the closer polls, i have been quick to say, this has happened in massachusetts before, we have had republican governors. but this is not a demographic change. honestly, to sum it up, i just did not see this as the media -- i would argue, trying to make

this. i know fox news live is covering it. they want to get everything they can but, again, i want to thank c-span and everyone please to come out and vote for martha coakley. remember what is at stake. host: a little more about massachusetts voters from "the new york times" yesterday. it does not always live up to its national stereotype. host: rita on independent line. good morning. where are you calling from? caller: this is tad from ryland.

-- rhode island. i don't think it is going to make any difference. i used to be a democrat until late spring and early summer, and then found out the democrats don't act any different than the republicans. republicans have always represented big business, hated regulation, and then we found out the democrats sold down the river on health care and all they care about his campaign contributions and corporate donations and take care of corporations and forgot about us. it will not make any difference anyway. i want to leave you with that, greta. host: the president is expected to give his state of the union address on january 27, next wednesday, 9:00 p.m. eastern time. you can look for coverage here on c-span. the speech delivered before a joint session of congress will be broadcast live on national television and strains on the white house website. cleveland, ohio, bill on the

republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i lived in massachusetts for over 20 years. somebody pulled out -- pointed out, it is not wholly democratic anymore. there aren't a lot of hard- working, smart people who are tired of taxes. it -- there are a lot of hard- working, smart people who are tired of taxes. you have the back room deals. no one have explained why the unions got a special deal on health care. that is just going to force more people on the government planned or medicaid. host: front-page of "the new york times" this morning. democrats seek options to keep health bill live. leaders scrambling for a backup plan to rescue their health care legislation if republicans win the special election in massachusetts today, have become laying the groundwork to ask house democrats to approve the senate version of the bill

and send it directly to president obama for the signature. host: it quotes democrats saying the senate bill might be tough to swallow for them, including bart stupak, the democrat who sponsored abortion related legislation in the house. georgia, raymond on the democratic line. are you with us? caller: yes, it sounded like it cut out for a second. i call c-span this morning to basically appeal to the state of massachusetts voters to keep their state democrat. the republican party is still the same republicans that were under george bush and -- at

least -- obama, i honestly disagree with some of the stuff that he has done, but at least he is doing it for america. if you continue to be elected the republican party to tear down of this administration, understand as well that they are tearing down american. if you are for america like you say you are, keep the democratic. host: joe on independent line from pennsylvania. caller: i just wanted to respond to the last caller about what he was saying. i don't believe obama is for america as much as the last caller said. i believe he is for the world, new order, north american union, and i really hope that brown wins this election and i

hope the democrats really do their homework, open up their eyes if they want to see real change, especially for their kids and grand kids. i hope that he wins. that's all. host: this phone call comes from al on the line for democrats from silver spring, maryland. caller: property on c-span and i want to call on all the people of massachusetts not to let the republican get in the office. every time i think of the republican party i think of savings and loans disaster, and ron disaster, subprime loans and worst of all i think about the incompetence of september 11. these republicans are not interested about mainstream america but only interested in destroying this nation. when i think about that i think about going against social security. going against medicare.

i think about going against medicaid. these guys are incompetent. host: nicholas, independent from massachusetts. caller: scott brown. host: why is that? caller: i served four years and the military and is obama care plan is that control and so was the closing of gtmo. host: how old are you? caller: 28. host: are you familiar with one republican was in control of congress -- i wanted to get to the previous caller who was this critical of republicans when they were in control of congress saying they spent too much uncritical of the medicaid bill that passed. are you familiar -- are you having any concerns about electing a republican? caller: no, not at all because -- you know, like obama says, it

is time for change. he is not changing anything. we are getting more and more debt with him in office. host: rapid city, south dakota, linda on the republican line. caller: i would like to get a message to the people of massachusetts from the rest of us out here -- please vote scott brown into office and remember, you are not voting republican and to the senate, what you are doing is helping the rest of us tell this government that you are out of control. you want to run our lives. you want to tell us exactly what to do and we are just are not going to do it. isn't it amazing that all of this is starting in one of the original 13 colonies -- virginia and new jersey and now massachusetts. host: when did you start paying attention to the special election? caller: when it started. host: have you contributed financially and otherwise? caller: no, i have not, it is up to the people of massachusetts.

host: what sparked interest? caller: everybody is starting to wake up and see what happens. -- and see what happens. this government wants to control every aspect of our lives and we did not want to do it anymore. host: this is from "the washington post." like the brown campaign, coakley's operation grown in hasty formation. detroit, a gene on the democrat line. your thoughts this morning -- jeanne. caller: house and people forget. it took years for us to get into the position they were in, and

it started with president reagan and the deregulation and the changes that they made in the tax code that took away the interest deduction, how they gave money to the rich believing in the trickle-down effect, how it was the republicans who drafted naphtha under bush i, president clinton signed into law but it was the republicans brought that about. i watched -- they have been against working class people and anyone who believes that the republican people care about working class people is sadly mistaken. greta, one other thing. i know the republicans claim to be the moral authority and have watched the laws they passed and listen to the caller's talking about individualism and to me their philosophy is more of what jesus described as scribes and pharisees, hypocrites. democratic party, which ted kennedy represented, followed more of the teachings of jesus with concern for the poor, for

those in prison, the widow and orphan and even jesus -- they call the principal socialist, where -- christian principles are socialists. host: here is the editorial in "the financial times." it says, whatever the results on tuesday, massachusetts already said mr. obama and democrats a message of discontent. that is the editorial in "the financial times" this morning. " the wall street journal" also talked about the make -- talking about the race. the message of massachusetts. it says the lesson of mr. obama's loss. is an economic crisis is a terrible thing to exploit. as they have each time in the last 40 years when they had total control of washington, democrats are proving again that america cannot be successfully govern from the left. if that is the lesson mr. obama learned from massachusetts he might still salvage his

presidency. paul on the independent mind. how are you voting? caller: first-time caller, long time c-span. i and my 23-year-old student and i'm voting for martha coakley. i was at her rally. the main reason is the health care. unfortunately we do need the 50th vote in order to get anything passed. when people are in desperate need, at the very least we should build a foundation and hopefully start a universal system. education, as well as child care. i hear people preaching about socialism. if they understood what socialism really is they would know that it is really for the people and it helps the people,

and under a socialist democracy it would work for everyone. host: and other political news, norma coleman, former senator of minnesota will not run for governor -- norm coleman. the illinois, jim on the republican line. caller: obviously as a republican i do hope that brown wins the seat in massachusetts. however, i'm wondering what countless is going through people's heads a for the next general election. if the democrats lose their 60- vote filibuster proof majority in the senate, that is going to give them coverage of legislation that fails to pass because they will blame the republican party or every setback that occurs

legislatively. i think perhaps republicans should be hoping to lose the election because i really do believe that much of the legislation based in the senate is really not in the best long- term interest of our country, and i think that the next year or so will really hurt them across the nation with the general electric because of the types of legislation they want to pass. host: you think democrats would fare better in 2010 if martha coakley lose this, they can blame the legislative agenda, what doesn't get done, on republicans in the senate? caller: even the fact they do have the 60 votes now, they are still trying to blame republicans for what ever impasses are occurring. they don't have a very good leg to stand on because they do have

a filibuster-proof majority. host: in other headlines, the front page of "the washington post." fbi broke off for years to get phone records. examples from 2002 through 2006, the cases were not part of terrorism probes. a story you might be interested in reading in "the washington post." from page of "the new york times" this morning about the taliban assault raddling the capital of afghanistan. insurgence show their reach. two suicide bombs, fire fight rages near the president's pollock -- palace and afghanistan. impact of the massachusetts special election. canton, massachusetts. roberta on the independent line. caller: will be voting for scott brown. i am an independent and voted for martha coakley in the democratic primary. i also sent her an e-mail, i would love to see a woman senator. but i'm not voting against martha coakley, and i am not

really voting for scott brown, but i am voting because the political parties have gotten so out of hand in this country, i did not like to see either party have the kind of control they had during the bush administration and now with obama. so, i'm really voting for checks and balances. host: have you talked to your neighbors and friends and family? do they have the same mental attitude toward this election as you do, that this is about checks and balances and not about the candidates? caller: you know, i really think that that is true. i think people think the democrats have overplayed their teens. and a lot of people around here are socially liberal but more and more people are getting concerned, very concerned, with the overspending that is going on. they really don't see scott brown as the threat to social

liberalism that coakley's campaign is trying to betray him as. after all, he is a massachusetts republican. he could never be in that office, holding those kinds of use. host: liberty city, florida, column a line for democrats. caller: i noticed the last caller, she is absolutely correct. the only problem that i see for massachusetts, in as much as they vote a long haul -- in other words they've done brooks, reagan era, and they've done the black governor, so what i see now is they are basically in patient -- impatient. and the young people who go to wall street and turn of the hundreds of thousands and millions in, let's say, bonuses,

they give to their parents, so most of those independents parents and those conservatives, the neocon parents are being a little bit hypocritical and more are less to face right now -- two-faced right now not giving obama a chance. they gave reagan a chance. brooks, they gave him a chance. they are giving this black governor there a chance. but what they are doing is cutting their nose despite their face and i say they are smart, but they are not giving obama the chance. and i think if we give him the chance i truly believe that they will see something different. the media also is being a little two-faced, but that is all right because the media has the tendency to get back on the bandwagon. host: front page of "the chicago tribune."

it has not exactly been sweet home chicago since obama took office. marietta, georgia, sam online for republicans. caller: it really sickens need to watch you -- you are so biased, you are so liberal it is sickening. host: why do you say that? caller: i can read and then your body language. you give the liberals, the democrats, and some call and on and upended line, -- on independent line, you give them more time than somebody who puts up a good argument on the republican and conservative side. it is disgusting, and brian lamb needs to take note of this and i think you ought to be fired. host: "the miami herald," it front-page. that is our topic. coming up we will speak with peter deshazo, director fort

center of strategic and international studies when we come back. >> this weekend on book tv, john miller believes the chance of a nuclear terrorist attacks is small -- smaller than most people think. he presents his case.

and a look of the impact of the automobile on modern society from the annual operating cost, to global warming, possible increases in obesity. find the entire schedule at book tv.org and get the latest update on twitter. >> do you know one of the top three news apps is c-span radio? you can get quick and easy access to three streaming audio channels -- c-span radio, c- span, and c-span2 and a tap with links to all of the podcast, including q&a and afterward, and it is all free and available from the app store. >> "washington journal" continues. host: peter deshazo is at the center for strategic and international studies. this is a headline from "the new york times." u.s. multiple for haiti. the united states has a history of either political domination

or neglect. for mr. obama, striking the right balance will be crucial. how do you strike the right balance? guest: the right balance is giving enough support to, one, the haitian people, and, two, the haitian government, so they can eventually handle the affairs of their country on their own without being overbearing. a it -- it is a difficult challenge. you are standing up basically a country that has started over and over again to try to build the most basic institutions of government. and to build an economy that is able to employ people and to reduce the very high levels of poverty. it needs a lot of help, but at the same time, the haitians are a proud people and long to be in charge of their own destiny to the extent that is possible. host: how does the united states go about not being seen as

occupying that country? caller: i think it is a matter of partnership, not only with the haitian government but also the international community. in this case, the united nations stabilization mission on the ground, has been playing an important school in helping to develop the institutions of haiti, to provide security, to get the economy jumpstart it since 2004. no country alone is going to be able to shoulder all of the international burden or responsibility of helping haiti. it needs to be a communal effort. so, it is the u.s. and other countries in partnership with the haitian government. host: who should take the roll? should be one country or the u.s. and? -- or the u.n.? guest: the u.n. is on the

ground and air the key institution in providing the stability and bases for reconstructing, for developing haiti. the united states plays a big role. it is the largest bilateral donor, it has traditionally been. so, the u.s.'s role is very important, but again, it is one player in an international effort. host: why has the united states banned by large of the largest donor? guest: it has been historically the case. the united states has been, for better or worse, there is strongly involved in haitian affairs since the 19th, early 20th century. obviously it is a country that is very close to us. it is part of the caribbean community. and there is a very large haitian diaspora living in the united states, which is an important factor in the bilateral relationship. host: you mention a little

history. here is a little piece in "usa today." it says a couple of years after he declared its independence in 18 04 and a quarter century after a regimen of free black haitians fought for america's freedom and the revolutionary war, congress imposed a trade embargo on the new nation. u.s. merchant site should not do business with people -- is and interest -- in the interest to keep down. in 1950 the u.s. military began a 19-year occupation during the time the u.s. took control of the treasury and required citizens to submit to forced labor. guest: there are a lot of unfortunate stories in terms of the relationship of the united states and haiti in those days, and u.s. policy in the caribbean, and latin america in general at that time, it is

highly ironic because the slave uprising that brought haiti into being in 18 04 was one of the causes of the louisiana purchase. when napoleon had exhausted his funds and needed more money, he sold louisiana to the united states to raise money for his army to be able to hold on to the colony in haiti. host: our guest, before serving as a americas program director for strategic and international studies was deputy as benson -- deputy assistant secretary of state, and permanent representative to the organization of american states. how long were you at the state department? guest: i was at this department for many years, a career officer. i was in the foreign service for 27 years. host: how has the policy toward haiti specifically involved

during a time of the state department? guest: it evolves toward latin america in general, from the time of the cold war framework, and concern about soviet encroachment of latin america, to a situation now where support for democracy and support for development, poverty reduction, are the key factors in u.s. policy in the region, as well as security concerns. host: in your role as state department deputy secretary for western hemisphere, if you were in that role today, how would you get the attention of the president and the administration when, as " the new york times" notes, in 2009 most of the energy was focused on afghanistan, pakistan, and iran with little time on the western hemisphere. guest: this is something that the route of the americas is a

constant topic. -- throughout the americans as a constant topic. the united states underscores the importance of western hemisphere but then gets distracted and other areas where there are very overwhelming policy interest and where we have a large number of troops stationed, and an enormous investment in terms of u.s. resources. in the case of haiti, and u.s. support for haiti has been gradually increasing in past years, partly as a reflection of the success, however limited, but notable success that the haitian government and the u.n. mission is having in trying to move the country forward. host: this is a figure of the front page of "the globe and mail," $10 billion as the cost to rebuild the country. guest: it is tough to for what

they figure that large. clearly the human strategy is a very large dimension. and the physical destruction it is very great. however, you are starting from a point that was not particularly highly developed to begin with. in very much of a sense you are starting over in many areas of port-au-prince. it is hard to put a figure on the overall needs, but clearly the need is great. host: what will be the impact of 1.5 million left homeless and how does the united states and other countries grapple with that? caller: if that is the figure, it is going to be an enormous challenge. housing in haiti in general is not good quality. there will be people who are leaving port-au-prince for other areas of the country back have been unaffected perhaps -- that have been unaffected perhaps

that will add a new dimension to the development needs. indeed, a lot of people are in port-au-prince because of the inability to make a living outside of the country because of a very difficult environmental situation, with erosions, with unproductive soil. there needs to be particular attention to employment and improvement in agriculture to try to move people out of the capital city, if possible. but within the city, housing is going to be a key element. host: how you do that when the median age of haitians is 20 years old and 54% live on less than a dollar a day and illiteracy is estimated at 44%. guest: of the needs are extraordinary in haiti. you can look at any of the key areas and find a glaring need for improvement. the it security, be it education, health, housing,

infrastructure, governments -- all of these are areas that require considerable input and they basically have to be dealt with almost at the same time. you can't do just one of them. you can't put all of your eggs in one basket. you have to do a broad approach, starting perhaps with the security and dealing with the immediate crisis but quickly improving government and the ability of the haitian government to deliver services across the board, looking at all of these important health and social indicators which need to be dealt with. host: we are talking about the u.s. role in rebuilding haiti. mississippi, the republican line. caller: good morning. i watch every morning. i'm trying to figure out how the united states is going to pay

for this when this country is broke. there is nothing wrong with getting your money to the red cross, the nation's going to the red cross -- but i don't in billion should be sent to the country because who is going to be taking care of that, watching over the money and making sure it is going to the infrastructure? i know it is devastating -- and again, obama was quick to step of the plate and act before george bush did in katrina, however, i've got to say one thing that has nothing to do with haiti -- george bush is not present any more so why does -- president anymore so why does

obama keep on trying to out do, so to speak, what george bush should have supposedly had done? he did not cause katrina, but if george bush had been president he would have caused the earthquake. host: we will leave it there. tectum the budget issue? how well the united states pay for this -- touch on the budget issue. how much of the state department's budget gone to the western hemisphere in general? guest: it is not much but budget of the united states but looking over all. last year u.s. by letter of support to haiti was in the range of 250 million, $275 million. that will probably certainly go up because of the cost of the immediate emergency support the united states is giving.

but more importantly, when in 2004, aristide left the country and there was a change in government, there was a big effort to enlist the international community through the coordination of the world bank through a major donors meeting, to pledge more than a billion dollars in additional short-term support for haiti. this probably is what is going to be needed here. in terms of the united states, the u.s. will be and pour in contributor but it will not be the only one. it is not going to do this alone, it cannot do it alone. it has to be an important effort by the development banks, by the europeans, by the private sector in helping to bring haiti back. it has got to be a coordinated and international effort. host: front page of "the

philadelphia inquirer." it said heydey, at a glance spirit -- haiti at a glance. here is a look at the other numbers as well. 1700 u.s. troops on the ground and another 2000 marines are on the way. new york, bill on the independent line. caller: i hope your guest will find a little bit -- spend a little bit of time talking about the bush policy of supporting a coup in haiti in 2004. my thought is that haiti is not the poorest and least developed country in the western hemisphere by accident. in fact, it is by design. the design is american policy there. . .

host: going forward, what do you think the u.s. role should be? caller: i do not know. it is a mess. you have hurricanes that at the country, an earthquake, after decades and decades of abuse.

this is sad to say, but it has been american abuse. sweat shops were open under the clinton administration. host: peter-faso -- peter deshazo. guest: i agree that the government in haiti has not been the highest quality. part of it has been ineffective governments. i disagree with your point of view that the united states is the responsible element for any's -- haiti's ills. u.s. policy, indicate that, was

not helpful, certainly not to the cause of democracy, but that changed substantially. the clinton administration supported aristide strongly in a return to democracy. he had a mixed record when he was forced out of the country in 2004 as a result of civil conflict that was brewing. the united states supported the interim government and the newly-elected government, along with the international community. that support, i think, has brought about improvement in haiti, especially in the past few years. the economy has begun to grow again. the police are beginning to stand up. it does not stand -- sound like

great achievements, but in the haitian context, they are. there was in guarded optimism that they were going to finally be able to move forward. however, a functioning government, that is democratic, to the extent that it can be, it is important that the people have the wherewithal to elect their own officials, but that the officials are held accountable. host: palm beach, florida. kathleen on the democratic line. caller: good morning. my question is what is the government going to do about infrastructure?

guest: the haitian government, the u.s. government? it is a problem that everyone has to deal with, and something that needs to be done with immediately. part of the problem with the relief effort is the lack of infrastructure. the ports in port-au-prince are not able to receive aid. generally, the infrastructure of roads, sewage, electricity -- all of that has been gravely damaged. these are areas that require a lot of investment, moving forward. they are important for health, the economy, and development, and for showing that the government is able to deliver for the people of haiti. all around, it is going to have to be an important goal for the

international community and haitian government. host: what is your reaction to a picture that we see in the newspapers? specifically, "the new york times?" pictures of people packing bosses trying to leave. guest: people are trying to leave the city. housing is certainly one of the issues. they may have relatives in another area where they could be taken in. as the levels of the system begins to ramp up, as more food becomes available, as more temporary housing is in place, there will not be such air pressure to leave. in the end, the development of haiti is much more than just the development of port-au-prince. and they need strength in the

agricultural sector. there has to be investments around the country, not just in the capital city. host: sebring, florida. john on the republican line. caller: there are 200 million people in the united states and about 30 million of them are illegal. the schools and infrastructure in this country are broke. they have already borrowed $100 million from china. i have heard the united states has already begin to send planes in. this is high-priced medical that we are taking care of.

host: let me read something from the "new york times" this morning -- caller: another thing is, 80% of them do not have jobs, so they

need to stop having those babies because they expect the government to feed them. host: what about haitians coming to the u.s. and the effort by the u.s. government? is this typical to see, for the u.s. government to do, for this review transmitter flying over giving them these messages? guest: in kind of political offense, where there was a migration to the u.s., it resulted in a very perilous time for the travelers. for those reasons, the u.s. is urging people to stay home, not to try to leave the country to

leave on a perilous sea journey. at the same time, there needs to be the aid and relief effort from the international community. that will convince them that things will get better and they should stay put. in terms of u.s. contribution to the recent construction of haiti, for made in general, -- foreign aid in general, the u.s. kids help because it is in the best interest. there is considerable concern about human concern, the tragedy in a, but foreign assistance -- in haiti, but foreign assistance is meant to benefit the u.s. having an unstable neighbor like haiti is not in the best interest of the u.s. so a long-term goal should be to

help them to recover from the tragedy and help them to move forward to achieve greater levels of stability, democracy, and economic development, said that haitians can have jobs and live in their own country. host: they are only a few hundred miles away from the u.s., is that the reason that we want them to succeed? guest: proximity is part of it. where government are not successful, there are other consequences that could affect the u.s. through international crime, trafficking, instability. in this case, the terrible human tragedy. generally, there is a threat of famine or the people -- of people -- upheavel.

host: wichita, texas. good morning. caller: it is absolutely part of our responsibility to be a part of this. i am glad you emphasize it is a coalition. as far as what we are involved with this country, why our interests are there, i think it is pretty selfish to say that it is in america's best interest. it is an opportunity to be a leader in the world and be at the forefront of what america stands for, helping other people. let's send medical teams, get these people help. i see this every day in the air emergency room. after a 11 years, you begin to

realize the bigger picture. host: you are shaking your head? guest: i agreed. the image of the u.s. that is concerned about people, democracy, is crucial. it is absolutely essential. it is part of the way we are an important element of our foreign policy is to underscore the millions in and outside the u.s. in this case, we are responding to a grave human need, a large human tragedy. i think the american people have come forward with an unbelievable amount of support. i do not go anywhere seeing someone who seemed to be collecting money for haiti in a lot of different venues.

i think the outpouring of support has been quite extraordinary. host: newspapers this morning are reporting that the red cross has collected about $133 million, $22 million from their texting program. should the state department or u.s. government had a role in making sure those dollars get to haiti and are used properly? if so, what is that role? guest: this is a little bit of my area in terms of expertise but clearly it should be established that there needs to be a means of determining what funds are being used for so that people can have confidence when they contribute something that it is a legitimate organization that has a track record in haiti and has the ability to put

that money to use. obviously, people who contribute want to make sure it is effective. host: hunts bill, texas. caller: i wanted to echo everything the last person said. someone earlier called and excoriated you for being left to-leaning. that was one of the most ridiculous things i have heard. you and susan are the best moderators you have. i had to defend you. i know you probably did not want me to, but i did anyway. host: appreciate it. next phone call on the republican line. caller: this is a delicate matter. could you please explain to me what they are doing about with the facilities? -- toilet facilities?

guest: that level of detail, i cannot enter, but clearly, sanitation is one of the challenges to rebuilding. i would assume the sanitation is one of the key elements, in terms of emergency support. host: spokane, washington. caller: you look like the guy that drew the short call on this one. i am not trying to beat in sensitive, but what precisely happened to $35 million we pumped into this country since 1993? i think we are looking at a ponzi scheme. we pumped in all this money and the country has fallen apart like match sticks.

the island of hispaniola has poverty but it does not share the type of poverty that the haitians deal with. $35 million. host: do you remember where you got that figure? caller: $30 billion over all. this is what we spend on foreign aid and defense. i am curious why we send the 82nd airborne in, tactical military troops into an earthquake known to reestablish a government. i am so lost in modern america, i do not want to do -- i do not know what to do anymore. guest: that bigger sound way too large. i think you should take a look at it again. the underlying question is a valid one. the u.s. has invested substantial resources in haiti,

and we find ourselves in a situation now where it looks like they have to start from scratch again. part of the problem has been a lack of good government. that is one of the factors that continues to need to be addressed. the political environment is a difficult one, highly polarized. it has been that way for a long time. to install, help bring about democracy in a country that has a very little democratic tradition, in the case of haiti , it is difficult. but i think there has been progress made, especially since 2004. the last few years have been promised in where you have a

president who did get majority support, where the international community, through the stabilization mission, is committed to a stabilization effort. that is what is needed, a long- term effort. it is a challenging and difficult one, but one that has to be made. host: more from "the financial times" -- a 300% rise in the fuel. what does that mean? guest: the price has gone up for whatever resources there are. this sort of situation is expected where the largest amounts of aid are yet to be

felt. basic items of consumption are going to be very scarce. host: there are about 1700 rescue workers in the country. three field hospitals operational. four field hospitals being set up. there are no storage facilities at the airport and about 100 aircraft that can land at the airport, up from 60. next phone call on the democratic line. caller: the literacy rate is about 44%. what is the plan to get a democracy if they cannot understand who they would be voting for?

guest: in a lot of cases, even the illiterates know who they are voting for. they get a lot of information, especially from the radio. one of the areas where there had been a real revival of discussion and information put out. the underlying questions about the literacy is a valid one. in terms of the competitiveness of the country in which almost half of its citizens cannot read or write, this will not be helpful in terms of economic development. host: an e-mail from one of our

viewers -- guest: i would amend and, wind -- imagine, when you consider the physical damage present there, there will be a lot of cleanup. that will be helpful in many ways. part of the problem after that is what can be done to increase levels of employment? infrastructure is one way. road-building is often a labor- intensive activity. any kind of economic activity, even beyond reconstruction, that creates jobs will be welcome. host: what is the role of the

state department in this situation? what is the role of the state' internationamilitary? guest: they have a big role. the military has been in charge of working in the airport to try to get the relief flights in. the state department has a wide range of responsibilities from overall u.s. policy to protecting u.s. citizens in haiti, and to work with the other institutions of the u.s. government and court meeting in interagency response. also court made it that effort with the international relief

effort. host: lakewood, ohio. marie on the republican line. colorado, as a conservative, i just want to tell -- caller: has a conservative, i just want to tell people like rush limbaugh, pat robertson to stop their stupid comments. they are talking about rebuilding. i think we can agreed that 80's major resource is [inaudible] if we could get al gore and all the environmentalists together, with all the billions they have made up of the climate situation, and if they could just take a% of what they have made, and i was thinking they could build solar farms across

the country. we could hire the people. did the electricity to the people -- give the electricity to the people. guest: generating electricity is a problem. part of the fact that the country is so strongly the forested is because people are cutting down trees for cooking and fuel. the idea of a more decentralized electrical output, perhaps using solar energy, which is expensive but feasible in haiti -- there are other kinds of biomass fuels available. in the end, you need a reliable source of energy that will have to come from other kinds of deals, like hydrocarbons, which

are imported and expensive. in the long term, they absolutely need a bigger supply of electricity, and need to be delivered at a lower cost. host: phoenix, arizona. derrick on the independent line. guescaller: my question is about the history of haiti and what was going on with the u.s. nor just mentioned guaranteed and the government, the coup that took place, as if it were necessary. you did not mention where he currently is. he is under house arrest in france. he was trying to form a democracy in the north of france. looking back at the history, when mr. roberts andon made the

comment about the haitians making a pact with the devil, he was somewhat correct, but the flip side is the u.s. and france formed an alliance and decided to impose heavy fines on haiti to keep them in the deplorable situation they are in. guest: going back and looking at the history of the u.s. and haiti, there are some unfortunate episode. in terms of now, i am not aware that aristide is under arrest. he seems to be operating quite freely. he is not in haiti, and the government there would probably prefer that he not return right now. they have enough in terms of trying to keep a unified effort

in the reconstruction of the country. but again, haiti is a country that has had the political divide, and there has to be some middle ground. the culture of haiti is winner- take-all, and that cuts across all kinds of regimes. what it needs is a loyal opposition, a government that is affected, not corrupt -- effective, not corrupt, and one that can deliver the need for the haitian people. host: a previous guest on the program said mr. aristide was in south africa. is that correct? guest: that is what i understood to be the case. host: why south africa? guest: they had received and

after he had left. he had been to a few other places as well. host: robert on the democratic line. queens, new york. caller: first of all, we need the entire world to help haiti, but they also need to help themselves. a bunch of people are making these statements, and it is not the time. peter deshazo, you hit the nail on the head. people in power, some of them are probably dead after the earthquake. is a tragedy, but this is a good opportunity for them to position themselves.

no money should go to any corrupt leader of haiti. we have ngos there. i need to go back there and help. i was born there. any haitians living abroad who understands politics should go back to help. the education, hospitals, services. there will be a lot of work for displaced individuals. not one dime should go to any leader because so many of them are correct. aristide should stay in south africa. as a haitian-american, i am hoping that we can become a democratic country. haiti will be built from the ground up and be self-sufficient

so we could have to give all this money to corrupted leaders. education and rebuilding is what they need. host: that was our last phone call. peter deshazo? guest: you make an important point. the haitian diaspora can and should play a major role in helping to rebuild the country. in terms of providing money to the government, he reached the point where you need to work with government, and the government needs money to function. if you start the government of money, it ceases to function. so there has to be a level of confidence between the donor community and haitian government that the money will be well spent, clearly, with terms and

tracking how the money is spent, but the government needs to be strengthened. host: peter deshazo, thank you for your time. up next, we will talk about transportation security at airports peter deshazo -- admiral james loy, retired tsa administrator. >> president obama focuses on education today. he speaks at the virginia elementary school this morning where he will outline a $130 billion plan extending a grant program for the state. as voters go to the polls in massachusetts, michael steele spoke earlier on cbs and said today's session -- special election is crucial, adding that democrats are finding the

landscape a very different now. meanwhile, terry mcauliffe appeared on the same show and decided an anti-incumbency mood, and said his party must get a helping voter turnout to prevent an upset. robert gates is calling for closer military operation between america and india. he says sell the same -- south asian peace is critical to the entire community. those are some of the latest headlines. >> this february on "in-depth" former adviser to margaret thatcher paul johnson. his latest book is on winston churchill. join our 3-#conversation. -- three-hour conversation.

>> did you know one of the top new apps is c-span radio? there is also a tab with links to our podcasts. it is all free and available at the app store. host: admiral james loy is here to talk about airport security in our country and around the world. this is a fox news story on their website. is this true? guest: not at all. there are a variety of focus elements that different countries take to when you look at screeners. the principal difference is the number. we have 60,000 people here in

the u.s. their training program is excellent, totally redesigned after 9/11 and provides the basis for them to do their jobs well. host: there are about 29 dozen full-time and part-time tsa employees. what kind of jump card. is there to be an tsa officer? guest: first of all, it is much different from where we were before 9/11. we have structured federal employees who are compensated well for the jobs that they do. that is an attraction for the kind of person that you want to put in there. we are looking for solid high- school or college graduate-level of the education. the kind of folks that can be trained well to the

responsibilities of their job. the training program they received, it is not as if you walk in and you begin. ukraine carefully for the job that is expected of you. host: the article notes that tsa officers must past drug and alcohol screenings. they must complete a medical evaluation, be able to lift 75 pounds, have customer service skills, and be able to walk up to 2 miles per shift. it goes on to say that key skills, according to the tsa web site, is the ability to learn the factors in this screening process. operating machines, working with people of diverse backgrounds. those are criteria, but critics say the skill set does not match the job. do you agree? guest: no, i do not.

if he were an observer, as opposed to the traveling public experiencing, i think you would watch those skills on the mines in that job description has been very much in evidence. but, quite a bit. -- i travel quite a bit. part of my experience allows me to be a critic of my own. how is this working compared to what we envision in the beginning? frankly, they do a good job. host: where are the vaults? guest: -- faults? guest: i think it focuses on -- i think it is about focus. whenever your shift starts, you have to be sharp and focused with respect to everyone that is moving through the line.

there's almost an aphorism now that these screeners have to get it right 100% of the time and the bad guys have to get it right only once. that degree of focus is something that i believe every manager has to the conscience of every day. this notion of perseverance and fighting against complacency, which is natural to all of us, is huge. host: you mentioned compensation. tsa officials start at $12 an hour and can earn up to $43,000 annually. you must also pass a credit check and be less than $7,500 in debt. this article talks about other countries security systems and they know that canada's officials must be fluent in

english and french and include up to 40 hours of training. language. it is that something the u.s. should be integrated into the job requirement? guest: i think there is a capacity. for example, on the southwestern border, folks moving through the houston airport, the capacity to speed the spanish language is an important part of the deal there. there are the same kinds of qualifications in the israeli system to speak english and another language. i remember people saying as we were setting up the new agency back in 2002, the challenge we got all the time was, one not just do it the way the israelis do it? after all, they have lived under the threat of terrorism day in,

day out. we have an awful lot to learn from them. i personally experienced the training that their trainers go through. they put a great deal of emphasis on behavior observation. we are getting around to adding that to our system here in the u.s. but the challenge in terms of why we do not do it the way that they do, invariably, came down to the fact that they were dealing with two airports and 30 airplanes. the scale ability differential, to be able to hold a skill set, to the task of that when a spectrum, did not allow us to become the primary way to do business. rather, we defaulted to the layered system of security. host: were their economic concerns of having as much

security in place as the israelis do? guest: in the stand-up process, it was pretty specific in congress. there were 36 mandates to be accomplished. we finished everyone of those on time. the challenge for each and every one of them -- for example, it detecting explosive devices. of course you are dealing with a cost factor in that. so the question is, have we provided an adequate amount of money to produce the security we want at the airports? i believe we have. the system we have in place today is pretty extraordinary. host: vancouver, washington. ethan on the democratic

line. caller: these full body scanners, is everyone going through them? who is funding them? isn't it the airport or the federal government? -- is it the airport or the federal government? guest: there is a prototype program going around the country dealing with that right now. there are federally-funded full body scanners being installed in a select number of airports around the country. the challenge them will be whether the economic appetite is there for a dramatically water installation of those assets, not only in this country, but around the world. host: who foots the bill? guest: the government has the bill for the prototype system. the tsa budget has provided the

machines so far. i imagine that would continue. host: the tsa plans to install about 300 machines across the country, leaving about 500 airport without that sort of technology. does that concern you? guest: a bit, but american people need to understand that the notion of getting ourselves to a perfect system is a rhetorical goal. the concept of the post-9/11 security for most americans put them in a position where the skills of managing risk for a very big part of how we do business, especially in the federal government. so it is an economic and security ballots.

-- balance. i remember when the ideas of enhanced security came up. we ended up having a four-way conversation with everyone there. what is the security assessment? what are the economic implications of that idea? what are the civil liberties implications of that adjustment idea? and finally, what are the international implications? i think what ought to be reassuring to the american public is that cent of the conversations goes on with the virtually every one of these ideas that comes across. what is also a pretty important

to recognize it is we are pretty reactive to what occurs. it was not too long until we were worried about shoes, box cutters, liquid, and then whatever comes next. this is an extraordinarily adaptive enemy, if you want to think about the terrorists as the enemy. security is one thing. anticipating where they might go it is always the goal of tsa security. host: dakota, oregon. caller: admiral, my question -- i am a junior at a local high school here in salem. i was thinking, could be considered legal? i hear all the time that body

scanners can be considered illegal. i do not listen to all the details about i hear it could be illegal. i was curious about your personal opinion. are they illegal? guest: there is no doubt they are legal. it is up to the cultural acceptance of this piece of equipment that would enhance the security of the traveling public. this goes back to that conversation i mentioned a moment ago, talking about civil liberties. to whatever degree folks feel violated by the nature of that, the search -- there will be arguments on the other side of the coin, not a sense of illegality, but not consistent with american values and civil

liberties. that is the question that secretary napolitano and her team have to go through whenever they are confronted with these notions on how to deal with something that just occurred. this was petn in someone's underwear. how our challenge wraps to that will be the next step of the installations or training adjustments made between the work force and technical capabilities to facilitate a security for our country. host: queens, new york. caller: i am interested in asking one important question of the pre-9/11. on june 1, 2001, the directive was changed that in case of the hijacking, no norad commander or air traffic controller could respond, unless donald rumsfeld

could respond. of course, on 9/12, he changed the directive. i have met many commanders who said this is an outrage. i was at the hearings. if this directive was not changed, 9/11 may not have happened. host: admiral james loy? guest: i do not know if i have an opinion about the issuance in the cancellation a few days later, nor on the responsibility of secretary rumsfeld and the defense department. those events become

extraordinarily ad hoc depending on what you are dealing with in the moment. my sense is we have totally reorganized our structure as a nation to cope with this notion of terrorism, having as one of its favorite targets commercial aviation. one of the ways we deal with it today offers the traveling public better security than it did before 9/11. host: admiral james loy was the tsa administrator from 2002 through 2003. the secretary of homeland security from 2003 to 2005. what are you up to today? guest: i am a senior counselor at the cohen group.

we are trying to solve problems for companies around the world, and here in the united states. it is a fascinating job on tha daily basis. it is an opportunity for me to continue to contribute to the handful of problems that i was frustrated with that we have not done better at. those phrases that we remember so dramatically from 9/11, to have them back on the front page in 2009, 2010 was disappointing and offers a chance for all of us to recognize this kind of thing mandates perseverance over time. host: are you recommending any of these companies you are helping to assist the government to respond to what happened over

christmas? guest: no, there are various legitimate vendors doing that. what is more important is this laboratory system up in new jersey as part of the tsa, has in their charter, the responsibility to look at the systems, work on certifying them to be capable of doing what is functional in the next that of technological advance. that is all going on in new jersey. host: florida. and georgia on the independent line independentgeo -- george on the independence line.

caller: i know you have to go through security. i was going to fly to new hampshire to deliver a christmas present i called the airport and asked if i could put it in my luggage. they said, yes, but it would have to be in a locked hard case and i would have to sign a slut. it was quite busy at the airport. -- sign a slip. i was there for about three hours and not one person looked at me. i could have had guns in theire, if i was a terrorist. i do not understand why no one approached me. it was obvious that it must a gun csase. guest: let me make a point about the israeli system. they make a dramatic with

larger investment in what i will call roadside checks, even before you get into the building. drivers are asked where they came from, a visual review is done in terms of what is inside the car. perhaps a system like that, -- again, scalable to the 450 airports that we have in this country -- would give us a chance to look at that question more deeply. the guidance you've got my answer came from the airline as it relates to check your baggage. obviously, that will not be allowed as part of your carry-on luggage. the guidance you received was from the airline itself. again, this comes back to the balance that we eat in the united states treasure as a result of our openness as a

society, and to whatever to agree it would be a security step-up to mandate that no libel cases -- rifle cases be brought through the airport. so my concern in that regard would be a consistency that which airlines provide guidance in a fashion, so that whatever is going on to the aircraft is tucked away in a cargo hold. host: what about the security of the cargo in the underbelly of the airplane? that has been brought up many times since, and security was created as an ongoing security risk. what is the challenge with effectively screening everything that goes into the underbelly? guest: i think we are in pretty good shape with luggage.

what we also understand in our country is there is a lot of other stuff being transported from point a to point b. the system which is now being mandated to have 100% screening, you find yourself in the midst of congressional intent on the one hand -- and quickly the words screening becomes part and parcel to what constitutes satisfactory behavior. tsa is going through that question at the very moment. again, for the listening audience, we have to be as concerned about what is happening at our airports, as well as what is happening at airports around the world.

so our international efforts to put into place what we believe is a bipartisan, and in some cases, multi lateral agreements between countries, go back to that risk management profile i was speaking about. the arrangement we have the g-8, a number of other international organizations, probably have us dealing with about 90% of flights coming in from overseas. but again, is 90% adequate? i would offer in this bill, there will simply never be a day when secretary napolitano or

any of her successors can say, we have the last piece of the puzzle. i can report to you that the aviation system is 100% to care. as much as we would like to stress that, it is a melee that went out the window on 9/11. -- 100% sector. caller: -- secure. caller: it seems like homeland security is drowning in procedures. the terrorists only win if we are terrorized. is there a program under way to give a citizen like me, 53 years old, never left the country, never had a parking ticket, permanent exemption from all this? when the shoe bomber hit, everyone had to take their shoes off. that is the last time i flew.

i am a true patriot. as a citizen with an exemplary background, i am not taking my shoes off for anyone. guest: that is a good question and i think there is room in the system to develop a register traveler program. not but offered to citizens, like yourself, if you were willing to evidence that perfect record by way of an intense background record, you might be able to be dealt with a bit differently at the airport. the challenge at the airport itself -- i think all of us will still be going through the magnetometer. that is the last point check before we get on the airplane. but whether or not there are

deviations -- i think we will have a deviation from shoes being taken off at the airport when we have advanced technologically to be able to scan she was properly if they are still on your feet. the same thing with overcoats, liquids. we are caught between the human engineering and the technical engineering the associated to what the machine can do, in terms of validating that there is no threat on a person. host: last call from palm beach, florida. caller: the callers bring up some good points. the previous caller asked for an exemption. i think that is one of the reasons we had this christmas day bomber. the passenger was on the plane

because he was said to be a somali refugee. he got a pass. nobody talks about that breakdown in the system. a body scanner also would not have helped 9/11. until we acknowledge the motive and are able to read what someone is thinking, that is not going to help. . .

guest: they wrestle with those questions and hopefully have the kinds of conversations i described earlier, where we deal with what is the security advantage, but we also recognize that there are economic, civil liberties, and international implications to the security idea. it you russell threw that, hopefully with the idea that most of the stakeholders, including the traveling american public, are represented at the table while you are having this conversation and discussions, and they produce, hopefully, the right policy and technical adjustments to keep us all sick as troubling as citizens. host: admiral james lloyd, thank

you for your time this morning. guest: my pleasure. thank you, greta. host: coming up, the authors of "game change." here is an update from c-span radio. >> the united nations is defending its relief effort in haiti and the efforts at keeping the airport open. a spokeswoman says that relief coordination is working well in haiti, and at the airport would not be working at all without u.s. assistance. the u.s. military has agreed to give aid flights priority. meanwhile, the united nations security council is expected to reprove 1500 more u.n. police and 2000 more peacekeepers -- approve at 1500 more u.n. pleas and 2000 more peacekeepers. the polls are open in massachusetts, and democrat martha coakley is predicting victory today in her campaign against republican scott brown.

the attorney general spoke to reporters after casting her ballot in her home north of boston. the special election is to replace the late senator edward kennedy. in contrast to the light turnout for the party primaries last month, both candidates expect heavy voter turnout today. at one polling place, a line of cars stretched for nearly half a mile from the gymnasium at north andover high school. it is appalling place for a committee for about 30,000, -- a polling place for a community of about 30,000. some drivers turned away in exasperation. in new jersey, chronically ill patients will now have legal access to marijuana. it is the 14th state to allow patients with diseases like aids and multiple sclerosis to use marijuana to ease their symptoms. it was the governor jon corzine's last full day in office. gov.-elect chris christie will be sworn in today. google says that it is

postponing the launch of its mobile phone in china amid a dispute with the government over internet censorship. the formal launch was scheduled for tomorrow. the announcement comes as the chinese government says that google must obey chinese laws and traditions. it was the first direct response to google's threat to pull out of the country over censorship and e-mail hacking. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> live this february on "in depth," british historian and a former adviser to the war to thatcher, paul johnson. his latest book is on winston churchill. your phone calls for paul johnson, sunday, february 7, at noon eastern on "in depth" on c- span2. >> did you know that one of the top street news apps for your iphone or itouch is c-span?

there is a cap with links to all of our podcast, including a "q&a" and "after words." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by the authors of "game change," and john heilemann and mark halperin. it you have a list things that you thought would make use in this book what on that list has not made news, or what are you surprised at? guest: a lot of things. when john and i set out to write the book, we hope it would be interesting book to read an interesting story. but we were also going for breaking news because we thought there were things that were uncovered during the campaign. i will give you one. john will have others. sarah palin was picked by john

mccain and people were shocked when it happened to that time, the campaign said that she had been on consideration for a long time and receive as much of a background check, so-called vetting, as any of the other people john mccain considered. there is skepticism about that at the time did not of the political journalism parade moved on and there were other things to cover. -- there was skepticism about that at the time it. but the political journals a great move on and there were other things to cover. the truth is that she was brought into the game a very late after their main focus, joe lieberman, fell apart as an option. they needed a game changing pick and joe lieberman was again changing the of one sort and sarah palin was another. in book, we quote the vetting a report by washington lawyer who was told on a friday afternoon to get ready and in the space of

less than two days look into sarah palin's background, not by making a phone call or interviewing anybody, but simply by doing on-line searches, because they needed to keep it secret. looking at the process by which john mccain picked a virtual stranger as his running mate was something that we thought that a lot of attention. guest: there is a ton of stuff out in the book that we thought would have gotten a lot of attention. i will give you three examples. one of them is a macro story. in the wake of the campaign, one of the pieces of conventional wisdom that was compounded by the obama operation, the question of race was something that they did not really think about. it was not factored into the decision to run, it was a non- issue. that was one of the things they said over and over again after his election. throughout the book, we talk about how much they woere in

fact and obsessed with race as a political factor. it produced advertisement after advertisement, fake ads that they thought the mccain campaign would run against them that would be racially frame and how they would respond to that. it was topic a -- host: let me show your view is that what about what you talk about that. "while cash from the mccain campaign was coming up with negative ads on the fly, scribbling scripps, in fact, on the backs of napkins, the obama campaign was determining which ones were most dangerous and to develop responses." guest: the produced dozens upon dozens of spots, and also to look at those ads to be prepared to respond than and other spots

that would deal with the problem. the question of what would obama's alleged connections to muslimism -- the obama campaign was constantly trying to respond. we have a great anecdote worked at one point the obama campaign was trying to produce an ad that would take care of all the questions about his race, his alleged muslimism, and alleged lack of patriotism all in one ad the script of this ridiculous --ad -- this ridiculous advertisement -- he read the script and said, "this is too much." on the financial crisis, incredible reporting, i believe, about what happened in the white house meeting george bush held with john mccain and barack obama, hardly been

mentioned in the coverage of it is very interesting but it showed how unprepared john mccain was, how well prepared obama was. as you listen to obama take over the meeting, it seems that if you close your eyes, you would believe that this is the president of the united states, not george bush or john mccain. we have a very interesting story about david geffen and maureen dowd and a devastating column that maureen dowd wrote in the early part of the nomination, how that came to be, how this hollywood mogul and this "new york times" columnist bill is one of the first blows to -- dealt one of the first blows to hillary clinton's inevitability. host: she was trying to write that column before she got him to agree to do it. guest: an interesting case of two not only prominent people,

but iconic people, it the most prominent "new york times" column is about time -- it columnist of our time, and david geffen, this incredibly influential hollywood figure. he was the head out atf dreamworks and he had turned against the clintons but he was unhappy with the clintons' choice of pardons, not granting a pardon that david geffen had lobbied for us. david geffen had turned on the clintons and felt that they were, if not actual crop, kind of morally bankrupt. -- if not actually corrupt, kind of marleigh backups. he loved obama. when maureen dowd hurt even

given to speak in new york -- heard david geffen speak in new york, he was very tough on bill and hillary clinton. maureen in the audience was struck not only by how tough he was talking about clinton's morality, but here they were in new york, the state hillary clinton represented, and the audience seemed very enthusiastic about the notion of that criticism of hillary clinton. over a long period of time, maureen was lobbying david geffen to take what he said at that event and amplify it in an interview with. she was in california at the night before david geffen was to host a fund-raiser for barack obama and she convinces him to do the interview. host: what year is this? guest: 2007. barack obama has gotten into the race and has created a lot of

excitement, and in communities that are vitally important if you are trying to become the democratic nominee for president, hollywood, new york, liberal circles, hillary was trying to not let obama rise up as a major competitor to her. for david given to agree to host this fund-raiser was a big blow to the clintons but they were desperate to try to overshadow that. it showed that a hollywood support and the democratic party would not be monolithic. again, maureen convinces david geffen had to do the interview her column goes on the web, and rock obama and -- and obama an then hillary were at this -- and obama was at this fund-raiser. it did not cause any problems for obama. as we report in the book, it was worse for the clinton than they thought. it was the first time that a lot

to the issues of bill clinton's personal life, whether the clintons were old politics, whether they were too loose with the truth, was laid out. the one-two punch of it being laid out by david geffen, a pillar of a hollywood establishment, via the maureen dowd column, was devastating. host: i am sure that many people are eager to ask your questions and make comments. sylvia, democrats like, you are first. caller: i saw you all on another show and you are talking about that bill and hillary were upset during the iowa caucuses that the obama campaign had cheated. from what i read and what i heard, the reason they were so upset was because the obama campaign bussed in lots of young people from illinois with the help of a corn -- of acorn, and

they showed up at the caucuses early and they locked out the hillary voters. host: john heilemann? guest: a caller is exactly right about what the clintons believe. that, to the letter, what we report in the book -- hillary had been concerned about the caucuses for awhile, that they were to lose, and that he was the state senator from illinois and that this could happen to it the night of the iowa caucuses, when hillary had come in third, she and former president clinton are in a hotel suite and they are as angry as their aides have ever seen about what has happened. she finished far off third and they are incredibly upset. former president clinton starts going on about the fact that all of these people, to order 39,000 people had shown up. -- 239,000 people had shown up.

it was incomprehensible to him that many people had shown up to the caucuses, and he seized on the notion that the shooting had occurred and that the buses had come in from -- that cheating had occurred and that losses had come in from illinois to five days later, he suggested that hillary raise this question in a debate, at the outcome of the caucuses should be invalidated because obama had done this thing. president clinton was suggesting to staff that they hired lawyers and challenge the results of the iowa caucuses. we cannot know with any certainty that the charges true, but we spoke to many of the clinton white staff, people long experienced in iowa politics and are very loyal to the clintons and none of them believe that the charges are true but as upset as the clintons were, at what they were looking for some excuse for her performance in there. these are people who would have every reason to believe it was true, and the people who know

the iowa caucuses best believe that it is a false charge. host: 80 on the independents' line. amy, could mo -- amy, good morning. i will remind you to turn the television down but i will move on and put you on hold, amy, and move on to palin on the republican line. caller -- ellen on the republican line. caller: i say that i have not read the book, but these folks being so close the connected to the campaign and everybody was involved and all the candidates, i want to know why it is that the most important pieces of all of these people, clinton, obama, mccain -- how everything was shielded, and the most important aspects never came out, and the democrats were protected down to every minuscule little whatever -- the important things to not

cam out to it when it came to mccain and sarah palin, how they attacked her come up for clothes and her eating habits, but yet when it comes to not even reporting on any of the policies or believfs or agenda stuff that obama was going to go for, which he is doing now, not having his pieces, or any of his background, everybody saying he is so smart and intelligent and sarah palin is so on qualified when she had been elected, starting the school system, whatever, a municipal mayor to governor, and she is so stupid and irresponsible -- she had held all these offices. host: i think we got your point. mark halperin? guest: we knew that one of the challenges about writing a book about politics these days is that a lot of the discourse through the media and directly has become a very partisan. we tried to write a book that is

not partisan. i am confident we did. there is stuff that was not ever reported not just twhat the calleri] suggested by democrats, but about republicans. we are heartened that the book has received praise from people on the left and right. sean hannity said some very nice things about the book, as did ed schultz. we reported everything that we could find that we thought was germane to telling this story about both parties, candidates in both parties, without fear or favor and with an eye towards history and eliminating what happened, not covering things up. there has been a concern -- why wasn't this stuff reported in real time? people are not going to be forthcoming the way they were with us in the heat of the campaign. there are too busy and there is too much at stake. we went to people right after the nomination fights and the general election when their memories were fresh but they were willing to cooperate, they understood the project and its importance, we hope, for

history. second, it is hard to piece this stuff together if you don't have the time, as we did come over a long period of time, long interviews, able to sit down and sift through the stuff and pieced together to the realities of daily journalism, particularly these days with the internet and cable -- there is no way to do that. you have to do it as more of the historical work. host: have you heard from your sources and gotten a reaction from your sources, without specifically saying they are? guest: we have. we talked to a lot of people for the book did most of these people are people who have had very long relationships with politics. we have been covering politics for 20 years each. the relationship we have with those sources of the basis on which the book was built. if we had not had such a strong relationships with the sources, we cannot have done what we did. we have been heartened by their response, which has been

uniformly positive. people ought said many notes of congratulation about the book. -- people have sent many notes of congratulation about the book. we have heard from an awful lot of people and they feel that we have gotten the story right and got it in a way that they think is fair, accurate, and good for history in the sense that we captured things about the campaign and how these people live to the campaign and how it changed them and how their strengths and weaknesses affected the way in which they waged a campaign that are important for people who are going to be looking back at his campaign for many years to come to understand what actually happened. host: we go back to georgia and amy on the independents' line. caller: high. sorry about that. you know, i am an independent. i used to be a democrat, and with this past election with barack obama came around, i ended up dropping apart completely -- dropping of the party completely. but i was looking for at the

time was a candidate that would really represent the country well. i know for a fact that the fact that the media was there boosting obama of it like the way they did bush, which they actually did do, seems to be the game plan for me is whoever the media choose is to be the next president is going to be the next president. it is very unfortunate, because i did listen to barack obama a few times, some of the speeches that he set about changing things and washington, but yet he was a supporter of mayor richard daley, witches, as far as i'm concerned, being from illinois come -- which is, as far as i'm concerned, being from illinois, one of the biggest perks in politics but -- it was the biggest crooks in politics. what makes you think you change anything in washington?

he has not. guest: the role of the media in presidential elections is obviously a huge. one of the things most interesting in reporting on the campaign is the fact that all the campaigns feel that the media was biased against them. they all feel, as the caller says, that they look at the power of media and that they feel it pleasant outsized role and is somehow unfair to them. host: even president obama's campaign felt that way? guest: i think mark and i would agree that obama got a very favorable coverage and the campaign did not disputable. but they felt that on things like reverend wright that there were subjected to as tough and media scrutiny as any candidate in history, and things for which they were hit, like the tony rezko relationship, that those were not germane. they felt that the media was focused on trivialities and

things that were non-stories, rather them what the candidate wanted to say about health care policy and economic policy. it is a perennial complaint, and as far as i can see, the media is an equal opportunity in the kinds of readers that puts the candidates through. it is not surprising, as mark said, that in a partisan environment, people feel that the media picks sides. it will not go away, because as our media and to become more partisan, these problems will escalate. caller: good morning, marc, good morning, john, good morning, greta. i have seen you guys on other shows. one of the things that is fascinating to me is that the country seems to be in a state of cognitive dissonance. and barack obama is incompetent,

unprepared, on qualified to be president, john mccain is this. based on what you guys have said this morning, the exact opposite -- the reverse is true to barack obama seems to be hope and change and all that, but he seems to be a very savvy politician, a brilliant strategic thinker, a very well- prepared, understands the issues, and yet all the buzz right now is about sarah palin, who mostly speaks -- her vocabulary is mostly monosyllabic, and i have not heard her say anything of substance in terms of public policy from the time she started running up until now. i am just amazed -- are you amazed that the country is so enamored with sarah palin, who lacks intellectual curiosity, lacks the depth. she is mostly a vacuous --

guest: i'm a big fan of monosyllabics, so i have to differ from the caller there at that that is a problem. with all due respect to the color and many who called c- span2 and he sees the world in any -- who calls c-span, he sees the world in a particular way but there are many others who see it differently. there are those who think barack obama is a horrible precedent and that sarah palin is the salvation. we'll try to rise above it dominant feature of political discourse, and to say i have a point of view about the world and i hit the democrats or eight republicans and anything i -- i hate to the democrats or hate republicans and anything i say or write will reinforce that. we wanted to write about this incredibly exciting campaign with bigger-than-life characters and not make a partisan book. as i've said before, we have had

a very positive feedback from the left and right, people saying to us, "i may disagree with barack obama's policies, but i was glad to read how he really experienced the campaign and get inside what is real life was really like." same with sarah palin. that is the kind of book we set out to write will n -- set out to right. i hope it has the potential benefit -- the country has become too partisan and it is not good for politics or the future of the country. we hope that people think about politics and a different way, or about the drama and -- more about the trauma and trying to drain it from the pure partisan ship. host: on the mccain approached the campaign -- "who ever was listening, that was the campaign.

the rest was noise. guest: it is a very early part of the book, talking about how mccain in the early planning stages of the campaign -- you had an operation where all the people around him looked back at his 2000 campaign, where he ran as many gay, outsider campaign, and -- he ran this renegade, outsider campaign, and they lost. they said, "we should build on the bush model, raise a ton of money, have a huge operation across the country, the formidable and scare everybody else away." a problem with that is that mccain is psychologically well- suited to that kind of campaign, and as the organization built itself that way, his attitude was, why do i need all this? he did not want to make fund-

raising calls and get into the race as soon as they wanted him to get into the race. we have seen from the book with a say, "we are the front runner and we have to act like the front runner and cannot act like the kind person you are naturally," which is a maverick, to use his favorite term. at the kind of thing they aspired to build for him and the kind of thing that mccain was comfortable doing it turned out to be the immolation of his campaign bu. for the first six months, the campaign was broke, he was lagging in the polls, he was miserable, he was firing his top staff, and the meltdown, which nearly killed him politically if not personally, is about that mismatch. he is strongest in the book once he gets rid of all these people. you see him emerge when everybody in politics but he was dead -- everybody in politics

thought he was dead, and mccann was actually past year. he was running, metaphorically speaking, -- mccai noten -- çmccain was actually happier. he was running, metaphorically speaking, in a beat-up car. the mismatch between him and a bomb in terms of organization, financed, muscular strength -- and no bomb in terms of organization, finance, was to list a --, him and obama in terms of organization, finance, strength -- this is why in some sense the personal, the stuff about the high human drama of the campaign, it actually matters enormously, because it tells you enormously about john mccain's political fortunes. you cannotç understand that without understanding is psychology and how he looked at the heart and, of politics. -- art and combat of politics.

guest: greta, can i say one thing? we are honored and pleased by the amount of attention the book has received. this is literally the first time we've had a chance to discuss this topic, an extraordinarily important part of the 2008 campaign. for people who have seen some of the book and say, i know everything about the book already, it would love to " the thing about the use of airplane tickets, because it defines a huge part of the mentality of the republican nominee i think some people have the impression that they have learned everything that is in the book. we think there is more in the book that people would be interested in. host: nancy on the republican line. caller: when president obama ran, he was more to the center of the democratic party. that is what i voted for. i voted for obama because i

thought he was more to the center of the democratic party, not to the left. he has since become more of left then center. that has made me very disheartened. i have turned from democrat to republican and i will start voting republican and i am going to vote more for the people who are my values and my type of ideas about this country and how it should be run. i think our country is out of whack. we are spending too much, the deficit is too high, there is too many people unemployed. i think obama is not concentrating on what the real problems are in this country. he is concentrating on his ideas. guest: will was the name of that color -- what was the name of that caller?

host: nancy. guest: i would call her nancy, a.k.a. david axelrod's worst nightmare. this the type of voters thought they have to worry about. he has done the thing that is the most dangerous for any politician, lost control of a large segment of the population with his public image, how he is being perceived t. during the campaign, he was very successful at what george bush did, being all things to all people. healthcare is a great example. what has moved through congress -- there are policy differences that are not insignificant, but the best of it, the scope of it, it is very similar to what he ran on. people should not be surprised that on a range of issues, he is more liberal.

at the same time, one of the gifts barack obama has had since he entered public life is to speak as a unifying figure, to give people the sense that he works across the aisle and solves problems in a bipartisan way. that, as it has turned out, partly by choice and partly by circumstances, with the economic crisis in particular, has led to governing in a moreç partisan y that i thought he would do and i think that he intended the result is to alienate colors and voters and citizens like that. part of the challenge he faces now is to finish this health care bill, defined as a very liberal think, rightly or not, and move on to an agenda that addresses jobs and deficit reduction. the state of the union and the budget are opportunities, the white house hopes, to win over callers like that. host: the state of the union will be wednesday, january 27. steve on the independent-mi

line. caller: 1 said the post, he took a called earlier -- you took a call earlier challenging your bias and saying you should be fired. we should actually look at the bias -- to get to the point, we have become so divisive in this country. i think hillary clinton has just shown herself to be a gracious loser, obviously, and the campaign, but also, what a hard- working woman. you look at her, and she's just nose to the grindstone, "i am the secretary of state and i will do the best job i can possibly do for our country, regardless of party." i think during the campaign, obama was such a wonderful speaker, is such a wonderful

that he was able to carry the election without a lot of substance. i am a supporter of his, but at the same time, you've got to govern, not just be elected. host: the background on hillary clinton during the campaign. guest: we in the book talk about how the hillary and obama relationship is a love story, which is counterintuitive for people. one of the things that mark and i were surprised to learn is how much of a fan hillary clinton was to barack obama before the campaign did she hosted a fund-raiser for his senate campaign, and she talked very admiring look about him, saying that there is a superstar in chicago, the kind of candidate that she and her husband always wanted to support in the the grand part, very intelligent african- american who had a future and the party. when he came to washington, he

seeks her out, six her counsel, already sort of a superstar because of the speech at the convention, and that sort of a bond. she sees him as a potential mentee and he sees her as a potential mentor obviously, a huge amount of conflict and bitterness and then unfolded when they ended at head-to-head in the democratic nomination fight. but in the end, after all for bitterness over how the race turned out and all of her anger, which is documented in the book in a lot of a vivid detail, the extraordinary series of events that lead her to eventually accept the job of secretary of state -- we have at the end of the book, and that is rather incredible coming together -- there is a rather incredible coming together with the late-night phone call and everybody in her life is trying to get her to take the top.

her husband thinks it would be great for, rahm emanuel, joe biden, all lobbies for to take the job. she finally called him to decide that they will not -- that she will not take the top, and had this incredible late-night phone call where she tells him why she does not want the job and he accept ththat those are all good reasons -- she is burdened with debt, she is tired and wants to go home -- he understands all that, but he says, "i need you to take this job. with the economic crisis will be a huge part of my first term might need someone who understands foreign policy whose hand i do not have to hold, and i need you and the country needs you." after everything with this at the arc of their relationship, it is an extraordinary moment. the moment she admits her husband might be a problem, something she never did in the campaign -- anything bill

clinton did something considered politically detrimental, and she defends him. she never takes any other side, totally loyal to her husband. now she is not saying not disloyal, but admitting to barack obama that there is a political vulnerability with her husband . barack obama does not express that he needs anyone did, he is the maximally self-sufficient politician. he turns to her and in its in some ways that he needs her. it is the first bond, the relationship of trust where they can work together. he tells her to sleep on it and not to say no. she decides to take the job i think the caller is right her first year as secretary of state has demonstrated all the things that is best about hillary clinton. she has worked incredibly, incredibly hard representing america around the world, and

from all indications, their relationship is as solid as any relationship of any cabinet secretary to the president. they are on extremely good terms an excuse c-span.or -- and it sl for patriotism and devotion to the country and her ability to put past pain aside for the calling of the country. host: frankie on the line for democrats. caller: have a very simple question for the gentleman but what kind of an impact do think this will have on people running and people who want to work for them when it seems like if you write a book like this -- i don't understand why people talk to you and say some of the things about the candidates. i think it would be hard to get anybody to work for you again, it would be so hard for the candidates. they have to be so careful of what they say and do in private.

what kind of an impact to do you think the book will have? thank you. host: before you answer that, howard kurtz wrote in his column in "the washington post," "the portrait may reflect the fact that aids on a winning campaign have little deeper to dish and even less incentive, since many of them are now running the country." guest: there is a lot of their third let me try to address part of it. -- a lot in there. let me try to address part of it. we were dealing with people with whom we had strong working relationships with over decades. in that process, we explained to them in great detail what we were doing to be explained what kind of book it was. the terms on which we were speaking. history is important. one of the things we learned, at times to our panic, is that as

time passes, people's memories don't work. there is oral history here that if we had not stepped in and done at these interviews when we did them, in what it would have been lost. people have said -- howard kurtz,'s piece and others -- that we rely on people with axes to grind. i have to tell you -- john mayfield of a -- i could john -- upjohn may feel differently -- i can think of five that most or people were trying to spin the story but they cooperated with us to realize that this was an important moment in american history. that process revealed a lot of stories that we were able, over time, to merge together. there is not a single " controversial" story line in the book that we based on people

exclusively who had an ax to grind to we always went to supporters, people more supportive to a candidate or a spouse, and asked what you think there were almost no instances where the merging of those accounts from two sides required judgments. the stories line up. guest: it i want to add something to the quotation you read. the relationship between the public image and a private reality. i think that is actually true. in many cases, there is a wide divergence between public image and private reality. the story of john and elizabeth edwards is the most dramatic and the book, where the gap between what the public saw and wanted to see and how they were in private was cats make -- was chasmic. the gap between barack obama's public image and private reality

was of all the candidates than ever was. the spent very little time in the above -- a campaign was a -- all the candidates the narrowest. they spent very little time in the campaign trying to manage him. the obama campaign was able to focus to a large extent on getting done what needed to get done. there was not as large a gap between the two. it as i talked before about race example, there were times where the public image was not going on behind the scenes, but an important part of why he was successful and the can and was the fact that the gap was narrower. guest: we don't have a very much about barack obama that is less flattering. i would urge people to read the

book, and there are a number of scenes worked there was crisis, questions about whether the strategy was working. in one prominent instance, you see barack obama saying that we will stay the course, that we chose this strategy and is the right thing. there is another instance later in the book where he decides that he is not getting enough advice on a broader circle of people. one of the things that we report about in the book is this group of the three men, david axelrod, robert gibbs, and david plouffe , who almost a stranglehold on the advice -- who have almost a stranglehold on the advice that is to barack obama. other people, including michelle obama, would occasionally say when things were going badly that there needs to be a broader circle of advisers. there is a stage late in the process when it is clear that barack obama will probably be hillary clinton but will lead into the general election, where

he decides to change course and he has a conference call that is not run by one of the three suits but i needed done, who goes on to be department -- but anita dunn, who goes on to be the communications director. some said that the portrait is written by the winners so it is not as full as others. host: when he decides to bring anita dunn into the fold, the strategy she takes up running his fund -- the exchange there, the strategy she comes up with it for e-mail addresses. guest: in the early 2006, the 2005 period, there was a pac called hope fund, and obama

interviewed and eventually hired anita dun to run that pac. even when he was still a candidate for the senate in 2004, he was able to raise money for democratic senators. it was clear that he was going to when in a landslide, and he was doing fund-raising events for tom national and other senators. he was an incredible fundraising -- fund-raising events for tom daschle and other senators. he was an incredible fundraising source. he would turn out huge crowds. we knew that obama was traveling around and raising money, but i don't think until we wrote the book that we had a clear sense. we talked to people like claire mccaskill who would tell stories about obama campaign for her in 2006 and when they came to st. louis, not only did they have to

have the fundraiser for the 2000 were 3000 people, but it would need to get a separate room for 15,000 people, because everybody wanted to see this guy. his fund-raising ability was at the core of why, as we talk about the democratic establishment being behind him, that was part of the political appeal, part of the wheat they demonstrated that he could be a serious candidate. anita dunn, in some sense, along with david plouffe, initiating a similar strategy for deval patrick in massachusetts, started to think about how this could be capitalized on to build the grass-roots army. when people came to obama events, it would ask for e-mail addresses, and it was the beginning of building the database for hope fund, and it became the core of what became the mass of a fund-raising machine. as they used the internet in i totally novel way to build this

fundraising machine unprecedented in the history of american politics. anita dunn and the hope fund with the seeds of that development that made obama credible and give them a huge advantage going against hillary clinton and john mccain. host: marie on the republican line. caller: i get a kick out of the left attacking their opponents. they call them a dime if they see a thread. -- call them dumb if they see a threat and with that sarah palin -- left comedians like joy behar and bill maher attacker all the time did she had more experience than barack obama. iit is how they try to be

little their opponents. they say that europe is this or that. europe is made up of different countries with their own culture. switzerland is not part of the eu -- host: okay, we will leave it there. let me pick up one thing she said about sarah palin and the coverage. sarah palin, from your reporting, was consumed with how she was being pursued in -- how she was being perceived in alaska during the election. guest: she was never very much involved in national politics. very few in the national political or media life had dealings with sarah palin. she was new. we talked to these national operatives in the mccain campaign and other people around sarah palin who to this day are

the only people we know who have had exposure to her behind-the- scenes to see what she is like when she is not on tv or giving a speech. they met with sarah palin, two of mccain's advisers, mark salter and steve schmidt. they did not know her bridge was a stranger to them. one of things they discussed with her late in the meeting was the importance of her understanding that even though she would remain the sitting governor of alaska, she needed to understand her focus needed to be on the the national campaign. she was basically an appendage of the campaign and would not get back to alaska until there -- unless there was some sort of natural disaster, and she did not to be focused on her home state needs but on the national ticket. on the point of view of the kaine staff, she did not of a -- up to that from the point --

from the point of view of the mccain is that, she did not live up to that. there were concerned that there was an absence of mccain-palin and yard signs in alaska. it is spent the time complaining to a -- the campaign they spent -- they spent atime complaining that there was not enough of an effort in alaska. she was not being allowed to talk to local reporters, and like a lot of governors, she would give out hurt mobile or two local reporters -- her mobile phone number to local reporters. that ended when she was put on the national ticket. from the mccain campaign's point of view, there was no time for that, and she said she understood that before she was put on the ticket. that was one of many causes of

tension between the palins and the mccain staff. host: david, next caller. caller: on my part i am identified as no party affiliation. i always -- when the politician preaches the corrupt year, -- when the politicians it reaches the crop year, i will not vote for them. with clinton into york -- if i was a resident of new york, i would not have voted for her, because she moved in. and many voters in southwest florida thought they were voting for his father and they were very upset that they had voted for his son. i was extremely upset, being a

disabled veteran, 1 george w. bush -- host: let me jump in here, because we're running out of time. what is your question or comment? guest: this is a question i have recently started asking my friends about voter fraud. which of the three largest cities in the u.s. have a reputation, whether it is deserved or not, for having corrupt elections? host: i am not sureç of this cn answer that we want to take a stab at it? guest: never be wrong picking cities in louisiana and new jersey. host: let me get to some criticism of the book from howard kurtz's column.

he is referring to the quotation that came out about what harry reid said in private about barack obama toç john holliman, why don't you take that? -- john heilemann, why don't you take that? guest: in our author's note,ç we mentioned that we conducted the interview on deep background, basically what howie writes in the peace. it is not complete, the description of all the conversations we had with our sources to talk any great detail about how the interview we did conduct would be used in -- we talked in great detail about how the interview that he would conduct would be used in the book. i can say that there is no case in which the way that we

explained we are going to that in the and we did not live up to that agreement with any source we talked to in the book. it is important that people understand that a deep background, as many people have written, is not a concept that is etched in stone. every journalist has rules of the road. host: you don't think that concrete come on-the-record -- guest: with new ones, you can describe different things. we did not violate the agreement with anybody that we made for the book. unlike a lot of exchanges and washington and journalism generally, between reporters and sources, with the terms are not defined but there is assumed to be commonality, or they are defined on the fly, we have meticulously and carefully in every exchange we had a free interview we did went through the project, the terms we are

discussing, and we did not violate those terms for any person to talk to a to the book. host: melvin on the democrats' line. caller: i have more of a comment and i wanted to address a couple of issues. there are people saying that barack obama is not living up to his campaign promises. but my main point -- you heard a lot of people talk about concern about deficit spending. i don't think they realize that when ronald reagan took office in 1980, the deficit was $980 billion. one him and george bush sr. left office, it was ordered $5 trillion. clinton left a surplus -- it was $405 trillion. clinton left a surplus, and the deficit was $10.90 trillion when obama took over. where democrats get all the blame for the spending when it

is actually republicans who created all this deficit? the democrats never seem to address that issue, and they continue to be demonized for the spending, and republicans used fiscal conservatives -- host: at some of this is playing out, what he is getting at, in the special elections in messages, about democrats' big spenders -- special election in massachusetts, about democrats being spenders and raising taxes. i am wondering if you could compare your debts from hillary clinton's campaign, the staffers -- your notes from hillary clinton's campaign, the staffers that she had, and reports this morning that hillary clinton's staff for new england is helping to run martha coakley's campaign. guest: mark would know more about this. we have been so busy with this

book that i don't know the details of this spirit is the case that republicans have historically and traditionally and successfully in many cases portrayed the democrats as a big spending party. they have been are successful in doing that and in massachusetts it has been playing out where you have martha coakley is not getting the kind of support from the democratic base that she would expect. much more importantly, she is having a very hard time getting a number of independent voters that she would need, who are accessed with these questions of tax and spending and deficit. -- obsessed with these questions of tax and spending and deficit. guest: one of the most serious moments in the book is clinton's attempt to get teddy kennedy to endorse hillary over barack obama, and the frustration and anger that both clintons