brown and the steven avery chief can a loni. specifically talking about the american red cross and haitian earths and how donations to that organization are collected and distributed. . .

>> this morning on c-span, a house debate on the status of the health care bill with representatives steny hoyer and eric cantor. a look at president obama's first year in office and a discussion on the 2008 presidential election. >> sunday on "prime minister's questions." creation of the united nationses reconstruction agency to respond to future disasters at 9:00 p.m.

eastern here on c-span. >> house speaker nancy pelosi recently announced that she does not have the votes in the house to pass the senate version of the health care bill. now that republican scott brown has won the massachusetts senate election. and that win deprives democrats of their 60 votes super majority in the senate. next a house debate between representatives steny hoyer and eric cantor over the health care bill. this is 50 minutes. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> madam speaker, i ask to address the house for one minute for the purposes of inquiring about next week's schedule. >> without objection. >> i yield to the the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule. >> i thank my friend for yielding. on monday, the house is not in session. on tuesday, the house will meet

at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business. on wednesday, 10 a.m. for legislative business and recess at approximately 5:00 p.m. to allow a security sweep of the house chamber prior to the president's state of the union address. the house will meet again at 8:35 p.m. in a joint session with the senate for the purpose of receiving an address from the president of the united states. on thursday and friday, the house is not in session to give time for the republican issues conference to occur in baltimore,ed maryland. we will consider several bills under suspension. complete list will be announced by close of business tomorrow. in addition, madam speaker, we will consider h.r. 3726, the castle knife nugent establishment act of 2009 and h.r. 4474 the idaho will

deerness protection act introduced by mr. minnick and mr. simpson. and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, i ask the gentleman if he could comment on some of the press reports that we have seen this morning about the speaker's statement that this house and you will not be bringing to this house the senate health care bill for consideration. and i yield. >> well, i didn't see the speaker's statements, so i can't comment specifically on it, but i can say this to the gentleman but as the gentleman knows, there are significant critical differences between the house and senate bills and we have been working on trying to bridge the differences that exist. and we are still in that process. >> i thank the gentleman. and i would ask, madam speaker, -- i would first say that this country saw a pretty

extraordinary election in massachusetts a few nights ago. and from all reports, it seems that part of the outcome of that election was due to the health care bill and the difficulties with which the gentleman's side has had in passing the bill. we, on this side, madam speaker, would say there has been no bipartisan effort to pass a health care bill. and so if we are going to see a resolution of the differences that the gentleman refers to, those differences clearly being on the side of his -- on his side of the aisle, because, madam speaker, we feel continued to be left out of the process. so i ask the gentleman if he is not deciding on whether he is bringing up the senate bill or the house bill again, will there be -- will there be the process -- will we see the process start

over? will we see his side take the message from the massachusetts election to involve republicans in discussion over the health care bill and have a transparent process the way we believe ought to happen as well as i believe the american people think should happen. and i yield. >> i thank the gentleman for his question and all the premises that he adopts in his question. i don't want my silence presumed to be agreeing to his premises which i think are inaccurate. having said that, first of all, there have been extraordinary exposure of the health care bills both in the house and the senate to public discussion, public debate, public information. been on-line for four months, five months really, now.

so i would -- extraordinary number of hearings held on this over the last two years. and as the gentleman well knows, his party's candidate for president and my party's candidate for president, who is now president of the united states, both indicated that health reform was necessary. so it received extensive debate by many other candidates as well during the course of the election. the gentleman is well aware, because members on his side have talked about it, members on my side have talked about it about the number of americans who don't have insurance, the number of americans who are being forced out because of costs, number of small businesses who are being confronted with 10%, 15%, 20% increases. the gentleman is well aware of the fact that health funding and health coverage is a challenge

for our country and for our citizens. the gentleman mentions the election. the election obviously had occurred in massachusetts. like every election dealt with many issues. my own view is that americans are most focused as we need to be on the creation of jobs, making sure that americans get back to work and have a livelihood that they can support themselves and their families. they are very concerned about that. they are concerned about the fact that i -- we just passed the health care bill. i just read a poll that the majority of voters who voted for obama and the new united states senate-elect of massachusetts that we ought to pass a health care bill. the vote for the new senator was

on something other than that particular issue. obviously there were a number of issues that impacted this election. but let me say again that almost all the candidates running for president last time when they articulated and focused on national issues, focused on health care and the need to make sure that health care was available to all of our citizens. now as relates to the gentleman's bipartisanship, the gentleman was quoted apparently just a few days ago about referring to our meeting. our meeting dealt with a one-page proposals many of which was in the health care bill that passed this house in one fashion or another. notwithstanding that, no republican has voted for the bill. i was not surprised at that,

frankly, because in february apparently not based upon the specifics of the proposal because the specifics of the proposal weren't on the table. your campaign chairman, pete sessions, told republicans that they need to get over the idea that we're participating in legislation and ought to start thinking of themselves as an insurgency instead. he was quoted in "politico," february 2, 2009 of saying that. furthermore, senator inhofe on the tv, 7/27/09 said we can stall it. and that's going to be a huge gain for those of us who want to turn this thing over in the 2010 election. senator jim inhofe said that. and then senator jim demint said

also in july of 2009, if we are able to stop obama on this, referring to health care, it will be his waterloo. it will break him. i will tell my friend i have discussed with him and my good friend, representative blunt with whom he was your predecessor and asked him to participate with us, i did that early this year, i did that later in the year, sometime before i met with you as well in trying to discuss was there a way forward to work in a bipartisan fashion. unfortunately, that did not result in bipartisan fashion. i will tell my friend on a smaller, more defined matter, the children's health insurance program, i spent about 100 hours

trying to work with many on your side of the aisle -- in the last congress -- to try to get bipartisan agreement on moving children's health insurance. and as i'm sure you recall, because you weren't with us on that issue, we couldn't get bipartisan agreement. so the answer to your question is, i would like to have bipartisan discussions moving forward on this issue. but i have concluded from my experience over the last year and not just these -- i quote three, but there have been many other statements as well, that indicate that opposition for opposition's sake has been adopted at least by some on your side as a strategy and as a tactic. i think the losers are not so much democrats in that context. i think the losers are the

american people. they expect us and want us to work together towards resolving the issues that confront them, one of which is health care. they know it's an issue. i read the results in massachusetts, but i will tell you, i've also read the polls, about whether or not health care reform is needed in this country and a significant majority of americans respond, they think it is. they think when they are denied coverage pre-existing conditions. they think when their child is 23 years of age and out of college and doesn't have insurance, that's a problem. when they have a serious illness costing them thousands and thousands of dollars and insurance company telling them you cost too much we can no longer insure you, they think that's a problem. when they go deeply into debt for health care costs that

aren't covered by their insurance company and have to declare bankruptcy and put their home at risk, they think that's a problem. these are issues we would like to work together on and we hope that can happen. >> i thank the gentleman and i take the gentleman's comments to heart that he wants to do what's right by his constituents and the people of this country. but the question we have before us, the question that the voters of massachusetts had before them, just like the voters in virginia and new jersey had a lot to do with the health care bill that this house deliberated upon and passed and the health care bill that the senate deliberated upon and passed. and madam speaker, i would say to the gentleman, there's very little disagreement among the pollsters that have tested where the american people are on these

health care bills. they are opposed to these health care bills. and you may say that some of the comments that have been made by individuals in this body or the other on our side of the aisle were meant to obstruct, but i can tell the gentleman, madam speaker, that the american people right now want this will health care bill defeated. they want health care reform, but not in the way that has been constructed under either one of these bills. and if i recall, and i appreciate the gentleman's willingness to meet with me several months ago -- and i don't want to take his comments as being dismissive of our proposal because i handed him a summary, but i can tell the gentleman right here is the house republican bill. and there are elements in this bill we can both agree upon. the plan is still before us. and if we take into consideration that, we've got a plan. the public doesn't like the

gentleman's plan. and flash forward to a discussion that the gentleman and i had on the floor, i believe, madam speaker, that the gentleman told me it was not worth his while to engage in conversation with republicans because we would not embrace the public option. i would tell the speaker -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> we don't embrace the public option because it is a path to single payer. so i ask the gentleman again, the speaker earlier today said, quote, i don't think it's possible to pass the senate bill in the house. i don't see the votes for it at this time. i would ask the gentleman, madam speaker, if that is an accurate statement that we can then count on. and i yield. >> i don't know about counting on. and i don't know what you mean by counting on. i think the speaker's comments this morning, she believes that

is an accurate statement. >> if i would be in his position about the results in massachusetts. as we were very happy about the results in new york 23, where the health care bill was also at issue as the gentleman knows in a district that we hadn't won in 150 years in a couple of months ago and we won that district in the district as i said unlike massachusetts that we had not won in 150 years. but let me say something, your candidate who did win supported the massachusetts plan, which has great similarity to the plan

that he now opposes. so it's somewhat ironic we would take that as a bellwether because as a mesm of the state -- as a member of the state he voted on a plan much like our plan to reach the objective of covering all people. he has already voted for a plan like that. he has indicated he's not going to vote for this plan. i understand that. it's not like he hasn't got a record of wanting to achieve the objectives that the bills that are under discussion are trying to achieve. >> i thank the gentleman. i respond simply by saying most indicators are the voters of that commonwealth voted for mr. brown because of his stances. and one of those stances was that he would vote against the senate or the house health care bill as they were constructed. and i agree with the gentleman, we need to do something about

health care. i would remind him that it is the c.b.o. who has pointed out that our republican plan is the plan that actually does reduce health care premiums. that's where we started this whole discussion was to reduce health care costs for the american people and continue to reform the system so we can maintain the quality we have. and madam speaker, i just say that it is time, i think, for this body to finally listen to the american people and what they're asking us to do. run this body in an open and transparent way, stop the back-room deals, the corn husker kickbacks, louisiana purchaseses and make it so this is once again the people's body and agree where we can agree to produce the positive reforms that the people expect. with that, madam speaker, i'd

ask the gentleman what his intentions are or what he thinks we can see in this house as far as an attempt to address the issue that the majority leader said was the number one issue on the minds of the voters of the commonwealth of massachusetts and the country, which is the economy. before the break, we had a bill that came up that was dubbed a jobs bill. there was a lot of difficulty i know on his side mustering the needed votes to get it passed. is there legislation he has in mind that would address the situation that americans confront which is double-digit unemployment. and i yield. >> i thank the gentleman for the question. and in answer to his question, we passed the jobs bill through this house in december. it's pending in the senate now.

we believe that that would substantially move forward on creating jobs. it's not the answer, but it is one of the answers, we think. it focuses on infrastructure, which we think is a very important initiative that gets people working immediately. jobs here in america. we think that's very important. it also tries to help states so they're not laying off teachers and policemen and firemen. we think that's very important as well. but let me say something. i did a little -- i get a little confused and perhaps these facts are not well known to you, but i thought i would remind you of these facts. we pursued an economic program that your party put forward from 2001, 2003 on for eight years. now while the people gave us the

majority in the house and senate in 2006, obviously president bush threatened to or did, in fact, veto any changes that we made in economic policy. that economic policy which you were a very strong supporter of and your party was a very strong supporter of, you continue to mention jobs. so i want to make sure you know these statistics. in the last three months of the bush administration under the economic policies that not only did you pursue then but you still want to pursue, because, in fact, the proposals that you had made essentially mirror the proposals that were made in 2001 and 2003. those proposals were touted by you and others. i'm not going to go through all these quotes, as going to grow the economy, create jobs and have a robust growth in our

economy. in november and december and january, that policy which you pursued lost 2,019,000 jobs in three months. and we confronted the worst recession, the great recession, if you will worst than at any time in three-quarters of a century. and it somewhat confounds me that you still, your party, not you personally, present an economic policy which was the poorest job-creating administration in eight years since herbert hoover, an average of approximately 4,000 jobs per month. 100,000 just to stay even. i will tell the gentleman since

the recovery act which you nor your party voted for, let me tell you what the last quarter was. perhaps you know. we still have not succeeded in growing jobs. so we haven't had success. remember i told you you lost in the last three months 2,019,000 jobs. the last quarter we lost 208,000 jobs. quarter, three months. that's way too many jobs. we want to be creating as the clinton administration did on average 220,000-plus jobs per month. 22 million in total over eight years. so that i tell my friend that when the gentleman says we haven't had progress on this, those figures, in my view, belie

that assertion. the stock market is up 60%. couple of bad days, up 60% since we adopted the recovery and reinvestment act. it had a minus growth under your economic policies during the bush administration. it decreased in value so that the investment i had in 2001 was about 26% less valuable in december of 2008. contrast that to the cliventon administration in its eight years the value of your stock portfolio or investments went up 226%. that is a 250% difference. so i tell my friend, we have taken very substantial action and we're going to take more action because until we get americans back on the job, until we get america growing so that

it creates the kind of jobs our people need and must have to support themselves and their families, we aren't going to be satisfied. yes, we passed a bill last month which you and your party voted against. we think that's unfortunate. if you have ideas, i would love to sit down with you again and discuss your ideas. very frankly, however, some of the ideas we discussed to date are some of the same ideas that in my opinion that led to not such a robust, job-creating economy. in fact, as i said, the worst economy we have seen in 75 years. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman, madam speaker, and first of all, i know that it is tempting for the gentleman to delve into the past come pairing the bush policies to the clinton policies. we are in the year 2010. we have new challenges before us. and i would say that the piece

of information left out by the gentleman is the fact that it was his party that controlled congress during some of the period in which you cite the job loss. in fact, there have been 3.6 million jobs lost just since january of 2009. i would say to the gentleman, as far as the stimulus bill that you speak of -- >> would the gentleman yield on your assertion? >> i will yield at the end of my statement. and what my point is that the stimulus bill that passed almost a year ago, there's growing consensus here that it was not sufficiently targeted towards job growth. and in fact, even the portion of infrastructure spending that the gentleman and his party and this white house decided upon, the

design of that spending, the associated press has come out with a study indicating that it did not grow employment at the local level in the communities which we represent. so if we understand and know that that is not the way to grow jobs, that is the design of the stimulus bill, why would we vote for stimulus two? in fact, i would remind the gentleman, the bipartisanship around the stimulus two vote in december was against the bill, as well as over 30 members of his side of the aisle voted against the bill. because again, i believe it is trying to get it right this time. so instead of the gentleman's continuing to refer to years ago, i would remind him that we have presented to him as well as to the president a republican no-cost jobs plan. and the gentleman has dismissed

that document and that plan, saying that there is nothing for free, that we shouldn't be talking about things that we could do together that don't cost anything. i would say to the gentleman the president himself has said that within the passage of three trade bills sitting in this body, we could see the creation of 250,000 jobs. we have had discussion on this floor about whether those trade bills are coming forward. 250,000 jobs at no cost seems to me we really should go about doing that as well as the other items that we listed in our no-cost jobs plan that the house republicans have put forward. and i yield to the gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman. first let me observe that the gentleman -- i don't blame you at all for not wanting to look back in history. i wouldn't want to stand on that record either.

but it's important to look at history so that we don't repeat the same mistakes, that the assertions that were made for the policies that you pursued of great growth and economic expansion, which did not occur, that's why i pointed out, because frankly, your proposals mirror those that have been made in the past. and the premises that you have pursued are the same that you're pursuing now. it's instructtive for the american people and the representatives to look at what worked and didn't work. your party unanimously opposed the clinton economic policies. mr. armey, who was your majority leader, said they would fail. in fact, they succeeded. they created 22 million jobs. in fact in the last year when there was a slowdown, created 1.8 million jobs as opposed to losing 3.8 million jobs under

the last year of the bush administration. it's instructtive to see what worked and what didn't. so that is why i referred to it, not because i think that will solve our problems going forward. i agree with the gentleman. what is important is what are we going to do now? but we would be fools, as the writer said, to continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. so i say to my friend when he averts that we were in charge in 2007 and 2008, he and i both know that economic policy was not changed. why? because the president of the united states, who mad the veto pen and the votes to sustain a veto even when we tried to give four million children health insurance in america, that veto was sustained. they weren't given that insurance until president obama

signed the bill, which was one of our first bills. looking back is useful only to the extent that you ensure that you do not repeat the mistakes of the past. the clinton economic program worked. the bush program did not. and i want to tell my friend on his points for recovery, this so-called supply-side recovery, if you will. one of the first things you want to do is stop the deluge of rules and regulations. i tell my friend, one of the reasons we face such a crisis was the last administration took the receiveree off the field and as a result, the players on the field went wild and did irresponsible things. and taxpayers of this country had to respond. the good news is hopefully we will get paid back. the president has made efforts to make sure that happens and i

hope and you hope, i'm sure, that we do get paid back. want to block tax increases and cutting taxes. we cut tax is for 95% of the americans in the recovery and reinvestment act. you want to freeze jobs to rein in deficits and debt. you want to freeze investments in giving people new skills so they can get the jobs that are being created. we don't think that's good policy. you want to reform the unemployment system by requiring people to participate in job training. we agree with that, but you have to make sure that the job training is available to them. approving the free trade agreements. as the gentleman knows, i'm a supporter of the free trade agreement. i don't think it would create those 250,000 jobs tomorrow or the next month or the month after, but i agree with the gentleman that that's good

policy. feas controversial policy on -- it's controversial policy on both sides of the aisle. you want to reduce taxpayers -- the job creation act has small tax cuts to do that. we addressed the housing crisis by giving regulators incentives to deal responsibly with banks and their borrowers. in fact, and history shows that regulation and oversight and the receiveree being on the field was a policy that the previous administration thought got in the way. the ones who get in the way of the game are not useful but to make sure people play by the rules are essential. yield back. >> i thank the gentleman and i

would simply respond that the republican no-cost jobs plan is a plan that was fashioned around the principle that we've got to remove the uncertainty gripping the small businesses and job creators in this country. so contrary to the suggestion that the gentleman made about the fact that we just want to get rid of regulation, what the plan actually said, madam speaker, was to halt any proposed regulation expected to have an economic cost or result in job loss or have a disparate impact on small business. in the same way, we called for lowering the deficit now without raising taxes, because as we all know people don't know where washington's next move is going. and so we said let's just freeze domestic discretionary spending at last year's level.

my goodness, every small business owner, every family in this country is having to go through that exercise and frankly is having to cut, not just freeze. and in the same way, the suggestion that perhaps republicans wouldn't support transparency and even playing field and regulations that will control the amount of leverage on wall street, that's silly. of course we support efforts like that. but what we do know is that this administration -- and frankly the majority in congress has been very slow in getting the message out to auditors, regulators in the field that they should be reflecting the sentiments that the secretary of treasury and chairman of the federal reserve has said, which is we need to turn back to some sense of normalcy in the assessment of risk because we all know this country has been built on entrepreneurialism, on

opportunity. it is not that we have seen our prosperity come from this government. that's where really, madam speaker, the differences lie, because we don't believe that the way back to economic revival is through more keynesian economic policy and the gentleman can suggest that the bush policies failed. obviously i disagree. he would probably defend the carter policies. i would disagree with that and say they were an utter failure. he would probably say the policies of reagan were a failure and i would disagree with that. at the end of the day, what really is the problem here, this government under the majority's rule and this president has continued to expand. we haven't put an end to the bailout culture. every time we expect to see the tarp program end, there is another use that has come up for that money, which is an

emergency program. every time we expect to say to business owners and to working families, let's stop sending signals that we're going to impose costs on you. so if it's a cap and trade bill, if it's a card check bill or tax increase, why can't we just say stop? let the american people regain their sense of economic security and let the ingent in the private sector take hold again. and i yield. >> i heard that rhetoric 24 years here and i certainly heard it for the last eight years. the gentleman likes to put words in my mouth about previous administrations what i might say or did say. we are talking about policies that you want to replicate that have been pursued. that was my point, remains my point. i i think it is a valid point. did your policies work. you can argue all you want you will say that the bush

administration policies have worked. you have not in anyway have said that the figures i have said on this floor not only today but you had many opportunities to see whether or not i'm accurate, are wrong. in point of fact, they did not produce what you said they were going to produce. we need to adopt policies that did produce. the reason i compared the clinton and bush administrations is because under the clinton administration you said the policies wouldn't work. i didn't mean you personally, but your party said they wouldn't work. it's not the only administration, not the reagan administration, not the first or second bush administrations that produced surpluses. after eight years, they had a net surplus. no administration in your lifetime has had a net surplus in eight years other than the clinton administration. not one. so from that perspective, i will

tell you here and again these statistics, you don't like, you prefer that i simply look at the problems that we are confronting now. why are we confronting these problems? because your economic program did not work and plunged us into the deepest recession we have had in 75 years. i raise my voice only because you simply ignore that. you say, we don't want to look at what happened or look at what our policies produced. we want to look in the future. we do, too. what we have been doing, as i pointed out to you, is trying to bring this economy out of the ditch in which we found it, in which the american people feel very stressed, properly so. we have to give them back to jobs. first thing we had to do was to stop losing so many jobs. again i report, the last three months of the bush administration, we lost two

million jobs. the last three months, we have lost 200,000, way too many, but 1/10 of what your policies produced or did not produce in the last three months of the bush administration. that's so what, you say. let's not repeat those mistakes. let's invest in our future, which is what we did in the recovery and reinvestment act. and mark zandi said we save 1.6 million jobs. did it work perfectly? it worked better than the policies we were pursuing frankly that we inheritted. that my point and a valid point. if the gentleman disagrees with my figures, i will be glad to be corrected and i believe they're accurate. let me say one additional thing. >> i didn't yield, madam

speaker. >> you took back the time. if you don't want me to continue, i won't. >> i yield. >> i want to say something about certainty, i agree with the gentleman. we need certainty. we try to give certainty in the estate tax. your side voted against that. we tried to give certainty in tax extenders and tried to extend the tax extenders and your side didn't vote for that. i don't think you did either. but i agree with your premise and wanted to make that clear, one of the reasons -- that's one of the reasons we tried to pass making sure that doctors treating medicare patients knew what they would be getting years out so that medicare would have the stability that it needs. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman, madam speaker. i would say again, somehow in the gentleman's memory of these past years, there is something that is left out, and that is that this body and congress,

because during the clinton years, the clinton years that saw prosperity, there was a republican-controlled congress and republican-controlled congress yielded tax policies that we believed could once again get us back on track in the same way, all the job losses that the gentleman continues to recite and point fingers and blame on the prior administration, if we're going to play that game, i would say that since his party has taken control of this body, we've lost in this country 6.1 million jobs. as he says, none of the job losses are acceptable. i would say there are many ways to look at these figures and who was responsible for what and could claim credit for such. but at the end of the day, what we're facing right now is a situation where the american people and the small businesses and the working families of this country need to regain some

confidence. and so i would ask the gentleman directly, if we're about removing uncertainty, is he willing to say to the small business owners out there and the people of this country, no card check bill this session, no cap and trade this session, no death tax this session and no hiking taxes in the time of unemployment that we are in? those are the things that we could send a message to the entrepreneurs and small businesses to left this veil of uncertainty, and i yield. >> mr. cantor, this is a scheduling colloquy and has gone on a long time and it's a very political colloquy, more political than i was involved with mr. delay. that's good rhetoric. none of those are scheduled.

the gentleman knows none of them are scheduled. the gentleman doesn't like the figures and he hardships back to the we were in charge in 2007 and 2008. he knows well what we're not talking about is blame but talking about what policies were in force. if the gentleman says that we changed the economic policies in 2007 and 2008, i'm glad to hear which policies we were able to change and president bush signed on to. that's the issue. the gentleman -- wants to avoid that issue. the question is not blame. the question is, what policies worked and which policies did not. i suggest to the gentleman that all of the issues to which you referred in your question about the so-called death tax, the estate tax which affects approximately half a percent of

the estates as the gentleman knows and which we wanted to frankly increase by $2.5 million permanently than what it would be under your policies of one million and 55% january, 2011. it's now at zero. that was not intended to be the permanent policy. andñi you simply said you would revert under the bill that you passed -- not you personally -- so we want to make that certainty. so the answer is yes, we want to make it certain. 3.5 million per person is a reasonable amount and will cover all but 1/10 of 1% of all the estates in america or thereabouts. and the other items which you refer that animates those in

your party are not scheduled, as the gentleman knows. i'm not going to make assertions of what we will or will not schedule at this point in time but i can tell you we don't have any schedule. >> i thank the gentleman. and i thank him for his indulgence. if the scheduling piece of this colloquy has now yielded, the fact that there is an uncertainty as to whether we will seek card check or cap and trade, i think that is the message that is going to be delivered to the small businesses. but in closing, madam speaker, i would note that from virginia, to new jersey, to massachusetts, the people of those states and i believe the people of america have spoken. the people of america want a congress to work in a bipartisan fashion that will get the

american people back to work. republicans on our part will continue to offer solutions just as we have done for the last year. and we hope -- >> will the gentleman yield on that issue?  >> i yield. >> did the gentleman believe that america spoke in november of 2008, not just a state, not just virginia, not just new jersey but does gentleman believe that america spoke in 2008 in voting overwhelmingly for the policies that this president put before to respond to the crisis that confronted our country and none of us at that point in time didn't perceive how deep the crisis was. all of america voted handedly for this president who has put policies before this congress to try to try to address the issues of bringing our economy back, giving americans health care they could count on, making sure that we were energy independent. you talk about votes, this president was elected just

approximately a little over a year ago to carry out the policies he has been presenting. and notwithstanding that election, as i recall, your party has not supported his policies at all. >> i thank the gentleman for that and i would say in closing, yes, america voted in 2008 for barack obama to become president of the united states. it is this november that the people had the opportunity in the two states and just this week the people of massachusetts had an opportunity to vote for their senator, based on the policies that have come out of this new administration and the majority in congress. it is those poll situation that -- policies that were voted on this time and it's those policies that i believe do not reflect the mainstream of

america and where the republicans stand ready to work with the gentleman and his party in trying to bring the debate and these policy solutions back towards where most americans feel we ought to be heading in terms of direction for this country. i do thank the gentleman. and i yield back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up, a look at president obama's first year in office. after that a discussion on the 2008 presidential election. following that, a few programs on internet freedom beginning with remarks from secretary of state hillary clinton. a discussion on the u.s. government's initiatives for ep open access to the internet and the impact on u.s.-china relations. >> sunday on "washington

journal," a discussion on the status of health care legislation in light of the massachusetts senate election with the "washington examiner" and "the nation." a look at the american red cross's haitian relief efforts. then we'll talk on the fute furnish of guantanamo bay detainees that's live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> each year the washington sebt center brings thousands of students to washington, d.c. to experience the workings of our government. they'll discuss politics, government and their futures sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. >> now syndicated columnist and commentator charles krauthammer on the obama's administrations first year. his remarks focus on foreign policy issues and the role of the u.s. in international affairs. this is a little over 50

minutes. >> good morning everybody, i'm vice president of the heritage foundation for foreign policy and national defense. i would like to welcome all of you to the heritage foundation and special welcome to those joining us online for this very special event, our sixth margaret thatcher freedom lecture. we created this lecture series in 2006. we wanted to weigh not only tore honor lady thatcher but also to bring greater clarity and attention to the principles and policies that undergirled freedom not only in the united states but around the world. we asked a former dissident to

answer the question is freedom for everyone. he did so eloquently, establishing a standard for this lecture series that our subsequent speakers have matched. we have heard heard about economic freedom, religious freedom, on whether the united nations advances the cause of freedom and the important relationship between security and freedom. advancing freedom is a major goal of the heritage foundation and important element of all the work that we do here. in fact, tomorrow, we will release in hong kong and in washington the 16th he addition conomic n the 16th he addition freedom. you will want to stay tuned, because there is a bit of big and i'm afraid bad news in the index score for freedom in the united states. our speaker today is dr. charles krauthammer whose remarks may seem pressing. on december 25, he described

president obama's first year in office and i quote, the year of living fectouslessly. most of us know that dr. krauthammer writes an internationally syndicated column for the "washington post." he is a harvard educated medical doctor and chief resident at sigh ki try at massachusetts general hospital. in 1978 he decided to leave medical practice and came to washington to write for "the new republic." in 1980, a speech writer for vice president mondale and 1985, began writing for "washington post" which we have enjoyed every week ever since. in addition to this weekly column, he pens a monthlies a for "time." a frequent commentator on tv and a public speaker.

over the years, his commentary has received many honors, including a pull itser prize in 1987. national magazine award fores as and criticism, the first bradley prize and the eric binedell award. in 2006, the financial times named him most influential commentator in america and they were definitely on to something. it is remarkable how much charles krauthammer has contributed to the lexicon and coined phrases like the reagan doctrine and the fall of the berlin wall to describe u.s. influence and dominance and democratic idealism since september 11. many of us have read his columns and found ourselves saying yes, that's exactly right. that's because his writings is

incisive and his thinking so clear that it crystalizes our own thoughts perfectly. charles krauthammer is not just a commentator, more than any other journalist, but maker of the aha moments because he gives voice to what so many of us believe. without his commitment to the truth, i believe we would be poor in thought and also less free. thank you, charles, for honoring us today for your thoughts for the sixth margaret thatcher freedom lecture. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome charles krauthammer. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you, kim, for that kind introduction. i feel when i hear my checkered

past recall, i should respond, especially to the mondale bit. people ask me how do you go from walter mondale to fox news, the answer is easy. i was young once. [laughter] >> a long time ago. perhaps i should have subtitled my address, how do you celebrate the first anniversary of the second coming. [laughter] >> it has the -- confounded people for centuries. when i was thinking of my subject for this address, obama was halfway on his trajectory downward trajectory from divity to mortality. but now that we have arrived at the last day of his year, the magic has worn off and charisma

has gone gold. massachusetts, the blewest of the -- bluest of the blue states is thinking of electing a republican to a senate seat reserved to the kennedy family where the obama approval rating is at 46% and his disapproval rating is the highest ever. there is no need for me to trace and explain his remarkable decline. instead of talking about where obama's domestic agenda has brought him, i propose to speak about where his foreign policy agenda has brought us. after a year of fairly steady criticism from the right, the obama foreign policy received a second look, a wave of rather considerable consideration after his speech in norway accepting

the nobel prize and acknowledged the existence of evil the importance of america and the occasional necessity of waging war. this led to some enthusiastic talk about a new obama doctrine variously described as kind of a christian realism,la borrowian tragic mindedness. i hate to rain on his parade, but i find it hard to join in the general swooning over this newly found foreign policy sophistication. yes, it's good that we have a president who says that gandy would not have done -- gandhi would not have done well against hitler, but is this a philosophical advance for the president of the united states? this is the kind of issue that you dispose of.

in your first evening full session in the freshman dorm. pacificism is a serious subject for sweet adolescents or a way of life for certain eccentric sects, who it must be noted survive because they live among noneccentric sects who reject pacificism and fight to keepñr those little sects alive and free. .

what leader of the nation even raise his pacifism as a serious foreign policy issue? it tells us much, none of it good, about the baseline from which he is not operating during his first year in office.

and after this brief foray, obama felt compelled to spend the second half of his address returning to the liberal themes that have garnered him the fatuous prize in the first place. what is the baseline? what is the essence of the obama foreign policy? things like this can be found in the cairo speech, in other legs of the tour, and expressed in his address to the un general assembly. "power is a zero sum game. no one nation should try and

dominate another nation. no order elevates one nation or group above another, and alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of along gone cold war will not exist in an interconnected world." power is no longer a zero sum game? tell that to the demonstrators in the streets of tehran, to the newly liberated nations of the baltic states. no nation should try toñi dominate another? well, perhaps that is really adolescent utopianism. the struggle for domination is the very essence of international life. no nation can dominate another?

this is nonsense. how can some one of such high intelligence even allow him to say this? most disturbing is what he called the cleavages of award on -- the long gone cold war. they are actually divided between the free and on free, between the west, and the evil empire. with colonies from cuba to vietnam. and this was no accidental dividing line. obama wants to bring about a new 21st century world of universal understanding and accommodation, for the u.s. to

be a morula tipple, -- moral example, ledñi by a fellow citin ofñi the world, as obama calls himself in berlin'. candidate obama offered the best insight into how we see the world. there is no challenge to great for a world that stands as one. if anything, the world stood as two. those who for the same decade strove to maintain it wanted to put it up in the first place. a lot came down not because of a kum-bay-yah, a coming together

of nations, but because the united states got into hot wars, korea and vietnam, and won a cold war that carry the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. persistent to contain and destroyed the soviet empire. only someone who would think the cold war is an exertion of common humanity would actually get these fictional forces hold the key to security and peace in the world to their, but obama apparently does. a part of this fantasy is the very notion that a community of

nations ultimately determines the course of history. there are different visions of good between the arabs of saharan and the christian sudanese who of had a civil war over the last few decades, to say nothing of the north and south of this country. resources and power are not infinite. people strive to gain what others have. this is all of elementary. the struggle for privacy

accounts for other constants. against all of this, in the center of obama's world is the international community. he calls on north korea to stand up, to restrain iran's to clear ambitions -- nuclear ambitions, for disarmament. but obama offer such ostentatious demonstrations of national virtue, as he sees it, as closing guantanamo and in during harsh interrogation for terror restaurants. the idea of the international community lies at the center of the obama foreign policy. unfortunately, it is a fixture. -- it is a fiction.

there is this such thing. different countries have different histories. they only occasionally align themselves. there is no it natural inherent or enduring international community. the international community is a hobbesian state of nature, kept in check up by a bureaucracy, -- not by bureaucracy, not by promises, but by the will and power of the great powers.

one highly revealing analysis of obama foreign policy spoke about how obama's approach to policy owed much to his experience as a community organizer, seeking, and ends. under the protection of a secure, regulated, and consentual domestic and civic society. what holds of the society together is the sanctity of contract and the good will, stability, and decency of members. what keeps it from the

generating is not treaties or the good will of civilized nations. what stability we have is due to the overwhelming power in deterring threats in a superpower like the united states that defines international stability over national interest. nonetheless, we seem devoted to the community, making many manifestations. the united nations, the various parties, and most recently, the copenhagen conference, which demonstrated the fatuousness of such international structures.

çóyet this seems to leave no lasting impression. we really have learned nothing from the early 20th-ñicentury experience, from repeated and doomed attempts to regulate the capital shifts of the great powers. did we learn nothing from the kellogg pact that abolished war forever, with a certainty that one frank keller look at the nobel peace prize in 1929? sound familiar? but i believe kellogg actually signed a treaty. [laughter] obama got it over imagined

useless treaties, like those insisted on for nuclear disarmament. the best of the internationalism can be seen in the pursuit of the global, the most dramatic instance of which occurred on september 24, one day after obama's speech to the general assembly where he ostentatiously addressed to the security council. obama had knowledge thadr iran had constructed a secret uranium enrichment facility. the french and british were urging him to use that study at

the council to stunned the world with that resolutionñi, to call for immediate, powerful action. not only did obama refuse, but president sarkozy was forced to scrap any mention from his speech. obama only revealed this a day later in pittsburgh. why did he forgo the opportunity? because obama did not want anything at the meeting to get in the way of his dream of a nuclear-free world. he did not want to dilute his proposed disarmament resolution with a diversion. iran is not a diversion. it is the most important security decision on the planet.

sarkozy was sitting at the table watching this and could hardly contain himself. obama has said he dreams of a world withoutpnéáiçmkqoyue/zçói and it two countries are doing the exact opposite. and then he informed the president that we lived in a real world, not a virtual world. ñiñr particular we reject all treaties or all of nations. of we can have transnational agreementsñiñiçóçóñi between nar do share norms and therefore are real. çóñiçóñiçóthere are various agt

underlines the european unionagt that have the power of domestic f hold natohe power of domestic together. ñiñiñiñrñsrñrñiñiñiiñrçóñióñra tyrannical, compliant, and congenitally noncompliant, such will not be possible. it is not only useless, but worse than useless. for example, alleging violations of non-proliferation treaties, a procedure that leads to complacency and nothing but endless delay gives us the illusion of enforcement.

these agreements are almost always never enforced. indeed, the one instance of enforcement is the removal of saddam hussein after a decade of serial violations of security council resolutions and mandated disarmament. obama has spent much of the luster apologizing for it. as for this community of nations, this does not mean there are no such communities.

obama's internationalism is particularly troubling, because as he stated at the united nations, true universality involves denigrating these ideological assessments based on archaic divisions. in his u.s. address, he said in a measure that elevates one nation or group above another will succeed. but isn't that what nato is about, nations claiming

exclusivity to themselves, intent on enforcing laws in which they believe? nato elevates itself above other groups and people to declare that genocide is not acceptable as expressed the united nations security council. this is a denigration of the commonality in special relations among the queue of free nations, and it has practical implications on american actions and the world. and that impact is already being felt by allies and adversaries.

if our ultimate aim is to earn a place, we must abandon any sign of arrogance, any prideful assertion, and begin to construct and constrain our often irresponsible power. to do that, we must undertake to things. out reach an accommodation. exploration has been engaged in relentlessly. but as the apology for president eisenhower's role, for ron, for mistreatment of native americans, for disspiriting and disrespecting europe by not

recognizing a leading role in the world, and because it is perfectly under american protection. but i digress. above all, we must apologize abundantly for showing insufficient respect and understanding of the muslim world. this from a leader of a nation that has conducted five military campaigns in the last 20 years, each of which was intended to defend defenseless muslims and deliver them from their oppressors bosnia, costello, kuwait, afghanistan, iraq. after the atonement, after the catharsis of confession comes reconciliation. we have now had a year of this

as well. what is clear is that reconciliation, starting from scratch with adversaries. these conflicts did not come out of nowhere. they did not arise capriciously. they came from interest and dahlias, and we have allies in these clashes. that is why starting the world a new, as obama imagines, pressing the reset button all over the world has consequences. for a typical congress setting relations with russia and caving missile defense. theç((+qhsó republic and poland

left once again wondering about american reliability and about their own post cold war independence, and whether they are now returning to the window ofñr the sovereignty constrained by the deterrent of moscow. hence to read a bowling and scraping in china after a refusal to meet with the dollar llama as a gesture on behalf of human rights, insisting on elevating china gratuitously to near superpower status. it was even suggested, a chinese interest in the indian subcontinent, not well received in india.

çóa common language, a common tradition,, and democracy. indians have to settle for the consolation prize of the white house state dinner with the salahis. [laughter] the relentless pressure on israel, in non-issue of settlement to create gratuitous daylight and with the arab states, honduras as a comedy of errors, with obama reflectively

support and chavez -- supporting troublouchildjochavez. lebanon's role in the assassination. the obama administration is now offering conciliation and the return of the ambassador. the lebanese know how to read it went direction -- wind direction, hence the astonishing visit to damascus to entertain a known murderer who

is now a rising national power, as the obama administration resets relations. the combination with enemies is not a free lunch. it has its price. insisting on the support of the democratic demonstrators in the streets. the vocal critique is not just that it is naive and a stay on the american tradition of supporting democratic forces around the world, but the worst

of all, it has been a failure. we chose russia over eastern europe, and what did we get in could -- return? nothing. in chinaçó, they will oppose any sanctions. xdobama arrived, and arabs now refused any negotiation and led the united states to extract in a lateral negotiations -- unilateral negotiations with israel.

should this policy continued for the next three years, let alone the next seven, it will have profound consequences throughout the world. it would constitute a gradual american retreat. with the possible exception of afghanistan, although obama has insisted that within 18 months a retreat from their begins as well, it will have consequences when erstwhile allies see the umbrella withdrawn. they will begin to accommodate themselves to the countries we were protecting them from. so obvious are the consequences of the disconnect between the real world and what the

president of france calls obama a's virtual world, we believe the current policies can continue indefinitely. at some point, reality must intervene. the reality of iranian in transients, of china's pursuit of its own national interests, of russia's determination to regain its view abroad, of the arab states' refusal to accept any kind of settlement of the kind that israel has already offered them, and serious designs on lebanon and countries in latin america. maybe i'm wrong. maybe this foreign policy can persist indefinitely. perhaps obama will find himself

resistant to empirical evidence and experience. in this case, the weakening of alliances in moscow, beijing, pteron, and elsewhere will continue until some capitalism raises up. such are the ways of living in a virtual world. we need it soon. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you for that speech. thank you very much for that. we have some time for discussion, for some questions. if you could identify yourself. >> i am a professor of american university, teaching a class in the history of the conservative movement. thank you for coming today and all that you do. i was wondering if you could expand your thoughts more on u.s. foreign policy which hugo chavez is involved in, and the policy for the next three to seven yearss7?

>> quite damaging the calling it a coup with the conditions of the constitutional reality is it fell apart, it was an election where is the very end we accepted a clear solution to the issue. i think there was some improvement towards the end. it was the first time where empirical evidence leads over

time to a maturation. that was the first example of a crisis. the other interesting thing is how the obama administration will submit to domestic concerns over pressing international concerns. columbia is a classic example of a country overcoming enormous obstacles in the name of freedom and doing it with great depth against an adversary in chavis, who is intent on damaging it. here is a way in which we can express our support, both symbolically and materially,

because of the democrats, the influence wielded at the party. as we actively state, i am not sure of the crises in this hemisphere. which is why it is a lower scale of urgency. but the internal problems in venezuela, it is not going to be the united states. ñi>> thank you for your interesting lecture.

growing up in the u.s.s.r., we looked upon reagan paused movement -- reagan paused movement, and i've watched these celebrationsñi. do you see a problem in rewriting the history, and why there has not been any resistance in our park to counterattack the efforts that took place in 1980? >> that was a telling comment you made. ñrñrand it is telling to have a

president who removes himself to copenhagen for the olympics, to copen sagan for climate change, and to oslo, but he does not show up in berlin at an event of biblical proportions. that tells you how he sees the world. i could have used any one of -- dozens. instances where you can see his priority, and not how rigid they are in the fundamental values of the u.s. and the west as cleavages of an obsolete conflict. it tells you a lot about his world view.

the berlin event was great, very telling. reagan, thatcher, pope john paul, and others. grachev was a hapless character, but he did not shoot people in the street. you have to make a choice. but the unraveling, it was arguing, it was pressure applied to states. and i remind people who do not remember, the marquee in france, people forget that in the 1980's, the enormous struggle

but reagan-thatcher had. the largest demonstrations in history. there was one in new york against the reagan nuclear policies, a free demonstration. a demonstration that thatcher had to face when she approved placement of the persians. all this when we thought everyone was on board in a pressure didn't learn much. >> israel has stated that and nuclear-armed iran is an existential situation for them,

and it appears that europe and the obama administration have more or less accepted a nuclear- armed iran. do you suspect israel will attack, and if they do, how do you foresee the consequences of that happening? >> i think in the end, israel will, and the consequences will be grave. the only question is a technical one. can this be done? do they have enough intelligence? is the spot accessible by attack or not? did they have the resources and human capacity to do major damage that will set them back a few years? the israelis are not imagine they will get a solution, but with the history the jews have,

even a few years is important. you only have a temporary respite. but what will happen is predictable. iranians will probably scuttle ships into the persian gulf to shut down the oil trade, set off a recession. 40,000 rockets. for the israelis, it is a hard choice to make.

millions of jews are living under the threat of annihilation, and that will trump all other considerations. they can deal with the other problems, i think they think, at a conventional level. but a nuclear country pledged openly to the eradication of israel is a threat that i do not think it will put up with. >> we have time for one more question. over there. >> good morning. i just want to thank you for your contributions. my question is this, relative to spending. what happens in 2010 if the

chinese decide to not show up at the auction block? >> two questions of the apocalypse, huh? i am not sure the chinese would do that. it is not in their self interest. we will lose our place, and that is a huge advantage, but it would be catastrophic for the chinese becausexd if they sent the dollar into the spiral, they're holding a lot of dollars.

we will follow, float our way out of our debt, gradually. that is why in the long run, they will try to diversify the dollar and other currencies. but to not show up, i am not sure it is a mutually assured destruction. the chinese are very rational people who have a long-range view of history. for the next election cycle for us, the chinese look for the next century. >> thank you. we will be publishing charles' speech in the matter of a couple days. thank you very much for being

here. we hope to hear your strong voice for many years to come, and i would like to think all of you, as well, for coming here today. i hope to be able to see you again. thank you very much. [applause] >> each year, the washington center brings dozens of students to washington d.c. to experience the work of our government first can. this weekend, they discussed politics, government, and their futures.

>> we are joined by the authors of "game change." i heard you had a list of things you thought would make news in this book. it has been out of here for some time now. what on the list are you surprised that? 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 people are not going to be forthcoming the way they were they are too busy, and there is too much at stake. they're willing to cooperate, and they understood the project's importance. secondly, they do not have the time, as we did, able to project

journalism, there is no way to do that daily. host: have you got in reaction from your sources? guest: we have. we talk to a lot of people. most of these people are people weñr have had up warm relationships with, close to 20 years. f 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 hathe 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 felt. they had gone sailing with him. president clinton would tell people how angry and frustrated he was that he had done so much for the kennedy family as president and they were drifting towards obama. hillary and bill clinton have incredible political support in massachusetts, and one of the satisfying moments for them on super tuesday was despite the fact that senator kennedy had

endorsed barack obama, hillary was able to win massachusetts. some of her field operatives in massachusetts and new hampshire are now, as i understand, working for the democratic nominee there. they probably should have been there a little sooner. most people watching the race closely believe that their involvement is being done at the last minute, very quickly, and may be too little, too late, if i may use a cliche on c-span. host: steve on the republican line. caller: i'm wondering if you could talk about mitt romney, the conflict between his public image and private conduct. and also mike huckabee. thanks. guest: for a variety of reasons, we did not spend as much time on the republican race, because it lacked the drama. but there are some things on it romney could to the specific question, there is one of very striking example of the striking public image and private reality and the kiss of romney.

mitt romney's public image, if anything, was defined as a competent ceo character. he was an arch catalyst and had run -- arch-capitalist and had run bain capital. he could run government like running a board room. throughout our coverage in the book of romney was the fact that the staff was totally frustrated that he was totally indecisive. he could not decide on something as elemental as picking a campaign slogan. they never came up with a campaign slogan. the consultant side of him actually dominated in some ways. he would ask for more and more input and constantly take more and more time and wanted more and more data, and the deluge of data that he sought actually cut paralyzed and 34 people around him, -- actually kind of paralyzed him.

for people around him, the worse died. -- they were stunned. we have details of how much john mccain, how much mike huckabee and others disliked commit money to he was sort of a preening -- this like to make romney. he was sort of eigha preening prima donna. they would malkin behind his back, and that he would rocked -- would mock him behind his back, and he would walk into the room and it would be kind of a hushed. host: could you tell us about the difference between rudy giuliani on the campaign trail and in private? guest: the book is about politics and the sense that we write about presidential candidates and their spouses, but our goal was to write about

the personalities and the high human drama. we knew all the time that we had an interesting set of characters. pretty giuliani is the seventh--- we knew we had an interesting set of characters went rudy giuliani was the seventh-the most interesting candidate. a clean up new york city and stood up to terrorists after 9/11. but on the campaign trail, he was not a tiger, but a pussycat. when he was shown at negative ads point out against him, he would laugh at them and said that all of those were silly. in debates, when he was challenged by opponents, he laughed. he never showed the toughness and hunger to win. rinceau counter to his image. -- it ran so counter to his image. his inability to define himself and reinforce his greatest

strengths, the image of being tough, was a big part of his downfall. the person who knew him best in the old, was john mccain. they had been friends since back when rudy giuliani was mayor. when mccain was starting to fall, he was never worried about rudy giuliani. he said rudy is rudy.

>> each year, the washington center brings thousands of students to washington, d.c. to experience the workings of our glovet first hand. this weekend, they will discuss politics and their government. >> friday, the chinese foreign ministry rejected a call by secretary of state hillary clinton to lift restrictions on the internet. now here's her speech that led

to that response. this is just over an hour. good morning. i welcome you to an event that i think we will all long remember. we are privileged this morning to witness a major foreign policy speech by our secretary of state immediately following i encourage you to stay for a panel discussion led by ann marie slaughter the director of the policy plabbing staff. this is the perfect setting for a discussion about freedom. the news yum is not a classic museum. it has of course lots of history but its purpose is to promote the freedoms that allowed that history to be freely and fully told first by newspapers then radio, then television, and now the web.

the news yum exists to illustrate values embdied in the first amendment. five freedoms that have been ours for crntrizz and that we hold as dear going into the internet 21st century as we did at the time of the revolution. the news un is also about honoring reporters, women and men who gave their lives so that others might know the truth there is a beautiful space on the third floor of this building dedicated to them, and we are particularly grateful to you, madam secretary, for having presided over the original dedication of that memorial when it was in arlington and you were first lady. the location and your duties have changed but your support remains and we truly appreciate that. i'm also delighted to welcome you here in another role, as

president of the foundation dedicated to the democratic ideal of informed engaged communities, just as we support free expression. more than 150 years ago, jack night said that the purpose of a great newspaper was to inform and illuminate the minds of its readers so that the people might determine their own true interests. those values resonate today as the tools of a net worked world help shed light on social problems and opportunities as they empower democratic action. the commission on the information needs of communities and a democracy, a project of the aspen institute, co-chaired by former solicitor chairman ted olson and google vice president released its report here last october. a central conclusion of that report is that internet freedom

and universal access are interlocking tools of a functioning democracy. they function together and they should be seen as a common goal. we support the freedoms and the access to information that are at the core of the american experience. those freedoms make us who we are and we should welcome the opportunity to let them define us. we are here today to address that theme. and so it is with pride and great anticipation that i present to you the secretary of state of the united states, hillary clinton. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction and your and your colleague's leadership of this important institution. it's a pleasure to be here.

this is a monument to some of our most precious freedoms and i'm grateful to discuss how those freedoms apply to the challenges of the 21st century. although i can't see all of you because in settings like this the lights are in my eyes and you are in the dark, i know that there are many friends and former colleagues. i wish to acknowledge charles overby the c.e.o. of freedom forum here, senator richard lugor and senator joe lieberman, my former colleagues in the senate, both of whom worked for passage of the voice act which speaks to congress' and the american people's commitment to internet freedom. a commitment that crosses party lines and branches of government. also, i'm told here as well are senator sam brownback, senator ted coffman, representative loretta sanchez, many representatives of the diplomatic core, ambassadors,

chargest, participants in our international visitor leadership program on internet freedom from china, colombia, iran, and lebanon and mol doveo. and i also want to acknowledge walter yikesson president of the institute recently named to our broadcasting board of governors and instrument cral on supporting the work on internet freedom that the aspen ibstute has been doing. this is an important speech on a very important subject. but before i begin, i want to just speak briefly about haiti because during the last eight days the people of haiti and the people of the world have joined together to deal with a tragedy of staggering proportions. our hems atmosphere has seen its share of hardship but there are few precedents for the situation we're facing in port ah prince. communication networks have

played a critical role in our response. they were, of course, decimated and in many places totally destroyed. and in the hours after the quake, we worked with partners in the private sector, first to set up the text haiti campaign so that mobile phone users in the united states could doe nate to relief efforts via text messages. that initiative has been a showcase for the generosity of the american people and thus far it's raised over $25 million for recovery efforts. information networks have also play add critical role on the ground. when i was with the president in on saturday, one of his top priorities was to try to get communications up and going. the government couldn't talk to each other, what was left of it, and ngos, civilian leadership, military leadership were severely impacted. the technology community has

set up interactive map to help us identify needs and target resources. and on monday, a seven-year-old girl and two women were pulled from the rubble of a collapsed super market by an american search and rescue team after they sent a text message calling for help. now, these examples are manifesttations of a much broader phenomenon. the spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet. when something happens in haiti or hunan, the rest of us learn about it in realtime from real people and we can respond in realtime as well. americans eager to help in the aftermath of a disaster and the girl trapped in the super markt are connected in ways that were not even imagined a year ago even a generation ago. that same principle applies to almost all of humanity today. as we sit here, any of you or

maybe more likely any of our children can take out the tools that many carry every day and transmit this discussion to billions across the world. now, in many respects information has never been so free. there are more ways to spread more ideas to more people than at any moment in history. and even in thor taryn countries information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable. during his visit to china in november president obama held a townhall meeting to high light the importance of the the internet, in response to a question that was sent in over the internet he defended the right toff people to freely access information. and said the more freely information flows, the stronger societies become. he spoke about how access to information helps citizens hold

their own governments accountable. generates new ideas. encourages creativity and entrepreneurship. the united states beliefs in that ground truth is what brings me here today. because amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmiltgate blessing. these tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns, or nuclear power can either energize a city or destroy it, modern information networks and the technologies they support can be harnessed for good or for ill. the same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al qaeda to spew hatred and incite violence

against the innocent. and technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be high jacked by governments to crush dissent and human rights. in the last year we've seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. china, tunisia and use beck stan have stepped up their censorship of the internet. in vietnam, access to popular social networks sites has suddenly disappeared. and last friday in egypt, 30 bloggers and activists were detained. one member of this group, who is thankfully no longer in prison, is with us today. so while it is clear that the spread of these technologies is transforming our world, it is still unclear how that transformation will affect the human rights and the human welfare of the world population. on their own, new technologies do not take sides in the

struggling for freedom and progress, but the united states does. we stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. and we recognize that the world's information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it. now, this challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. the words of the first amendment to our constitution are carved in 50 tons of tennessee marble on the front of this building. and every generation of americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone. franklin roosevelt built on these ideas when he delivered his for freedom speech in 1941. now, at the time americans faced a cavelcade of crisis and a crisis of confidence. but the vision of a world in which all people enjoyed freedom of expression, freedom

of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear transcended the troubles of his day. and years later, one of my hero's, elno roosevelt worked to have these principles adopted as a corner stone of human rights. they have provide add load star to every succeeded generation guiding us, galvanizing us and enabling us to move forward in the face of uncertainty. so as it can noling hurdles forward, we must think back to that legacy. we need to synchronize our technological progress with our principles. in accepting the noble prize, president obama spoke about the need to build a world in which peace rests on the inherent rights and dignities of every individual. and in my speech on human rights at georgetown a few days later, i talked about how we must find ways to make human

rights a reality. today we find an urgent need to protect these freedoms on the digital front tiers of the 21st century. there are many networks in the free world, and some facilitate exchanges between individuals with the same work or interests. but the internet is a network that magnifies the power and potential of all others. and that's why we believe it's critical that its users are assured certain basic freedoms. freedom of expression is first among them. this freedom is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of rhett bution. blogs, e-mails, social networks and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas and created new targets for sensorships. as i speak to you today, government sensors somewhere

are working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. but history itself have already condemned these tactics. two months ago, i was in germany to celebrate the fall of the berlin wall. the leaders paid tribute to the courageous men and women on the far side of that barrier who made the case against oppression. by circulating small pamphlets called leaf lets questioned the claims and intentions of dictatorships in the eastern bloc and many people paid dealer for distributing them. but their words helped pierce the concrete and wire of the iron curtain. the berlin wall symbolized a world divided and it defined an entire era. today, remnants of that wall sit inside this museum where they belong. and the new iconic infrastructure of our age is

the internet. instead of division, it stands for connection. . . which tells us that all people have the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas to any media and regardless of frontiers. with the spread of these restrictive practices, a new

information curtain is descending across much of the world. and beyond this partition, by role videos and blog post are becoming the indicators of our day. in the demonstrations that followed iran's presidential elections, grainy cellphone footage of a young woman's bloody murder provide a digital indictment of the government brutality. we have seen reports that when iranians living overseas posted online criticism of their nations' leaders, their family members in iran were singled out for retribution. and despite an intense campaign of government intimidation, braves citizen journalist in iran continue using technology to show the world and their fellow citizens what is happening inside their country.

and speaking out on behalf of their own human rights, the iranian people have inspired the world. their courage is redefining how technology is used to spread troops and expose in justice. all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. we do not tolerate those who incite others to violence, such as the agent of al qaeda, who are at this moment using the internet to promote the mass murder of innocent people across the world. and hate speech that target individuals on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation is reprehensible. it is an unfortunate fact that these issues are the growing challenges that the international community must confront together. we must also grapple with the issue of anonymous speech. those who used the internet to recruit terrorists or to distribute stolen intellectual

property cannot divorce their online actions from their real- world identities. but these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violates the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes. the freedom of expression may be the most obvious freedom to face challenges with the spread of new technologies, but it is not the only one. the freedom of worship usually involves the rights of individuals to commune or not commune with their creator. and that is one channel of communication that does not rely on technology. but the freedom of worship also speaks to the universal right to come together with those who share your values and your vision for humanity. in our history, those gatherings often took place in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. today, they may also take place

on line. the internet can help bridge divides of -- between people of different faiths. as the president said in cairo, freedom of religion is essential to the ability of people to live together. as we look for ways to expand dialogue, the internet holds out such tremendous promise. we have already begun connecting young students in the united states with young people run the world to discuss global challenges. and we will continue using the internet to foster discussion between the religious communities. some nations, however, have coopted the internet as a tool to target and silence people of faith. last year for example, in saudi arabia in and spend months in prison for blogging about christianity. -- a man spent months in prison for plotting about christianity. countries including vietnam and china employed similar tactics

to restrict access to religious information. just as these technologies must not be used to punish peaceful political speech, they must also not be used to persecute or silence religious minorities. prayers will always travel on higher networks, but connection technologies like the internet and social networking sites should enhance an individual's ability to worship as they see fit, come together with people of note -- of their own faith and learn more about the beliefs of others. we must work to advance the freedom of worship on line just as we do in other areas of life. there are, of course, hundreds of millions of people living without the benefits of these technologies. in our world, as i have said many times, talent may be distributed universally but opportunity is not. and we know from long experience that promoting social and

economic development in countries where people lack access to knowledge, markets, capital and opportunity can be frustrating and sometimes futile work. in this context, the internet can serve as a greek -- great equalizer by providing people with access to knowledge and potential markets. the networks can create opportunities where none exists. i have seen this firsthand. in kenya, where farmers have seen their income grow by as much as 30% since they started using mobile banking technology. in bangladesh, where more than 300,000 people have signed up to learn english on their mobile phones. and in sub-saharan africa where women entrepreneurs use the internet to get access to microcredit loans and connect themselves to global markets. these examples of progress can be replicated in the lives of the billion people at the bottom of the world's economic ladder.

in many cases, the internet, mobile phones and other connection technologies can do for economic growth what the green revolution did for agriculture. you can now generate significant yields from very modest inputs. and one world bank study found that in a typical developing country, a 10% increase in the penetration rate for mobile phones lead to an almost 1% increase in per-capita gdp. to put this into context, for india, that would translate into almost $10 billion a year. a connection to global information networks is like an on ramp to modernity. in the year the years of these technologies, many believed that they would divide the world between haves and have-nots. but that has not happened. there are 4 billion self phones

in use today. many of them are and hands of market vendors, rickshaw drivers, and others who historic week at -- lack access to education and opportunity. information networks have become a great leveller. we should use them together to help lift people out of poverty and give them the freedom from want. we have every reason to be hopeful about what people can accomplish when they leverage communication networks and connection technologies to achieve progress. but make no mistake, some are and will continue to use global information networks for darker purposes. violent extremists, criminal cartels, sexual predators, and authoritarian governments all seek to exploit these global networks. just as terrorist have taken advantage of the openness of our society is to carry out their plots, violent extremists use the internet to radicalize

and intimidate. as we work to advance freedom's, we must also work against those who use communication networks as tools of destruction and fear. governments and citizens must have confidence that the networks at the core of their national security and economic prosperity are safe and resilience. this is about more than petty hackers who deface website. our ability to bank online, use of electronic commerce, and safeguard billions of dollars in intellectual property are all at stake if we cannot rely on the security of our information networks. disruptions in these systems demand a coordinated response by all governments, the private sector, and the international community. we need more tools to help law enforcement agencies cooperate across jurisdictions when criminal hackers and organized crime syndicates attack networks

for financial gain. the same is true when social ills such as child pornography and the exploitation of traffic women and girls online is there for the world to see and for those who exploit these people to make a profit. we applaud the efforts, such as the council on europe's convention of sought -- on cyber crime that facilitate international cooperation in prosecuting such offenses and we wish to redouble our efforts. we have taken steps as a government and as a department to find diplomatic solutions to strengthen global cyber security. we had a lot of people in the state department working on this. they have joined together and we created two years ago in office to create a foreign policy in cyberspace. we have work to address this challenge at the u.n. and other platforms to put tighter security on the world's agenda. president obama has just

appointed a new national cyberspace policy coordinator who will help us work even more closely to ensure that everyone's networks stay free, secure, and reliable. state terrorists and those who would act as their proxy's must know that the united states will protect our networks. those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government, and our civil society. countries or individuals that engage in cyber attacks should face the consequences and international condemnation. in an internet -- in an interconnected world, an attack on one nation's networks can be an attack on all. by reinforcing this nest -- this message, we can create norms and encourage respect for the cable network commons. the final freedom, one that was probably inherent in what both

president and mrs. roosevelt thought about and wrote about all those years ago, is one that flows from what i've already mentioned, the freedom to connect. the idea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to website, or to each other. the freedom to connect is like of -- is like the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace. it allows individuals to get on line, come together, and hopefully cooperate. once you are on the internet, you do not need to be a tycoon or a rock star to have a huge impact on society. the largest public response to the terrorist attacks in mumbai was launched by a 13-year-old boy. he used social networks to organize blood drives and a massive interfaith book of condolence. in columbia, -- in columbia, an unemployed engineer brought together more than 12 million people in 190 cities are around

the world to demonstrate against the fork terrorist movement -- fark terrorist movement. there were the largest anti terror demonstrations in history. in the weeks that followed, the fark saw more desertions than it had in a decade of military action. and in mexico, a single e-mail from a private citizen who was fed up with drug-related violence snowballed into huge demonstrations in all of the country's 32 states. in mexico city alone, 150,000 people took to the streets in protest. the internet can help humanity push back against those who promote violence and crime and extremism. in iran and moldova and other countries, online organizing has been a critical tool for advancing democracy and enabling citizens to protest suspicious election results.

and even established democracies like the united states, we have seen the power of these tools to change history. some of you may still remember the 2008 presidential election here. [laughter] the freedom to connect to these technologies can help transform society's, but it is also critically important to individuals. i was recently moved by the story of a doctor -- and i will not tell you what country was from -- who was desperately trying to diagnose his daughters were medical condition. he consulted with -- his daughter's rehr medical condition. he consulted with two dozen specialists, and he did not have an answer. but he finally identify the condition and found a cure by using an internet search engine. that is one of the reasons why unfettered access to search engine technology is so important in individuals' lives. by the principles i have

outlined today, we will guide our approach in the use of internet freedom and the use of the text -- these technologies. i want to speak about how we apply them in practice. the united states is committed to promoting the diplomatic and technological resources necessary to advance these freedoms. we are a nation made up of immigrants from every country and every interest that spans the globe. our foreign policy is premised on the idea that no country more than america stands to benefit when there is cooperation among peoples and states. and no country shoulders a heavier burden when conflicts and misunderstandings drive nations apart. we are well placed to seize the opportunities that come with interconnected et. and as the birthplace for so many of these technologies, including the internet itself, we have the responsibility to have them used for good.

to do that, we have developed the capacity for what we call at the state department, 20% 3 statecraft. realigning our priorities and policies -- 21st century statecraft. realigning our pit as our diplos eventually mastered the telegraph, they are doing the same to warn as the potential of these new tools as well. i am proud that the state department is already working in 40 countries to help individuals silenced by oppressive governments. we are making this issue a priority at the u.n. as well. we are including internet freedom as a component in the first resolution we introduced after returning from the united nations human rights council. we are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their right of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship. we are providing funds to groups around the world to make sure that those tools get to the

people who need them in local languages, and with the training they need to access the internet safely. the united states has been assisting in these efforts for some time with a focus on implementing these programs as efficiently and effectively as possible. both the american people and nations that sensor the internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote internet freedom. we want to put these tools and hands of people who will use them to advance democracy and human rights, to fight climate change and epidemics, to build global support for president obama's goal of a world without nuclear weapons, to encourage sustainable new -- sustainable economic dilemma that list people up from the bottom -- a development that will lift people up from the bottom. we will work with partners in industry, academia and non-

governmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies and apply them to our diplomatic goals. by relying on mobile phones, mapping applications and other new tools, we can empower citizens and leverage our traditional ball -- diplomacy. we can address deficiencies in the current market for innovation. let me give you one example. let's say i want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate government ministries, including ours, on their responsiveness and efficiency, and also to ferret out and report corruption. the hardware required to make this idea work is already in the hands of billions of potential users and the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy. if people took advantage of this tool, it would help us started our foreign assistance spending, improve lives and encourage foreign investment in countries

with responsible governments. however, right now, mobile application developers have no financial assistance to pursue the project on their own. and the state department currently lacks the mechanism to make it happen. this initiative should help resolve the problem and provide long-term dividends for modest investment in innovation. we will work with experts to find the best structure -- structure for this venture and we will use the talent nonprofits and those to do this most quickly. those of you in this room that how this expertise, please consider yourselves invited to help us. in the meantime, there are companies and institutions working on ideas and applications that could already advance of our diplomatic and development objectives. the state department will be launching an internet competition to give this work an immediate boost. we will be asking americans to

send us their best ideas for applications and technologies that break down language barriers, connect people to the services they need, and overcome illiteracy. microsoft has already dealt a prototype for a digital doctor that could help provide care in isolated rural communities. we want to see more ideas like that and we will work with the winners of the competition to provide grants to help build their ideas to scale. these new initiatives will supplement a great deal of important work we have already done over this past year. in service of our diplomatic and diplomacy objectives i assembled a talented and experienced team to lead our 21st century statecraft efforts. they will help leverage the benefits of connection technologies. they have stood up and initiative to help a grass roots organizations enter the digital age. they're putting a plaque -- putting in place a program in

mexico to help combat drug- related violence by allowing people to make untracked result -- a contract reports to reliable sources to avoid having retribution visited against them. they have broad mobile banking to afghanistan and are pursuing the same effort in the democratic republic of the condo. in pakistan, they have created the first ever social mobile network called "our voice" that has already produced tens of millions of messages and connected young pakistanis who want to stand up to violent extremism. in the short span, we have taken significant strides to translate the promise of these technologies into results that make a difference. but there is so much more to be done. as we work together with the private sector and foreign governments to deploy the tools of 21st century statecraft, we have to remember our shared responsibility to safeguard the

freedom i have talked about today. we feel strongly that principals like information freedom are not just good policy, not just somehow connected to our national values, but they are universal and they're also good for business. to use market terminology, a publicly listed company in tunisia or vietnam that operates in an environment of censorship will always trade at a discount relative to an identical firm in a free society. if corporate decision makers do not have access to global sources of news and information, investors will have less confidence in their decisions over the long term. countries that sensor their news and information must recognize that from an economic standpoint, there is no distinction between the center in political speech and commercial speech if businesses are denied access to either type of information, it will

inevitably impact growth. increasingly, companies are making information from a greater issue in their business decisions. i hope that their competitors in foreign governments will pay close attention to this trend. the most recent situation involving global has attracted a great deal of interest -- involve google has attracted a great deal of interest. and we look to the authorities to launch an investigation and for it to be transparent. the internet has already brought tremendous progress in china, and it is fabulous. there are so many people in china now online. but countries that restrict free access to information, or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century. the united states and china have

different views on this issue and we intend to address those differences candidly and consistently in the context of our positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship. ultimately, this relationship is not just about information freedom. it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit. it is about whether we live on a planet with 1 internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent upon where you live and the winds of censors. information freedom -- the winds of censors. information freedom provides the foundation for global progress. historically, a symmetrical access to information is one of the leading causes of interstate conflict. when we face serious disputes or

dangerous incidents, it is critical that people on both sides of the problem have access to the same set of facts and opinions. as it stands, americans can consider in may -- information presented by foreign governments. we do not lock door attempt to communicate with the people in the united states. -- we do not block of your attempts to communicate with the people in the united states. in north korea, the government has tried to completely isolate its citizens from outside opinions. this lopsided access to information increases both the likelihood of conflict and the probability that small disagreements could escalate. i hope that responsible government with an interest in global stability will work with us to address such imbalances. for companies, this issue is about more than claiming the moral high ground. it really comes down to the trust between firms and their

customers. consumers everywhere want to have confidence that the internet companies they rely on will provide comprehensive search results and act as result possible -- act as responsible stewards of their own information. those countries that basically provide that kind of service will prosper in the global marketplace. i really believe that those who lose the confidence of their customers will eventually lose customers. no matter where you live people want to believe that what they put into the internet is not going to be used against them. and censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere. and in america, american companies need to make a principled stand. this needs to be part of our national brand. i am confident that consumers worldwide will reward companies

that follow those principles. we are reinvigorating the global internet freedom task force as a forum for addressing threats to internet freedom around the world. and we are urging u.s. media companies to take a proactive role around the world in challenging for government's demands for censorship and surveillance. the private censorship -- the private entities have a desire for freedom in this relationship. we're also encourage by the work that is being done in the global internet initiative. the work that is being done to respond to a government request for censorship -- the initiative goes beyond mere statements of principles and establishes mechanisms to promote real accountability and transparency as part of our commitment to support responsible private-

sector engagement on internet -- on internet freedom. the state department will be convening a high-level meeting next month cochaired by the undersecretaries to bring together firms to provide network services that talk about internet freedom. we want to have a partnership in addressing this 21st century challenge. pursuing the freedoms i have talked about today is, i believe, the right thing to do, but i also believe it is the smart thing to do. we aren't -- we are lining our principles and economic goals and priorities. we need to access information and bring people closer to gather and expands the definition of the global community. given the magnitude of challenges we are facing, we need people around the world to pool their knowledge and creativity to help rebuild the

global economy, to help protect our environment and defeat a violent extremism and build a future in which every human being can live up to and realize his or her god-given potential. let me close by asking you to remember the little girl who was pulled from the rubble on monday in port-au-prince. she is alive. she was reunited with her family. she will have the chance to grow up because these networks took a voice that was buried and spread it to the world. no nation, no group, no individual should stay buried in the rubble of oppression. we cannot stand by while people are separated from the human family by walls of censorship. and we cannot be silent about these issues simply because we cannot hear the cries. let us recommit ourselves to the

cause. let us make these technologies a force for real progress the world over. and let us go forward together to champion these freedoms for our time, for our young people who deserve every opportunity we can give them. thank you all very much. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, madam secretary. the secretary has agreed to answer some questions. if you would, there are going to be three microphones in the audience. if you would make your questions short, we would appreciate it.

and identify yourself please. could you wait for the microphone? >> madame secretary, you talked about anonymity online -- i'm sorry, i'm robert guillaume with northern virginia community college. you talked about anonymity on line and how we have to prevent that, but you also talk about censorship by governments. i am struck by having a veil of anonymity in certain situations is actually quite beneficial. are you looking to strike a balance between that and his emphasis on censorship? >> absolutely, i mean, this is one of the challenges we face. on the one hand, anonymity protect the exploitation of

children -- protects the exploitation of children, and on the other hand, hypertexts opposition to repressive governments. anonymity -- it protects the opposition to repressive government. anonymity also allows people to come together in a basis for free expression without identifying themselves. none of this will be easy. i think that is a fair statement. i think, as i said, we all have varying needs and rights and responsibilities, but i think these overriding principles should be our guiding light. we should err on the side of openness and do everything possible to create that, recognizing as with any role, or any statement of principle, there will be exceptions. how we go after this, i think,

is what we are now requesting. many of you who are experts in this area, when your help to us in doing this. we need the guidance of technology experts. in my experience, most of them are done then 40, but not all are younger than 40. we need the companies and the dissident voices that have actually lived on the front lines so that we can actually work through the best way to make the balance you referred to. >> 40 navy to much. >> [laughter] >> right over here. >> i am the global freedom of expression officer at freedom house. you spoke about business and relying on them to do the moral, right thing and not put profits first, but the goal of business is to make a profit. what kind of teeth are going to be put in this? what role does the world trade

organization play and how are you going to encourage them to do the right thing? >> again, i think this is one of the issues that we want to have a very vigorous discussion about. i know that asking business, which is in business to make a profit, to do the right thing is not always easily translated into practical practice. on the of our hand, i think there is a broader context here. companies that do not follow the sanitary and hygiene procedures of a prior generation a price for it. government and business have to constantly be working together to be sure that the food and other products that end up on the shelves of consumers around the world are safe, because individual consumers in a global and interconnected economy cannot possibly exercise that vigilance on the rhone. similarly, when it comes to censorship, -- on their own.

similarly when it comes to censorship, we believe there needs to be an effort to establish some rules over internet connectivity and trying to protect the basic freedoms i discussed. it is in the long term interest of business, and frankly, i would argue, governments. i used the example of the fall of the berlin wall. it is very hard to keep information out. it was hard to keep it out in a prior age. it is even harder now. and trying to adjust to that, work with that, and learn from that, about what could be done better is going to challenge every single government in the world. i think business has -- as such a driver of economic growth globally has to have that in mind when they go into countries and when they confront the kind of censorship that we are hearing about a round the

world. it is particularly acute for the technology companies, the media companies, obviously, but is not in any way limited to them. other companies are facing censorship as well. this is an issue that we have to service and talk about and we have to try to find as much common ground and keep claiming more common ground as the go forward. >> we have a question we over here on the left. >> i am the director of libya for a website promoting democracy and human rights and civil society in libya. the we have been attacked and hacked many times. i would like madame secretary to tell me, how can you help those voices which do not have technology or the money to protect themselves, protect them

against the packerhackers whiche the silencers of voices from outside the country and lack freedom of expression? >> this is something we are debating and looking for ideas as to how we can answer it in a positive way. we would invite your participation. after i take the last question, and marie slaughter -- ann an marie slaughter has written a lot about interconnected the and how we have to look at the world as the network reality that it is. she will be leading a discussion. some of you that have ideas, suggestions, cautions, worries, i hope he will stay and get into an in-depth discussion about that. >> right here in the mezzanine,

right next to the microphone. >> we work with the enemy in vietnam. just recently, the vietnamese government sentenced several bloggers of 216 years in prison. -- up to 16 years in prison. how can you address the situation in vietnam? >> we have publicly spoken against the detention and imprisonment of not only the bloggers in vietnam, but some of the buddhist monks and nuns and others who have been subjected to harassment. vietnam has made so much progress and is just moving with great alacrity into the future, raising the standard of living of their people, and we do not believe they should be afraid of

commentary that is in turmoil. in fact, i would like to see more governments -- if you disagree with what a blotter or a website is saying, get in and argue with them. explain what it is you are doing. put out contrary information. point out what the pitfalls are in the position that the blogger might be taking. i hope vietnam will move more in that direction because i think it goes hand-in-hand with the progress we have seen in the last few years there. >> thank you. up in the back. >>ñi i am with the association r competitive technology. madam secretary, you mentioned that companies have to do the right thing, not just what is good for their profits. but what if i am a company and i have a subsidiary in china and the chinese government is coming after my guys for information. and we have resisted, but my guys are being taken to jail and

my equipment is being hauled away. in that situation, what can the state department do, or what will the state department do? >> we obviously speak out on those individual cases and we are, as i said, hoping to engage in a very candid and constructive conversation with the chinese government. but we have had a positive -- we have had a positive year of a very open discussions with our chinese counterparts. i think we have established a foundation of understanding. we disagree on important issues with them. they disagree on important issues with us. they have their perspective. we have our perspective. but obviously, we want to encourage and support increasing openness in china because we believe it will further add to the dynamic growth and the democratization of the local level that we see occurring in

china. çóindividual cases, we continue to speak out, but on the broader set of issues we hope to really have the kind of discussion that might lead to a better understanding and changes in the approach that is currently being taken. >> thank you. up in the back in the very center. if you could come to the aisle, so we can get a microphone to you. thank you. >> my question for you, madam secretary, when you talk about social networking and trying to address the usyouth, would you e open to addressing the youth forum. with the youth being radicalized, they do not have a

means to express disagreement. would you be open to those ideas? >> yes, we would, in fact, in the wake of the president's speech in cairo we have been expanding dramatically our outrage, particularly to muslim youth. i agree with you completely, sir, that is not only young people in the muslim world, but young people across the world are increasingly disconnected from authority, from government, from all kinds of institutions that have been historically the foundations of society because they are so interconnected through the internet, something that my generation cannot really understand. in america, the average young person spends eight hours a day with media. the internet, cell phones, television, i mean, you think about that -- eight hours a day. that is more time than they spend in school. it is more time than they spend with their families. it is often more time than they

spent a sleep. when you think about the power of this information connection to young people, i do not think it should cause panic in people my age. i do not think we should begin trying to stop it and prevent it. we ought to think about how better to utilize it. you go back the millennia, how work values passed around? sitting around a fire. how were values can indicated in the homes by parents and grandparents? now they are being communicated by the internet and we cannot stop it. so, let's figure out how better to use it, participate in it, and particularly focus on the needs of young people. they are often looking for information, looking for answers. at least until now in most cultures that i am aware of, despite all the time that young people spend with technology, when they are asked who they look to for guidance about

values, they still say their families. but the families increasingly feel disconnected from their highly connected young people and do not know what their young people are doing online. then we see the problems that can result. there are so many neat -- manipulator's online right now. not just stoking the anxieties and fears of muslim youth, but youth everywhere, defined by all kinds of characteristics. we have our own work to do, not just to our government but through our families, our education systems, and every other institution to make sure we understand the technology -- the power of this technology and to engage young people through it and about it. >> i see a lot of hands going up as you speak. let's try over here on the far right. >> thank you very much, madame secretary. i'm with the solomon foundation.

also, thank you for inviting us to apply for grants. i am interested in knowing what are the procedures, what is the agency we need to do that with and if you have someone in the room we can follow up with that. >> thank you, in addition to our panel, we have a lot of members of our team who are working on these initiatives. we can certainly connect up. if we invited you, we know how to find you. we will make sure you get information about all of these programs, the ones that already exist and the ones that we will roll out. >> there is no anonymity in this room. [laughter] we have time for one more question, but i encourage you to stay for the panel that ann marie slaughter will lead. let's do one last question over here.

can we get a microphone? thank you. >> hello, thank you so much. i appreciated your wonderful program speech. i am mary perkins from howard university. at howard university we very much are interested in particular aspects of the internet with respect to the digital divide. in your story about a young girl being pulled out of the%u!ble because of the text message she was able to send, it brings to mind how many others could have been saved had they had that technology. >> absolutely. >> we are very interested in knowing, in terms of access -- not only internet freedom, but free internet for all and the universal service aspect and what can be done, particularly

right now for haiti with this? >> thank you for that. as you know, that is a continuing issue for us and for many countries around the world. we are at 4 billion itself owns and, certainly, the cellphone -- we are a 4 billion cell phones and, certainly, the cell phone has become the tool for communication. there are a lot of groups, ngos, and even businesses that are passing out and providing cell phones at very low cost. we just have to keep incentivizing and encouraging the technology to be as low cost as possible so it can be as ubiquitous as possible. i think we have made enormous progress. 10 years ago, we talked a lot about the digital divide even in our own country. we are overcoming it, but there are still questions of access, still questions of cost. obviously, we have to recognize

that a lot of the search engines are run by for-profit companies. it is not going to be free. but there are lots of ways to try to encourage more universal access and that is part of the obama administration's overall policy on technology, not just the development and diplomatic aspects of it. thank you. >> thank you, madam secretary. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> now, two state department officials discussed the government's initiatives for open access to the internet and the impact of this issue on u.s.-china relations. this is half an hour.

>> good afternoon and welcome to the state department. we're very pleased to have with us senior advisor alex ross, along with michael posner. they're here to talk in more detail about the secretary's internet freedom speech yesterday. and with no further ado, i will hand it over to alec. >> good afternoon, everyone, it is a pleasure to be with you this afternoon. what i wanted to do was to take a very few minutes to frame and give a bit of historic context to the remarks yesterday by secretary clinton. i thought it was appropriate that -- if it wasn't the day, it was off by one day. it was basically a year as secretary of state to the day that she gave that speech and for me, that was significant

because one of the things that in my opinion that has defined her tenure in -- as secretary of state is figuring out one way that we can modernize our statecraft. we have learned a lot over the course of this year. we have learned some things that that technology can play in our foreign policy and we have learned some things that are significantly less positive. and among the positive things we have seen most recently that we have nothing to celebrate right now as it relates to haiti, i think it should be noted that it was at the secretary's direction that the state department set up a text 8290999 program which has now raised more than 26 million -- text haiti to 909 my9 program which has now raised more than $26 million. i think it was amazing that the president's speech in cairo has been able to so effectively

reach so many people because we are now in a digital age that is not bound by the strictures of traditional broadcast media. people were able to get matchups of it on their cell phones. people were able to see and hear him over the internet. but we have also learned a number of negative things. the past year has seen a surge in al qaeda and other extremist organizations using global communications networks to recruit youngçó people into ther ranks. and we have seen authoritarian governments increasingly used networks to infiltrate them, my to them, and oftentimes shut them down. -- monitor them, and oftentimes shut them down. a prime example of this was in iran leading up to, during, and after the election there. i'm sure you have a question or two about china, because so many of you keep asking questions

about china, as it relates to yesterday's announcement. one of the things that i wanted to point out is that according to the open initiative and reporters without borders, 21 countries engaged in extreme censorship or filtering of political content on the internet. notably, this does not include countries that filter or sensor content for cultural reasons, like pornography or what they consider "over the secular" -- "overly secular" content. we find this data staggering. that is part of what prompted yesterday's speech by the secretary and is part of why we are elevating internet freedom from a piece of foreign policy arcanum to something that is

more central to what we are doing. one of the key takeaways that i hope you all took from the speech was her point that this does not just go to the issue of information freedom, but also goes to the issue of what kind of world we want to live in. we want to world in -- what do we want to live in a world with one internet, one internet base from which we can all drop, or do we want to live in a world where access to information knowledge is based on what country you live in and the windhims ofñi the sensors in the countries? many of you know me as obama's tech policy guide during the campaign, but what i have really spent the last 10 years doing is focusing on the digital divide. i start a nonprofit in a basement about 10 years ago that grew from being a four guys with

no money and just a handful of ideas into the world's largest digital divide organization. for me, yesterday's announcement was a shift in the history of the internet from the primary concern of the internet being the digital divide, being an issue of access -- can one get access to the internet -- to today, now the number-one problem, the number one issue that we have to address as it relates to our global communications networks is, is the internet open? is it uncensored? the last thing i will highlight for you before turning it over to my colleague, michael posner, is that i want to highlight the shared responsibility in this. the secretary spoke very directly to the private sector, not just america's private sector but global technology and telecommunications companies.

i think that is indicative of the fact that this is not just a government to government concern. one of the things that is important about internet freedom is that it really lives at the convergence of security issues, human rights issues, and economic issues. it is not one of those three things. it is all three of them. and as such, the private sector does not play a secondary role in this. they have a primary role to play with in this. i thought she spoke compellingly about the initiatives that are out there and working, which i know mike will describe one of them. but what i will highlight here, too, is that this is not something we will just be engaging government to government, but also working closely with the private sector. >> i just want to say briefly before opening up, for me and for us, the speech yesterday is really part of a trilogy that in

the last five weeks the secretary has spoken about human rights, democracy, and development and a link between the three in georgetown in mid december. she spoke a couple of weeks ago about development and spell that out more and this speech fit within that framework. democracy and human rights developments beach, there were really three things that the secretary spoke about that i think are reflected in the discussion of the internet freedom. one is our approach to human rights and democracy promotion development is one of principle engagement. we are going to engage with the world and in gage in multiple ways. this is one way in which engagement is going to take place. both diplomatically in terms of technical assistance, in terms of training, we will be actively involved in the promotion of internet freedom. she also spoke about universal standards and the fact that

there is a global -- this is not an american discussion. it is a discussion of universal human rights standards. and again, the notion of free expression articulated yesterday is part of that notion that there is one standard of freedom, one standard of free expression that applies across the board to every government, to every country. everybody ought to be entitled to the same access to information. and the third thing was to talk about the fact that it is very hard to change countries from outside. countries change from within. when we talk about democracy, it is a broad notion that says empowering civil society, strengthening the press, and powering women, creating an environment in which people can change their own societies. these tools, these connective tools of the internet, cell phones are a prime way that people are communicating within their own societies and communicating with the rest of

the world. this is really a vital piece of what we're trying to do when we talk about linking human-rights development -- human rights, democracy and development. >> on china, i'm wondering if you guys have any response to the chinese' brother hostile reaction to the secretary's speech. >> i think in the range of relations with7j the chinese the are a lot of issues on the table. there are issues we are working more cooperatively together and there are issues where we disagree. this will be par