2010 elections try to make the supreme court picks part of trying to make sure that democrats maintain their majority in the house and senate? >> i think that is exactly right. i think the reason president obama took the public and surprising whack at the supreme court in the state of the union is that he is going to try to make the composition of the court more of an issue. . . of mana from heaven for this white house. it is a decision that really riled up a sense of a populous satisfaction with the court a sense that the court was giving corporations personhood. i think you are quite right to say that his -- he's e!ing it up for the elections. he's putting it on so that he

can put -- very similar list. one of the things that i think >> a little later, syndicated

talk show host, thom hartmann. >> joining us is david axelrod, and here for the questioning is jerry from "the wall street journal." let me begin by asking you to respond. twice in the last week, the president meeting with house republicans and senate democrats. the senator said we do not want it on camera. >> we want to have a dialogue with members of both parties. i think there was something valuable about the exchange the president had, both with the house republicans and with the democratic senate caucuses this week. i think it was invaluable for the public to see the changes were open and honest, but if

senate republicans do not want to do that, the president is not not going to talk to them because they do not want to do it in public. >> is this a photo op, or is this serious? >> i think there were very positive. >> we had some kind words from senator ryan who said he wanted to work with him. immediately after, house democrats attacked what he talked about. what does that do for the attempt at bipartisanship? >> there is going to be back- and-forth about ideas. we should not be afraid to advance ideas. we should discuss them. one thing the president was saying was bring me your ideas,

and let's debate and discuss them as i bring you mine and we discussed mind. that is what people want. there is no doubt this is a tough environment in which to govern, and i think one thing that frustrates people about washington generally is the sport is made of serious things. these are very serious times, and there is a sense in the country the people here are more concerned about winning elections and perpetuating themselves than solving problems, and i think they recognize in the meantime that is a dangerous thing. we have had so many challenges, so we want honest dialogue. the president is more than willing to except good ideas from wherever they come -- to accept good ideas from wherever they come. he is going to be bringing people together in a bipartisan

meeting at the beginning of next week around the jobs issue. we're going to continue to try and penetrate this very difficult environment. >> let me ask about that same difficult environment. senator shelby has put a number of nominations on hold in his state. what does that do for this effort, and what is the white house's response to that? >> i think this is a prime example of what i am talking about. let's talk about a little history of the last year. in the last year there have been more filibusters on the side of the republican party, more filibusters than for the year 1919 to the year 1970 -- in one year, and often the bill being filibustered were bills everyone agreed on. we had a director confirmed last week by overwhelming numbers, yet her nomination was on hold

for six months. this is a person who is going to run the physical operation of the government. there is no excuse for that. the filibuster for principle -- is there for principled objections. it is not there for delay and missives, and that is what we're seeing. when the senator puts all of the appointment of the president on hold because he was an ear mark in his state, that is not in the interest of the country, so that is disappointing. we are working hard to shine a bright light on that and ask people to do what they were brought here to do, which is to govern and solve problems. >> to the economy outside of washington, the latest employment numbers showed the rate fell, moderately good news, but the economy still lost jobs, but clearly there is a jobs

issue. raising the question about what can be done, and prospects for job growth, will there be one? what do you want in it? what do not want in it? >> there is no doubt the direction is the right direction. november, we actually gained jobs, but we're moving in the right direction. manufacturing jobs were of for the first time in three years, largely because of the automobile industry and things associated with that, which reflects the decisions the president made early in the year. in terms of where we go now, we're looking towards a jobs bill. the president has laid out his priority, which is help for

small businesses in terms of a tax credit, and also, additional lending, so that is one piece i am hopeful will move quickly. we want to see additional investments in infrastructure and rebuilding roads and bridges, railways and the physical plant of this country. finally, we are committed to energy, investments from clean energy projects and conservation and things that will make us stronger, but also put people to work and help with energy independence and help with environmental challenges we have. these remain our fundamental commitments, and i think there is recent activity in congress. i expect the senate will move this week on a jobs package. i am hoping that will be on a bipartisan basis. >> let me ask you about another

idea on the table -- a bipartisan idea. senators proposed a payroll tax holiday that would put money in people's pockets and in the cash register right away potentially. is the administration in favor of that? do you not like the idea? >> we discussed a similar idea. we are right and the cost of hiring in this country -- we are right on the cusp of hiring. if you give them incentives, this will encourage them to do that now, so we are receptive. >> another issue is with the deficit spending, we could see long-term inflation. as this worry you? >> these are concerns for the future. right now that is not our

concern. right now is our concern -- our concern is that we still have a fragile economy. we have real growth, but it is not translated to job growth. we have seen in history in japan a couple decades ago and in the united states during the great depression, so we're going to be very careful. we want to deal with the deficit, and we have put together a deficit that speaks with it including -- speaks suet including pay-as-you-go, but we also have to be mindful that we have to get people working again. >> how quickly after the jobs bill does congress return to the health care bill? >> i think we want to move rapidly on that.

the president feels the greatest sense of urgency as ever, and this has been made more acute by figures released just in the last week said show enormous increases as a proportion of the economy and health care spending just in the last year. in the last week in california, blue shield announced a 39% rate increase for people in the individual insurance market. these problems are just going to get worse. the burden they are placing on families and businesses are just going to get worse. the american people do not want us to walk away from this problem. the president is not going to walk away from this problem. >> he said last week he wanted republicans and democrats to come together. it did not work over the last eight months. why is it going to work now? >> everyone needs to understand if they read the message of the american people that we should walk away from this problem and

leave them to the tender mercies of the health insurance agencies and higher and higher rate increases, i think they are misreading the mood of the american people. the president has been working with leaders of his own country to try to reconcile differences between the house and senate, and he also wants to hear what republican ideas are, and in the next few weeks you will see a process whereby democrats and republicans come together to have a discussion about it, but then we want to move forward. >> there are people in your own party who have been saying to the white house, you have to tell us how you want this process to unfold. you yourself heard this, so the question they are asking is, we need a president. why doesn't the president come forward and say, here is how we get across the finish line.

>> i think everybody is eager. we have worked very hard on this. everyone recognizes the problem and that it is only going to get worse. everyone wants a solution to the problem, and i think people would like the president to be able to snap his fingers and finish this. the fact is it is more complex than that. we have to have a certain number of votes to pass a bill. putting that together takes time, and we have been working on that. his goal is not to making a symbolic gesture, not putting up votes for the sake of putting of votes, but for actually getting things done. >> there are some who say the only way to get those votes is to strip down what is on the table or to break it into pieces. >> that really underscores the point, because there are those that say we should pass the

senate bill. there are those that say we should break the bill up and go into smaller pieces. there are a lot of views within the democratic party about how to succeed. reconciling those moves is a task, and it is not something you can do by demand or ordinance of the president of the united states. it takes some work, and we are working through it. i am encouraged by what i see, because so much of what has been proposed is supported, not just by democrats in the house and senate, but they are supported by republicans. mcdonald's response to the state of the union address, in which he says, what you need to do is increase republican ideas by allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. he will be relieved to know that is actually in the bill, so that

will make him more comfortable. one reason we shifted down and worked on our differences is i think what people will find is there are many more areas of commonality than the public understands, and perhaps then they want to acknowledge. >> let me move to your meeting with senator franken, because the headline is that senator franken live in steve. is that fair? what happened? >> i think we had a good exchange. he expressed his feelings. i responded very candidly to him, and it was a good airing of views. as i was watching senator franken, i thought to myself, it turns out i am good ends march, so i was ok with it. >> let me turn to national

security, and in the new issue of of "the new yorker" they talk about trying in new york and the unhappiness about the decision by the attorney general to do that. was that a mistake on his part? >> the attorney general was responding under the protocol developed by the department of defense for the prosecution of terrorists, and he made the decision on that basis. rahm looks of things from the legislative perspective. we have disagreements all the time within the lab. that is as it should be.

people love the various points of view. >> let me ask on the same suspect. part of senator brown's election -- he made the case the united states is giving rights to terrorists. is that true, and how is that going to affect the election? >> there are over 190 accused terrorists tried by the bush and administration in article 3 courts. that includes richard reeves, the issue bomber. that includes the 20th 911 bomber. republicans applauded that. dick cheney supported it. the real question is why the change of attitude? the reason they were tried is

because it was in most effective way to bring people to justice, and in terms of giving rights to these prisoners, the judge who became the attorney general under the bush and administration ruled there were certain rights that even enemy combatants had, rights to a lawyer, and various other procedural protections -- habeas corpus and so on, so this is not new. we're actually not be giving any differently than the last administration, which raises the question -- is this about politics, or is it about dealing with the incident and hand? >> speaking of politics -- maybe the most important thing is happening in tennessee were the tea party is happening.

what does that movement tell us about the political mood of the country, and what do democrats do to take the advantage of it? there is a lot of talk about how the republicans want to coopt the tea party movement? what do the democrats want to do to coopt the tea party movement? >> the tea party movement has grown out of frustration with washington. what is interesting to me about the election in massachusetts is people said they were unhappy with democrats in congress, but there are more unhappy with republicans in washington. there is a sense this town is consumed by a politics and that we are not dealing with the real problem, including the deficit.

the president endorsed the idea of a fiscal commission, because he understands the republicans and democrats have to join together if they are really going to get a handle, and that bill came up, and it got 53 votes. it needed 60, because it was getting filibuster. it failed because seven republicans walked away from their own fiscal debt reduction bill. we're not going to get anywhere if that is the type of politics we play in this town. people involved in the tea party movement are expressing their frustration, and i think politicians in both parties have to understand the frustration. >> there some who see the team mark -- tea party movement as a conservative movement. do you think that is how it is? >> i do not know how would

characterize it. i think it is a movement that has grown up out of frustration over the high for partisanship -- hyper partisanship and a lack of responsibility they perceived here and in washington and other places. there's a real sense in this country that everyday people are meeting their responsibilities but our institutions are not, and i think that is what motivates this movement. it may land harder on us, because we're the party in power, but understand some of those same forces are what people in -- drove people to work for president obama. we have to change the way we do business, and we have to start dealing with the big countries in this problem. >> two-thirds of the democrats who voted against it are up for

reelection this year, so what does that tell you about their mind set moving towards the 2010 election? >> it tells me that is a tough vote. i understand when the last democratic president left office, we had surpluses. projected surpluses of the decade of five trillion dollars. when we came to office, we had 1.3 trillion dollar deficit and projected debt of over eight trillion dollars, and people are very angry about debt. dad is a terribly negative symbol, so it is difficult politically. we have had to do a lot of difficult things this year, but we had to do that because it was an interest of our country. part of that was passed the pay-

as-you-go legislation so the government has to do what every family and business does, which is pay for things rather than putting them on a credit card. >> another question for you. with many of open government seats in play, how many are democrats going to lose? >> i do not know the answer to that. i do know it is a difficult time to be governor. it is a difficult time to be in that position, because we have the worst recession since the great depression. that has taken a terrible toll on states and communities around the country, and even governments have become the fulcrum of discontent, and it is understanding. that comes with the territory, so there is an added burden. i think many of them will be reelected, but it is certainly a

political reality. >> that is another item on your agenda this year -- global warming and capt. trade. there's a sense that with the economic crisis that is a nonstarter. is it a nonstarter for you, or is that on the agenda for 2010? >> let's talk about energy, because i think that cannot be a nonstarter for the united states of america. right now you see china full speed ahead and trying to command the clean energy economy. this is going to be an important part of the economic mix in the future. we have to compete for those jobs and that future, so we cannot just walk off the field when it comes to energy, and the

president spoke about five on his state of the union, specifically that cap and trade aspect. there are efforts ongoing in the united states between republicans and democrats to come up with an overall energy double that would help drive clean energy economy. if a consensus can be reached, we want to support that, of this is clearly an issue republicans and democrats are going to have to do together. this is not something one party can do. >> with financial regulatory reform, it looked like as if until the last couple days thug might be an area of factual bipartisan consensus. that seems to have broken down now. is that not going to be passed, or those that have to be passed?

>> we will see. there's a real sense of urgency about that. no one wants to be placed in the same situation we were. no american taxpayer should be in the position where they have to bail out financial institutions because of their irresponsibility. we have managed that wealth and gotten most of the money back, but it is a source of irritation. we ought to pass the proposal for a fee on the larger banks to help make american taxpayers completely whole for the support they gave these firms. in terms of financial reform, there has been enormous lobbying going on, and i am afraid some on the field are yielding to that. just last week, the leader of the republican party in the house met with one of the leading bankers in the country and said, we're standing between

you and finance reform, and you ought to support us, so if the republican party makes a decision that they can turn this into a fund raising, it is going to be more difficult, but i think the american people are not going to except that. i am hoping they will take a second look at that and say this is one of those problems we have to work together to stop. >> when do think the white house will start taking a tougher line with republicans? why did you decide to do this? >> we are dealing with the reality of trying to govern in a difficult time, and it became apparent because of this habitual use of the filibuster, because every appointment was being put on hold, that political mischief was making it difficult to solve the problems in the country, and we really thought we had to penetrate that

in order to move forward. we would be more than happy to work together with people from both parties to solve problems, and that is what we are trying to encourage, but what we cannot do is the governing while the other party is simply running an election campaign. i do not think the country can afford that now, but we are going to shine a bright light and given every opportunity for correct -- corroboration, but worker operation is forthcoming as a matter of politics region where cooperation is forthcoming as a matter of politics >> does this approach affect your thinking of the 2010 elections, making it an election of choice rather than a referendum on the last two years of the economy? >> anytime candidates appear on the ballot, it is a choice, and

i am very eager for that discussion. the president has worked very hard to pull this country out of this deep hole we founded in and made some courageous decisions to do that, and has also thought long about what we need to do to strengthen this country in the long term -- the most serious education reform in the history of the country, i believe. obviously, it helped -- health insurance reform was part of that. trying to create a clean energy economy as part -- clean energy as part of that. all we have heard is from the other side is let's go back to doing what we have during before. let's go back to letting lobbyists and special interests dominate in washington. let's stick to the status quo. the status quo has