the white house correspondents association annual dinner is tonight. you can see that live on c-span starting at 8:00. what risk should the united states take in getting a

petroleum based products to meet our environmental needs? petrol resources are still needed despite the risk. that is our question to you this morning. we want to get your thoughts on the topic of energy extracting in the united states. these are the numbers -- and ife your thoughts viet twitter -- via twitter -- here is the new york post this morning. they talk about some of the processes that the administration has taken to respond to the oil spill. later on, they make this

argument certainly, the accident has galvanized both new offshore drilling. this event is a game changer with consequences that are long- lasting politically. shutting off the spigot would be an even greater disaster for the country than what is now taking place in the gulf of mexico, a distressing as that may be.

the explosions took the lives of 11 workers just as the recent coal mine disaster in west virginia killed 29. energy extraction can and must be made safer, though i will never be risk free. -- though it will never be risk free. when it comes to energy extraction, we want to ask your thoughts on how much risk should be taken. again, the numbers -- the associated press updating today that in 2009, bp said that the kind of catastrophic accidents that happened off the louisiana coast was virtually impossible. the assessment is an exploration plan an environmental impact and laos --

analysis. in about 45 minutes, we will talk about the impact of the oil spill and the federal government response. first, your thoughts on energy extraction. alabama, democrats line, you are up first. caller: thank you for accepting my call. thank you for c-span. i think we should avoid trying to continue drilling for oil in our country. we are out buying seafood before the oil -- because up -- before the fish become polluted bearded i am very disappointed with president obama.

i voted for him and i campaigned for him vigorously, but i do not know. he is very disappointing. host: as far as the energy, what diaz think about the editor saying that because our country runs off petroleum, these risks have to be assessed? caller: whoever made that comment has a personal motive for saying that. . the risk is too great, i think. host: we appreciate the call. pennsylvania on are republican line. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i should first say that i spent some time in the nuclear industry.

that was this suppose a catastrophe in the realm of the nuclear industry. we did not contaminate a whole shoreline and killed a bunch of people like occurred in this accident. it is good to keep those things in perspective. as far as whether or not we have to take risks to extract, we take risks to extract, to harvest food, and there are a lot of farming accident. as far as the ecological damage, and it is a great shame. what can you say about it? hopefully, there are lessons learned like their work in the three mile island accident and they change regulations and requirements and they prevented something like this from happening again. i think that it is noteworthy that you are going to have miners that died in coal

extraction and it is horrible have to put their lives at risk. but what is our alternative? to all go back on living -- to living on family farms? we have to live in a modern society. we need petroleum and electricity and there are risks. inext call is columbus, ohio. caller -- caller:. i agree. i was in germany 10 years ago and my brother in law took me out to coffee and they had a wind build their -- when nell -

windmill and he said that that provided energy for a couple of villages around here. brazil is getting their ethanol out. i am glad you quoted from that editorial that said it was virtually impossible for these accidents to happen. these companies always say, it is virtually impossible. they could've spent half a billion -- $500,000 for a line that would have prevented this accident from happening. you probably have read about that or solid on cable last night. this is absolute criminal what is being done in these people in other countries, they would be prosecuted. but there are 12 lobbyist from the oil companies for every congressman and this is getting

absolutely -- and the same thing with the coal miners. i am surprised that c-span has not done something about these criminals. you have not covered anything on that. put it on c-span and let's see what the people think about the use criminals and this criminal activity. we need to go green. host: we will leave it there. there is a federal in today's paper. -- there is a photo in today's paper. that picture in there. "the new york times" lead editorial deals with the issue over all. this is specifically towards the federal response. they write that we have another

disaster in the same neck of the woods. they're referencing katrina. the timetable is damning. only then did the administration move into high gear. arizona, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i do appreciate being able to express our opinion. a gives as a voice to be heard.

-- it gives us a voice to be heard. i agree that we need oil and we need coal. before they supplied electricity, the windmills did it on the old farm. i did not see why we cannot put more of our efforts and our dollars into windmills and solar energy. solar could be used over the country. the sun comes out even in the east during the summers and we definitely could be using the rooftops of buildings for solar and we just ignore cheap energy. it is not going to hurt anybody. people will not be killed. it will not be killing the fish. i saw fishermen being interviewed the last few days. they're living is gone. the mississippi is a huge port. that whole area is being devastated.

people in the gulf cities have already started to recover from the hurricane on build this disaster. we need to be looking in other directions and put more of our effort into clean energy with solar and the windmills. thank you. host: i want to take a few minutes to let you know that the president will speak at the university of michigan today at a commencement exercise. to give us some perspective of the correspondents dinner is george of the congress daily. he is a white house correspondent. as we see dinners these days, almost everybody gets invited to this event, can you take is back in time to a point or not everybody got to go? guest: certainly.

it is a dinner that always -- despite people thinking that the hollywood influence is new, it actually started with a big hollywood influence. not everybody went. it was just white house correspondent. in the early days, in the 1940's, the entertainment was provided by the networks in conjunction with the serious. you have frank sinatra, jimmy durante, bob hope, barbara streisand -- it has always been an important dinner. it has just become what some people call the washington prom. everybody wants the tickets. host: what is different than the

entertainment provided now? guest: go into a single comedian did not really start until the reagan presidency. 1983 with mark russell. the years right before that, you had the chicago symphony orchestra, count basie and his orchestra. my favorite -- there was always an effort to try to find entertainment that the incumbent president would approve of. the had a tough time when it richard nixon was elected from 1969, they sounded out the white house and ended up with disney lance -- disneyland's golden

horseshoe revue. host: if i recall, at one time president kennedy said he was not going to go to this event. why was that? guest: that was an important moment one person deserves full credit for that and that is helen thomas. a lot of people have become legend just because they have been around a long time. helen actually did things. in 1961, members were full members of the association and pay their dues but were not allowed to go to the dinner. it was a stag affair. helen thomas went to peter sallinger and protested it.

she insisted that the president be taken to the president. pierre salinger did any president, to his credit, said, they will not have the their next year. nothing was more important to the association then having the president of the united states there, the policy ended. women were then allowed as full participants in the dinner. helen, in 1975, ended at the first ever woman president of the association. host: have cameras always been a part of this event? gast, no, they had not been allowed in -- guest: no, they had not been allowed in.

i push to allow them in. the opposition really came from the broadcast networks who did not want to have to work and complained quite a bit early. i remember walking into the ballroom and showing them, we can put the camera right here in the back. it will not interfere with anybody. it has become very popular since then. host: as far as the event itself, we think of the dinner as one night. as those who are here in washington, it turned into a several day affair. how did that happen? guest: just in recent years. you started with a vanity fair having a dinner after words and then john mclaughlin started

doing a brunch. it basically was because organizations realize that everybody was in town that week. it just sort of happened and developed. you are right. it is something that -- you have events almost every night before hand. host: with what is going on in louisiana, what is the pressure on the president to try to balance the dressing a serious concern while keeping to the light hearted nature of the event? guest: there is a long tradition of presidents -- if the event is particularly dramatic, it will bypass the humor and completely skip it. president clinton, after the oklahoma city bombing, comes to mind. presidents have to do what is right.

i do not think that this is quite the events as, say, an assassination, or the oklahoma city bombing. i would expect the president to say something, make mention of it, as does all to be aware of the suffering and the damage. but i would be surprised if he dropped the humor. host: he is a long time watcher of these events. he covers the white house for congress daily. thank you for your time. do not forget that you can watch the event tonight. it will feature remarks by the president and jokes and entertainment by jay leno. that starts at 8:00 tonight. you can watch it on c-span. you can also go to our web site, c-span.org.

back to our question. talking about energy extraction and how much risk takes. caller: good morning. i live on cape cod and as some of your viewers know, they just passed the cable wind farm and it was pretty good -- pretty big news. to each turbine is 3.6 megawatts . with respect to the oil disaster that is happening there in louisiana, i used to live in louisiana. i have been through the delta and i have worked on ships and i've driven through that area. there are thousands of oil rigs. it is littered with oil rigs. i just cannot believe that after this much time, they have not been able to plug this well. it is going on borderline --

something needs to be done. i cannot believe there is not a check valve. there are thousands of these. the delays on a regular basis. i cannot believe they do not have a fail safe for this. guest: we started this discussion talking about the amount of risk that should be taken when extracting these products. caller: i think it is a necessary evil. we do need oil and we plastics and we need everything they produce. there has to be some sort of failsafe to -- they have not even told us what happened. nobody even knows on the outside. i guess that article on -- i did not read that "the new york times" article. but is still unclear. i do not even know where the break is or where the oil is coming from. they cannot even know how much

oil is coming out. host: we will address those questions and others with our guest. caller: good morning. i support a nuclear power program. we're going backwards. we're going to end up in the stone age. we need to get -- we can only have enough power. we would not have to burn any well at all. host: as far as the risk in getting these materials, is it worth it to you? caller: you can reprocess over 90% of the fuel. on the moon, there are vast quantities. it is a very safe power. it is also very good for

propulsion through space. caller: i am listening and i have a comment. i watched the bp owner and he rented that out. that ship was rented out. to me, i did not understand. we are in 2010. this is ridiculous. what we're doing with our water and the nuclear plants and all of that, what are they doing? here is what -- i do not know how to use the internet. i am ignorant. there are too many rich people in power. we need poor, middle-class, and rich. my husband works in a steel mill for over 22 years. the rich do not know everything.

if we put everyone together, we would solve these problems. host: off of twitter -- the washington post has a story looking at the 2010 elections and particularly women who are involved in running for seats in the house and senate. so far this year, 239 women are candidate for the house and 31 for the senate. bthe democratic campaign

committee declined to provide data. this is an honor republican line -- caller: good morning. i have some points to make and i will make them succinctly. the post article that you read said that the united states still needs oil. iran has oil and they are willing to sell its u.s.. -- sell it to us.

general petraeus said about two weeks ago at an event that was on c-span that he was talking to iraqis who said, you just came here for oil. he said, i could have bought 10 years worth of your oil for what we have spent here in one year. a military policy to protect oil is foolish. keith wise men appeared in a conference in washington state last december. he said that in 1995, aipac drove to the first set of sanctions against iran and they moved against u.s. interest rates they caused u.s. corporation to have to back out of a contract that was very lucrative, that would have

employed hundreds of thousands of americans. but it wanted to insert a wedge between the u.s. and iran. thank you. host: state college, pa.. caller: i wanted to make some points about energy. i started college about five years ago and tried to get a community program to bring alternative energy to our college city. the engineer professor that i was trying to bring into this process said that he did not think it was an important thing to look at. when the time came, we would mobilize like we mobilized during world war ii. i just want to say that i think it is time to mobilize. the risk of drilling for oil and

for going with these older energies is more of an economic risk than it is an environmental risk because these are the leading sectors in the world. if you want to be economically competitive, we need to be leading these sectors. i do not think that the risk needs to be that high for the oil companies. they could come up with risk management plans that we do not force them to do that. so they do not. host: this is off of twitter -- franklin, mass.. host: the young lady that just spoke. she is right. the oil companies do not care. they did not care who dies.

they do not care about the oil spills. they have nothing to lose. they are making billions and billions of dollars. she is right. what are we going to do about that? why are all our soldiers dying in iraq and afghanistan over oil? did not tell me they're not. it is ridiculous. as far as the windmills in massachusetts, people are ticked off because they will be 5 miles off land and we will talk -- we were told they would be 100 miles. i am not happy about it, but it is better than oil. i did not know. what do you do? what are our alternatives? the big oil companies have got a hold on us and we need to break that hold periods when the to

bring our soldiers home now. host: if you follow 2010 politics, you'll know that in pennsylvania there is a very contested race for the democratic primary. tonight, those two gentlemen hold a debate that will take place in philadelphia. joining us to give us some context of this event is tom fitzgerald. he is a political writer. to talk a little bit about the -- talking little bit about the risk for both of these gentlemen. guest: most of the risk seems to lie with senator arlen specter because he is the incumbent. in fact, he has resisted invitations for a lot of other debates.

this is a one-shot debate. it will be going on during a phillies-mets game. he has nothing to lose in this case because he has to get the numbers moving. arlen specter has a lead, by all accounts. different polls suggest that it might be shrinking. despite the fact that he is a 30-year incumbent with the odor of the beltway on him and switched parties to boots, he is not really been able to overtake him yet. as far as we can tell. host: as far as polling for both of these gentlemen, how does it look as it stands right now? guest: there has been a gap in

the public polling right now what we need it most. it looks like specter has anything from and a point to a 15 point lead. there is still a decent slice of people who do not know enough about sestak. fairly low over all re-elect numbers for specter. maybe a third of people say he deserves another term, a sixth term. most of the public polls -- on the other hand, with contradictory data. for a long time, specter has excellent ratings among democrats.

he appears to of been accepted by his new party. he definitely has the party apparatus will be important of getting out the votes and mobilizing what ever turnout there will be. host: you talked about the ads running. can you expand on that? guest: sestak had a stellar navy career. he retired as a -- as an admiral and is served in the white house. he was defense policy director for clinton. he had a couple of pentagon posts. the controversy comes from his last job in the pentagon.

he was the deputy chief of naval operations for warfare requirements, i believe it is called. it is a position that plans strategy for warfare and helps set the size of the fleet. he performed that job and a new chief of naval operations, admiral mullen, on the first day, demoted him from that position. there were reports -- this was in 2005 -- that he had created a poor command climate and he -- other people have confirmed to us that he was quite the driven boss, shall we say. even in the type environment of the pentagon, he was toward the

right. that has followed him since. that is what specter attacked. sestak has not been able to refute that factually. he will not disclose any documents from the navy, such as performance reviews. however, the way the ad is worded, in excess sound -- and makes it sound that he was kicked out of the navy entirely or maybe he was drunk and ran a ship aground. host: how has he responded in his ads then to mr. specter? guest: his strategy has been to invoke swift boating, the infamous attacks on john kerry's

military service in 2004. in those attacks, people were accusing john kerry of having made up his military exploits in vietnam to get medals and other assorted things. much more serious than having a disagreement with a new boss. he is very defensive about it. his latest ad has groups of veterans saying, he is repeating the high points of this career, saying -- one of them says to tell our inspector to stop lying. they all say, we have only one thing to say. they also lose. -- the all salute. it has been a response of

tactics. they feel that this will remind democratic voters that there'll be a backlash. it over my democrats of things they do not like about arlen specter. he has been battling them for 30 years. he is known as a really intense campaigner who is good at using negative ads. he is famous for nuking opponents. host: he is a political writer for the philadelphia inquirer. he has been joining us to talk about the debate between our inspector and sestak. the debate takes place tonight and we bring it to you tomorrow night at 7:00 brith it will be part of our campaign 2010

coverage that is the pennsylvania senate race tomorrow night, 7:00. we thank you on the lines for waiting as we go back to our telephone calls about energy extraction. pensacola, florida, republican line. caller: i would like to know why we have laws that they have to have a shut off valve. why do we not have a shot of the route in the gulf coast? we're right here on the coast. we're still recovering from hurricane. our national park just now reopened. now it will have to shut. there should have been shut off valves. bp and the government made a mistake. host: the president is planning on traveling to the gulf coast

sometime in the next 48 hours. the president is planning on making his way to the area to assess the damage for himself. st. petersburg, fla., democrats line. caller: good morning. stop the drilling. you do not hear that. i live in the gulf and i am 76 years old and it is clear that your audience does not know the scope of this catastrophe. it is truly a pity. if it does not happen in your own backyard, it does not count. host: what makes you think that the audience does not know the scope? caller: it is clear from the calls. you do a bang up job, but the real issue should be, what can be done to stop this? i think they are doing everything they can.

the oil is on its way. it will be there soon. i know you are doing the best you can, but part of the problem is that people are only educated to what they hear on this hate radio. it is really a pity. thank you very much. host: charlotte, n.c., you are next. how much risk should be taken when it comes to extracting petroleum products? caller: good morning. i am calling on the independent line. i think it would be a good idea to do a show on how exactly these contracts are required. for mike understanding, british petroleum owns every drop of that oil and i think that the royalties that go to the state or the country pales in comparison to the profits that these oil companies make.

that oil is going to go on the open market to the highest bidder. how is that beneficial to the consumers of this country? i was like to hear more about that, please. thank you. host: grants are republican line. caller: i love your show. i do have a few questions. i have some alternatives to the oil. what if we never had the oil? we would still be in the course and buggy days. i will be so happy when we run out of oil on the earth. it will be easier. everybody forgets that 100 years ago, we rode horses and buggies. everybody is so attached to their vehicles. i notice that in louisiana, they

called up the reserves and put them to work cleaning up oil. it i do not think that is their responsibility. what they should do -- the oil company should hire people. host: we lost the caller. michigan, independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. my comment is along the lines that we have been dealing with these great oil companies, other corporations, and instead of them allocating someone for the safety of their operation, they put it all into making profit. for themselves and their investors. it is not that great of a cause to -- cost to when they start

drilling, a sink several pipes down there and then went they're getting into the pockets down in there, they have what is called protectors. -- blowout preventers. what did they not tested these? -- why have they not tested these? it did not work. their connection to the surface did not work. there manual attempt because they will not put any money into the fallout of having an accident. it is risky to get energy granted, but when they will not spend enough money to cover the environment and the country

from these economic ramifications of them allowing an oil well to go down and legal will live with a place, they are not having any responsibility. most americans are getting fed up with these wealthy corporations making all the rules, lobbying the politicians so that they become exaggerated right from the start instead of taking responsibility. host: we will leave it there. cape cod, massachusetts. caller: i agree with what the last caller said. this is going to be a tremendous environmental disaster that is going to make the exxon valdez look small in comparison and we're going to be talking about this for decades. i do not think it has sunk into people what a big thing it is. i blame the american people. when i looked out and see that

half of the cars are suvs, 70% of our domestic energy consumption is the gasoline for vehicles. it is ridiculous. people drive these vehicles for status. it is a lifestyle choice. people use a vehicle for a fashion excess three to make themselves appear sternway instead of -- appear a certain way. we need to change our whole relationship with energy as a culture. every little person has to join in a to be motivated. host: what is your -- what are your thoughts on the extraction process? caller: i do not think you can be too careful. if the whole coast of the gulf is ruined, think about this

seafood. it does not benefit the people of america at all. host: birmingham, alabama, republican line. caller: i worked on those ships for years. one of the things i hear in this conversation is bp itself. everyone seems to have forgotten 2005, at bp oil refinery, workers were killed. the investigation proved that bp was at fault and not take proper safety precautions trying to the accident at the refinery. now we turn around and bp has another accident. part of the issue here is bp itself. there's a lot of very good companies working out there that takes safety precautions, but bp is not one of them. they're cutting corners. host: what was your job

specifically? caller: i was a roughneck. i did a variety of things. host: could you give some context to some of the callers this morning talking about the ability or lack thereof to shut down the leaks? caller: some of that is way above my pay grade. i have to be humble. they have some highly paid chemical engineers up there. they know more about that than me. but this should not have happened. it is the ps fault. -- bp's fault. caller: i think the government should have done better in protecting our waters. there is no fishermen going to

be able to go out there. they're already saying certain science over in mobile, alabama. it will be here on monday. host: michigan -- caller: good morning. host: you'll need to turn down your television so that we do not get feedback. caller: i am on? i would love for you to invite sarah palin -- these people do not believe that things will happen. it is a shame. iwhen george bush got out of the

chair, he gave all of these companies the right to go out there and drill. they were saying how much we needed this energy. i am surprised -- a lot of your callers are so educated. if we were drilling, we have foreign countries out there screwing up our coastlines. this is all from globalization. this kind of thing comes from bipartisanship. with the globalization, clinton cited would be republicans. -- cited -- sided with the republicans.

if president obama wanted to do it right, it should have been drilling that oil and using it only for the american people to bring down the price of gas over here. this happened to show us -- it is a bad thing that it happened. but there is good that comes out of things that happen, too. hopefully, some of the same people who were calling in and say to drill -- host: we will leave it there. michigan on the democrats line. caller: that guy that just was on is my soul mate. i wanted to talk also about the big companies all over the world -- people better in these

horrible prisons are in there for killing one person in a horrible way. but these owners of these corporations, when they screw up, hundreds of people can die. asbestos is still going on. i also wanted to say that there was a coal company back when they passed all of those standards cleaning up the air and water and everything. it was accompanied that my husband works for nd build a brand-new factory and had the government come in and tell them exactly what they needed it to make it all right. this big coal company, they were given 10 years did their company updated. do you know what they did? and this was years and years ago.

i am 61 years old and i remember telling the story in college. they spent 10 years -- they did not buy any new parts whatsoever. nobody did anything about it. i have just had it with corporations. i have had it with owners who have no conscience. host: the "washington post has a story about the u.s. census. it identifies the writer as associated professor of mathematics in wisconsin. the headline -- why the census will be wrong.

bay city, michigan, republican

line. caller: these people that are against more drilling, wait till they pay for gasoline? you have to have oil. you have to have natural gas. solar does not cut it. you need to have power plants run by colal. these environmentalist are ruining this country. it host: "the new york times takes a look at rules about new financial regulation. this is the story -- to protect consumers, who will be regulated? the proposed agency is causing concern and confusion among owners of small businesses. it drugstores, jewelers, pawnbrokers and car dealers.

much of the new argument stems from the proposed nature of the rules. it goes on to give more of the explanation. you can find that in the new york times" this morning. to caller: let me start with this gentleman from max -- from michigan. but it extends from the tip of florida to the tip of texas, he will understand why some conservatives may be concerned. people do not realize what the bush administration did. they do not remember that bush gave hundred thousand dollar --

$100,000 tax credit to buy large vehicles. to i am 64 years old and for 54 years of my life, i never saw the price of diesel more expensive than regular gasoline. people yell about what the democrats are doing about spending money. if i remember correctly, when carter left office, we had a debt of $50 billion. we allowed one democratic president since -- we have had one democratic sense carter. he balanced the budget and he was paying down the debt. we have a death knell of $15 trillion. -- we have a deficit now of $15 trillion. we need to get a grip, people.

we need to quit worrying about what rush limbaugh says and take control of this congress. the presidency and administration of this country have sold out completely. all we have to get together and the votes in people that we want. let's start this country with some honest people. host: we will continue discussion about what is going on in the gulf coast from someone who has been following it closely. she is nancy kinner and is the co-director of the coastal response research center. is there some type of hope of controlling the leak? guest: that seems to be a very, very difficult thing to do right

now. they're trying to activate those blowout preventers, as you know. that has not been working. the other fixes are really just short term until they tried to drill that well down and relieve the pressure off of the existing leaking well. host: as far as the drilling process, what is the reasonable timeframe? guest: some estimates say that it could be as soon as 60 days from now, but it could be 90 days or more depending on the conditions that they encounter. host: what is the difference now between what is the -- the water currently? what changes as far as the ability to clean that up? guest: once the oil gets in toward the shoreline, it gets into the marshes that are along

the coast there. that makes it difficult to clean up. if it hits a sandy beach, for example, you can actually scrape the oil off the surface of the sand. but when it gets into a marsh, that there is a lot of sediment in the marsh. that is also where a lot of the sensitive species exist, said that makes it much more difficult to clean it up. it is very sticky right now. the conditions are such that the wind is blowing very hard. it is blowing the oil on to the shoreline. it is predicted to continue in that direction through the weekend. it makes the oil into a mold and it is very, very sticky. host: when you see people using these booms that we have seen, are they effective at all?

guest: they become much less effective one to have a lot of wave action and the water is moving quickly. baboons are designed -- the booms are designed to sit on the surface. right now, the waves are very high down there. it is exacerbated by the fact that if you have noticed, the moon is full right now. when spring tides -- we have hired tides and very strong winds. 20 miles per hour or more. the waves are 9 feet or more and it goes right over the top. . .

>> as the oil is coming out, it's getting churned in to make this kind of sticky emulsion and that's difficult in these kind of weather conditions. host: from watching not only this oil spill, but others,

have there been other strategies that have not been stride yet? guest: no, the full force of available technology is being attempted, but everything works , so you have to think of this kind of as a tool box. you have a whole bunch of different technologies that you can use, but the problem is that they work under different conditions, and the thing that really dictates whether a technology can be used or not is the wind and the waves primarily. so you may remember that earlier this week, they were trying to do burning on the surface, burning the oil as it came to the surface. that only worked when the wind and the waves are relatively low so that they can corral the oil on the surface and then get it thick enough to ignite it. unfortunately, the weather has not been cooperating recently,

and that's something that we cannot control. so each tool in the tool box works under different conditions, but when the weather is really bad -- in other words, lots of strong winds blowing the oil on to the shoreline, creating high waves -- those are the worst conditions, and the hope really here is that maybe if they could get this dispersement in under the water surface that they could disperse the oil before it ever hits the surface. host: our guest is the co-director of the coastal response research center with a joint project between the university of new hampshire and the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. phoenix, you're up first. charlotte on our democrats line, you're on with nancy kinner, go ahead. caller: hi. i was wondering, is it actually possible after it hits land and starts doing the damage to clean up that? i mean, is that a real possibility? because it doesn't seem like

what happened in alaska it ever got completely corrected. guest: well, the alaskan situation, which was 20 years ago, was in a totally different time. there really wasn't a whole set of responses and a very coordinated response. in 1990, congress passed the oil pollution act, and that actually set up a whole command system and designated certain federal agencies to be responsible for various parts of coordinating the response. that has improved markedly so there's not a lot of question of who's going to do what, when, and where. but to get back to the first part of the question, it really depends on where the oil hits on the shoreline, how the response occurs. so the first line of defense obviously is to try and have that oil not remain on the surface, to try and get it into

the water column, and hopefully , it eventually they can get the oil flow to stop. that he wants the ultimate solution. but if it hits the shoreline, they try to put out protective booms. the booms themselves have kind of a floating area on top and then a short piece of material that hangs down into the water that supposedly will stop the flow of the oil. as i mentioned, because. wind and wave conditions, that those booms are less effective. so once it gets into the type of shoreline, it's really a function of the type of shoreline f. it hits the beach, you can basically scrape the oil, the oiling mixture off the surface of the sand. if it hits a marsh, and that's a lot of what you see is this huge expanse of marshes, if it

hits the marshes, if you haven't seen a marsh, there's very, very tall grass that is on the surface of the marsh, and it will stick to that grass. now, one of the things you can do is clip the grass. another thing you can do, if the conditions are right, is you can burn the marsh, and what they'll do is have a very thin layer on the marsh when they do the burn, and that will burn the grals with the oil attached to it. the problem here is, if the oil keeps coming and coming and coming, then you get more and more possibility of the i'm coating the surface of the marsh and actually getting into the sediment, and that's when things really are very difficult to clean up. if you look at the surface of the marsh, there are a lot of plant roots, etc., organisms living down in those sediments, and that oil is sticking in there and then really -- you're

looking at possibilities like natural biodegradation and that kind of thing to clean it up. host: we have someone on to witter who asked, do you think the swamplands and marshlands are destroyed forever? guest: well, they may not be destroyed forever. there will be a whole process that's just gearing up now called the natural resource damage assessment process, so nerda, and this is also required by law, and this is a process separate from kind of third parties like fishermen suing the responsible parties. this is a required process where the responsible parties, the government and state agencies, are sitting down and assessing the damage that's occurring to natural resources, and what will happen, as part of that process, once it's

established what the damages are, there's a requirement by law to do what's called kemper to restoration to a level of situation that is the the same, and the language is "but for still occurring." so it will have to be restoration project to try and restore the marsh, and that may be a very, very long process. but that will be the ultimate attempt. host: how much longer can you have a leak occurring? guest: well, the restoration will not be able to be started until that leak is stopped, and even then, there is a whole process that has to go through -- that has to be gone through and agreements have to be reached to say what level of damage has occurred, and then what is the suitable restoration, and it might be

different for different areas. but you're trying to assess what's happened to populations of shrimp, crabs, things like the gulf sturgeon, all of those kinds of things, birds, and that is not an easy process. you have to collect a lot of data. you have to look at what the baseline conditions were so that you can see how much damage has been done, and that's a very contentious process t. can take years. host: next call, florida, don, independent line. guest: yes, good morning. caller: good morning. i have more of a comment about what she was saying about oil being on the market. i still don't understand, if 60% of oil is being sold on the market, the rest is being used for the economy. what they don't tell you is the price of oil on the market, when that goes up, and that is

a false statement for them to say. or a barrel of oil is being sold at $84 a barrel, which is not true. if they're on the market, and they have prices on. host: caller could you kind of gear the question to our guest's specialty as far as restoration and what's going on with the current efforts in louisiana? caller: yeah, sure. ok then. answer this question, how is they going to -- he gets this oil. guest: well, the valves at the bottom are basically what are called blowouts, and they were supposed to activate, and no one knows why they didn't. the full force of engineering expertise right now is being

geared to figure out how they can touch those blow-off preventers. they're hydraulic, so they're actually very similar to the kinds of things that, for instance, if you've ever seen a car go up on a lift, that's a hydraulic process. that's the kind of thing that they're trying to do is use kind of a hydraulic ram to close off the flow, and there are several levels of protection there, and none of them seem to be working. it's not clear whether they were damaged in the explosion or what. but they are trying to improve that. host: can you also talk about how these remotely operated submarines come into play? there's a graphic in one of the papers this morning. goim yes. you have to understand that the well is -- the well head right there where it comes out of the sediment is 5,000 feet down. i've tried to explain that, that's about a mile down.

so it's very deep. and the other thing you have to remember, down there, the pressure is about equivalent to one square inch of your skin having 22 pounds of -- 2,200 pounds of pressure on that one square inch of your skin. the pressure is huge, so you have so use these remote vehicles. and what you do is use the arms, etc., to activate various switches and devices like that that are down on the ocean floor. so it's difficult to do, and if you want to deploy any equipment down there or try to repair, you're really dependent on these robotics. host: keep on our republican line, go ahead. caller: it's 706-782-7046,

sorry i missed your call -- host: georgia, are you on? caller: yes, i am. my question is, what is going to be the impact on the fish and particular it will mammals like dolphins that have to come up to breathe, can they avoight noil any way or recognize it? guest: that's a good question. there have, as you know, been some whale sightings in that area. the problem with the marine mammals is, as you said, they do have to come up to the surface to get air. one of the reasons they want to keep this slick off the marshlands is to prevent there being an area where the marine mammals or birds might land. marine mammals might come up into the area where the slick is and come in contact with the

oil. the flip side of this, though, is that when you disperse the oil into the water column, if you have to keep doing that repeatedly because you haven't shut the floor off, the probabilities of impact on organisms living in the water column go up dramatically. the key thing to remember about this bill now is estimates say that approximately 200,000 gallons are coming out of -- of oil are coming out of that well per day. think about that going on for potentially weeks and weeks. that's where the problem lies, that any measures that are being taken are going to have to keep going for a long, long time, and that's where the problem lies, because exposures, the longer exposures occur for organisms, either in

a water column or on the marshes, the worse and worse the probabilities are for any kind of short-term or even years of recovery. host: do you think the federal response should have started sooner? guest: well, i think it's very easy to say what should have happened. what you need to understand, and i think it's difficult in these kinds of situations, is that the first thing that everybody has to focus on is human health and safety. and when the rig was burning and the emphasis was to try to stop that fire to get people off of that rig to find the people bhod been missing, so that was the main focus. after that fire actually stopped, the rig collapsed, then you start to try to estimate how much oil is coming

out of the well. those are difficult estimates to do. now it's getting a little easier because we have more data on where the slick is moving, you can make better estimates of how much oil might have been coming out or has been coming out of the well. the response so far has really just been trying to deal with these very difficult weather conditions, with the high winds, the high waves, and really a limited set of options for cleaning up the spill. right now, as the oil becomes to come on shore, now is when they're going to have to try to put on more and more people to help try and salvage what they can of those shoreline resources. host: harold in florida, you got 30 seconds, and we're then going to lose our guest. go ahead. caller: what happened to those safety devices that should have

been put in? i understand they're supposed to have them on those royals. why do other countries have them and we don't have them? what was that conversation with cheney and the oil people all about? i'm suspect of that. guest: well, i really can't comment on that, and i think right now nobody knows why the blowout centers are not working . as i said earlier, it's difficult to get anybody down there to actually see, so are you lying on robots and remote video cameras. i don't think anybody knows the answer to that right now. real problem that i think we face is trying to come up with short-term solutions down in the water column to prevent this oil from getting on to the shoreline as much as possible until that relief well can be drilled and hopefully the flow will be stopped. host: we got about a meant. give bus your time frame ads where we'll see some sustainability as far as the area that's going to be

affected. how much years are we talking? guest: i think we could be talking decades actually, if the oil flow keeps up for as long as they say now, if they cannot activate the blowout preventer and they can't really use some of these measures like the dome, etc. it will be a very, very long time. host: nancy kinner is the co-director of the coastal response research center. if up to the find out more about their work, crrc.unh.edu is the website. if you want to check them out. ms. kinner, thanks for your time and expertise this morning. guest: thank you very much. host: coming up, we're going to talk about the internet and its role in politics, and we'll talk about some other issues as well. our guest is of "the nation," and he's going to join us right after this.

host: our guest has a unique title at "the nation." he is the net movement correspondent. ari, what is that? guest: that's basic our department at the magazine for covering social media and politics. host: what's been the connection can, especially since the election of barack obama, between those two? guest: as you know, there was tremendous excitement around the network that barack obama had built in his campaign. 30 million people on email alone, another several million on social networks. basically what you had going into his government was the largest self-supported, connected constituency we'd ever seen in american politics. it's one thing to go to a town

meeting, see other democrats, republicans, go back home and have that be the end of t. it's really another thing when people can speak to each other on a scale nationally, millions and millions of people t. what we found, i think, in the first year and a half is it's been a lot harder -- i think obama's aides would say this to me -- it's been a lot harder to mobilize those people around scleet policy changes and mobilizing congress than it was around the single goal of getting him elected. host: why this d that occur as far as those specifics rather than getting him elected? guest: well, number one, it's lot harder, as you know, and the viewers at home know from watching, to move things in this town down in that building there in the background than it is to get everyone out to vote, getting people out to vote is also hard and takes a lot of time and money, but ultimately it's one strategic filter, one goal, and everyone's clear on that. when you say, for example, we want to pass healthcare as the administration has struggled with for some time, on any given day, asking people to do

things to help that goal, very difficult to figure out what they should do. should they call their member of congress and support him? should they call someone who hasn't made up their mind? what kind of pressure should they snuse should they write a letter to the editor? grass roots groups have struggled with those kind of challenges for a long time, and i think the administration didn't exactly find a sweet spot for that. host: do people have a certain political bent, democrats, conserve activities, independents, do they treat the internet differently? guest: it's a great question. sort of the conventional wisdom of, well, this is just a tool, this is just technology, you know, we don't use the phone that different, why would this be different? what we actually have seen in a number of ways so far is there are different patterns of behavior in the american political context. number one, we have seen liberals and progressives generally be more active online in donating money. that's why barack obama raised half a billion online alone.

john mccain raised under $200 million total. if you think about that, just the people who chose to express themselves or express their political choice by donating online made a huge difference. and clearly people who are more disposed to obama -- overwhelming the democrats -- did that more than the other than side so. that's one scleet activity that everyone understands because money matters. another article that i just wrote this week, i know we're going talk about it at some point, looks at how people use the blogosphere, citizen media, to engabling, and there's a new study from several researchers, including one at harvard's internet center, that finds different patterns -- for example, conservative bloggers far more likely to be individual voices, that is, a blog run by one person, and that kind of leadership, which is one style, versus group blogs, which is a totally different style. about 40% of the top conservative blogs are singe auth order. only 20% are liberal so. right there, the ideology --

now, you can have a different discussion about why that is, but right there, the ideology shows up a tremendous reason in whether people are reaching out for one kind of leadership, kind of like a radio show, or more of a group dialogue. host: political parties and the internet and how they use each other dab or how political parties use them is the topic. and our zpwest ari melber if up to the talk about this. 202-737-0002 for democrats. 202-737-0001 for republicans. and 202-628-0205 for independents. up don't see it, but when with do our twitter every saturday, it seems like a lot of the discussion happens amongst those who are following our show at the same time. you find that kind of thing going in both those camps as far as dialogue is concerned politically? guest: it's another interesting area. conservatives have adopted twitter much faster than other mediums. the blogosphere initially in 2003 and 2004, when it came of age, was much more of a liberal space in traffic and the number of top blogs, the number of voices, and in links, which, of

course, is the most important thing online f. you have people linking to you, you can build power, you can build voices nobody's linking up to, writing online is not that different from writing on the wall outside your voice, nobody see it is, doesn't really matter where it is. so all of those patterns were four strong on the left. on twitter, by contrast, which, of course, everyone understands it's kind of blown up over the last year or two, conserve tives, particularly conservative leaders, politicians, pundits, writers, have all been quick to adopt that medium, so we have seen much more parity there than in other mediums, and i think that's an interesting point, because, you know, twitter is how you use t. that's why some people like it and some people thought and see very different things. so one basic example is twitter can be a broadcast medium if you tuesday for one-way conversation. you can post your ideas or your links or whatever you're doing and leave it at that. and some people tuesday that way t. can also be highly interactive. so there's a conservative -- i'll pick one example, matt

lewis is active online, and he's on twitter. when his readers write to him, he responds to a lot of them. another pretty well known conservative, joe scarborough, responds a lot. if you look at the data, he responds most in the hour after his television program ends so. that means he's really going in there and using that medium to reply directly to people. so that makes it an interactive medium. for folks who want to be in politics and have a conversation, that's becoming a hub. the other thing i'll mention, if people at home are skeptical, sometimes people say, well, what can you really say in that sort of a conversation, sflite it's limited to a sentence or two. but what you actually find is that's a way to respond to people that's manageable. joe scarborough is someone who probably cannot do paragraphs of email toss everyone that writes him. so the question isn't really what's a sentence, but rather, is that more than the norm, is that more than the default? without twitter, i would argue a lot of political leaders would be even less responsive. host: is it your research, with all the dialogue going, is

there really education about the political issues going on as well? guest: this is something that's completely debated in the academic literature. there's a whole school of thought about what they call complete polarization and that we live in this hyper fractured media environment, but we can really go out and seek out things to reinforce our beliefs, and there's academic literature in studies that show that, but there's also a whole school of thought, and depending, again, what part of the internet you're looking at, just like what part of the country, that shows that people who are active news consumers now do get more, and linking patterns, which i mentioned earlier conscious bear that out. one of the things about the conservative blogosphere is that it links more than the liberal blogosphere and links more to traditional conventional media sites t. may be often to do criticism, but criticism is a form of dialogue, and that's a dialogue between citizens and people with a point of view and the media that they consume. host: let's have a question about the political process.

helen asks, will the internet make objects least campaign contributions to pay for election media hype? guest: i think we're seeing an interaction between campaign fund raising and the internet as a form of mobilization, but we're not necessarily seeing any replacement. ron paul is a good example. if people remember, he raised more than any other republican candidate in the final quarter of the election that the republican primaries had. but ron paul didn't get very far as a conventional candidate. he didn't rack up a lot of delegates. that type of internet success and money -- and no one would argue the money was insignificant, but it didn't subpoena plant the normal model. the dean campaign started out with a lot of buzz online, and they even actively useless would the internet to have this alternative conversation. they would send out very creative emails saying the pundits are going to count us out this quarter unless we raise this money. we don't believe in this system, we don't think money

should matter this much, but help us beat it. so sort of a sophisticated appeal to supporters that worked. but ultimately, if you think about it, was still playing by the rules set in this town that you have to raise a certain amount of money to be taken seriously. i think a lot of americans, looking at the political process, don't like that idea. we may disagree on the solution, but the idea that you have to raise so much money to be taken seriously, you know, that's a problem. having said that, people are using the internet sometimes to play in that same game. they're not necessarily changing the rules of that game overnight. host: ari melber joining us until 9:00 to talk about political parties and the internet. stanford, connecticut, rose on our democrat line. go ahead. caller: yes, sir. thank you very much for taking my call. it's a very interesting conversation, and i have a point of view -- and i don't know if it's borne out by the evidence -- i think that the internet and all correspondence via technology sent really activism? does it really translate into changing the system?

i mean, it might be a solution in terms of one venting their political opinions. however, is this really going to be a tool for making the necessary changes that we have to make today in the space of overwhelming cooperate in10 lens? there's no amount of blogging, no amount of twittering, no amount of emailing people, among facebook, is going to substitute for the kind of real activism that changed this country in the civil rights movement, any other movement. that's what my opinion is. i think it's a pseudo and gives a false impression of activism that's actually hurting us because we're not in the streets. host: mr. melber? guest: thank you. i think it's a very good and important sentiment to distinguish between basically communication and other forms of political activity and activism. now, a vote or a donation may also communicate something, right? it may be a form of political speech as we consider those

terms, but it does something concrete, and going somewhere physically and being in the streets in the civil rights movement is a great personal risk that people took to make a statement and to make a political appeal to equal, changing the laws of this country, changing our culture. those are very serious things, and i would agree with the caller that they were in many ways more important political activity than communicating. having said that, communicating is how we govern ourselves and have these public debates. the fact that we have more platforms for that, and some of those are more democratic and easier to participate in i think is a boon to democracy. while there's no replacement for getting out in the street and doing the kind of work that takes hours a day, it is also significant that we have ways that people can participate more scleetly and with less time and the caller mentioned concerns about political power and corporate control. i would also argue there are

many citizens who are so busy working one or two jobs and trying to make ends meet and trying to take care of their families, that when they have more discreet opportunities to communicate online, that can level some of the playing field. it's reminiscent some of the questions around voting. this country still makes it very difficult to vote. you can have voting that lasts a day or two rather than just one workday. you can have vote by mail, which some states are very good about and others are not. when you lower those barriers, sometimes you get higher participation. i don't know that many people would say, well, shouldn't we have a high bar so that voting feels like a real commitment? no, we want to make voting easy. we want to make participation easy. and writing a letter to the editor in the old days was a very low-yield way to communicate, because you'd have to write 10 or 100 before the newspaper even published the little thing you were trying say. and now you can go online and you can participate in this way that i do think is good. host: sonoma, california, good

morning to ernest on our end pent line. caller: yes, good morning. the question that i had simply was it seems to me that the ron paul movement early on in last year's presidential campaign was really the start of the entire internet fundraising. if i remember correct the, ron paul had a one-day online that came about right near the tea party anniversary, where he raised, i think it was $16 million or something in some sort period of time. basically from a lot of independent groups that were all speaking to each other via the internet, because that news that they passed back and forth is not controlled. it's just between independent movements on the internet. and then president obama's movement seems to have obviously they use it had more effectively, but they seem to take credit for having started this whole internet political, and i was just wondering how you felt about that. appreciate the call. and have a great day. guest: great question, and it comes up a lot in politics.

something good happens, and everyone takes credit for it. kennedy often said, you know, victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is always an orphan. i do think the obama campaign deserves some credit for the way they organized online. i do agree also with the caller's central premise, that there were cultures forming here in american political life that were going to reach critical mass either way. now, that doesn't mean it would have happened the same way in 2008. i mentioned some of the numbers earlier about the success that have internet operation. having said that, there is great evidence that the culture, particularly on the left, that started with howard dean and moveon.org, that made people realize they could take discreet action, give money in a smaller way online that could have more of an impact, and in the money run that ron paul had successfully, that was happening anyway. and to the study i mentioned earlier, which i will say, by the way, if people to want sea

it, they go to thenation.com or the harvard berkman center, they can look at the data themselves. those researchers make the argument while the obama campaign was innovative, it was really those habits that we discussed in the blogosphere and these larger trends that were moving toward the culture ating millions of new people towards participating online in this way and giving money. so i do think the story is much more complicated than saying, oh, barack obama or ron paul or this one. there can be a great man or women's theory of the internet, and that really lose as lot of the complexity, because people don't make these changes overnight. they have to believe that their participation matters, that the email they're getting and reading is credible, and that they can do something in response. we all get spam, we all get a lot of things that waste our time. i think what you saw, particularly initially on the left, which was we're shut out of government, and the researchers make this argument in the piece, basic until 2003 and 2004, as those tech nothing else were becoming mainline,

we're not just niche anymore, it coincided in a period in american life where liberals especially were looking more for ways to rally around, get their voices heard, to do something. conservatives at that juncture in political pear had less than 10 to do that. so it isn't to say this is how it will be forever. we talked about twitter catching on online, and i don't think it's a coincidence that's happening while conservatives are much more open to figuring out who the voices are going to be in their flex phase and leadership in america so. it's not that these things are frozen forever, but that early adoption by certain groups in discreet political activities can then set a tone that basically, you know, sticks around for a lot longer than you might think. host: from the constituted by finding avenues to get a message out, how does that connect to things we've heard over the years as far as those who label themselves as don't having a usually outlet like a radio or television to have those outlets, how do those two coincide? guest: there's a guy who may be

familiar to some viewers. he used to run a blog called open less and was a fairly big figure in the roots. now he actually works on the hill for representative alan grayson. and he had the crazy uncle theory on the internet. the idea that a lot of the suggestions and political proposals that catch fire online and some of the candidates who catch fire online are a bit like a crazy kinl at your family dinner who keeps saying things that make everyone uncomfortable, but if you listen closely, a lot of things he's saying actually ring true and seem like things that are ok and conventional. he talks about that in terms of media criticism. it's easy to forget, but early on, the web was where you had to go to find a lot of media criticism. now in 20, so the culture is shifted. we have entire shows, entire gazing in combleet about media. some people say it's too much. the "new york times," to pick one example, never had an only

budsmen in its paper before the jayson blair scandal. the idea that it took until this point in history to have a forum for that is partly a reaction to the internet, where there's tremendous discussion from people from all political persuasion about the whether the "new york times" got it right, and those can be healthy discussions. the question is, you know, you have a range of ideas that sometimes catch on online, and it turns out there's a larger audience for that. so now media criticism has been mainlined. so some of the ideas around the iraq war that were not in the conventional discourse today, the crazy uncle model, were mainline. ron paul, then to go back to one of the callers, was considered very fringe for a long time. then all the sudden the internet created a portal where he raised more money than everybody else, that's a heck after lot of people and small donations that believed in him. so maybe he wasn't as fringe as some had said, and many people would argue that the tea parties and some of these ideas that are being voiced now on the right were all rooted in

ron paul years ago, they just weren't getting attention. host: sterling, colorado, justin on our republican line, go ahead. caller: with the supreme court ruling, basically ruling that corporations can give indefinitely, and now that president obama wants to introduce legislation that will cause more trance pearns a regarding that, what kind of tide do you see where contributions will be being made by either private citizens or commercial entities and the electronic world taking part in that? you find it to be more of a freeing opportunity for private citizens and commercial, or does it separate there, a line that will drive the two to different directions? guest: there's question. there's baby lot of concern about this and also misinformation. the law today on campaign contributions has not actually changed. there are limits on what individuals can give and there are limits on what limits on what unions and corporations

can give. it has changed about whether you can restrict an individual corporation from spending money to get their word out, and now you basically cannot, says the court, do that in the way that we've seen attempt. the president has been critical of that, and then there's a wide range of legislation now on the table that would suppose to do different things. i think for people that are actually interested in the question around how campaigns are funded, it has a lot less to do with the supreme court opinions and a lot more to do with whether you're comfortable finding some alternative funding mechanisms. so senator durbin has a bill, the fair elections bill, that some groups support that would basically try to have more public funding of congressional races. some people don't like that idea. in fact, many conservatives people why should the government be subsidizing election? i think there's a legitimate argument there to be had. many other folks on the left, as well as people concerned about how congress sexrates what the incentive structures are, say that someone's got to

fund these races. and if you look graphic, the charts go like this. things have gotten so much more expensive largely because races are longer and you have to buy so much media. and so the other big idea here would be to help not lower the price of elections, you can't really do that, it's sort a runaway thing, but rather, provide some mechanism where people would rely less on donations. so i think that's where the big debate is going in looking at how we fund or subsidize federal elections. host: when you look at political we believe sites, or at least people who turn to the we believe for political information, is it just texts that's getting most attention or youtube, podcast, how do they factor in getting information out? guest: we're seeing a lot more attention to video. what that does mean, i think, is a more professionalized form of content. because it's just a lot easier for someone to quickly upload a couple of lines of text than to upload an entire video. you have to be somehow video literate to do that. while young people and

teenagers are more likely to be in that realm, for most of us, myself included, remixing a video is just not on the table in terms of a political speech. but again, the earlier carol's point about what does it mean to do activism online, when you share a video, as so many people did for barack obama, he had about five times as many views as mccain during the campaign, that's a social endorsement which is not unlike someone going door-to-door and saying, here's a fly better candidate. instead of something that disappears, you actually say here's a video of round paul or barack obama or whomever, check it out, listen to what they have to say. if someone gives a couple moments of their time, they've just had an intense, unfiltered access point into something new, which i think is in many ways, in our culture, more intense than texts. so on the one hand, i think the rise of video online in the culture and also in our politics, can be very intense in terms of exposure to new ideas and people.

on the other hand, it makes it harder for a regular citizen to engage unless we all, you know, become like your kids or grand kids and really learn how to make remixes on the fly. host: so for all the information out there, people who follow political topics, they usually town a certain amount of op-ed writers, a certain amount of authors. who are those people on the net on both sides? who are those people that kind of stand out amongst the rest as far as where people are turning for political information? you mentioned joe scarborough and ron paul, but who else that we may not know about that people are turning to? guest: well, one of the interesting things on the left, you have a group site. it's got hundreds of thousands of participants and users. so many people may be familiar with marco who founded that site. but then you have several other bloggers that contribute, some with handles other sued nisms -- or pseudonyms, and you have this rich discourse, and you have an interactive discourse, because you can create a diary post, you can contribute

something that interacts. so i think it's still really the big player on the left for those kinds of conversations. you also have some younger reporter bloggers who are really doing interesting things with experimenting in this space. ezra klein, probably familiar to many viewers, who started out blog willing independently while in college, works for the prospect, and "the washington post" scooped hip up. one day he looks like a normal reporter interviewing a senator, not that different from what you read in the paper, and another day he'll be interactively engaging a conversation online, and he'll object twitter, sort of more available. why is that different? well, it's different in one sense, because he's merging different practices of journalism. you know, there's a practice of journalism where i can sit here and say, i interviewed someone, here's the fact, take it. and that's the end of it, and it's sort of complete. you either belief t me or you don't or you believe the credentialed source or you don't and that's t. and then there's a much more online

interactive type of journalism or conversation that occurs online that we're still experimenting with, and there's some writers who like it and when some writers who don't want anything to do with it. so what you see ezra do, for example, he basically raised some hackles of some people when he floated this post recently about saying, well, what if hillary were on the supreme court? well, if you have your journalist hat on -- it depends what category is on -- did you interview hillary? no, she's not returning calls about that issue anyway. did you get a spokesman to say no? did you get the white house to respond? in the journalism box, that's not really a fully formed idea or article, and you probably wouldn't pick up in the paper. but in the conversation box, or the blog box, it's an idea t. may not work out, a lot of ideas don't work out, but someone thinks it's worth discussing or interesting to discuss. so he posted that. and because along the day, that ricochets around town, and eventually there were rebuttals and sort of denials, and i can tell you as a journalist, you call hillary's people, they're

not giving you quotes on the record for this in an article, and that's the way that often people in power and people in politics deny the press story, they just won't participate. and then maybe the story dies. online -- again, you have standards, but online, to pick up the end of this example, ezra had some responses here, and eventually, because it's moving into the discourse, hillary's aides did reply, and they said, in fact, she has less than zero chance of being on the court, and that sort of worked itself out. but sometimes you don't know those things until they work themselves out. so that he wants a different practice than a traditional self-contained piece of journalism. home so the web is changing the idea of what is a journalist. guest: i think it's changing the way journalist drive conversation or just report what they can confirm. i think there's value in both of those things. what's so funny, we've been at this for two years, and we still have debates, you can only do one, or only one is

worth. i think there's tremendous value in dealing with misinformation and lies, there's tremendous value when people stick to the facts, who only report exactly what they can confirm, double source, etc., and i don't think that's going away. i think the business model is in trouble, but i don't think the concept that we need facts is going away. but that's one model. the other is an interactive journalist, being a part that have conversation and being more transparent and saying, you know, hillary's people wouldn't return the calls, this is what i know, this is what i think, i'll update later today. that's not necessarily irresponsible. it would be in that first category i'm talking about, but it may online lead to a richer conversation. and that's why you will see -- you asked for names. another one is josh marshall at talking points memo. he'll pull emails into the body of stories if he thinks the email has something worthwhile to say. different practice. host: osage beef, missouri, richard on our democrats line for ari melber.

caller: yes orkt subject of donations, every day we're bombarded on our tv by box news with nothing but republican comments. our local radio stations, 16 hours a day have nothing that republicans like rush and hannity and our local radio stations would not be broadcasting those people have their own people on putting out the propaganda. our newspaper is a republican paper here. we get nothing but the republican point of view on any subject here. we never hear a democrat unless you turn on one of the night shows.

i'd like a discussion on that. moip mr. me lber? guest: i think that's a very interesting point or question or about the way local media will reinforce only one view, and you don't have necessarily the adversity in media. you know, the internet is fundamentally a polled medium. that means you can go down there and pull down whatever you want. if you have the time, there's a lot there you can sort through. but most people live their lives with push media. that is, you walk through the airport, and yeah, is it tuned to fox or something else, and how does that affect you? you have the newspapers pushed out to obviously being circulated and sitting in the diner, and the radio is pushed down and you're not flipping channels. clearly the push mediums, which are still dominant and which still relate to corporate and business controlled and business decisions in some places, don't provide much diversity at all. i just would say, the question about how that relates, you

know, one answer in policy is whether you want to have some sort of diversity or fairness doctrine in media. that's something that has gone by the wayside, the idea that there should be balance or a rite of response on the broadcast media has been discarded, what works is on the air, and what doesn't is not on the air. so i think the new caller raises a point that doesn't have an easy answer, because as i'm saying, the internet, for whatever its great impact, is not going to be a push medium and is not going to be something that affects a lot of people's day-to-day lives the way that division does. television remeans the dominant anyway later of our lives and culture. new story, you know it's going to matter, whereas all these

other stories that could matter for great reasons, but if they're not here, being translated, them don't necessarily get the same foot hold. host: for all the irblese you cover concerning the internet and speech and journalism, look at this f.c.c. and how does it factor as far as this approach to other things, or does it have an approach as far as content is concerned? guest: well, the f.c.c. was widely promoted as a place to change a lot of these policies and there's been an ongoing debate about net neutrality and internet protocols in this town, but i don't think in the short run we've seen any great gifts from the f.c.c., and that's a much -- that's just a long-term process. the issues are whether you're going to have rules of the road to help content be spread out and get to people in a fair or equal manner and who's going to pick up the cost. so the idea that the internet should be this wide-open place where everyone can basically

travel at the same speed, if you will, and down load things at a similar speed and have access is broadly appealing. the real policy question is who's going to pay for that? we talked about more video. the more and more video you get, eventually the road gets clogged, it's more expensive, and a lot of the companies that do this say, well, hey, this is like anything else, you got to pay for that. neutrality might put a bigger burden on them. that's been the key f.c.c. issue right now. host: florida, thanks for waiting. you're on with ari melber of "the nation." caller: good morning. this is john. how are you today? guest: good. how are you, john? caller: good. when i originally was calling in and i was thinking about when i went ahead and used the internet, i used it basically to go ahead and donate money to my congressperson, which is president obama now. that was the tool that i used. when i was on the internet, i

could never find out any ideas on what to do. it was just more like donate my money and that was basically it, was never, how can i go ahead and better the environment or any other political views i have? it was only a money-making tool. now since i've been watching the program though, my next question is, everyone talks about news channels, cnn versus fox t. seems like everyone at the news station is just basically going for ratings. it doesn't seem like they want to report the news. they have to put their ideas into the questions, and it influences the the news. if i try get some kind of information, vile to watch three different stations, pabs usually gives me an unbiased, i

think might be unbiased question or statement, and then i have to watch fox and i have to watch cnn to try to go between the lines to find out what the real view is. and i want to know what you think about that. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. you know, the idea that television stations are beholden to the rating social security an old one. it's always been a part of commercial television. but i think the caller is really fingering the fact that, at least in primetime on a lot of these shows, there is an increased attention to opinionated or point of view program. i do think actually part that have does relate to the conversation we're having about the net and how people access news, which is, whether you like it or not, it doesn't really work anymore to get on the air at 7:00 or 8:00 at night and try to read people the news. if those people are 60 or 70 years old, it might, because of their information habits. but for the rest of the population, people who care about the news have already been talking about it.

and so that sort -- so that same sort of feeling, oh, my god, did you hear there was an oil spill? yeah, dude. it's not going to be a big moment where i'm delivering something of value to you. even though it's porningts i'm too late. for a lot of cable news channels that appeal to an audience that follows the news, they just can't come on at 7:00 or 8:00 at despite do that anymore because of the net and because of our changing news habits. so what we've seen is a lot of ideological or point of view programming, which can be good or bad depending on what you like to watch. point of view doesn't have to be biased. the caller said they're concerned about bias, and i think you should watch the news skeptically. but what it does mean is they can't just say wheaps again. the nightly news still does that and indicaters to a significantly older audience. but what we're seeing in a lot of high news audience programming, the rest of the people who consume news, is adding something else at night. so that's a piece of it that relates to a conversation i think we've been having. host: i don't know if this is a fair question, but how has the

advent of smart phones and portable technology change this had concept or as far as the discussion? guest: well, that gets you down to the bite-sized stuff. fwitter is so simple, well, what's the point? but also, sometimes very simple information can still move and be used or be interesting to people. so the access point that you have and the platform that you're using is going affect the rest of t. the other for example i give on twitter is, it is the only social network that has higher participation from the lowest economic bracket than it does from other economic brackets. that's unusual, because typically, especially facebook that was started on college campuses and was appealing to that crowd and basically something you have to be somewhat media literate for and have your internet connection, fatesbook -- facebook tends to be wealthier people. if the viewer or participant experience on twitter, where you pick up basically a line of text, it's not at all

impoverished or lessened when you're on a very simple device. the experience you can have on a simple portable device there, and what it asks of you doesn't require you to be a net expert. you know, one caller was say, oh, they know how to give money online, they don't know how to do other things. well, a lot of people don't. unless you're spend ago loft time on it, it's a big interest of yours, it may not be something you have a great access to. so your question about smart phones and other things, the simple digitized, broke down, itemized ways of participating may be actually more accessible to more people, which, again, if we look at this in a democratic context, that's a good thing, because we want participation. but that's one way that smart phones are basically opening up access. host: one more call. massachusetts, boil our republican line. caller: yes, sir. good morning, jefment i don't

know if this has been mentioned, but obama's use of the internet and where it came from was back in early 2007. a fellow named chris hughes, who was one of the four co-founders of facebook, left the company and joined obama and his campaign. eames the one -- he then took what he learned from developing -- from the development of facebook and recrafted and remolded those principles and applied them to a political campaign. consequently, obama has atheaved what he has achieved. my question is, do you agree that without chris hughes obama never would have been elected? thank you very much. guest: thank you. it's an interesting question and put very dramatically. if barack needed chris, and it is true that chris joined from facebook and that they worked on applying a lot of the social network technologies. two thoughts, one, when you talk to chris, he really

emphasizes that the goal there was always converting people into offline action, that they didn't see -- what i spoke earlier about communication, them did not see this as just communication or talking. they wanted to take those people who are on the network and convert them to door knockers, convert them to volunteers, convert them to phone bankers. i think they did that. their internal social network popped out over a million people just on the obama website, and several million more on the other sites, including facebook, where chris had previously worked. so i think they use that had primarily to use social connectivity and social capital to get people to do things, and they had more volunteers than just about any presidential campaign, so that worked. would obama be president without chris? probably. would barack obama be president in a world without the internet? absolutely not. .

for the next hour, we're going to have to guest who are going to help you cram for the exam in

preparation for that. we will take up the discussion we come right back. t >> a c-span video library fact.

there are nearly 6000 references to abraham lincoln in our video library. if you're one of the million -- if you're one of the millions who enjoy our 16th president, you'll find them on line. >> what i think is vital now is that the americans agree to talk to the taliban leadership. >> in 2000, he wrote about the taliban and the rise of osama bin laden. with the 10th anniversary edition of his book, he looks at what is next. sunday night on c-span.

>> sunday, on both tv -- on booktv, pat buchanan on conservative ideology and today's political climate. he will take your calls and e- mails. three hours with pat buchanan. sunday, noon, c-span2. >> iranian leader ahmadinejad is that -- is scheduled to speak monday on a conference on nuclear proliferation. find key moments from his past speeches at d.c.'s ban video library. every program since 1987. watch what you want when you want. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is andrew conneen. also joining us is daniel larsen. they're both teachers at adlai stevenson high school.

if i am in a key government student, what am i doing this weekend? guest: we are here to cram for the exam. this is the first step in a lifestyle of civic participation. we are building a new participation of the voters. host: tell us about the exam. guest: almost 2000 students on monday will be taking the government and politics exam and they're looking for college credit. host: when this exam -- is it just multiple choice? is it s.a.? guest: it is a combination of things. they have four essay or they have to demonstrate their knowledge of civics.

host: how long does it take for the students to prepare? guest: this has been a yearlong process. we have three classes that meet in one semester each. it can be anywhere from four months to eight months. host: just to give you folks an example. if you have students who are studying for it, an example of one of these questions? which of the following best describes checks and balances as new britain and the u.s. constitution? there are five possible answers. what is the correct answer? guest: the house can impeach the

president. that means that the house can vote that the president has done something wrong. the senate has to remove him. >> as long as our students can narrow that down and make an educated guess, they'll be fine on monday. host: you'll get all those answers, they could all sit -- they could all have some truth to it. guest: there are a couple of tricky ones in there. the right answer was house impeaches. host: what makes me think that these questions are vowing to show on the test? guest: when you are talking about questions in government and politics, there will be questions on checks and balances. there will be questions on the three branches of government. if you know those 100 critical words, you'll be fine and this test. it is really about learning the vocabulary of the government. we're teaching a gsl class.

host: if you get those words, there is a better chance of you getting the answer. guest: absolutely. host: let's bring on the students. students only for this next hour. but like to hear from you if you are preparing for the exam. if you live in the eastern and central time zones -- you could also send us an e-mail with your questions. caller: my question is, from this practice exam from 2008, should i read the question? it says, a tax whereby citizens

pay a higher percentage of their income compared with wealthier citizens is known as a progressive tax, proportional tax, graduated income tax, flat tax? guest: right off the bat, taxation. it is a great question. this is a progressive tax, or the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate than the poor. of course, this is a -- this is not a test where you can debate politics. it is a tough one. host: hollin the been preparing for the exam? -- how long have you been preparing for the exam? caller: about two weeks now. i am paying a lot of attention to media and interest groups and all of that because those are were my problem areas are. i am focusing on practice exams

and reading a lot of definitions i have worked on in class. it has been really helpful. guest: you are doing all the right things. the best textbook is the daily newspaper. host: how does that work? guest: if you look at the news in the last week with the arizona immigration law, if you are reading about that news, you get a better understanding of federalism. >> the oil spill is about federalism. this is bureaucracy in action. this is federalism in action. host: and others did it from san jose, california. caller: i would like to give a shout out to the independence high school in california. do you think there will be specific federal papers that we

should be reading for the exam? guest: the federalist papers were written to promote the constitution, to promote ratification of the constitution. federal 10 was written specifically by madison. the idea of joining factions together. host: michelle, there is a simple question on the federal's 10 if you want to take a shot at it. callerwhich of the following bet describes what james madison wrote in the federalist 10? political factions can be controlled by the constitution system of government.

caller: is it c? guest: federal's 10 is also about factions. the argument that james madison gives is that a larger public, the type of government established by our constitution, is the best way to control factions. host: that would be letter n/a. we will give you a pass on that because it is so early. when you talk to your students about it, how do you best advise them on preparation? in this last stretch, what is the best advice? guest: fight the fatigue. a good night's rest, for 13 did not be frustrated. michele, to not be frustrated

when you come up against a tough one. nobody is perfect. there is not one -- it is very difficult. you'll be fine. >> read the newspaper. we really encourage our students to become news junkies after this test. that is really the essence of the republic. host: by the way, in the hour that we have, they set a special web site if you have tips and question. that website is -- guest: will be taking questions all weekend. join us on that block for some test preparation.

caller: for the triangle that happens between the bureaucracy -- guest: you have touched one of the hot topics. it is difficult to explain. the iron triangle is hard government works. it brings together the three critical players. the first player would be a congressional committee. there the specialist on this public possibly. -- public policy. it also brings in the bureaucratic agency that enforces the policy. then you have those very important interest groups. you have an interest group, a congressional committee, and a bureaucratic agency that all work on that same public policy.

if you are on it that at this time of the morning, you'll be fine on monday. >> interest groups try to gain access to decision makers, legislators or the members of bureaucracy. they try to present information and research and details to try to shape that policy. host: for this test, for students to take the government, did they take this test every year? guest: it is a one-time test. this is a class that they take. some of them are early as freshman year. host: will the be questions about the supreme court? guest: there are likely questions about the supreme court. >> they will have to know the processes of filling vacancies

on the supreme court. guest: it is not ta history tes. it will not need to know names. host: to give you some context, here is president obama talking about his elected process. >> different times call for different justices. each justice has their own strengths and weaknesses. what i want to make sure is that any justice that i appoint are people who have not only be academic qualifications or intellectual capacity, but also the heart the feel for how americans are struggling in their day-to-day lives. also, and appreciation for -- an appreciation for some time

tested principles in our constitution that has to be respected. host: next up is ohio. caller: southern my teacher has been hammering us about -- something my teacher has been hammering us about. guest: what a perfect time with obama statement about the supreme court. >> i love selective in corporation. it is not a concept that is easy and very few know about it. i love liberty hyde. what a great place to study. it is that process by which the supreme court has applied the bill of rights to states. most of this -- the bill of rights limited the national

government. there have been some critical court cases. in 1925, the supreme court used the due process clause of the 14th amendment applied the free- speech clause to the states. this opens up a whole new agenda to the supreme court. it opened up their jurist appearance -- jurisprudence and jurisdiction. >> you also have the case which incorporated the fourth amendment. it incorporated the sixth amendment right to give us the right to counsel. i am certain that president obama -- that is a topic that comes up, selective and corporation. -- incorporation. he wants them applying the bill of rights to state and local

governments. host: i do not know if you want to take a shot at it, but there is a supreme court question. it might incorporate selective incorporation if i'm correct. what was the significance of the u.s. supreme court mccullough versus maryland? it stated that the state and local police must follow the fourth amendment. caller: we talked about this over and over in class. the answer has got to be d.

guest: is the supremacy case for the supreme court moved that national government is supreme over the state. host: it was the first case that established it. guest: merkel versus maryland did two things. -- mccullough versus maryland did two things. it gave flexibility to the interstate commerce seat clause. host: thank you for calling in. caller: i would like to give a shout out to my teacher. he has been a great asset to a share. my question is about the supreme court cases. what is the chance that we would get a supreme court case on the test? guest: there is a good chance. that could be an overwhelming

thought because there is no shortage of cases. there are a few. we just talked about a couple. i think it would not be unusual to see roe v. wade. do not be overwhelmed by it. a steady four or five or six critical cases, the big ones. you'll be fine. host: what goes into preparation? who is responsible for putting this test together? guest: this is a college board test. high school students across the country are looking for college credit, a way to save tuition cost, by scoring honors course on the college board test. host: did teachers have been put on this test? guest: there is a test

development committee. this is a group that puts together the s.a.t. they have been in the business of standardized testing for a long time. >> we do not know what is on this test. the note the broad concepts. host: alabama, christine. caller: good morning. host: you are going to hear a little feedback. go ahead. caller: i am wondering what you could tell me about campaign finance reform. guest: one of the most complicated topics -- the students are answering the hot ones. these are fantastic. cancans finance is very confusing, but i would like to distill it down to a few points. there are limits. our system does not allow the fat cats to come in and ride out checks for millions of dollars

and million dollars there. can they find it is marked by its limits. -- campaign finance is marked by its limits. baalbecthis is not an opportunir fat cats to lay down a lot of money. there are loopholes. one of the loopholes is something called a 527. this as an independent expenditure. i may be limited as a citizen to give money to my politician, but i am on limited -- unlimited on how much i can spend on my own. if i run advertisements or put something in the newspaper or promoting an issue, there is no limit on that. if i am a fat cat, there are ways for me to spend big money. i can only give a certain amount to my local politician. >> the previous caller asked

about supreme court cases. one of the biggest ones this year was the psittacine united case. you will not have to know that case, but what you should know is that the first amendment right to free speech has often been used to limit campaign finance laws, especially the independent expenditures where if you are an independent group, giving money independently sometimes can be unlimited. host: this is from twitter -- guest: both of these come from the 14th amendment. they both go back to the civil rights. equal protection clause is really at the heart of brown versus the board of education. it is about overturning the landmark. due process clause is part of the 14th amendment that built into that process, selective and corporation. the idea that state and local

governments must abide by parts of the bill of rights. >> some have argued that the single greatest act of our government was the 14th amendment. host: if your past, -- a view or asks, are they available for download at itunes? guest: it is a great idea and i do not know anybody who is doing it. caller: good morning. my question this morning is, what is special about the house of representatives? and what is special about the senate? guest: we love talking about differences. i look at the differences between the house and the senate, let's talk about legislative process. in the house, there is a rules committee. they determine the debate in the

house. willoughby and open debate or a closed debate? -- will it be an open debate or a close debate? oftentimes, the majority party will have a closed rule which keeps that vote narrow and to the point of the original bill. there is no rules committee in the senate. all boats and all debates in the senate are open to the debates process. everybody is talking about the filibuster. the filibuster allows one senator to plot a debate by simply saying, i am not for this bill. in the old days, you had to talk that day -- that bill to death. that requires 60 votes. the senate is not a majority body. it is a supermajority body. unless they reach that 60 votes number, nothing gets done in the senate.

that is because of the filibuster. >> certainly, you should know the expectation was always that they act quickly on what the people want. the senate, elected every six years, tries to slow things down. that is exactly how the process works. host: the next call is from chicago. caller: good morning. thank you to everyone. my question is, are there any specific amendments or rights in the bill of rights that we should note? guest: great question. again, this is not going to be a trivia test. they really want a broad brush stroke test where you are going to be asked to know some of the more important critical moments and ideas and concepts. with respect to the bill of rights, know the first

amendment. i would no free speech, free press, know the distinction of free religion. i would also know petition and assembly. there is a good chance that on a free response question dealing with interest groups, you might need to add and your answer the first amendment issue because it is the right to assembly. i think the second amendment is important. the fifth amendment will definitely be part of this test. possibly the eighth amendment. >> do not forget the 10th amendment. host: as far as the free response question, give us an example. how are they phrased? guest: it is not an essay question students do not have to write an introductory paragraph. but there are three or four components that will test their knowledge and understanding of vocabulary and how it might

transcend. you might have a question on transparency in government and why is it important in the republic for citizens to have access to information. >> another example would be to define the word gerrymandering. in addition, argue how the supreme court rules in gerrymandering cases. host: next call is from michigan. caller: i was wondering if you could point out some key differences between the executive office of the president and the cabinet. guest: the white house staff nurses the cabinet. the president gets most of his day to day advice from a handful of advisers that are part of the white house staff. they did not have to be approved by the u.s. senate. on the other hand, you have the cabinet which makes up part of the federal bureaucracy. cabinet secretaries to have to be approved by the u.s. senate. they're part of the decision making.

they're not necessarily there every moment of the day. host: this is all of twitter -- guest: great question. there'll be a distinction on monday's test between the formal powers of the president and the informal powers. formal power is the specifically delineated powers that the founding fathers wrote in night -- 1787. our government has grown since and we now talk about informal powers. we talk about the implied powers. these are those powers that are expressly stated -- are not expressly stated, but now or curly -- clearly understood as powers of the president. the power of the presidency is founded most in those in formal powers. things that executive order,

executive privilege, the ability of the president to use public opinion to conjure up his support. none of which the founding fathers talked about. host: here is an example of a question from a previous test. guest: speaking held directly to the american people and speaking face-to-face with members of congress, trying to persuade them to do with the president wants them to do. host: colorado, thank you for holding. caller: i would like to say hello to mr. clay. i was wondering if you could tell me the difference between the primary and caucus. guest: there is a really good

chance that one of the questions will be -- will deal with campaigns and elections. this is a distinction that you may be asked to make. the primary season, this is the season in which we select our candidate, historical lee, they held caucuses. it caucus is for a narrow audience that literally just arrives in a room, discuss as which candidate they prefer, and that small group decide and pass that on to the state political party. it is not very democratic. as our country demanded greater democratization, states really in recent years would to a primary election. they ran just like the general election so voters can cast a vote and the number of votes cast, that is the candidate.

most states today have a primary. if you have a few high-profile caucus states like iowa, they are always first in the selection of a presidential candidate. we call the front loading. >> voters in a primary and caucus tend to be much more ideological than your typical voter in a general election. the typical voter is going to be much more liberal been a more moderate voter in the general election. the candidate have to shape their campaign message knowing these voters are coming up to vote in these primaries. host: can you explain the differences between the separation of power, checks and balances? guest: sounds like the first three weeks of class. >> it is a good question.

the bottom line is that there is not a whole lot of difference. there are examples of how our founding fathers were so afraid of putting power in one place, it wanted to dilute the power wherever they could. so much so that they created more government said there would be less government. federalism create a national, state, and local government. that is federalism. all in an attempt to limit the power of government over our lives. it is a way to protect our liberty. checks and balances did that and raise national level. -- did that at a national level. host: in new jersey, thank you for joining us. caller: good morning. i would like to give a shout out to our teacher. my question is, can we expect questions on the weakness of the articles of confederation on the test? guest: you might have a question

about the articles of confederation. the national government was very weak under the articles of confederation. with things like that, and they showed at alexander hamilton and james madison the need for a much stronger central government, which was created in the u.s. constitution. host: i think the articles of confederation talk about the umbrella of the whole course. holds the power? how is that power ground? -- who holds the power? how was that power brown? grown? the entire test is really about that theme. power in the government. host: mass., melissa, good morning. caller: i want to give a shout out to newport high school.

what is the significance -- guest: this is where the first amendment creates this loophole. in the 1970's, congress restricted to -- restricted campaign spending. it was a supreme court case that if your a multimillionaire, you have a first amendment right to spend as much money as you want on your own campaign. it is an example of how campaign spending is protected by the first amendment. >> it was a mixed message. host: what is your second question? caller: i want to know, do the states have been the ability to check the federal government? guest: this is often confusing because the primary focus of

this test is the national government. we do not get a lot of chances to teach about state governments. there are many checks in the government in the form of federalism. there are many examples we can think of. even this story in arizona kind of test that. ken arizona pass a law that the national government might say, this is deplorable. this is the prerogative of citizens in the state of arizona. >> the concept of devolution. we certainly solve the 1990's. that was the federal government handing some powers back to the states. the power to set their own speed limits or the power to create welfare policy. that was in the 1990's. host: alabama, go ahead. caller: i was wondering if we could go over the federal

bureaucracy and the powers that the bureaucratic office holders have. guest: bureaucracy is there to enforce the law. in the end, congress makes the law, but the bureaucracy is there to enforce it. the president is the chief executive. he is in charge of the bureaucracy and the delegates those powers. host: this is off of twitter -- guest: pigeonholing, i could use it in a variety of ways. i am thinking of the narrow focus issue that the president or congress or any institution -- it is all about getting your issue on the agenda. getting your issue on the docket.

>> in the legislative process, pigeonholing refers to the idea that most of bill sadr introduced on capitol hill died in committee. -- most built that are introduced on capitol hill died in committee. they get stuck there. there pigeonholed and they never get out. host: los angeles, marion, good morning. caller: defined the term competency and do we have an imperial president? guest: an imperial presidency comes from a book in the 1970's and it is all about power. great question. these are the types of things you'll be asked to know. i do not think you will need to know imperial presidency as a term. you will certainly be asked about the power of the presidency. had grown to such an extent that

it almost goes unchecked? when you start to look at the informal powers, executive order, executive agreements that do not require congressional approval -- approval, one could still argue that despite the fact that schlesinger wrote about the imperial presidency of nixon and how congress tried to break down some of those unchecked powers, i think we have a powerful president. we will have a powerful president tomorrow and forever. host: what is the commerce clause? guest: this is part of article one in the constitution. the framers were very concerned about power and giving too much power to government. the listed specific powers that congress could do. those are called the expressed powers.

the commerce clause is clause 3. it gives congress the power to regulate interstate trade between states. tyou have seen the right to regulate commerce really branch into any economic activity in the united states. the the national government have the power to ask citizens to buy health care under the commerce clause? >> the commerce clause is one of the pieces of constitution that has empowered our government to do a whole lot more. recently, in a court case, one of the justices asked the attorney, is there anything the commerce clause has not empowered the government to do? justice scalia said, don't answer that you do not want to give them any ideas. host: chicago, thank you for calling in today. caller: good morning.

i would like to give a shout out to our ap government class. foreign policy -- is that going to be on the test? guest: great word bank there. i do not think he will need to know a whole lot about foreign policy. but you may be asked to talk about the role of congress and the president have both formally and informally informed policy. for instance, what are the former powers of congress as they relate to for policy? the immediate answer should be, to declare war. ng war, not the president. however, what are the formal powers of the president relating to foreign policy? he's the commander-in-chief. here you have the checks and balances interplay. i am not so sure you'll need to

know about the details of foreign policy. >> you should also know that congress passes the budget for the military. if the president does deployed troops, the war powers resolution says the president must notify congress within 48 hours and congress has to improve those ground troops within 60 days. in the end, congress always has to approve the money spent for the military. >host: if you are just joining us, we're helping government students prepare for their exam on monday. our guests are both from adlai stevenson high school. they teach history and other related courses. these sentiments have joined us to give you the students -- these gentlemen have joined us to give students advice. if you want to go to their web site, cbs2chicago.com/school.

guest: i've been taking this course for almost 20 years. -- i have been teaching this course for almost 20 years. preparing for this test is meaningful and purposeful. it is really about a lifestyle. we began branching out. the blog grew bigger than we ever thought it would be. >> is really about showing how technology can expand our classrooms beyond the bricks and mortar. it started with a radio program and the internet. we really appreciate c-span for bringing it straight to our students. host: are you surprised? guest: i am pleasantly surprised. host: columbus, ohio. thank you for waiting. caller: my question is from the

1999 to aid the government test -- ap government test. in which of the following does congress moved to regain powers previously lost in the executive branch? the answer is the budgets control act. guest: in 1974, congress passed a lot that essentially institutionalize the budget making process. one of the things they came up was the actual process. the president recommends the budget, congress then works over those recommendations because in the end, congress has to make the law. in the end, the president has to sign it. what also said it was that if congress approves spending

money, the president cannot compound those funds. the president must spend the money that congress tells him to spend. host: off of twitter -- guest: we talked about crosscutting, we're looking at the demographics of the bill -- demographics of the voters. who are the conservatives? who are the liberals? i am in evangelical protestant christian, but i happen to be african-american. protestant christians tend to move to the right and african americans tend to move to the left. you have to factors pushing into different directions. this is what makes our voting electorate so interesting to study. host: illinois, to students.

good morning. caller: would like to ask a question about mandates and the different types. guest: this is a discussion about federalism. it is a discussion that the federal government wants to impose its power on the states. how do you do that? how the states decide to follow that federal lead? they can do it by way of a stick, use a mandate. that requires the states to follow the federal lead. or they can provide money, this would be a grant. both cases are examples of how the federal government tries to impose its will or its agenda on to the states. it is a great question. those are two students of mine.

host: do you want to try a question? i lost the question. thank you for calling in. we appreciated. next call is from georgia, danny. caller: i want to give a shout out to my teacher. what is congressional reinforcement? guest: reapportionment is going on right now because every 10 years we count be -- we county population with the senses. istates like california and florida really skyrocket in population and a gain

representatives. meanwhile, states are stagnant and they lose representatives to the west and the south. the idea is divvying up those representatives proportionally across the country. when you draw the boundaries of those legislative units, that is called redistricting. when you draw the boundaries with a political motive, that is called gerrymandering. host: mdaryland -- guest: great question. we're talking about primary elections. those elections in which we choose our candidate. most states have closed primaries. it is one reason why the turnout for primaries is so low. a closed primary means that only a registered member of a particular party can vote. when you go votes in a closed

primary, you have to declare that you are a democrat or republican. you will only get the democratic ballot or the republican ballot. the increasing majorities of americans see themselves as independents. they do not select the candidate. in the general election, when they see candidate they do not like, they blame the process. an open primary allow split ticket voting in the primary stage where i could vote for a democratic candidate for governor, but on the same ballot, there is a republican candidate for senate. most states have a closed primary. host: a simple question rate which will likely advise the president on a day-to-day management of the federal bureaucracy?

guest: it would be the white house chief of staff. he is in the room on a daily basis. the white house staff is really made up of his closest advisers. these are men and women from his campaign staff. the cadbury oftentimes are political appointees who are not involved on a day-to-day basis. many of whom become a career bureaucrat. >> the cabinet members have both loyalty to the president. host: what is the difference between a categorical and revenue sharing? guest: it is money from the federal government giving state and local governments. with transportation, giving a

block of money to a state to fix highways that the state might select. categorical grants are for a much more specific type of funding. if your school is creating access for the disabled, that would be given any categorical grant that must be spent for those specific improvements for disabled students. host: fla., shannon. caller: i want to give a shout out to our awesome teacher. i know you guys are both teachers and i was wondering, what were you drilling into your students' heads yesterday? guest: ne predicted questions? we did not know what is on the test, but it would be good to have a question on interest groups. i have been predicting a question on transparency and the

importance of being able to see what government is doing and how the first amendment protect that. executive privilege, when the president is able to hide information from the press and from the public, how it can constrained. >> i was one part coach and one part cheerleader. when you approach the wall of the exam, did not see it as a hurdle. see it as an opportunity. aquasco richmond, va., you are next. caller: i was wondering if you could go over the finer points of a gideon versus ogden and how women obverses -- and how it helps with the religious cases? guest: it is a note -- it is really an old case. you'll be asked to know in generality. this is the case that expanded

the power of government. if you get an opportunity to talk about the growth of the national government, that is a great case to drop in. you cannot know them all. as far as the religious cases, there is a great number of cases to look at. i would know the distinction between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. know when the establishment clause was incorporated. 1947 -- there was a wall of separation between church and state. applying that concept to all 50 states. it dramatically change the culture and the way we talk religion in this country. host: from twitter -- guest: it would apply to the topic of gay marriage. that is also where we see

federalism. the idea that if one state recognizes a contract, what happens if those people moved to a different state? today have to recognize the contract, too? that is the perfect example of where we would see federalism. different states have different standards. it how do you interpret that? host: another question from california. caller: just a quick shot out to independence high school. i heard about the arizona law recently and i was wondering what kind of -- if we could run through quickly just how waybill becomes a lot. guest: we're talking about the

arizona law of immigration. it is a wonderful opportunity to read the papers this week into imagines federalism works. the citizens of arizona have the constitutional right democratically to make laws. at the same time, because of constitutional principles, guarantees found in the 14th amendment, the federal government will have a say in this and make comments and put pressure on to the state government. it appears as though the arizona legislature is doing that. it is the granddaddy question of them all. look at the archives here on c- span. it is an amazing resources. if you want to understand how the legislative process works, do a little searching in the archives here on c-span. it is not an easy process.

it takes time. if you're looking at the legislative process or the making of sausage, it is not pretty. in the end when it is done, it is important. h>> it must pass both chambers. the president can either signed -- sign that bill at the end or he can veto it. all bills have to be introduced in each chamber and that the committees are the most important part of the process. iguest: know the difference between the standing committees and the conference committee's. host: thank you for the shout out on our video library. if you want to go, it is on our website.

you can type in a name or a topic, whatever. related video will pop up and give you everything within our last 25 years of coverage. a couple more questions. from twitter -- guest: congress has tried to limit lobbying in terms of making it lobbyist register by law. there are certainly at laws about ethics about what lobbyists can get and how much they can get and what the relationship is between a lawmaker and a lobbyist. lobbying by special interest groups, they are lobbying for a very narrow interest. they're protected by the first amendment. host: one more question. caller: my name is stephanie.

i was wondering if you could explain political action committees. guest: political action committees, we're talking about -- an interest group advocates for a particular narrow policy. a political action committee raises money to distribute money. both are pushing and advocating for policy. one is more on the information side. it is another loophole around some of those campaign finance limits. >> the corporation has to do threat -- do so through their political action committee. that is a legal limit that has been upheld by the supreme court. host: final thoughts? guest: i am very excited for the