>> the senate returns today at 2:00 eastern. the legislation providing $34 billion for the defense department to fund $30 -- 30,000 additional troops in afghanistan. .

>> terence samuel. his new book, "the upper house." >> wendy to first think that the public would buy a book about the nine state senate? somewhere in 2000, i got fascinated by the idea that this great historic institution came

out of that 2000 election 50/50 and completely trying to figure out how to go forward with this relatively and president -- it happen before, but not in modern times. i saw 10 the leaders of the party tried to figure out what to do about making it happen. i realized the institution can get to the personality of these two man. i thought, wow, our government is so personality driven that i thought, there is a story here. that was the beginning for the book. >> but you honed in on the 2006 election. i wonder how many elected people in 2006? >> there were 10 new senators. nine were democrats, one republican. as you remember, the midterm

election that brought the democrats back into power after 12 years of republican rule after the 1994 republican revolution. >> we have those names we will put on the screen. nine democrats and the one republican. i want you to start with bob casey, ben cardin, sherrod brown amy olobuchar, clement pasco, bernie sanders. bob menendez is the fellow who was appointed. bob corker, the on the republican. i want you to pick any one of those and telesis story about somebody that you followed in the election. >> that is an easy one.

the montana senate election was kind of wrapped up in everything that was happening. this was the end of the bush presidency. the big question was, conrad burns to have been a republican incumbent had gotten wrapped up in this jack abramoff story. suddenly he was being challenged by the guy who least looked like the united states senator. he was a farmer from montana. he is from the outskirts of big sandy. he had lost three fingers in an accident when he was a child on his farm. it became a question of whether democrats could take this seat. ipad a lot of attention to that race. i even julie went to montana.

-- i paid a lot of attention to that race and eventually went to montana. one of the stores in the book is that he likes to say saved my life and i acknowledged that in the book because i left his farm and tried to get back to my hotel on a snow day. i went the wrong way down the road and got stuck in the snow. suddenly, i was looking around with nothing but snow piling up. eventually, i got out because john tester in his tractor came and pulled out my car and sent me on my way. >> did you spend time in his home? >> i did. >> why did you that you follow him that closely? >> one of the shocking questions -- i do not know. he is a nice guy, for the most part. i am shocked at what people do if you ask. i asked if i could do this book about the freshman class and they adjust to the senate. for the most part, people said yes.

>> why did john tester beat conrad burns? >> i think this was an election where people come even having just reelected george bush, were frustrated with mostly i think the iraq war. there is some question, particularly among senators, about how big a role that place. i think between this affection for the president on the war and conrad birds having gotten trapped -- conrad burns having got trapped in this question about jack abramoff, i like to describe the 2006 election as sort of a recall election of george bush. there were so unhappy they decided to toss his party out of congress. i think a large part that is what ended up costing conrad burns his seat. >> i think there were six members of the senate, republican party lost.

what did you find with a. >> richard and did she let you come into the inner circle? >> i have been to her house. i spend time with her in minnesota. i would not say i was it and her inner circle, but i did speak with a lot of people. she is amazing. she is known as a tough taskmaster. this is a common trait among politicians, to be able to put on exactly the face they would like to see. she is extremely funny. i like to describe her as the funny side of minnesota given the fact that al franken is the other one. one of the things i find interesting about her in the

book is that she actually likes to raise money. it is one thing that many politicians hate. she would get on the telephone anytime, anywhere and call people up and ask them to donate. which is part of the reason she won. >> how did she win? what's she ran against -- >> she ran against a congressman who just could not put together enough -- in minnesota, could not put enough -- mark kennedy could not put enough campaign together to overcome a i think the drag on george bush and amy kobaschaur who was the prosecutor and was on television all the time and well known and ran an energetic campaign that

beat him by 15 points. >> how close did he get to virginias jim weber, who's a republican and out a democrat- and now a democrat? >> i think i got to know him but not -- i did not go to his house, but he did have the reputation of being someone who was introverted and almost an accident senator who only one simply because george allen and the incoming republican at the time made the now famous comment. but jim webb, as you know, is a writer, a novelist of several books. he is a writer of popular histories and very thoughtful. we got into a routine discussion about books and now he is not the classic politician who wants to talk about returns and districts. he is aware of those things, but

he is much better at ids. in some ways he talks about why the republican party had been so successful up until that point because there were willing to talk to the american people about ideas and themes of nongovernment programs. >> we just saw republican change parties to democratic and lose in the primary, arlen specter of pennsylvania. how was jim webb able to switch parties and win? he is not the first. >> i think it happened a long enough time ago that many people did not hold it against him and was never actually so publicly republican except he's served in the rig and a ministration. -- in the reagan administration. it did not seem as so nakedly opportunistic as the arlen's

which several years later. >> you >> smart fryer whose father was in the congress and now he is. did he writis he right? >> he was partly joking. this was a discussion taking place in the context of what you remember as the nuclear option of getting rid of the filibuster. very acrimonious. it looked like the senate was going to completely come to a standstill. my question was, was is happening? how could this be happening when it is custody this collegial body? the senses the senate is supposed to be proven and wiser -- prudent and wise in the house of representatives was this raucous carnival and was talking about that. i think part of the point the book makes is that there are

less and less difference is then used to be. >> encore, the on the republican, how close did you get to him? -- bob corker, the only republican, how close did you get to him? >> he is an earnest, genuine guy who made the point -- he was the only republican in that class. we have since thscene he as beea fair amount of time of booking the party on several issues. regulation in the most recent. also the automotive bailouts, as chip. bob corker is a guy who got out of college and went and made a ton of money as a young man, starting his own business with this sort of drive and obsession to make things work. then he got to the senate and

realized things do not happen because you say they're going happen or they do not happen next week because you put it on a calendar. he had a lot of trouble adjusting to the pace of the senate and the give-and-take that is required to be successful there. >> a moment in your boat, bob corker wins in 2006, the only republican who wins a seat that time around in the senate and george bush does not call him. did he bring that up to you or did you ask about it? what we were talking about what happens on election night. we went to the list of harry reid calling everybody. and i said, so did the president call you? he is like, no, still has not called me. his joke was, it is not like he had a lot of other people to call. there is a sense the president was detached. corker does not say this, but

president bush the next day when before the cameras and referred to the 2006 loss as a thumping. i think bob corker to reflect -- reflected that. the president never called him. he did not say he was upset, but he did mention it and paused while the did it. >> you go on to talk about a meeting he eventually had any saw something in the president up close that seem to bother him. >> he said he went to see the president after he got elected. this was in the height of the discussion of what to do about iraq. he was a republican and republicans in the senate had been essentially the last walk against doing with democrats wanted to do which was bring the troops home, passed resolutions to establish a timetable and the white house was against that. the republicans in the senate had enough votes to sustain that. bob corker which is a the

president about iraq and said that he came back-went to the president to talk about iraq and it came back even more concerned when he got the sense they did not exactly have a handle on what you're doing there. he was concerned. >> use a 44 men have been elected president and 16 of them served in the senate. but only two, now 3, have come directly from the senate to the presidency. what do those figures mean to you? >> there is a sense that the senate is kind of a stalking horse for people who went to the president read the want to be president and senate is one of the places they go to check that box. the problem i-- and history points this out, the senate is not a good place to become order. for the presidency, not immediately come anyway. that is why we have seen some

governors elected. in the senate, people are literally talking to no one. they kind of lose the sense of connection to people. there is too much back and forth. tom nashville describes it as one, established a record where people can use it against you and you get a lot of enemies that do not forget so it makes it harder for you to be president directly from the senate, which is why i think the genius of barack obama's decision to run when he did was that he did not stay long for any of those things happen. >> the rest of this list, any of them let you in their inner circle, let you can hang with them on a daily basis? >> i saw webb in virginia, went to tennessee with bob corker, i would to the minnesota state fair with amy kobaschaer.

i talked to cardin in washington. >> what about cleric haskell or bernie sanders? >> i went to vermont with bernie sanders, having come from the house and talking about the adjustments to the senate and the trick with the said it was just simply a matter of learning how to use power. it had come down to that. >> he wins in the state of vermont. why? how many people up there would say they vote for him because he is a socialist? >> not many people would say he is a socialist, but the rhetoric of bernie sanders live or die, fighting the government not being actually a member of either party from a registered independent, willing to take on both sides of the aisle when necessary, i think is really

appealing to many people in vermont. >> how did you go about during this book? here we are almost to the 2010 elections. >> on some days i describe it was more alligator wrestling than writing, but the book started out with this idea the senate was in the government at large was so personality driven. then i thought, well, the way to take a look at this is through the eyes of the new senators who are trying to figure it out at first. initially, i just did talking to everyone on that list, practically. i talked to cardin who was then sitting in the office of officedaschel, -- tom daschel. cardin said he was adjusting to

the fact he had 20 minutes debate appointment. yet a minute and literally had to rush. small adjustments like that. thi think not being able to folw the entire class, i had to pare it down i think i just went for some of the extreme personalities were personality types, shall i say, whom nobody expected to be in the senate. web was a party switcher, did not want to raise money, was democrat. it did not seem to work. at the end, there he is in the senate. tester, stories about campaign

workers purchases first suit during the campaign. amy was funny and had a young child, which is an interesting thing to try to have kids in the senate. for anybody, but particularly for a mother. i think. and then a worker who had to be part of a because he was the only guy there. -- and then corker who had to be a part of it because it was the only guy there. in several ways, each senate class gives you a sense of what the country is thinking at that moment. i think you get a sense in the book that even though corker is the one republican for the other party, there is, in the way he approaches things, something -- there is a commonality of viewpoints in how you can serve

the electorate at that moment. >> you're born in trinidad? >> i was pretty >> what year? >> 1962. on the jfk's birthday. >> what was your family like? >> my mother was a young woman, a single. i live with my mother, my grandmother, my two aunts and my father lived to villages away. it seems really far away. >> and you grew up in trinidad for how many years before you came here? >> mostly a little village until i moved to the capital when i was about 10. i finished catholic high school when i was 17 and moved to new york city where my mother had

been for the last 10 years or so. i went to the city college in new york. then i started a newspaper career. >> where? >> roanoke, virginia. at the time was called "roanoke times and world news." there was still an afternoon paper. i had a city editor -- clarifying the afternoon papers were done, and he did not have enough stories to pass out at an afternoon paper. he would want to run the newsom offering $5 for anyone to come up with an afternoon lead for him. that was enough money to give many people motivated to do it on most days. >> how long were you there and where did you go next? >> 3.5 years. then to the philadelphia inquirer where i covered

politics and that my first taste of arlen specter. suburban news in general. i stayed there for 10 years. three of those as the beer chief in new york. i love the "inquiry" in 1997. -- i left the inquirer in 1997 and moved to washington. >> what is still trinidadian come if that is a word come about you? how did she make the transition into being a journalist about the american system? >> interesting question. i think pretty much everything is trinidadian about me i think part of what you see not just in my book but it might work in general is a sense of wonder about how this works. it is kind of an outsider's view of an inside system, and a lot

of ways. someone said that writing should be about giving an astonishment. i constantly and astonished by how the system works -- i am constantly astonished by how the system works. my transition was kind of an evolution into understanding that all i really wanted to do was tell stories. the if you work for a newspaper, it is an unbelievable way to make money telling stories. >> when did you leave the philadelphia inquirer? >> in 1997. i had a growth and living in washington. -- i had a girlfriend living in washington. i got a job. a year later she agreed to marry me. that was 12 years ago.

here i am. >> un from there to where? >> i covered the future of american cities for the dispatch. it was about urban policy and what was happening in the cities in the late 1980's and early 1990's. actually, late 1990's at that point ret. the downtowns were dying come everyone was moving to the suburbs. what were happening to the cities? i came from philadelphia, so i spent those three years writing about exactly those things in philadelphia and kansas city and louisville, trying to figure out taxation systems that would actually help the city and the suburbs. in 2000, i went to "u.s. news" to be the chief congressional correspondent and the beginnings of the book.

a >> and you spent five years there. >and now they do on monthly? >> yes, and a lot of special reports. >> and philadelphia inquirer has been in trouble, a bankruptcy? >> yes. i did not have anything to do with killing either of those publications. this media world we live in is just completely turbulent. i think what we're seeing is a transition to something, a very painful transition to something. my sense is what we do and what i did at the philadelphia inquirer and post-dispatch in u.s. news, as much or even larger appetite for that stuff. the question is, how we deliver to people in a way they find it

useful and interesting? secondly, in a way that it is profitable for whoever is chosen to do this. and i think those questions remain unanswered. >> on page 12, you quote from gerald ford giving a speech in front of the u.s. senators. what were the circumstances? >> this was 2001. bush had been president for a few months. the very ackerman is about how to move that agenda-very acrimonious about how to move that agenda. president ford came to the capital to deliver the leaders lecture, which was an idea majority leader lot had had.

they had old political eminences to come back and talk about the senate or things in general. president ford use the opportunity to talk about, the climate and why his party or any party should not be acting like they had cornered the market on either the best ideas or the best way to do things in this town. the very next day, that was may 23, 2001, may 24, 2001, jim jeffords switched parties and give democrats the majority in the senate for the next year- and-a-half. >> let's listen carefully to what gerald ford said in that leaders lecture. >> i must confess that a lengthy career in the house has not fully prepared me for the by was

of the world delivered to body. in preparing for this lecture, i came across something from another vice-president, calvin coolidge. "at first i intended to become a student of the senate rule, but i soon found the senate had but one sick role which was to the effect that the senate would do anything it wanted to do whenever it wanted to do it." when i learn that, i did not waste any more time, because they were so seldom applied. >> gerald ford was in the house for years, became president, never in the senate. what was he saying? >> as vice president, he was the president of the senate. that is what he was talking about.

it is one way for people to make fun of those in the senate. they think of being pompous and everything takes too long in the talk about it too much and cannot get anything done. it is something of lore in this town for the house to do that. i think you saw some of that happening there. his point the senate has no fixed rules is largely true. he goes on to say the senate would do whatever the said it once when they want to do it the problem is coming of wonder people who want to do different things and any one of them can say, no, that is now we want to do. -- the problem is, you have 100 people who want to do different things in any one of them can say, no, that is not what we want to do. a >> you give some up close stuff about harry reid, the majority leader. i want to ask you one thing that you bring up that i never saw

before. he lives somewhat through the movies. he loves movies. how did you learn that? >> i was asking about spending time with harry reid like, when i see him and what does he do when he is not here? i suddenly learned one of the ways that harry deals with kind of the pressures of the senate is on friday when there is nothing going on because sometimes the senate goes out at noon on friday, harry reid will slip away and go to the movies on a friday afternoon. then talking to him, he seemed kind of everything that is in the theaters at the time-he has seen everything at the theaters at the time. >> what was your reaction to that and wanted to learn about him because of that? >> in my mind, the kinds of

movies he likes are these american epic stories. his personal story is in some ways, you know, it is a movie with a great ending. he was born poor in nevada, struggled as way -- his father committed suicide. the first money he made as a lawyer he used it to buy false teeth for his mother. he was very poor. he became a capitol cop, a capitol hill police officer, went to law school at night. he got elected to the house after serving as a prosecutor for the mob in las vegas, who when they tried to blow up his car -- a very tough guy. i think he likes this kind of sense of possibility that

america offers and he loves movies that tell those stories. >> in the l.a. times, there's a story showing how he has five kids and four of his sons were lawyers and they're all set up in nevada and a law firm that deals with the fact that nevada it is 87% owned by the federal government land and all of that. he came from nothing, but they're doing pretty well. >> he is very comfortable. in terms of a political dynasty that is setting itself and connected, i mean, the l.a. times story is about the sense of this legal corruption that we sometimes see in politics. harry reid will tell you they have never been able to prove anything. but the sense that he is very well-connected politician who is

set up his kids. i mean, now we're looking at harry reid of running for reelection and his son running for election as governor. that story will not go away. >> what are the chances he will win or lose? how would you rate it? >> i think based on the harry reid of just described, the guy who never gives up, the guy who won his first election by 424 votes, i think he will win. simply because he knows how to do this. i do not think the entire currency near to playing out will necessarily hold up. -- incumbency will playplan thal hold up. >> what about arlen specter? >> i probably would say the same thing. i thought he could pull it out because he has done a summit times. nobody has ever been elected

five times to the senate in pennsylvania. those in pennsylvania after a while justice side, we're going in a different way. arlen specter not only does a five times, but switches parties. i thought, partly based on the turnout in philadelphia, that he might be able to pull it off. when you think about it, arlen specter has been 30 years infuriating, tormenting pennsylvania republicans. in 1980, 1982 when it was supposed to be the year of the woman, he ran against a woman and one with 49% of the vote to. he went into this election essentially depending on people, talking about a primary election coming mostly party activists and devoted part of people who show up, he was depending on those people who he had tormented for the last years to

win. i guess that he could not quite pull that off. >> back to your book, you have a >> in here from january 4, 2007 from here read. -- from harry reid. >> majority leader. >> thank you. the future lies with those wise political leaders who realize the great public is interested more in government than in politics. frank and roosevelt, 1940. i have chosen this line open as the recession of the united states senate because the wisdom and imparts is as relevant today as it was 67 years ago. the future lies with those wise political leaders who realize the great public is interested more in government than in politics. the american people are

expecting positive results from this 100th congress, not more partisan rancor. we stand today at the cusp of a new congress, ready to write a new chapter in our country's great future. it is a time of hope and promise for our nation. the elections are over and the next senate campaigns have yet to begin. today we are not candidates -- >> please, let us have order in the senate. the majority leader is speaking and he should be heard. thank you. >> today, mr. president, we are not candidates. we are united states senators. we 100 are from different states. we 100 represent different people. we 100 represent different political parties, but we share

the same mission. keeping our country save and providing a government that allows people to enjoy the fruits of prosperity, and, of course, our economic freedom. >> watching closely, bob byrd was sitting behind him and have the time talking to someone else. looking around, not paying any attention. if you listen closely, you could hear nothing but noise in the background read in the presiding officer says, cool it. why did they do that? >> they have gone very used to not paying attention to each other. -- they got used to not paying attention to each other. they do not think the c-span cameras speech is necessarily -- they do not think the speech and for the c-span cameras is for them brigit much of what you see happening on the floor of the senate is essentially record keeping. a lot of the actual work, the

actual dealing takes place when two senators sit with each other or send their staff to work with each other. a lot of what you see there is just show. >> is a bad the television cameras are there? is it a waste of time? >> i do not think it is bad the cameras are there. i think we need to see this. and the attention. it is one way to keep people accountable. what they say we now know they said and we have it on video, on film. i do not think it is a waste of time. except for a lot of with the senate does come as bob corker says, half of what the senate does is a waste of time. caught between the high ideals that harry reid refers to in that speech or these things that we ought to do that lives

up to this sort of prudent government model the senators contended in the day-to-day politics of making the place work. the real trick, i think, for a lot of the people who are successful in the senate and i think you can count harry reid among them, is out a slide in and out of those rules from time to time. >> q. does some time to the so- called dean of american reporters. -- you devote some time to the so-called dean of american reporters. he is still writing. "here is a washington political wilreadily fill in the blanks.

>> he writes pretty -- >> blanche? >> no, he just does not go to the jugular. >> he comes from the generation of reporters that is always impartial and keep their feelings to themselves and do not tell you how they feel about that particular person. clearly -- in my view, i think he is sort of a victim of a kind of mythology of what the senate used to be. it used to be this place of statesmen. david broder, the majority leader from montana was the majority leader as a model and so i think harry reid who has a

temper and on occasion can simply blow of the people and tell you what he thinks, and i think a lot of it was he said the war was lost. he comes across as in temperate one because the president a liar. when he calls alan greenspan a half. so i think that was beyond what broder expected from the majority leader. it puts a time when asked in a moment with you think the senate is perceived -- >> i'm going asked in a moment what the thing the senate is perceived to be a body of statesmen or now does know more about them and they are always the whip are perceived to be now. first, the other side take on with the senate is. it was on the same day that harry reid give his speech. his republican leader mitch mcconnell. >> the senator has a unique role in this government. it always has. it is a place where the two

group political parties must work together for a common goal is to be reached. it is the legislative embodiment of individual and minority rights. a place where the careful design crafted by our founding fathers, pretty much operates today with a planned 220 years ago. we saw this 43 years ago with the civil rights act of 1964. when the two party forged a difficult alliance to reach a great goal. segregated buses and lunch counters are difficult to fathom now, but it only come about to the kind of cooperative resolution that is marked this body from the start. at its best, the senate as a

workshop where difficult challenges like silver rights are faced squarely and addressed with goodwill and careful principled agreement. at a time like our own when so many issues of a consequence press upon us, it must be nothing less. yet the challenges that will not be met if we do nothing to overcome the partisanship that has come to characterize this body over the past several years. a culture of partisanship over principal represents a grave threat to the sentence best tradition as a place of constructive corp.. -- cooperation. the purpose of this institution. we must do something to reverse its course.

>> most statesman -- were there more states and then than now? >> i think yes. i think the idea of a statesman requires that there is some mystery to this person. kind of personal mystery that is just not available to someone who has a facebook page, who was on television every day, who people can tweet from wherever you are coming anything you say. i think there is just too much of permission for any one person to be mysterious, this grand idea of the statesmen anymore. i think there were more, but it was in user threshold to get to. >> as i was listening to senator mcconnell, talking about a silver rights and all that, it is a fairness of the democratic party has the image of being the

party of civil-rights? >> it is fair to say that. for the republican party, never managed to sufficiently claim their role in in. it was as crucial to happen as anybody. a >> i bring it up because i went back and got the numbers. it was interesting talking about partisanship, and 1964, the minority leader, lyndon johnson the president's the 46 democrats were ford, 21% i mean, 21 against it. the republicans voted 274, 6 against it. the democrats were sick of their-69% voted, 82% of

republicans. in the house, it was worse. only 63% voted and 80% of the republicans. >> one of the amazing things about the party switchers. because of that bill and after that time. the filibuster on that bill was led -- that bill pass at the end of a filibuster led by robert byrd. he led the filibuster. now he is the -- the republican party carried that bill and that issue over the finish line. many people who were democrats then are no longer democrats. as lyndon johnson said, passage of the bill will lose the democrats for generation. >> as you move around in your social circles and friends, what is their perception of the senate compared to yours? >> i do not see the senate as a

huge waste of time, populated by a bunch of buffoons. i think many people-i mean, that is the news coverage. there's so much difficulty getting things done in the senate that i think that is been pointed out. however, i have the sense there are a lot of people working really really hard to get things done under difficult circumstances. >> used in a lot of time quoting woodrow wilson dodged you spent a lot of time quoting woodrow wilson on the congress. why? >> i was fascinated by the president as a renter. woodrow wilson rode his college dissertation on the congress. in part because he was also one

of these -- he was one of these presidents to have this kind of highly evolved a sense of what the congress ought to be because he had been kind of a student of id. it never actually work to his advantage knowing all the new, famously, the traverse side that he just could not get through. >> you quoted describing the senate as something to that clears its mind and to some extent the mind of the public with regard to do nation's business" and you believe it? >> i think that is the role. i think they fall particularly short of that because -- the idea that senators would be elected for six years and saw as a result would be less driven by politics was the idea that would

allow them to do all of this great work because they did not have to worry about reflections as often as the two-year terms in the house. the way you have are these people who want to be president. in some ways, the senate has become even more political than the house because the stakes are higher. they're not doing-they're doing heavy lifting, but not nearly to that standard. >> of the 10, who has done the best? who has come to the last couple of years come in your opinion, with the highest and best profile? >> two things. there was the pre-obama period. i think jim webb, because so much discussion was about the

war, and democrats did not really have a sufficiently credible voice to present on the war until the gamelan and i think he did particularly well during that time. -- until he came along and i think he did particularly well during that time rid when the question became what to do about things the new president had promised and how they were not going to get done, i think bob corker and his willingness to reach across the aisle has done particularly well. i think internally, amy klobachar has done well in the fact she works well with people and has developed the reputation of a particularly smart and capable strategic thinker. >> anybody at the moment got lost in the dust? >> lost in the dust.

i think some people have faded from public view, nationally. senator from a state is always a big deal back in the state. in terms of personality, i think bob casey, simply because he is not a publicity hound and has been seen as very quiet. i do not know if that is helpful for him. we will see what happens. >> we were talking about your past and we got to the u.s. news and world report and you left there and went where? >> i went to the dot com world and went to aol. that was new and different for

me. i did that for a year-and-a- half. i started the book during that time. i went back to the washington post co. to help run something called theroot.com. it still exists. that brings us up to the current time. >> what are you doing now? >> thinking about another book. and what is going to happen with these elections and just writing. >> so you are independent at the moment? what's not attached to anything. >> what did you think of -- with the editor of theroot on. >> it is spectacular. the first meeting and december

1, 2006 or 2007, launched its six weeks later. i think it became this vital political document during that entire election year of 2008. from something that did not exist for three years ago, it is something that a lot of people have to read every morning. >> are we better off as a society if we go to our own websites, or should we be reading and bridges abating and all? >> wish to be put dissipating and all the media. -- we should be participating in all the media. i think with theroot, they're adding. i often describe it. if he went to a party and

around and that whenever body left and our tents are people in the kitchen, that conversation, which it was a conversation among black people or a group of -- a diverse crowd of black and white and other people, was a different conversation that would be had. i thought that is missing and that is what the root tried to do. we looked at the service from the route and essentially the readers were people who were people who read the new york times or the washington post every day o. i do not think we were siphoning away as we were adding to the conversation. >> let's just suppose this party is going on and at the end of the party, a 10 of the brightest black people you know, intellectuals, standing around in the kitchen and the subject goes to obama. you talk about the fact that here is a man, a mixed-race, if

i am a member of that group, am i happy? >> yes. you are happy because -- i am guessing the politics of that group will be reflected, the president's politics. even more interestingly that they're all black, the socio- economic, demographic you just described, people who are not politically in patient at this point. the question about how the president is doing and what he should do next, i think, is that a crucial question. the question about whether he is doing sufficiently with some of the issues of "the black community" will come up and i think there will be back and forth. i do not think anybody leaves

the conversation where they're worse off with obama than with them. >> john kennedy was from the senate to the presidency for less than a thousand days. let's assume barack obama sera successfully. the question i was asking was really related, if i'm a senator, talking about all the senators in the past, do i think it is a good deal to try to run from the senate to the presidency? >> yes. they always thought that. i think the obama model is probably going to reinforce that. i think you'll see a long line of republican senators thinking about in 2012 and a bunch of people on both sides, well, whatever happens in 2012. a long line of democrats or

republicans in 2016 lining up to run against the president. >> our guest has been terrence samuel. his book is called "the upper house." thank you very much for joining us. . .

and then 2009 presidential candidate later, donna pavetti, and robert rector of the heritage foundation look at the u.s.