[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: we want your thoughts on the supreme court and specifically if the supreme court is the most conservative in decades. that is the result of a front- page story on "the new york times" this morning. we will read portions of that but we want to get your thoughts on this subject as well, if you think the supreme court is the most conservative in decades.

you may disagree or agree. tell us why. 202-737-0002 for democrats. 202-737-0001 for republicans. and 202-628-0205 for independence. the supreme court is the most conservative in decades. we will read the front page of "the new york times" is where we find the story. a picture of the chief justice, john roberts, on the front page. here is part of the story this morning. "if the roberts court continued on the course suggested by its first five years, it is likely to allow greater role for religion in public life, more participation by unions and corporations, and to elaborate further on the scope of the second amendment right to bear arms. abortion rights are likely to be curtailed. the recent shift to the right is modest, and the court decisions

have hardly been uniform conservative. the justices have limited the use of the death penalty and rejected claims of executive power and the government's efforts to combat terrorism, but scholars that look at trends say they're widely accepted political science at -- say that widely accepted political science at data tell us an unmistakable story about a notably conservative court." if you are democrat, 202-737- 0002. our line for republicans is 202- 737-0001 and 202-628-0205 for independents. if you want to send us a tweet, cspanwj is our hash tag. ted on our independent line. we are talking about the supreme court and if it is the most conservative in decades.

what do think? caller: thank you for c-span. what i notice is that the sex and drug laws have not been repealed, which makes it seem to me that we are talking conservatism, because, well, because of that. i want sex, drugs, and rock n' roll. host: jonathan on our democrats line is next. caller: good morning. i do not think this court will touch of abortion rights, because of the really are conservative, they are not likely to be activist and do something like that that would divide the country. so, i think that whoever wrote the article is wrong. host: is it only because of that

issue or are there other issues involved, in your opinion? caller: that is the only issue that jumped out at me. host: to give you context, the author writes about trends that political scientists have seen. in his first five years, the roberts scored it issued conservative opinions of 58% of the time. in a term ending a year ago, the rate rose to 65%, the highest number since 1953. the accord led by chief justice's warren burger -- the court led by chief justice warren burger and william rehnquist issued conservative decisions and an indistinguishable rate, 55% of the time. from 1953-1969, and what liberals consider the supreme court's golden age and conservatives betray is the type

of inappropriate judicial meddling, that court issued conservative decisions 34% of the time. maryland, republican line. go ahead. caller: i think the perception that the supreme court is right- leaning is inconsistent, because it is really more of focus on our current government, which is so left-leaning. and i think part of what is amplifying everything is just the fact that you have so many attempts at changing the way that the country has been run, more of a socialist movement, that the stuff that is coming down from the courts does not necessarily along with the president. so there is the focus.

and i have one other comment. i do not think the "the new york times" is a very valid newspaper organization, that you can even take their stories and believe that they are going to be balanced. host: off of twitter. "yes, the court is a very conservative and corporative, more business-minded and nothing for the people of the country." phoenix, arizona, independent one. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to reiterate what the last caller said as far as "the new york times" putting this article out. isn't that a left-leaning publication as far as politics

is concerned? secondly, i find it interesting they are saying this is a very conservative court when we just recently had -- the recent sonia sotomayor confirmation into the supreme court as well as elene kagan. this would change things dramatically if she gets put in. host: why do you think that? caller: she seems to me very anti-free speech, anti- constitutional, and very liberal and radical and her views and i find it ironic that we had these two left-leaning, identity politics, political choices, and very liberal that you have this left publication, "the new york times", saying it will be the most conservative the supreme court. i find that ironic. host: elena kagan a subject of

another story in "the new york times" about the court. with a vote expected soon, her confirmation to the supreme court is all but assured but it does not mean your presence will be fully felt when the court returns in october. she has identified 11 cases she would step aside in because she worked on them as attorney general. that amounts to more than 1/4 of .he coucases if anything, her hearings highlighted how vague the standards are. we are returning to the thoughts that the front page analysis piece had on the supreme court, calling it the most conservative court in decades. here is the picture. austin, texas is next. steeg on our democrat line.

on our democrat linebac. caller: the problem is what is conservative. to conserve the best, that is not what these right-wingers have been doing. the left, which i am found to be liberal, we are not socialist- leaning. we are trying to have free enterprise with a social conscience, good governance. i recommend robert reich's book, "reason, why liberals will win the battle for a miracle." merica." host: another twitter -- evans, georgia. republican line. good morning. caller: i want to dispel the

notion that the supreme court is conservative. the present makeup of the court, with the soon to be elected kagan, will be four and four with a justice kennedy being the swing voter. thomas and alito and sotomayor, and kennedy is the swing vote. if you look at their recent decisions, especially dating back to 2007 with the decision up in connecticut where -- the taxpayers had the purpose of giving it to developers to provide greater taxes. this is extremely unconstitutional. it would hardly be considered a conservative decision. so this leftist we into our court is eroding our rights and

our liberties. and to believe that the rubbish that the "the new york times" prints, you have to be consumed with the koolaid of the left. the accord is presently assisting this administration in eroding our constitutional right, and it has to be corrected. host: the new york post this morning, a follow-up story that occurred just before the weekend started on representative charles wang colorado. rangel. he said he did not want any special breaks and he will face ethics procedures because it is the thing to do. "maybe, just maybe, i have evidence that i hit is not

substantive." they are working on a deal that could forestall thursday's announcement on specific charges. atlanta, georgia. our independent line. caller: hi. i find the timing of this article is pretty interesting. kagan will be up for confirmation by the full senate this week. based -- it seems they printed this article to intimidate senators who may be democratic and may not want to vote for her with theof her epthics partial birth abortion issue. i find this is "the new york effort to intimidate senators to not vote for her. host: michigan.

becky on our democrat line. caller: good morning, it is me. i wanted to say that i agree totally with that last lady. i had not even thought of it, to tell you the truth, but they have gone to so much trouble to find something they can get her on. and i think it is cruel. also, as far as it being the most conservative, it has been conservative for quite some time, 5-4 all the time, and the five are conservative and the four are liberal. once in awhile, one will go over, but it is wrare. --st: hhost: on twitter "how often does the courtside with liberty and against government control?"

for worth, texas, are you there? -- fort worth, texas, are you there? "the washington post" a look section looks about breaking it up government. they're right about domestic policy -- they write about domestic policy. most workers of government argue that some of it is sectioned off to other parts of the country and that could prove to be a model. here is what he has to say. he says that -- already, the federal government is less clustered on the potomac and many think. 83% of its 1.9 million civilian employees are outside metro washington, from homeland security agents at borders and in airports to rangers in national parks to nassau

engineers in houston. if you are following along and you are just joining us, we are looking at the front page story of "the new york times". this is about the supreme court. they are writing this is the most conservative court in decades. we wanted to get your thoughts on that. the lines are on the screen. you could share your thoughts on twitter and email us as well. baltimore, maryland. go ahead. caller: i wanted to talk about the conservatism of the supreme court. as an african american, i look at clarence thomas and think about how much of a disgrace he is as far as diversity in this country, because the conservative party does not represent diversity. thurgood marshall was a man who

stood up for all minorities, and also, clarence thomas was a man who had the deciding votes to get george w. bush in office and you see what happened with eight years of george bush. i see -- i think that we have to understand that the supreme court is a very conservative supreme court, and if we continue to go this way and not think about the fact that diversity made this country great, then the country is going to hell in a handbasket. host: more of the history. four of the six most conservative justices, of the 44 will have set on the court since 1937, are serving now. chief justice roberts -- justice anthony kennedy, the swing justice is in the top 10. the roberts scored is finding laws unconstitutional and

reversing precedent, two measures of activism, no more often than earlier courts. another point he makes it is that until she retired, justice o'connor was very often the court's swing vote, and in later years, she drifted to center- left. justice kennedy has assumed that role. oklahoma is next on our independent line. caller: what i was wondering is, how come some of the judge's -- how come they have not worked their way up in some of the other courts before they get all the way up to the supreme court? as far as it being conservative, for the government

to take over our nation is they are trying to do know, if they are so conservative, why don't state shut some of the union said down instead of letting them run the country -- why don't they shut some of the unions down, instead of letting them run the country? caller: i am against the supreme court. [bleep] host: we do not appreciate the use of the language. tampa, florida, you are next. thomas, go ahes, go ahead. caller: my name is thomasina. the supreme court decision giving them the power to contribute money to campaigns, that was no accident. roberts wants to outspend --

when president obama was running for president, he received most of his donations from middle- class americans like myself. that did not go unnoticed by republicans and their corporate buddies. the right is not what average folks to have an even playing field in elections. they prefer corporations to control all the power. host: they are writing this morning about congress, saying it is losing confidence in afghanistan. "concerns are rising as legislators consider an emergency war funding bill. members may seek to attach conditions, such as requiring the administration to outline goals and timetables, to reduce the u.s. commitment." it quotes senator carl levin, and he says that "talking about returning from afghanistan as a result of u.s. efforts, the

national army, he says, is respected by the people, and the taliban is despised." senator levin is our guest on "newsmakers" this morning. guest: what is significant about the offensive or effort which will begin, which is going to begin by the end of july, the beginning of august, is not only is it an effort going right into the heart of the taliban, it will loosen their grip. does that mean it will not come back at night? no. does that mean there will not be any ied's? no. exploding, asd's

there are in kabul. the afghan government is in control of kabul. it will be must -- much more in control after this effort is made than it is now. what i point to as perhaps the most important part of this is that the afghan army is not going to only be there as partners with us and other coalition forces. it will be in the lead. those words are very significant. they are significant to the american people and to the afghan people. you will notice, in the kabul conference declaration or that those words were focused on. timetable for when afghan forces will be in the lead in providing security for their country, when that phase, transition will

begin, and when the goal is to complete that. host: if you want to watch that discussion, you can catch it at 10:00. senator carl levin, the chairman of the armed services committee, just back from afghanistan and pakistan. denver, colorado, on our republican line. we are talking about the supreme court and if it is the most conservative in decades. are you there? caller: i do not know, but here is what i would like to say. it is a little silly to use "the new york times" as a bastion of fairness, but in the meantime -- host: what to make about their research and then? caller -- about their assertion then? caller: kagan said "a coherent,

socialist movement is not anywhere to be found in the usa. [inaudible] [unintelligible] than of socialism greatness." how can socialism be great when it failed in cuba or in russia and every other place is tri? how can this be? host: springfield, massachusetts, republican line. good morning. caller: yeah, we appoint supreme court justices. that is a joke. furthermore, the fact of the matter remains that they all sleep in the same bed together. they are in it for big government and themselves. that is all i have to say about it. host: and good, new jersey, independent line. -- inglewood, new jersey.

caller: you look at the picture of "the new york times", that they have of the chief justice. that article should be on the opinion page. it talks about a measure of activism, and that is declaring the law unconstitutional. obamacare is unconstitutional. it means that it contravenes what the constitutional stands for. that is not a measure of activism, just like the civil rights laws were needed in order to give full equality. those jim crow laws were unconstitutional. so "the new york times", you know where they are coming from. that is the reason i cannot subscribe to them. i take them on the weekends, but i cannot take them any more than that because the news stories are not news stories. this is depicting a chief justice in the most angry- looking, arrogant way possible,

and so it is not a good measure of fairness host. host: there is the picture. south carolina, norma, on our democrat line. caller: i think chief justice roberts is just of bully, and he is in control. host: why do you call him a bully? caller: because, in the last time he has been elected, everything has gone his way, basically. and he makes it so. we are not stupid people. we can see things go on in politics. the other thing is that why should anybody be elected to government for the rest of their lives? people change, they get older, and things happen. why are they elected for the rest of their lives?

it is not fair to the american people, because we change and they need to change. host: toledo, ohio, you are next. republican line. caller: i find it amazing you are saying this is a conservative court. host: i am not saying it, just for clarification. caller: that you give any credence to the fact that the paper is calling it conservative, when we have to fight to keep our second amendment rights to own guns. that is in the constitution. how can it be the most conservative in decades if we have to fight for that? host: ok. just to let you know, a discussion about the secretary of state's overseas trip, particularly in light of news in north korea, coming up is our guest matthew lee, the state department correspondent.

we will have our roundtable discussion looking at race relations in the united states starting at 8:30. then at 9:30 we will take a trip to las vegas via satellite to talk to raven brooks. they have a conference going on featuring progressives and how to use the internet for political activity. that is coming up in the course of our show this morning. for the next few minutes, a look at the supreme court and if it is the most conservative in decades as asserted by "the new york times". independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. i think "the new york times" is right on on this and it has been for decades. we all know what happened in 2000, and how that change the course of history. the thing that people fail to

recognize is that every appointment that has been made in the last 15-20 years, the new appointee has been to the right of the person they have replaced. so the court continues to go further and further and further to the right. this one will be no exception. and we are becoming more and more of a corporate-ocracy, and i do not see it getting better anytime soon. host: on twitter -- "the court's priority should be to provide an investment of social liberties, not to be conservative or liberal." in washington, go ahead. are you there? go ahead. caller: i lost my faith in the

supreme court when they allowed those firms to provide any amount of money to elected officials. that takes away from our rights as people, because we are being controlled again by the industrial-military complex. now has the supreme court involved. host: we will take on the subject -- next up is a discussion about senator clinton's south asia visit. our guest is matthew lee, who has traveled with secretary of state clinton. we will have that discussion. we will be right back. >> coming up at noon eastern, reairs of network television talk programs. at noon, david gregory, host of

"meet the press" talks about the economy with treasury secretary tim geithner. then a discussion on race relations with the former obama white house communications director and the president and ceo of the national urban league, followed by an onair editor at cnbc. at 1:00 p.m., on "this week," chris christie and tim geithner. chris wallace, welcomes new gingrich and former democratic chairman howard dean. a look at race relations with the reverend jesse jackson. on "face the nation," the host talks about race in america, with the vice chair of the u.s. commission on civil rights.

, a professor of cornell and a professor of princeton university. on "state of the union," they discuss national security with the former cia director. then the focus turned to race in america with the dean of uc- berkeley law school, and the contributing editor to "the new republic." the program wraps up with a discussion on president obama and the business community with mort zuckerman. five sunday television talk shows begin airing at noon eastern with nbc's meet the press, at 1:00, "this week," 3:00 p.m.,"face the nation."

listen to them on c-span radio on 90.1 and on sirius channel 132 or anywhere online at c-span radio.org. >> this weekend, former new york times editor on the changing world of the newspaper industry. >> i worry about some of the standards and maintaining integrity as we move from one to another.d >> tonight on c-span's today. >> the sec wants to establish an emergency communication in a work -- the fcc wants to establish an emergency communication network. association for public service -- discuss the proposal monday night on "the communicators" on

cspan 2. "washington journal" continues. host: the secretary of state traveled all across asia. with her was matthew lee. guest: four countries in six days, but in fact, it was around the world. we ended up in vietnam, then flew back and got in yesterday morning very early. host: the discussions about north korea. can you update us? and the secretary of state's role? guest: what is going on is that the u.s. and south korea are holding a series of naval exercises in waters around the korean peninsula. this has upset the north koreans. they have threatened a physical response to the exercise. they have hinted at using their

nuclear deterrent, and tensions are high right now in the region. what the secretary was doing in her visit to seoul, south korea, when she went to the dmz with secretary gates, what they were doing is they are showing strong support for south korea after the sinking of the ship which was blamed on the north koreans. host: as far as going back to the threat, how does the state department view that, as a threat or more? guest: the north koreans are famous for using bombastic rhetoric and not following up, but they are capable of inflicting damage, as we saw with the sinking of the ship in march. i think the threat of using its nuclear deterrent, i am not sure that people are taking that seriously. host: here is a little bit of the secretary of state talking about the role the u.s. has.

>> we regret and condemn the actions of north korea, the belligerence, a provocation, the sinking of the south korean ship, the destabilizing effect that that has in northeast asia. host: what was the reception in the room when she made those statements? guest: that was in south korea, so it was fine. that was a welcome statement. the north koreans, however, reacted with their typical fiery rhetoric. they do not like it. they also denied having anything to do with the sinking of the ship, which puts them at odds with the rest of the world. host: you are seeing video of the reception there. let's turn to afghanistan. as far as on the ground, what is

happening there -- things that you have seen and they've seen and how does that relate to our efforts in afghanistan? guest: i think there is a lot of concern, particularly in the states among people on the hill about the direction of the war. i remember that we are not yet even near the number of additional troops that will be sent to afghanistan, but the death toll is rising. there are constant concerns about corruption in president karzai's government. i think there is a great deal of concern about how things are going and that people on the hill are seeking and going to start, they are seeking answers right now and they are going to be harder on that as we get down into the coming months. host: was that indicated by secretary gates? guest: not so much by the secretary, but the military gave a positive for trial on the way things are going, but i think what we have seen todady -- two

americans are missing. and five others killed yesterday. we are looking at a situation where the death toll is getting higher and as more troops go in, that will probably mean the death toll will be even harder. i am not sure there is that much stomach in the states for that. host: 202-737-0002 for democrats, if you want to talk to matthew lee about secretary clinton's south asia visit. 202-737-0001 for republicans, and 202-628-0205 for independents. twitter at cspanwj. and you can send an email at journal@cspan.org. as far as afghanistan is concerned, what were your

impressions about on the ground activities? guest: it is hard to get a good impression from the time were there, because we were there for a large conference. there were senior officials, foreign ministers from more than 60 countries. the entire city of kabul was locked down. what we saw was basically from the airport to the embassy and then the embassy to the foreign ministry. i do not think that i -- i do not think that i got a good perspective of things. but the situation is tense. after we landed in afghanistan on monday night, a few hours later there was a mortar attack on the airport. that happened just as a plane that was tearing the un secretary general and the swedish foreign minister -- that was carrying the un secretary general and the swedish foreign minister was flying in. they had to fly in on helicopters instead. it is tense, and it is still very dangerous, although what we saw was a very controlled

situation where all the roads had been sqclosed down. things were calm while we were there. host: what are the diplomatic efforts being made? guest: the state department is ramping up the civilian component of the operation there. we have hundreds and hundreds of new employee is going in that to do development work, agriculture, water projects, health and that kind of thing. and that is going on a pace. host: one more political perspective -- senator carl levin, and him just returning from afghanistan. guest: we have a pretty tense situation in the korean peninsula area right now where u.s. and south korean naval forces will do an exercise. north korea said it could lead

to conflict. china seems to be back in play. are you worried at there could be something that happens that sparked a conflict? guest: no. i think north korea is just too interested in their own survival to do anything which would spark the end of that regime. they are only interested in regime's survival. host: more along north korea. he was quoted in the paper today that the taliban is -- the u.s. efforts are respected by the people and the taliban is despised. does that ring true? guest: i think it does. when the taliban came into power in the 1990's, they brought a modicum of security which was ripped apart by war.

but that came at a price -- a restricted regime. it is fair to say that most afghans right now would not like to see the return of the taliban. there are fiercely nationalistic people and country, and they successfully fought off anyone who has tried to invade occupied them for thousands of years. host: when president karzai visited the white house, there were tensions. what was the degree of warmth between the secretary of state and the karzai administration, and it did it show any of the tensions we have heard about? guest: no. they put on a good show of everything is happy and a nice, but behind the scenes, yes, there was quite a bit of frustration in the administration about the way that president karzai is governing. one of the reasons that they have this conference is so that

he could follow through or present in greater detail some pledges about improving security and governance, particularly fighting corruption that he first outlined earlier this year in london. he did do that. people seemed happy or pleased with what he said, but there is a deep concern and frustration in the states, not just in the states, but among all of the countries that contribute troops. host: matthew lee, just back from traveling with the secretary of state. he works for the associated press. or independent line. you are first. caller: mr. lee, in your travels, one question -- the united states is known for writing checks to many of these governments. did you get any indication of the amount of money they are spending on these countries or what this cost us on this trip?

guest: on this particular trip, this conference was not itself a donor's conference or a conference were countries pledge money. so on this trip, there were not any checks being exchanged. it is billions of dollars that have gone into this effort and billions more will continue to go into it. host: massachusetts. james, democrats line. caller: good morning. i have a question for you. just recently in the news, there was a report that some people, ven in south korea, a dotidoubg that the vessel was sunk by the north koreans. do you have any information on that? guest: i am aware that there are a lot of people that have raised some doubt about the conclusions of the investigation, but this

investigation it was a very thorough, conducted by experts from a number of countries, not just the south koreans and the united states -- the australians were involved and others. the evidence that they collected, it is pretty compelling. there have bennett in recent days and recent weeks, in fact, people coming out and saying they had doubts, the north koreans rejected reports and say they want their own investigation. the chinese, the north korean's main ally, have not said anything about the report, but they seem to have accepted at least part of the conclusions. host: back to afghanistan. secretary 11 called on the secretary of state to put the taliban on a list of terror

groups. what is in response? what is behind the scenes there? guest: putting a group on the list of foreign terrorist organizations at the state department is a long, legal process. they have to meet certain criteria. it is a surprise that the pakistan taliban are not on the terrorist list now -- host: because? guest: it was not really clear until the failed times square bombing back in may that they had done anything or attempted anything directed inside the united states. that said, they are obviously a threat. i am told the process -- the legal process is going along. at the same time, some members of the parts of the haqqani network, which is the afghan militants, have not been put on that list but are subjected to sanctions by the treasury

department this past week. host: bill on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i had an interest in what you said about people trying to invade and occupy. are you including america? guest: no. i was saying that the afghans have a long history of repelling people who have come into their country with ouarms. noter: hosti hope you were trying to suggest that america is trying to invade and occupy. guest: i think there is no question that we invaded and toppled the taliban government. i do not think the u.s. is trying to occupy afghanistan. host: arlington, virginia, democrats line. good morning. caller: regarding korea, i think the united states has taken about as much as we can take

from north korea. they want to use their nuclear weapons, we can match you. i think we have had enough. we need to show them that we will not run from them. i do not want a war with anybody, but i think they are trying to -- i think they need to be stopped. as far as afghanistan, the united states should pull back, and just be there. there is nothing to be gained by our presence there. thank you. guest: well, the caller makes some interesting points. the north koreans should go ahead and use their nuclear weapons. it is easy for us to say sitting over here. remember the people that would be the most devastated by that would be the south koreans, one of our strongest allies in asia. south korea is very close to the demilitarized zone.

i do not think that telling the north koreans, use what you've got, will sit well with our allies. in terms of afghanistan, there are a lot of people that feel the same way as the caller does. host: there is a map up there. how does indiana fit in? guest: the indians have been subjected to a huge number of terrorist attacks over the past decade. most or all of which they blame on people based in pakistan. the indians have a strong interest in seeing a stable, secure afghanistan, and also a less-militancy coming out of pakistan. host: hairs per, pennsylvania. independent line. good morning. -- harrisburg, pennsylvania. caller: i am a u.s. navy veteran, and back in the mid-

1980's, i was also a veteran, and richard marsinko also had many comments -- do you recall him? guest: not off the top of my head. caller: he wrote the book "rogue warrior,"and he predicted all these things in his book -- a best seller -- about north korea. and i am wondering why are we having all this political difficulty right now? the man already said this in his best seller. i am a proud navy veteran from operation desert shield and desert storm. guest: i am not aware of the book. i am sorry. i do not know exactly what the

author was predicting, but the situation right now is one where the north koreans are basically desperate. they are trying to get attention. the only way that they know how to do that, really, is by raising these threats and testing missiles. host: to we have a sense of their capability? -- do we have a sense of their capability? guest: they have enough weapons- grade plutonium to make several nuclear weapons. they do not really yet have a system that could deliver those warheads very far. but they are a threat, and if one accepts the conclusions of the report, conventionally, they have quite a strong military and they can do a lot of damage. host: pittsburgh, pennsylvania. democrats like. go ahead. caller: i think the policy that

secretary of state clinton is following is excellent. we do not have to rush into every opportunity for war that we see. i would like to see our dear president, who i worked for and i believe in, to not try to ramp up the testosterone and show how military he can be. we need to get out of afghanistan. we have al qaeda in other countries as well -- in pakistan, sudan, yemen. we do not need to have a war for every threat we have. i say this as a widow of a veteran who was in two wars -- world war ii and korea. thank you very much for taking my call. what do think of my ideas? guest: there is a growing number of people in this country and all around the world who think that, who have the same feelings you do. let's not forget that we are in afghanistan as a direct response

to 9/11. they did attack us, and we are seeing al qaeda or affiliates in other countries -- yemen, somalia -- branching out and trying to inflict damage outside of those areas. i do not think anyone, this president or anyone else, is advocating fighting a war against every country where there is a al qaeda, but you have to remember the afghan war was a direct consequence of 9/11. host: north korea, what is the condition of kim jong il? guest: unclear at the moment. he is better than he was two years ago when he suffered a stroke. but there are concerns in north korea about his health. there is no doubt that he is preparing succession, probably his son, to take over the

country when he is no longer able to run it. host: gayle, on our independent line. caller: i have the utmost confidence in secretary of state clinton. i feel like she is doing us a great job. i'd just like to caution -- nuclear war scares me and i am sure it scares a lot of people. we just have to be careful. and i appreciate her not going in there with the attitude that kim jong il, you shoot, and we'll shoot back. we cannot have that attitude when it is talking about nuclear war, in any case, but let's be real careful. that was my comment. host: would you identify that as the pressure she took, though? -- as the posture she took? guest: it is not as staid as

that. it is more forceful. if north korea wants to improve the state of its economy, its health and welfare of its people, they have to change. and that is what she is saying. there are more sanctions that will be coming down is targeting kim jong ill and the elite to try to get them back to the table, to talk about giving up their nukes. host: this question -- "how does access to air space over pakistan and afghanistan play in our current foreign-policy?" guest: the pakistanis are incredibly nationalistic, and it is difficult for us to fly over there. that said, there has been a lot of the rhone attacks -- drone attacks in the tribal areas and

taken out insurgents. unfortunately, they kill civilians as well. in terms of airspace, it does not seem as much of a problem in terms of drones, at least on the afghan border. host: washington, d.c., todd on our democrat line. caller: i think we need to remember the lessons from iraq. our government told us they had weapons of mass destruction. weall fell for it, an d then found out that the government knew that was not the case. this feels like the same thing. we need to be careful and make sure that we have all the facts before we go trying to start another conflict, and other illegal, immoral conflict. guest: i am not exactly sure what conflict he is talking about or what he meant by that,

but i would agree that we should not go into any illegal or immoral conflicts. host: florida. ron on our democrat line. caller: good morning. what i have a hard time understanding is we are told that north korea is on the verge of collapse, their economy is defunct, people are starving. and south korea is this booming economy. everything is great for them, but yet, the united states has to defend them. they cannot defend themselves against this starting rabble, from what we gather on tv, north korea -- would swoop down and take self korea -- south

korea. i cannot understand that. if we do not call or invasion and occupation of afghanistan and occupation, what would you call it? anytime we wanted to replace the karzai government, we can replace it just that quick. we are the ones in charge over there, not the afghans. guest: well, on the second printer, i think the afghans would beg to differ. what i meant by not wanting to occupy is not wanting to stay. i do not think that this administration or any other u.s. administration wants to stay and govern or hold the strings of government in afghanistan. in terms of south korea, we have treaty obligations to defend them. in north korea, for all of the poverty and oppression that its people go under, north korea

still has one of the largest standing armies in the world. it is a threat to south korea. it is a threat to the south koreans every day. but part of our international -- our foreign policy for the last, since the second world war and the korean war, has been to defend itself korea. so that is not going to be changing anytime soon. host: the trip included vietnam. why? guest: every year they have a regional security conference. secretary clinton went to represent the u.s.. the north koreans were there and their foreign minister was there. north korean officials were very belligerent and bombastic as usual, and were quite vehement in rejecting accusations about the ship sinking, in vehement

that these naval exercises going on this weekend would be met with some kind of response. host: how was the respect -- a reception for a secretary? guest: the vietnamese are quite been hammered with secretary clinton. she first visited there with a husband-- they are quite enamored with secretary clinton. they have great memories of that visit. she was welcomed with open arms, even though she did have some tough words for them about human-rights. host: even a gift for her daughter's upcoming wedding. guest: the vietnamese foreign minister gave her tablecloth to give to chelsea. host: tina on or independent line. go ahead. caller: i am just curious. i do not keep up with the news very often as far as this war.

i have a few young boys from missouri that i have sent to the army, and you took them in to let them learn, fight y'all's war. on the korean line right there, where all of the bad stuff really does happen. what happens when this war breaks out? is this going to be another world war iii? guest: i do not think anyone is thinking or talking about a war with north korea right now. it is true that things are very tense, but it is not -- i do not think it is likely there is going to be an outbreak of open hostilities. i think that things will pretty much carry on the way they have been doing now, small incidents here or there. a lot of rhetoric or heated rhetoric coming from the north.

in response to what is going to be greater pressure from the u.s.-south korea-japan and other countries for the north to change its behavior. but i do not see the war, open hostilities coming. host: tucson, arizona, good morning. our republican line. caller: i have not called since john roberts was confirmed. . .

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> she doesn't have, i keep on blocking the name, a cognitive disaccidents. she refuses to have cognitive dissidents. she understands exactly what's happening with north korea, she understands exactly what's happening with iran. and the lady seems willing to express herself unlike many in our government and the present administration and even our military. that's all i have to say. i have wasted my first, five-year call. but i just wanted to say that. thank you. guest: i think what the caller says a lot of people would agree with.

there's certainly no doubt when she was a presidential candidate administration clinton was hawkish about that then candidate balm was being too obama was being too weak. there's no doubt that she has come down more on the side of a hawk, the hawk side than the dove side. so i think there are a lot of conservative republicans, other conservatives who think that she is doing quite a good job. host: georgia, anthony, democrat's line. caller: i wanted to ask this question. why is it such an inconceived idea that the u.s. does not want to, some sort of occupation in afghanistan? after all, we have invested so much in our treasury and not to mention human life. so what would be the purpose of all of that in we did not want

some sort of occupation over there? >> well, i mean, the purpose of the war right now is to eliminate the extremists, eliminate the threat from the people who are responsible for 9/11 and to get, to put in place a government that's able to secure the country, a democratic government that will prevent the rise of similar groups in the future. the reason why occupation of afghanistan in particular but occupation of any country is not a good one is that the experiences that numerous countries have had in trying to stay and hold afghanistan lasting of course soviets before that the british, is ended in complete failure. the country is just too difficult to run from a distance. host: one more call.

but before that, when it comes to north korea, as far as other countries are concerned, china, its role. guest: well, china is north korea's only ally, basically. the only ally it has left in the world. it has defended north korea up to a point. there's some evidence that the chinese leadership is getting increasingly frustrated with the north koreans and their continual blue ridge rens. you remember that chine -- blue ridge rens. you remember that china shares a border and the chinese are very concerned about what might happen if north korea happens. we're talking about ref gee flows that could inundate chine as northeast. and keeping the government propped up and stable is one thing the chinese want to do. host: we have one more call, john on our independent line. caller: good morning, mr. lee. i am wondering, i see this -- i

see trips like this where the secretary of state and miscellaneous other individuals go around the world all the time talking about the same subjects making the same threatening remarks, continually over and over again, contrary to a call a couple minutes ago where someone was praising the current secretary of state to the skies. and really, there never seems to be any purpose that's very clear. remarkably enough, when you watch certain commentaries, for example, some documentaries about the george schultz years that are currently on pbs and things like what eisenhower did with the sput nick controversy and how it was kept quiet for years, you learn about things going on 20 years hence that actually went on but they never seems to be any actual point to these trips and the things and

the idle threats that people say. can you clarify that anything is actually going on behind these visits that you are attending with them that is more meaningful than the remarks that we hear? guest: sure. you know, this is a lot of criticism sometimes of these trips and of the conferences, these big gab fests whatever you want to call that not a lot gets done. but that's not always the way it is. there is hard work that's done and there are things accomplished in this case. we are looking at the signing of what's been billed as an historic trade agreement between afghanistan and pakistan on the eve of the kabul conference they signed this in islam bad. you know, you might say well, it's just a trade agreement. but in fact, it's going to mean that afghan business people are able to cross the border into pakistan.

and that is going to open up, it's going to contribute to the economy, incomes, and if you believe in the u.s. strategy right now, which is trying to improve the lives of ordinary afghans to prevent them from going down the extremist path, this is something that will probably make a difference by increasing people's incomes, giving them livelihood. so things do get done. they're not always huge or they don't always make major headlines but things do get accomplished. host: matthew lee, with the associated press our state department correspondent. thanks for your time this morning. coming up we will take on an hour and a half a discussion about race relations in the united states.

we'll take on that discussion when we come right back. >> homea is the seat and we also have the same management, i'm the editor of the paper about 25 minutes, 30 minutes from here in tib do, louisiana, which is the seat of la foosh pairish. together we form the home of tib do and we have about 1200,000 people living in that area. it's hard to capture the nuance and the layered nature of this one, because it's not -- it affects different people different ways. it's not easy, you can't come down and generalize about how

people have been affected and which people have been affected. it's difficult i think to come from outside this community and understand that there really could be a community where fishing and oil both work together. those two things. and where a majority -- and i think i'm saying that with some confidence, a majority of the people in this community really want to get back to drilling. and you would think for the most part, coming from outside the community, that might be a little bit difficult to capture, to understand that while, yes, we do have oil on our shores and it has penetrated in some places the marshes, the sensitive marshes that really are the nurseries for the fisheries that we depend on, it's an oil field community. and it's what people depend on

to put food on their tables so that they look at it maybe in a more nuanced way than it might seem from the outside. we cover anything that a normal small daily would cover. school board meetings, pairish council meetings. some of the biggest running issues here are coastal restoration and hurricane protection. we are so close to the gulf and we've lost so much of our wetlands to erosion, which is a long, complicated story in and of itself. but the end result of all those complications is basically that we flood quite frequently here. a good strong south wind will flood some communities here. we have little to no hurricane protection in this area, and la foush pairish there is a levee

system there that is hurricane protection levee. but in tear bobe pairish there is very little hurricane protection. so that is a huge running issue for us. and then we cover the oil field as well. you know, we cover what's going on out there and the good and the bad. and this one here is a tragedy that nobody really wants anything like this. >> so how does this smaller local paper go from covering school board meetings to now dealing with a national issue being covered by all over the world basically? has your work flow changed needless to say? >> it's an endurance test, i'll tell you. it's like covering a hurricane that never ends while you still have to cover the school board meetings. you know, we have 30 people total at our two papers. so we're stretched pretty thinly. but we have a good group of

people and we are small but we are potent. you know? and i'm proud of the work that everybody here has done. i think the one thing that we decided from the start is to focus on the local aspects. we're the only people who are going to do that. and i think that has worked well for us. >> washington journal continues. host: as promised, a discussion about race relations in the united states. we have three guests. we are joined by sophia nelson, political commentor and often, also the former president of the naacp, and leonard stinehorn, the author of the color of our skin. thanks for joining us today. let's assume that we all know about the narrative.

we all know about the nuts and bolts of the story that have come out this week. what was the underpinning of that as far as race relations in the united states? what did we learn from that whole topic in the time we have left? what did we learn from it? guest: we learned that the whole flap from last year is still with us. that race is still our unspoken. it is still with us and we don't like to talk about it. that's what we learned this past week. host: why are we still at that point? guest: that's a big question and i'm going to defer to my more esteemed wiser colleagues. i just don't know. on a serious note, i think that eric holder said it best when he said, and i know, we're a nation of cowards when it comes to talking about race. maybe coward was a little strong but we certainly like to believe that because we have a black president, i hear this

all the time with my friends and peers who say are we still talking about this? we have a black president, we have a black first lady, we have black people running corporations, we have blacks doing all these things. race is not an issue any more. and i think white and black really see this very differently. a book i would recommend to folks is, separate unequal black and white. and americans see things different and how segregated we still are. today's sunday morning i know when i go to church it will be largely an african american congregations and most churches will be very segregated. host: where are we in this discussion? guest: i think she's pretty accurate. due boys wrote the problem of the upcoming century would among other things be the race problem. and that's still the issue we've gone beyond 1900 and 2000

and we're still talking about it. this causes us to recognize that in the north they are able to get over the fact of 300 years of legal slavery, 100 years of segregation. if you don't acknowledge that, talk about it, and kind of wash it then you're going to always deal with it and we always end up dealing with it. now, in the shirley sherrod situation it was overreaction. the media overreacted, the naacp overreacted. the administration clearly overreacted. it's almost that we're so sensitive that all you have to do is hear that somebody is acist or said something racial that everybody has this reaction which is out of place, it's an overreaction, and in many essences it leaves buy heend casualties. but the bottom line is the issue doesn't really get discussed in a way that's logical where people are talking about it with some of

the emotions removed. it's glenn beck versus the world. it's someone else saying that this person doesn't understand. and we find ourselves sitting at roundtables saying what are we going to do? why are we still dealing with this? host: leonard you talked about the idea about having a hair trigger on some of these issues and finding a way to talk about it and the need to still talk about it. guest: i think we have to go back to the modern root going on and that's the southern strategy. when you look at what a conservative activist, the narrative of his little clip was white people are vims, black people have advantage of government and are sort of doing this to white people over time. that was the narrative of willie horton, the narrative of the southern strategy. that's been the narrative all along about conservative resistance to affirmtive action. that government advantages black people to the disadvantages of white people. so that's the narrative that he

used. but what's happened is that the democrats over years were very gun shy about addressing that narrative ini about losing this mythical white middle class of voters. so you see the obama administration's reaction as pulling away as if let's say due cackcass might have pulled away in 1998. i don't think the democrats have moved beyond their fear of the southern strategy right now. so i think that's an important part of it. but let's also remember another important thing here. that this incoming generation, young people are the most inclusive and diverse generation in our nation's history. and they're probably looking on this sort of whole scenario in washington thinking it's sort of an alice and wonderland thing coming out of the past, because their experience, whether it's in media, personal context, social lives and their cross ethnic and cross racial personal lives, they're saying this isn't tt america that we are living right now. so in terms of the hopeful side of all of this, we have to keep

our eyes focused on where this next generation is going and how they internalize the norms that baby boomers and the civil rights movement struggled hard to put in place in the united states. host: we have divided our numbers by location in the united states. our numbers are on the bottom of your screen. you can send us a twitter. generationly, do african americans are those concerned about race look at these issues, was the story of last week looked differently? guest: absolutely. i think if you're below 40 years old, maybe 35 and below, you see the world very differently than those of us who are 40 and over. my generation, my parents are

the baby boomers and so they were the civil rights movers and shakers. my grand parents are the greatest generation. so i still have the vestages of their baggage, i like to say. i have a book about the african american 21st century woman and it's called redefined and we talk about how -- michelle obama is pretty much i like to say the muse for the book. she is the person that shifted a lot of perceptions negatively about black women in this country from the 2008 campaign she was perceived as angry, unpatriotic, et cetera. that's how they made the cark that tur of her but it shifted. we did a lot of polling for this book. we found that, again, those of i guess you would call them jen y they have a very different perception of race, stereo typing. they see the world very differently than we do. so there's hope. i agree with you. host: in light of the hope that shirley nelson sees, in light of the political background

that mr. stinehorn talks about, where do we go from here as far as discussions are concerned not only talking to generations but political strategy about these things? guest: we've got to be frank and honest and stick to the facts. and the facts are that racism, sexism, antisem itism is wrong. that black bigotry, white baggetry, gay bashing, immigrant bashing, all these ways we try to put blame on somebody else always works against the best interest of our country. it depleets our ability to get to the greatness that is there. so if we keep focusing on the facts and run the discussion around that and let that be the litmus test, not what somebody said on a blog or website or what somebody says at a 6:00 p.m. newscast that's uncontrollable. it's got to be around the facts. people have discussions about race every day in communities that never get on tv. they have it at the corner store, they have it when they're meeting the postman, they talk about it on their

jobs. we can't assume that it is such a situation where nobody talks about it. i think the people who should be talking about it are not. the bully pull pits are not being used except to react to it. host: you mean the president? guest: well, the presidents got to be able i think free enough to talk about this. there's no real post racial america that came into being with this election. we move closer to that. but we are still a nation that has to find a way to get beyond the legacy of the past, and we don't do it by acting like it never existed. so to those who are younger who look at this and say what in the world is going on? i think there's got to be an explanation of how this conversation came about. why these things are still in the a lot of people regardless of their race or their region in the country. and we ought to be honest enough every time we can at least to recognize that there's no superior race, i mean, most of us are average. we have a few geniuses and a liberal sprinkling of fools.

and if that's the definition of the different races. so we ought to focus more on our similarities, not so much on our differences. host: you said the president has to be free to talk about it. does that mean he has to free himself to talk about it? guest: i'm certainly not going to tell the president what to do but i think he has the greatest leverage to talk about it. he has more leverage than george bush, bill clinton, ronald reagan. he is the nation's first african american president and sozz there's an expectation i think among a lot of people that of course if it has to be talked about hell discuss it in a reasonable way and help us as a nation to incremently move past it. guest: i actually disagree with my friend the congressman on this point. i don't think he is free to talk about it because he is the first black president and i think we saw that with the gates situation when he made that off the cuff comment about the massachusetts police acting stupidly, or whatever he said, a fire storm erupted. i think that's why he's been quiet.

so i think that he has got advisers telling him, you need those independent white voters come the mid terms and come 2012 and if you isolate them by talking about race that's going to be a problem. guest: but if we get elected just to figure out how we get reelected, we've got a problem. and i think he ought to be free nouf talk about ifplt now guest: we agree. he ought to be. guest: but this whole thing about advisers saying don't do this because, i never believed that you get elected to office to try to figure out what can i do to get reelected. it should be what can i do to make the nation better or my constituents better and lou do doy that. guest: i think to some extent he's caught between his own dilemma and contradiction. he would prefer to be that race to be not descriptive of his presidentssy. yet it seems to be defining and not descriptive in the country so the dilemma he faces is how

do you become a president that race is incidental not necessarily a central part of his presidency. yet, at the same time, it remains an influential not just an incidental part of our nation's culture right now. i think that's a very, very difficult dilemma that he faces. host: during the course of this conversation we will hear from calls and callers. thank you for holding on the line. we will get to you in just a minute. but to give a little context we want to show some clips of the speech that ms. sher odd said and also the president himself talking about these issues of race. >> the fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of reverend wright's sermon simply reminds thause the most segregated hour of american life occurs on sunday morning.

that anger is not all the productive. indeed, all too often it distracts the attention from solving real problems. it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity within the african american community in our own condition. it prevents the african american american community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. but the anger is real. it is powerful. and to pli simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races. in fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. most working and middle class white americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. their experience is the immigrant experience. as far as they're concerned, no one handed them anything.

they built it from scratch. they've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pensions dumped after a lifetime of labor, they are anxious about their futures, and they feel their dreams slipping away. and in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be see seen as a zero sum game in which your dreams come at my expense. so when they are told to bust bus their children to a school across town, so when they hear an african american is getting an advantage a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never commited, when they're told that their fears about crime and urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time. like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company but they have helped shape the political land

scane for at least a generation. host: quick thoughts on what he said then, what it means now. mr. stinehorn. guest: well, i think what he was trying to do is to cast a wide net of common experience. what the congressman was talking about earlier. that we are in this together. we have to understand historical wounds. but be able to work together as a common americans irrespective of the color of our skin today. i think this is the same message that shirley sherod was actually communicating. the irony of this whole thing is that she really in that little situation was speaking in the exact same way that then candidate obama was communicating. we're in this together. we have to get beyond our internal anger, get beyond the past. host: ms. nelson. guest: i think justice harlemen said it best in the plessy decision. those who must be color blinde must first be color conscious. so i think you have to acknowledge that this is an

issue and that has been, in the 21st century i think we see that there's a real disconnect. this post racial thing doesn't exist. and i think what candidate obama had to do, the reason he has to because the speeches were so incindiary, he was trying to give a context for this is a 70-something-year-old man. he grew up in a segregated angry hostile america. and he is saying exactly what he said here, we need to come together and we need to stop being at each other and realize we do have a color issue. we need to talk about it. host: whan. guest: well, we are whole in this together. i know it's cliche. this is our nation. we want it to get better. we want our children to grow up in a community that is better. we want to make sure that all the hurdles are not as high for the next generation. and we would like to know that one day when we finally go to our graves that this nation will continue to be the greatest nation on the face of the earth because it has the

greatest calling in the sense of equality. making sure that there are not barriers based on religion, based on race, based on sex. it is that context that we have to live our lives. it is not always easy, but it's the greatest calling there is. and i think that this nation over the years, over the centuries has proven over and over again that it will find a way to get beyond hurdles but we only get beyond hurdles when we acknowledge them. because if you don't see the hurdle there's nothing you can do. host: north hollywood, california. thanks for waiting go ahead. caller: yes. i'm just calling regarding this sherod issue. first of all, i was under the impression that -- i know the congressman, i believe that's what he continues to bring up or some people to bring up glenn beck, like if glenn beck was the one who started this

when he wasn't. you can't expect for everybody else to get everything right. i think these people need to get it right as well. again, he did not glenn beck did not end up the day after. he was, continued to be on sherrod's side saying that what was said, you know, that he was on her side. and i really think that people need to pay attention. host: let's go to one more call and then we'll get some input. charles. caller: good morning. first thing for history before i make my two comments. obama is the first buy racial president, bi racial. ok. my first comment is. sleeveport, louisiana, is a killing field at night. black on black crime is completely out of hand. they are killing one another. the inner cities have got to do

something about this. this is black on black crime. my next comment is, until republicans and democrats, we cannot have a welfare state of unwed mothers rewarding them to have more babies, we're going to pay them more food stamps, more shelter, more hospitalization. we have got to get a grip on it. it is the unwed mothers, white, black, yellow, pink or orange. i don't care what color they are. host: he brought a lot of things. where would you like to start? guest: i think glenn beck is an interesting one. to some extent, irrespective of his individual activity in this situation, he is sort of a metaphor for the type of insendry media that we have, that somebody, that you have actual talk radio people,

glennbecks of the world calling obama a racist saying thing that is are wholely imtestimony pratt, fanning the flames. that's what creates this sense of hostility and aggression that we have in our society when what is perceived as a good common discussion gets tost tossed up into these fireworks. so this is why glenn beck, whether he was involved in this particular situation or not becomes a metaphor for some of the hostility and anger that we have in our cult tur right now. guest: i think to the first caller's point i'm not sure what she is getting at. i don't think any of us blamed glenn beck. i think in the second instance, however, he played to a lot of racial stereo types on the racial point. he is trying to say black people need to get their own house in order. black on black crime. we need to deal with some of our economic deprivation. we've known that for a long time. but that really misses the

point of the larger discussion i think. you brought up a point earlier which i think feeds into this culture. he talked about nixon southern strategy and i would agree. but that now has moved to democrats enal bracing it. because jim web had a piece that was so offensive i had to read it five times. because for a sitting u.s. senator to write a piece and say white americans are being deprived by the diversety programs and other efforts to right historical wrongs with african americans i agree with the piece about asians, hispanics and other whose have not traditionally been discriminated should not be the beneficiary but he forgets that white women are the biggest ben fish riss of o affirm tiff action. so i think we have scape goating and race baiting going on at the highest levels moonchingsed our leaders. that's my respect for him but i mean, it is concerning to me that as he says those in the

bully pulity keep dividing us. not just thoys on the wacky tv shows but it's our leaders who think, i get an election coming up and i don't want angry white voters taking it out on me. i don't want white voters thinking that they're disenfranchised. and the funny thing about web is he will expect 90% of the black vote and he'll probably get it which really makes me nuts after writing an article like this because it won't be talked about. host: how did you take senator web's peeze? guest: i haven't read it? guest: probably with a couple aspirin. she going to have to explain that. we're living in a different world. we're not in that world that he is in although there's a lot of people that wouldn't to drag us over back there again. i had to kind of smile when the lady said we're blaming glenn beck. he had nothing to do with this. he did call the president a racist and he has played on

racial fears. so beck not with standing, the other gentleman from i think shreveport, last, said a couple interesting things. the president is bi racial. he is also african american. his father is from american, the fatser is from africa. but this call about anger on black on black crime. i think we ought the be upset about all crime. not whether it's black on black. then we say we'll separate that out and not worry about the rest. all crime brings us down as a society. it has a greater effect i think when you're living in a black community and you see it being perptrate by people living there. so we've got to have a broader discussion about that. and the issue about unwed motsers. what about unwed fathers? here is one, i had four or five kids by the time i was 21 years of age, high school dropout, no where to go. didn't choose to abort. found myself a way to get working, taking odd jobs because i had a basic set of

values that i think is missing in many instances among a lot of men. we were taught work hard, play by the rules, take care of your responsibilities. and give back. and so this discussion just can't be about unwed mothers. it's got to be about unwed fathers. and how do we get beyond the mistake of having a child out of wedlock and how do you find a way to blilled a family on top of that? so i want to respond to that part of his comment. guest: and i thinks there a larger issue culturally. if we remain in america when we're all on our own, that it's not my problem, it's somebody else's problem. get your own house in order type of thing, then we're losing what unites us. if we don't see that it is my problem, that some young kid in aplashea or the inner city isn't getting a good education or isn't growing up with the right resources and support systems, then in the long run our country will lose. my kids, my grand kids' country

will lose and will be in far worse shape. so what we don't want to be is some sort of third world country in which everybody lives behind a gate community and thinks that their situation is the only one that matters and let the rest of them take care of themselves. that's the problem right now. so reorienting our culture in a way that gets us to looks across the table is the one we really need. host: i want to play a little bit of ms. sherrod's speech and particularly comments that she made that talks about this issue but also talks about the issue of class when it comes to race. let's list ton what she had to say. >> i couldn't say years ago i couldn't stand here saying what i'm saying, what i will say to you tonight. like i told you, god helped me to see that it is not just about black people, it's about

poor people. and i've come a long ways. i knew that i couldn't live with hate, you know, as my mother has said to so many, if we had tried to live with hate in our hearts we would probably be dead now. but i have come to realize that we have to work together. and you know, it's sad that we don't have a room full of whites and blacks here tonight because we have to overcome the divisions that we have. we have to get to the point where, as has been said, race exists but it doesn't matter. we have to work just as hard. i know, you know, that division

is still here but our communities are not going to thrive, our children won't have the communities that they need to be able to stay in and live in and have a good life if we can't figure this out, you all. white people, black people, hispanic people, we all have to do our part to make our communities a safe place, a healthy place, a good environment. host: how would you add on to those or what do you take away about the discussion of class race? guest: i think she is right. i think she is bringing up something we don't bring up enough, we tend to focus on black and white. we do forget the kids in aplashea and people in rural america and we need to remember them and i think she's the perfect poster person for that, if you will, because she comes out of rural georgia, the

farmers. how our farmers have been through a lot in this country, black and white. certainly the black farmers, they had the big class action suit they won an award. but i think that we have left behind a number of our people who are at the lower socio economic rung, because the elites, where we talk and we owe pine and we think, we have these raised up discussions. we don't get down to the down and dirty of dealing with what's really wlong in our country. host: when we look at discussions of race, are discussions of class intermeshed with that? or should they be? guest: of course. especially when the legacy of race has had an impact on the reality of class. you can't have a society for 350 years that enslaved people, took their sweat and labor, refused to allow them to buy homes. i mean, when you have the returning gis from world war ii and the black gis are the only gis who were told that they

couldn't buy homes in levt town and it wasn't just there, it was everywhere, you had the issue of race and class completely intermingled. now, there's another factor in all of this, which is in the last 30 years we have seen a greater disparity of wealth in our society. so we can talk about economic growth and talk about aggregate numbers and all that but those hide the fact that the rich have really gotten richer the middle have gotten squeezed and the poor haven't done that well. so we wha we haven't seen in this era of racial progress, which arguably nobody should be able to argue with that. we've had enomples progress. but we haven't had the type of economic progress and security that will give this sort of lower classes, the poorer people the opportunity and the hope to be able to raise themselves up. guest: well, one of the things that's so interesting about class is that the groups populate nowadays, regardless of color.

and so wealthy people are not just wealthy and white. they're wealthy and black, they're wealthy and latino. and poor people are not just black but they're poor in all those other categories as well. and everybody else is in this middle area. i mean, there's a great big middle area where we're all at. we're fighting for what we can get and we all recognize even though we don't talk about it that we are part of a situation where there are people above us and below us. so the class structure and the class separation becomes just as pronounced in some respects as it does race. it's an interesting dialogue and the fact that the two things overlap makes it more difficult sometimes to discern which is more problematic or which might be the area that requires the greatest attention. host: let's take a couple of calls. caller: yes.

the characterization of blacks as a depraved culture is constantly perpetuated by the political right. but those who make such comments are involved in context dropping. they don't see how making a living is extremely difficult for blacks and especially black men and has been exacerbated by illegal yl aliens. black men haven't had the legacy of taking care of their families like most in this country because of the extreme degree of discrimination. and this kind of situation can have all kipeds of ramifications. did you look at any group, i don't care if they're asian or european, arabs, you will find that they have a legacy of taking care of their families that hasn't been given -- that black men haven't been given the opportunity in this

culture. and when they speak of illegal aliens, reagan let 10 million in here. and after that there's another 20 million. where are the jobs for the blacks? host: one more call. arizona. go ahead. caller: i'm just calling in to make a comment and kind of a question i guess. asking about don't you believe that or probably be that the powers that be, they basically want us to be distracted or little trivial things such as race, which is of no importance, because the main thing is one we should be doing the will ofia shoosha, the savor, the savor that was, the father. and martin luther king did say that we should not be worrying about the outside of someone's skin but the inside, the character of a person. and i think that's very important. just worrying about the character because you definitely can. i mean, if you push yourself to do things you can achief anything. host: mr. steiner, he talks

about it in terms of a distraction. guest: well, i can't imagine 400 years of history being a distraction when you talk about people being able to take care of each other. there's a fascinating story about how white middle class grew in america. it grew because of manufacturing in urban areas. but in a terrible twist of fate at the exact moment that black people were getting civil rights, the manufacturing jobs began to pull away from the cities so the same ladder that white people were able to climb up to be able to become part of the middle class was pulled away from black people the moment black people got the rights to join unions, the right to become part of this middle class. so when you think about the rise of the underclass, the first siting that i saw of the word underclass was in 1964 by the secretary of the naacp and it was because he saw at that moment in time that the jobs were disappearing from the place where most black people lived.

so if we wonder why there has been are so many problems in urban america over the last few decades and why those problems have led to all sorts of dysfunctional issues, you can take it back to the roots of the time that black people weren't allowed to climb that ladder and the midder that they were there weren't any jobs left. guest: i think he raises a valid point about the role of the black male. it has its vestages in savery. however, if he we look through history black families were largely intact until you see this decline starting in the 670s. and at a pro-- 70s. a fabulous professor of african american studies said a black child born in slavery had a better chance of being with both his parents than one does today. and you think about the context of that, that our children, single heads of households, these are all issues i talk about in this book redefinition

of what it means to be black in america and the issues we're grappling with, still rooted in many cases in the slavery and reconstruction and the aftermath. so i think his point is valid about that but the question is what are we going to do about it? host: congressman. guest: i don't necessarily know what we're going to do. i can tell you we're not going to do it if we try to do it individually. it's not going to work. it's got to be an effort where everybody who is agreeable joins in and tries to change things. which gets back to the point about class again because it's hard to separate that out of this discussion, particularly now when you have wealth being acaccumulated by people not because of their race but in spite of it. yet when a factory closes and the lights go out and people lose their jobs, they don't lose them as black people or white people, they lose them as people who happen to be black, white, latino. when a baby cries for food at night, living in a household that's below the poverty level

in this country, the baby doesn't cry in black or white or latino. the baby cries in lunger. so there is shthu of race, class embedded within race that has to be part of the discussion. and the way out kind of like the way we got in. one shovel at a time. it's not a quick fix. but there clearly has to be efforts to mark our progress. and i'm not saying that shirley sherrod is an effort or a marking but i can tell you that every time something like this happens, we tend to be better not worse as a nation because we are forced to come to grips with thing that is we don't always want to discuss. joo host: wung of the things that came out is a little bit of her history, econcerning the farmer she was helping. guest: she was 17. her father was shot in the back by a white man. it was never found guilty. she could have been bitter the rest of her life and used that

as an excuse. and what she talks about is how she overcame the legacy of her past and became a better person. host: thank you for the segway. here is a little bit about what she said. >> i grew so much about moving north and getting away from the south, the farms especially in the south. and i knew that if on the night of my father's death i felt i had to do something. i had to do something in answer to what had happened. my father wasn't the first black person to be killed. he was a leader in the community. he wasn't the first one to be killed by white men in the county. but i couldn't just let his death go without doing something in answer to what happened. i made the commitment on the night of my father's death at the age of 17 that i would not leave the south, that i would

stay in the south and devote my life to working for change. and i've been true to that commitment all of these 45 years. you know, when you look at some of the things that i've done through the years and when you look at some of the things that happened, i wasn't sure what my first two years, i know there's some here too i did my first years at fort valley but so much was happening at home and then i met this man here, i'll tell you a little bit about him, that i transferred back. and but two weeks after i was at school at fort valley they called and told me that a bunch of white men had gathered outside of our home and burned a cross one night. now, in the house was my mother, my four sisters, and my brother who was born june 6,

and this was september. that was all in the house that night. what my mother and one of my sisters went out on the porch, my mother had a gun. another sister, some of the stuff that you do it's like moving some of the stuff that happens through the years, i won't go into everything, i will just tell you about this. one of my sisters got on the phone because we organized a movement started june of 65, shortly not long after my father's death. that's how i met my husband. he wasn't from the north he's from up south though in virginia. but anyway, one of my sisters got on the phone and called other black men in the county and it wasn't long before they had surrounded these white men. and they had to keep one young man from actually using his gun on one of them. you probably would have read

about it had that happened that night. but they actually allowed those men to leave. they backed away and allowed them to get out of there. but i won't go into some of the other stuff that happened that night but i do know that my mother and my sister were out on the porch with a gun. and my mother said i see you i know who you are. she recognized some of them to tell you that she became the first black elected official just 11 years later. and she is still serving. she is the chair of education and she has been serving almost 34 years. host: you opened up discussion as far as her history. what can you add as far as what you heard? guest: well, it's just an eloquent story. it's an american story. it's overcoming the legacy of the past and becoming a better person. and so whether you're black or

latino or white, i mean, we all have a story. that's the interesting thing about this country. we all have stories. we get better because of them or we shrink and get worse. and she clearly got so much better. and i think it's a testimony to the fact that if you have values and you believe and you trust and you work hard and you play by the rules and you fight when you have to fight to make things right, things eventually become better in your own life and you're able to stand up and talk about nout where you came from but where you are now and why where you came from made such a difference in get wrg you are. host: she addressed the younger people several times in the speech. and we talked at the start about generational and how they view which. what can we learn from her history and what does it say to the younger generation? guest: let's mie away from race and class. let's talk about human beings and the fact that the past is something we all have. and power of forgiveness is

incredible as human beings. and when i talk to young people all the time, i constantly say to them you could have a lot of bad things that happen in your life and your family and your history. but if you have the courage to face those things and use it as a means to propel yourself forward, forgiveness is a powerful tool. irblely she could have said i'm not going to help this white farmer because all whites are bad. she didn't do that. and in fact, she went according to the couple over board to help them and to save their farm and they're actually friends. so she showed -- and i don't think anybody of us would fault her had she been bet bitter about her experience, having her father shot to death. i can't imagine what that's like. i'm not old enough to remember the civil rights movement or whatever. but i'm making the point that power of forgiveness is what we miss in this story and how fabulous it can propel you forward if you allow it. guest: it's interesting to me that her story of redemption

and reconciliation only came about after there was a controversy involved that completely miss it had story. and this is the larger point here. that we see so rarely in the media stories of people reaching out and working together. we will hear so often all the stories of people at each other's throats and the anger because the media reward outrage, they reward controversy, they reward drama rather than the types of stories of people working together on aday by day basis. plus, her story would probably never have been told if it weren't for this controversy. because when you look at the newspapers and you look at tv, you have minutes on tv and pages in the newspaper about wall street and high finance. you don't have any single reporters at major dailies any more having a regular labor union beat or a beat that deals with the rural part of america that shirley was part of. and telling those stories. so to some extent we have found this very skewed image of what america is if we just look at

this media. it's an image of conflict, controversy, and an image that wall street is the decisive factor in america and not the stories of the average people which we ought to know more about because that would humanize each other and allow us to have those interactions on a very personal basis rather than the basis of fear and conflict. host: good morning. thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: i have a lot of respect for everyone on the panel and i believe everything what they're saying is absolutely true. just an observation. basically i think that as far as race goes in this country we've had the marches forward at great cost, great human cost, which i have nothing but deep respect for. and basically i'll say that with regard to moving it forward i believe that the paradigm is set up where you're not going to get any further because there's no open dialogue here. and i believe the administration is too afraid because you have an election coming up and they don't want to alienate white voters. but at the same time, who in the administration is running the political strategy? i just have to ask. that this is the a good

opportunity to bring it up in a strategic way where they didn't have to be cuppable at the same time but by a loss of i guess someone was out to lunch or who knows what was going on. but whoever missed this opportunity really did the country a disservice. the right wing in this count rirks and i won't say all plidges and all people on the right because i believe there's a lot of good people. but they've been running this campaign of race in code for the past two years. not in everything they do. but on a lot of issues. and i'm a white 43-year-old male and i see it. but the fact is that this has been going on for a while and they just got caught this time because this idiot. but at the same time the administration is sitting back not taking the whole that i believe they should to step out and represent the interests not just of black people, not just of poor white people but all of us as americans. i'll take my response off the air. thank you. host: all of you were nodding. who wants to go first? guest: i think obama as sort of a critic of his administration,

i would say he has been more head of government than head of state. i think what he has done in fact is done a great deal for the average person in america. health care reform, credit card reform. is the stimulus package which arguably saved mlings of jobs. we just don't talk about it because these jobs were lost. and the unemployment -- weren't lost. and the unemployment stayed the same when in fact it might have spiked up without the stimulus. but he's been sort of a somebody who sees government's role in terms of how you can regulate the worst excesses of capitalism and make sure that people are not harmed in that process. but it's head of government. it's policy leadership. it's not sort of the type of moral leadership that franklin roosevelt that talked about as essential to the presidency. so i think what is interesting is that obama got elected because he would be a good head of state and he flipped that has become a very good and effective head of government but not a good head of state.

not the type of moral leader that people expected him to be. and i think that's where some of the discontent is coming from. host: the op ed section of the "new york times" talks about this issue as far as race being too hot to touch. the writer says that in some ways mr. obama's elections seems to have somewhat confused the conversation. guest: i think we've got to get away from that for a moment. 57% of white americans did not vote for barack obama. 43% did. which was higher than clinton and gore got, by the way. they got 41%. so he did better with the white vote than both of his predecessors running before him. my point is 57% of any group is a large number of people so in that group you have a number as

web points out in his piece, white america is not a mono litsdz. i agree. just like i don't think black america is. having said that, i do think race is too hot to touch. but this president is in a uniquely difficult position because he's got to balance between not being seen as the black president. as you know, miley and a bunch of these guys got into a dustup four months ago about whether there ought to be a black agenda. and of course the white house doesn't want to deal with that because they don't want to be seen as the black president but the president of everyone. so i think he's in a difficult position. he should be more leader of state and this was a lincoln moment for him to address the nation and say like he did in philadelphia and talk about shth issue of race. but i think his advisers once again and david axel rod and rahm emanuel are running strategy to answer the caller's questions at the white house, i think that's fair to say and they're not wanting to deal with this because looking at his poll numbers free fall and

i think that's a problem for them. host: you talk a little about it but the second type like we heard in 2008? guest: i don't know if one is there, quite frankly. i agree that this was an opportunity. this wasn't something that was just bad that happened politically this was an opportunity to take a bad situation and to elevate the discussion, to elevate our nation and to give us focus and get beyond it. but in the absence of that it continues to drag along and drag along. here we are day eight or nine still talking about it. so what happened with wall street reform and the extense of unemployment benefits got kicked under the rug because people did not see this as an opportunity to take a dialogue to be to take leadership. and to from a statesman's position elevate the discussion in such a way that we felt better about it not worse. so i'm just a little conflicted there and i again go back to the fact that i have real problems when advisers want to

suggest that you shouldn't do a, b, c or did because you won't get reelected. and i'm not saying the president is listening to adviseers but i know that they are talking about they talk to everybody. at some point in time you've got to govern from your moral center from what you know is right and wrong. . .

guest: his moral leadership ultimately became the release that he spoke with shirley rashad. and that's not why he was president, but on the leadership role, and he's not filled that role. and even though his policies are popular, his numbers are disjoined. guest: look at the numbers, and then he owed an aapology, i will apologize for the president,

they don't know what they are doing, i agree with what they both have to say. guest: the naacp's role in this? i think that they overreacted and following the blog in this instance. i have met at the white house with every president since jimmy carter. and i can tell you there is one defining thing about presidents it's what they believe, and once they believe something, you don't deter them, and i believe that this president wants a better america and clearly wants us beyond this issue of race. and not to get the credit but helped in the process. but he's got to step forward and take the conversation and lead and then we will be reacting to what he said.

and that's what we should, but not to glenn beck. host: tennessee valley, go ahead. caller: yes, i want to make a statement, i mean when it comes to race relation in this country, we have to look the everything. we are the only race forced to come over here. and still forced now to even talk to each other about race. when it comes to the president, and i hear a lot of people, they don't call him president, they say barack or mr. obama. and dealing with the presidency, we know that he's just really a puppet figure. if it doesn't come from the advisors, like everyone is saying, if the poll numbers are down, it's time for us to ask the president and to get the government and for us as people

to give an honest discussion about race. stop waiting for government to do it. host: caller thanks. guest: he's right, i think that was mary matlin and her husband had a spat about race. and it was funny, why can't we just sit down at our kitchen table and i go to a black church and start the discussion on a microlevel. i think that's one part but that simplifies it. it has to be raised all the way up from the highest to everyone's kitchen table. and by all means we shouldn't wait and have a discussion about it now. host: he said that we are forced to talk about it. guest: interesting. guest: the last time that a president spoke about race was in 1965 i believe lyndon

johnson. this is one of the most powerful races in nation's history and haven't had that leadership since way back then. i agree that it has to come from the grass-roots and believe that it has to come from the top. i don't care who is our president, it's not just a black issue but an american issue. if we don't begin to have this conversation from the highest levels to the kitchen tables throughout america. then we are not doing our job. he had an opportunity to make this into a lesson and algory, and what we did right. and if he had framed the discussion in that way, we would see the discussions at the grass roots and people talking and breaking bread and at synagogues and rotary clubs, and people

talking about these things. you have to take the leadership on top and it has to come from the white house. guest: i think what we are ignoring on this discussion that the country doesn't know how they see this thing. i have talked with colleagues and they believe we have a black president and they have said, well, you got a black president, what is wrong. why are we still talking about this. there is a perception and i see you sophia, you are an attorney and where is this inequality. there is a difference in how this is perceived. and that's where the advisors need to come in, and you better watch this and you talk about race and piss off half the country, you will have a problem.

that's real. host: let's take a break and look at this speech and the role of politics and how money plays into it. >> you know, i haven't seen such a mean-spirit people as i have seen lately over this issue of health care. some (inaudible) thought we thought was buried resurfaced. we endured eight years of the bush bushes' and (inaudible) because of a black president. host: so the issue of health care and the issue of meanness and what she was talking about. congressman, how do you react to that? guest: well, i feel strange always reacting this morning. let give me a take, i believe

that that mean-spiritedness is there and the double perception that you talked about earlier is there. because people don't have the same experiences. and when they look at someone else that is not where they think they should be, and they get angry because you dare asked, especially a job and angry because they are in a situation they feel threatened. when i leave here and go back to baltimore and drive there, you will see the kind of poverty and deprivation that wants to make us all want to do something about society. to say how do you make things better when you have a black president, doesn't make sense to me. he could be polka-dot, it's in

appalachia and poor black-and-white in baltimore, it's everywhere. we can't assume that we have a black president and what are you crying about. people have to recognize take the president out of this, there is a systematic problem, you can't escape that we have immigration system out of control. and you can't get out of the fact that people are still seeing things in black-and-white, black-and-white. host: how do we change that? guest: it doesn't have to be any of our leaders, it doesn't have to be president obama but anyone talking about a central issue in our culture. i don't think there is anything wrong with the president saying

look at what we have accomplished in our country. look at what we have overcome. look at how we challenged history and made progress on pleuralism and race-ethic advantage. he could say that and still say, but we still have our work to do. and that would address the people that say, what is the problem, we have a black president. the problem is that any society is not erased by the fact that barack obama was elected. and there is nothing wrong looking at the positive things on race, and look at what you are, an inclusive generation. but also to say that we have our work cut out and these things we need to get done to be that

perfect nation. >> one thing i loved in the speech, is this political part. and i don't think that this naacf food fight, and they pass the resolution. guest: foolt fight. guest: yeah, but it went down from there and someone lost their job and having this discussion now. but because someone doesn't agree with policy. for example, the tea party people in this country have legitimate grievances and concerns. and we shouldn't smear them as racists. i called this out in the post on sunday, and i am glad they dispelled about the letter. but the naacp has a better charge in my mind of someone being a due-paying member and

stopped. and that's another conversation for another day. i disagree because

guest: what he is talking about being a lost tribe of people. one thing i admire about my jewish brother, they never

forget the holocaust, and never let anyone forget it. and they are sticking together. and what he is talking about, correct, we don't know who he are, and that's a casualty of how we came here and 300 years of slavery and 100 years of segregation. but we have been defined by circumstances, unlike our italian brother and irish, they came here for the better life. we didn't have that option. i am a direct generation of those slaves. and our familys are pieced together. and our pieces are scattered. i have been doing ancestory and found fascinating things. and my friends know their family

tree, and know their legacy better than we do. host: congressman, you want to assist? guest: yeah, i haven't been called a negro in a while but we grew up that way. there is an african-american comment, it's not what you call me but what i answer to. the gentleman didn't tell his race. and it has been talked about how to find a way to work together to stop pointing fingers. and he lead his country in a way that was clearly balanced and clearly without blame. now let me just if i might say one thing about this -- i will go back to the food fight that you talked about. which is an interesting term.

and it was, you did it and i did it, and then got out of hand. i don't have a problem with the people on the left or right or conservative or liberal. that has never gotten to me than other people, and the older i get, i am more conservative than i have been in life. we are better as a nation when we have different views that can debate the issues. because the people that want the leadership have something to choose from and as a barometer to figure how the who they want to lead them. and that's the good part that moves back and forth. it's the extremes that scares all of us. and one thing is clear and how you talked about ms. sharod and we have missed an opportunity to

take something that was paramount and central and shape in such a way to make us better. this may be just an asterisk now and a year before now it was last year mr. gates. if we allow this as an asterisk and be a lost moment and miss the opportunity to take advantage of this and help all americans understand who we are, and where we are going. host: it was a teachable moment from gates, what would we learn from that? guest: we should stop jumping to conclusions. everyone jumped to conclusions including the president. and saying that the police overreacted. we are in a society if someone

puts it on a website and puts on a private publication, we react. than to sit back and understand and then react. host: ben jones has a piece today in "the new york times" and talks about the influence of the internet. and said that the only solution is for americans to adjust our culture to new media and technologies to give us data faster than ever before. we don't have the wisdom in place to deal with it. in time we will it, public leaders will learn to be more transparent. we will teach our children not to rush to judgment. technology will evolve to better exposed. mr. steinhorn, do you agree? guest: i have students coming in

with tons of information and not a lot of knowledge or culture. and when you have a media and there is a food fight on the latest thing on what was said. without going to the original roots, and the source, that's where we have some of our problems. you are right, we have to step back and think and not react. newspapers used to wait on a story until they had named sources. now they are worry if they don't jump out with a story, someone else will take it and that news outlet will get the credit. we don't have the time to check things out and think them through. it's an obligation a all of us o spend the time of history. my hunch if we did a poll including african-americans

about the history and slavery, very few people would know the actual facts and have the knowledge of what the history is. it's incumbent on us as a society that talks about education and the media to make it deeper and full of more facts and wisdom. and that's what he is saying. guest: he makes a great point, context is everything. and as i wrote my book i spent time in a slave cabin and wanted to spend time as a black women of the women that lived there. and as i wrote that chapter, that chapter didn't make it into the book. and i was upset about it. and they said, you can't talk about that, everyone knows about that. but you have to talk about the hear and now. and you made an excellent point we don't want to talk about that and the fact is that everyone

doesn't know it. if we did that poll and even looked at african-americans and white, i bet that the knowledge poll would be the same. of not understanding the slavery in this country and back to the civil rights movement. guest: if i can make a comment about media. it was important to hit the story of the who, what, where, how and maybe the why, and then check it twice. these are not the days of walter cronkite, but the days of entertainment tonight. let's get it on tv, coming up at six, and guess what, no fact checking whatsoever. and this fact capturing serves as an incubator to happen over and over. and something is crazy about the

facts and how do we get the next set of eyes watching tv and the next set of ears listening to radio station and that's what is driving this. host: pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning, we live in a very reactionary white america. we live in a very media sensational america that happens to be white. black people we don't have the luxury of being racist, because we are too busy trying to catch up to white america. there is one america as a nation, and as a physical country. but there is black and there is white. and everyone's reality is not the same. we do have a black president. he's a man that happens to be black. and it's just sad that race in

america it's a systemic problem. and once something is systemic, it's like disease. systemic, it will take much, much surgery. it will take many things to make it whole again. host: thanks caller. guest: i would say back again to context, racism, people have thrown that word around so much i don't think that people know what it means. prejudice is the issue that we don't talk about. and what they call unconscious bias, that new theory you don't know that you have these prejudices because we live in white communities and black or whatever. racism deals with systemic oppression and regression and disenfranchisement. which again is slavery, jim

crow, do the process. when we say that someone is racist, we don't know what we are talking about. he may be a bigot but really racist. i don't want to have this discussion, but main street needs to be a part of this discussion. but i think you know what i am talking about, we have words messed up in this dialogue. guest: we have to go back and look at system, so much of politics was driven by the 60's and 70's. lyndon johnson said that when he passed the civil rights laws that societies would lose much to come. and when you look at white southerns, they were democratic because they liked the water

projects, the power authorities and the farm subsidies. and all things that government brought their way. they liked government back then. and now they don't like government, why? because government came in and was the standards for civil rights. they don't like government today because it was the agent that brought civil rights upon their culture. i am not saying that everyone in the tea party and white southerns have problems with prejudice. that's not the point, but the point is why we are in the roots we are today, and a lot has to do with the racial politics from the 60's and 70's and how politics, including richard nixon played on that to get the votes. we have to hold history accountable to have this discussion. guest: and how black politicians

have used it to be elected. and it's wrong altogether, it doesn't elevate us, had keeps us at each other's throats. we need more time, we really do. [laughter] because everyone is looking at this and saying, i have something to add. and they do have something to add. i hope this discussion leaves this studio into washington and people carry it on in their own ways and communities. because we have to figure out how to get better, not how we stay where we are. and take out the situation where you are democratic and republican and independent or conservative and liberal. the labels at some point in time, they mean something in what we think and want and believe to be true.

but the larger question, do they move us to be a greater nation and into the future. host: we have one more caller from north carolina, alexis. caller: thank you, and thank you for c-span. and i want to say, maybe i am an extremist, but i think there is a consortium going on to keep people from coming together. that started out with slavery and has evolved to poverty. there was a comment made that the gap between the have's and have-not's. i read recently it's quadrupled since the 1980's, the wealth gap between black and white families. and i think that spills over to politics because that is the way

it's controlled. and so the perception is to make it continue that there is this argument between the races. and at poverty level it's how am i going to get food on the table today. that's all they are concerned with. and there is a lot of camaraderie between black's and white's that are impoverished and next door neighbors helping how that fashions out. host: caller, thanks. guest: i am not a conspiracy theorists, and i think that humpty dumpty didn't jump but was pushed. there is something to keep people at this level of race, and not allowing a larger

discussion to come about, how to create a more perfect union. guest: i would like to say to my fellow americans, and they watched this discussion and we largely agree with each other and have different backgrounds. and one thing i would like to see us do, i don't believe there is a conspiracy consciously. i believe that race is the hottest ticket going. it has been as you mapped out. and johnson's worse fears came true and we know that nixon was a cynical and unhappy man and clearly sad. a guy that could have greatness he had have a different bent to his personality. we need to sit down and talk to each other. and you don't have to be afraid, no one needs to get a black eye,

we don't need to call names. if you disagree, help me see it where you see it. and that's where we need to start. guest: one institution that hasn't been talked about is labor unions. today the most integrated institution is labor unions and represent 9-10% of the economic employees. for people to get together and talk about these things on a common united front, that took place over labor unions for years. but the current incarnation is very inclusive. but they don't have the power that they once had. i don't believe in conspiracies and i don't know who pushed humpty dumpty, but it's true that the one institution that could provide a voice for people at the bottom. or in the middle of our

socioeconomic culture, they had been routinely dismissed, dismantled and attacked. that's one institution that didn't provide this venue. host: the book, color of our skin, and sophia nelson a commentary and author. and kweisi mfune, thank you. coming up, we will talk with the network nation director from las vegas, we will do that after this break. >> coming up at noon eastern on c-span radio, reairs of talk program of abc, nbc and fox and

cnn. including economy, race relations in america and the national security and fall elections. at noon, meet the press, talks about the economy with tim geithner. and also on the program is david brooks and e.j.noon from "the washington post". followed by rick santeli on cnbc. on host radio talking to tim geithner and chris christie. fox news sunday reairs at 2 p.m. welcoming the speaker of the house, newt gingrich and how ward dean. and then a look at race

elections with jesse jackson. on face the nation, host talks about race in america, the vice chair on civil rights. and finally at 3:30 on cnn's state of the union, host talks about national security with former cia director. and then turning to host of america, and john mcwarner contribute be editor of new republic. wrapping up with president obama and the business community with the u.s. news and world report. five sunday network talk shows beginning at noon eastern, with meet the press, and fox news

sunday, face the nation, and then at 3:30 eastern, cnn's state of the union. listen to them all on 90.1 fm in the washington area. or online at c-spanradio.org. >> can you tell us what it is, why you are here today? >> sure, secretary selius was here about three weeks ago and made a commitment to the gulf that she would come back and that we were blessed with local

offices from atlanta to the gulf. we have local people on the town, and secretaries from d.c. are here with the local folks by the people impacted by this disaster. so we can hear the questions first-hand and work with the state to get the answers tailored to the region. today we met with vietnamese fishers and organizations that have long-term commitments with these folks. we heard frustrations, we are not able to fix everything immediately but we think that we can make real commitment to these problems over the long-term. >> i am with the mississippi

coalition and we are here today to discuss needs. we are looking at long-term and short-term strategies to help these folks that has been impacted from the oil spill. >> what types of strategies did you discuss? >> right now is to understand how collectively we can look into vocational schooling for these folks. the english language is a barrier and the department of labor will work with the coalition. the concern is the folks not working. they want to work in the oil spill and can't because they are not getting the calls. and trying to look for jobs onshore. what do they do? now with english as a barrier, maybe additional schooling. english classes to help these folks. right now we are looking at different avenues of trying to

find out all the organizations that will help out. mainly state and federal level. out of the 5,000 vietnamese-americans here impacted, 10% are working. so the 10% that are working, they are not fishing or harvesting but they are working on the oil spill. these folks out here are not designed to be here, they are designed to fish and crab and so it's affecting them and their financial situation. they have the note on the boat and on their mortgage. it's quite an impact. this is a crisis, we are in a crisis right now. >> with the community leaders that you spoke with and the fishermen affected, are they satisfied with the process and how things are moving along? >> well, they are frustrated. i think they will feel much differently when we get some

change done. and i wouldn't expect them to feel differently. it's really on us to get something done. if we don't get something done, it won't change. >> w "washington journal" continues. >> in las vegas we have a meeting in a conference, raven brooks joins us as the executive director. some may not know what netroots nation is, how will you describe this? >> this is a gather of the largest blobbers and activists. and it's like a family reunion

for people in the movement. people come here to connect with folks they haven't seen in a while, to recharge and get ready for working this fall and the future. and to learn new skills. host: so as far as an agenda is concerned, and you referenced fall, what would you list priorities and agenda. and how would you use technology and other means to get that agenda out there? guest: i think with netroots folks, it's a bunch of individuals, but people are looking to protect the majorities in the house and senate. no one wants to see speaker baner to come this fall. but i don't think that people are working hard to save the candidates that made it in the

last couple of cycles. and instead look to protect progressives and elect new ones as well. host: as you see it and the papers talked about the dissatisfaction and the disenfranchisements and do you see that as truthful as those who organize this organization? guest: is there frustration with the speed of change, but on the other hand people do support the president and want him to be successful. it's just that we want bolder change and quicker. we not that country is hurting, and that the unemployment rate is in double-digits and a lot of cities and states and has been for quite some time. when we look at the debate and

whether or not we do a job spill and not moving quickly, it's frustrating. host: you had speaker pelosi and how was she perceived and evaluate her? guest: i think that speaker pelosi was received well. and the house has been more progressive than the senate. among our folks, the senate is the real problem. and we had reid at the convention yesterday and the one thing clear out of his talk that the senate is a dysfunctional institute at this time.

and in need of serious reforms. and i think that online activ t activists have a role in that to bring pressure and to make everyone's constituents around the country heard. and as well as provide solutions. host: our guest is with us until the end of this program. if you want to talk about the progressive movement and how that relates to online activism. you can call the lines for democrats, republicans and independents. lewiston, iowa, claudette on the republican line, go ahead. claudette, are you there? caller: yes, i will like to ask -- guest: go ahead, you have to

keep talking. caller: i would like to ask your guest how he thinks that president obama is going to have our country end up as before he leaves office. we are seeing it as a downhill fall. and i am hoping that we have a turn-around come november, thank you. host: mr. brooks. guest: i would say that the one thing that is common to obama is equal opportunity. and there is a lot of challenges that we need to take on in this new century. we have things like climate change which is going to affect the entire world despite the people that deny it out there. it's a real thing, it's happening. and we need to do something about it. and we need to remain competitive with the rest of the world. now we are in a position where

there are new industries being created with alternative energy technologies and the manufacturering of those technologies. and we have a choice right now, we can let those things be designed in china and import it back and in the same situation like with saudi arabia. or get serious about it and create those jobs here and leave that for america this century. host: next guest houston, texas, thomas on our independent line. caller: hi, how are you doing, we see what is going on in the senate as far as they saying no -- hello. host: thomas, go ahead. caller: yes, we clearly see what is going on in the senate with the republicans and the say no thing now. and we can't get anything done

and you say need to be more aggressive in the white house. but how can we when we have a senate that one side is no, and the other side is yes. what do we plan on doing that in the fall? guest: the one thing we can do come january, we will know what the new composition of the senate is and how many people in there. and hopefully there is majority in the democratic side so things can get done. but every new term the senate has the opportunity to change the rules. they have some ability to do that now. but every time they reorganize they can do that simply on a majority vote. and the white house needs to be aggressively pushing for and we as voters need to aggressively push for. it's no one's interest for the minority party to obstruct the

agenda. host: tennessee, with our guest, raven brooks from netroots nation. caller: yes, my question to mr. brooks, out of the house and senate races we have this fall, which one does he think that the democrats are more likely to lose, if any. and also how does he feel about patty murray's race in washington state. guest: so i think that one example of the kind of race that we are going to lose is blanche lincoln in arkansas. if you look at the polling against her opponent. it's not great.

she's not met what the people want and that's a different choice this round. and specifically on patty murray, i am not too familiar with the race. but i would hope she does well in the election. host: did senator reid talk about his own race? guest: he did address it a little bit. and it seems fairly close but there is a big contrast between reid and sharon angle, and i would think for the people of nevada, it's in their interest to continue with harry reid's leadership. it's better to have someone with a high level seniority in the senate taking things back for your state. and he's doing his part to try to create jobs. and i don't think that's what sharon angle is trying to do, she's more what is going in the

senate. wanting to obstruct things and appeal things and made a bunch of fantastic comments that are unbelievable. i hope that the voters make the right choice in the fall. host: do you think that the what the president saw in his campaign, those who were internet savvy have that same commitment to him today? guest: i think that progressives and online activists are frustrated with harry reid. we think that he's got things at his disposal and not use them. he allows republicans to filibuster and not make them sit in the chambers and wait it out and so on tv to the american people what is going on. a lot is threats behind-the-scenes and delays the

process. and as a result he's not exhibiting the leadership that we think he should. we are asking for our leaders to be bold in advancing their agenda. host: and then you have health care that passed and financial regulations that passed. what else do you want to see passed? guest: we need to address climate change and clean energy and immigration reform as well. and even with some things that have passed with respect to health care and financial reform. there were very good historic pieces of those reform packages. but one thing that is clear from both legislative battles is that some of the corporate interests involved really got their way and got a lot of things in the bills that are ultimately going to be bad for voters. and those are things that we need to go back and work on. and not just say, we checkd that

box and move on to the next issue. host: huntsville, alabama. caller: yes, i was alarmed by the speakers' notion that the rules have to be changed. i think that's a dangerous thing. because the way that our system is

done, they have an opportunity to speak in the next election and change things. that's what the democratic process is about. host: florida, john on the independent line. caller: yes, i wonder if your

guest could address the aspect of history. under congressman wilson in the 20's, and i believe that the progressive bill is trying to divide this country. and against what the constitution stands for, and sir, would you deny that progressism is not socialism? guest: i would say it's not socialism, i would say that the common thread in equal opportunity. we believe that you should be able to make a living wage at your job and be protected. that's why there is labor support. we believe that you shouldn't be able to destroy the intiermeenv if you are a corporation, like what bp is doing in the gulf. we believe in the creation of

this consumer financial protection agency. so in the future pay day lenders can't prey on the weakest parts of our society. i would not say it's a socialist movement at all. host: someone from twitters and about the policy of deployment in the military? guest: i think what we need to do is start having a conversation about what our progressive foreign policy is. it seems like in this country it's always been something that is untouchable. and you have to hold a hard line or the other side will go after you on the radio and call you weak and a terrorist sympathizer. it's just ridiculous in an adult debate. and i think there are things that we can do with our position in the world.

that obama has been doing, he's been restoring our reputation in the world after bush left office. he's got treaty's signed. he's been making targeted investments to bring stability to other parts of the world. and those are things that we need to have a discussion about. host: chicago, illinois, democratic line, terry, go ahead. caller: i believe that the progressive along with the liberals are often too harsh to the president when he doesn't do what they want. the president doesn't legislative, he's accomplished a lot, and i go online and see those accomplishments. and he not completed his term yet and hopefully he will get reelected. i believe this is the best president that we have had. he got health care accomplished

and a lot of things accomplished. host: thank you, mr. brooks. guest: i agree with that, it's important to honor the accomplishments made. health care and financial reform are big deals. but the role of the progressive movement is to keep pushing for change from the left. if you look at the clinton administration, there really was not force on the left that was pulling him that way. what happened is that the right wing was loud and forceful and that's the way that the policies turn. it's our job to keep challenging obama to be better and to do what we promised in the campaign. but it's not possible for him to do that if we are not pushing for that and have his back when he does.

host: caller, oklahoma city, oklahoma. caller: thank you, i remember the health care debate and during the debates i remember there was a great deal of, let's just say not necessarily honest and open talking. and many democrats refused to have any type of -- i don't know what they called them, the open houses or what you want to call them. and they refused to share information about it and people read the bill ahead of time and the democrats were blowing them off or not discussing it. and then we have this 2,000 page bill that affects student loans and nothing to do with health care. and that doesn't seem honest and open and doesn't see the way i want my country to go. i believe in honest and open debate, i believe there is a place for it. and progressives need to tell how they are