millions. by holding on even amid cruelty and loss and expanding to a sense of compassion, by holding on to her humanity, she has inspired others to toon't try it -- i will try say it better the maya angelou yourself who said history, despite its wrenching pain cannot be unlived. a face with courage and need not be lived again. lift up upon the day breaking for you. give birth again to the dream. in 1942, an 11-year-old boy from omaha, nebraska and bested his entire fortune in 6 shares of city services preferred at $38

per share. the stock soon dropped sharply. devastating his holdings. but true to form, the boy did not panic. he held those shares until the stock rebounded, earning himself a small profit. things got a little bit better after that. [laughter] today, we know warren buffett as not only one of the world's richest men but one of the most admired and respected. i'm moved by financial fads, he is -- he has doggedly sought out value, put his weight behind country -- behind companies of problems and demonstrated integrity is not just a good trait, it is good for business. yet, for all the money has earned, you do not see warren buffett wearing fancy suit or driving fancy cars. instead, you see him devoting the vast majority of his wealth to those from the world were

suffering, sick or in need of health -- in need of help. he uses his stature as a leader to press others to do the same. philanthropist is a lover of humanity. there is no word that fits warren buffett better. he is so thrifty i had to give him a white house thai. the last time he came to visit. -- i had to give him a white house tie. his was look in a little shredded. when bill gates came, he wanted one also. it has been noted that jasper johns work has transfixed people around the world. historians will tell you he helped usher in the artistic movement that would define the latter half of the 20th-century. many would say he is one of the

greatest artists of our time. yet, of his own efforts, he has simply said i just trying to find a way to make pictures. just trying to find a way to make pictures. like a great artist before, jasper johns pushed to the boundary of what art could be and challenged others to test their own assumptions. he did not do it for fame or success, although he owned both -- he earned both. he said i assume everything would lead to complete failure but i decided it didn't matter and that would be my life. we are richer as a society because it was and you turned out fine. when you are among the youngest of nine children, you develop a strong sense of empathy. when those children are the kennedys, you develop a strong

set of diplomatic skills just to be heard. both traits helped jean kennedy smith followed her siblings into public service. when her cousin, president kennedy, promise to visit ireland in the springtime, he was not able to. it was up to gene to do it for him. she was as vital as unconventional, helping brave men and women find the courage to see past mistrust and coming together deford a lasting peace. touched by experiences in her own life, she also founded the dsa program, helping those with disability discover the joys of life through the arts. her mission has spread to more than 50 countries and touched millions of lives. insuring the family business remains alive and well.

by the time she was 21, gerda weissmann klein spent six years living under nazi rule. three of them in concentration camps. her parents and brother had been taken away. her best friend had died in her arms during a 350 mile death march. she weighed only 68 pounds when she was found by american forces in an abandoned bicycle factory. but she survived. she married the soldier who rescued her. ever since, as an author, historian and crusader for tolerance, she has taught the world that is often in our hopeless moments that we discover our strength and depth of our love. i pray you never stand at a crossroads in your own lives, she says, but if you do, if the

darkness seems so total, if you think there is no way out, remember never, ever give up. that is a quote that would be familiar to our next honoree. it was where the students refused to leave the lunch hour 50 years ago this february. if not us, then who? if not now, then when? it is a question john lewis has been asking his entire life. it is what led him back to the edmonton as bridge in selma after he had been beaten within an inch of his life days before. it is why time and again he faced down death so all of us could share equally in the joys of life. it is why all of these years later, he is known as the

conscience of the united states congress, still speaking his mind on issues of justice and equality. generations from now, and parents teach their children what is meant by courage, john lewis will come to mind. at american who do that change could not wait for some other person or some other time. his life is a lesson in the fierce urgency of now. an optometrist from new york, tom little could have pursued a lucrative career. for 30 years, amid invasion and civil war, the terror of the taliban, the spread of insurgency, he and his wife helped bring afghans live truly the miracle of sight. last summer, tom and his team of doctors were ambushed and senselessly murdered.

today, we remember and honor dr. tom little, a humanitarian in the truest sense of the word. a man who not only dedicated his life to others but who lived that lesson of scripture -- greater love hath no man than this. that meant laydown his life for his friends. yo-yo ma has been a concert cellist since the age of five despite being a late bloomer. [laughter] he went on to record over 75 albums and went 16 grammys, which means i'm only 14 behind him. [laughter] while he could have just settled for being the world's greatest cellist, he said even greater

for his passion to music is his passion for people. there are very few people you will be with his exuberance and joy. he spent much of his life traveling the world, training and mentoring thousands of students from lebanon, korea, to the iraqi national symphony and orchestra. a member of my committee on the arts and humanities, he has been named a messenger of peace by the united nations. we understand why. in his words, when we enlarge our view of the world, we deepen our understanding of our lives. for sylvia mendez, a lifelong quest for equality began when she was 6 years old. outrage that her daughter had to attend a segregated school, her parents linked arms to fight injustice in a california federal court. it is a case that would pave the way for brown vs. the board of education. next year, when a classmate

auditors say mexicans did not belong there, she went home in tears begging to leave the school. her mother would not have it. her mother told her, that is why we went to court. you are just as good as he is. she took those words to heart and never since has made it her message -- made it her mission to spread a message of tolerance and opportunity to children of all backgrounds and all walks of life. growing up in communist east germany, angela merkel dream of freedom. when the wall crumbled and germany was reunited, she broke barriers of her own. she was the first east german in the first woman to become chancellor of germany. she and the country she leads are among our best allies. to me, she is a trusted ally and friend. the story of angela merkel is an

inspiration. everything is possible. something the world has seen in recent weeks. freedom does not come by itself. as the struggle for and defend a new every day of our lives. she is not here today. she will be visiting for an official visit soon, look forward to presenting her the word when she comes. stan musial, his brilliance can come in blinding burst. hitting five home runs in a single day double header. leading the league in singles, doubles, triples and rbis in a single season. three world series. a hall of famer, worthy of one of the greatest names in sports -- stand the man. my grandfather was them, by the way, i used to call him the man

to. stan musial made that brilliance burn for two decades. stand matched his hustle with humility. he retired 17 records, even as he missed a season in his prime to serve his country in the navy. he was the first player to make -- get this -- $100,000. [laughter] ahead even more shocking, he asked for a pay cut when he did not perform up to his own expectations. you can imagine that happening today. [laughter] stand remains to this day an icon, untarnished, a beloved pillar of the community, a gentleman you would want your kids to emulate. i hope i have given baseball nearly as much as i have gotten from it, stan wrote in his

memoirs, knocking it out of the park one more time. when bill russell was in junior high, he was cut from his basketball team. [laughter] he got better after that. [laughter] he led the university of san francisco to two championships in 13 seasons with the balkans celtics, he won 11 championships. it record unmatched -- what the boston celtics, he won 13 championships. while serving as the team's coach. he was also the first african- american ever to hold such a position as a coach in a major- league sports team of any sort. more than any athlete of his era, bill russell came to define the word winner. yet, whenever someone looks up at all 6 feet 9 of bill russell,

i just did and i always feel small next to him, and asks are you a basketball player? surprisingly, he gets this more than you think. he says no, that's what i do, that's not what i am. i am not a basketball player. i am a man who plays basketball. bill russell, the man, as someone who stood up for the rights and dignity of all men. he marched with king, he stood by ali. when a restaurant refused to serve the black celtics, he refused to play a game. he endured insults but he focus on making the teammates he loved better players. he made possible the success of somebody who would follow. -- so many who would follow. i hope someday children in

boston will look up to a statue of bill russell. the son of irish immigrants, john sweeney was shaped by three things -- his family, and still in him that fundamentally american ideas that through hard work, we can make of our lives what we will. the church taught him our obligations to ourselves and what -- and one another. he sought by banding together in a union, we can accomplish great things that we cannot accomplish alone. he devoted his career to the labor movement, adding working folks to its ranks and fighting for their working conditions and fair wages. as the head of the afl-cio, he was responsible for dozens of unions with millions of working families. family, faith, fidelity to the

common good, these are the values that make john sweeney who he is. values of the labor movement that helped build the world's greatest middle-class. finally, we recognize our last recipients, not simply for the years he spent as our 41st president, we honor george herbert walker bush for service to america that spans nearly 70 years, from a decorated navy pilot who nearly gave his life in world war two to u.s. ambassador to the united nations, from cia director to u.s. envoy to china to the vice presidency, his wife is a testament that public service is a noble calling. as president, he expanded at america's promise to new immigrants and people with disabilities. he reduced nuclear weapons and

built a broad international coalition to expel a dictator from kuwait. when democratic revolutions swept across eastern europe, it was the steady diplomatic hand of president bush that made it possible an achievement once thought impossible -- ending the cold war without firing a shot. i would add that like the remarkable barbara bush, his humility and his decency reflects the very best of the american spirit. those of you who know him, this is a gentleman. inspiring citizens to become points of light in service to others, teaming up with a onetime political opponent to champion relief for the victims of the asian tsunami and hurricane katrina. just to cap off, in the '80s, he decides to jump out of

airplanes. because as he explains, it feels good. these are the recipients of the 2010 model of freedom. so now, it is my great pleasure and my great honor to present them with their medals. [applause] >> john h. adams.

any time when contaminated waterways and polluted air threaten to many of our communities, john h. adams founded the natural resources council to encourage stewardship of our national resources. a staunch defender of the wonders of our planet, he served as executive director and later as president of as thenrdc, challenging americans to leave something better to our children with urgency matched by few others. his decades-long commitment to safeguarding the earth has left our air purer, our water cleaner, and our plan at a healthier for generations to come. -- our planet healthier for generations to come. [applause]

dr. maya angelou. out of a youth market by pain and injustice, dr. maya angelou rose within unbending determination to fight for civil rights and inspire everyone of us to recognize and impress the possibility and potentially each hold. with her soaring poetry, towering pros and mastery of a range of art forms, she has spoken to the conscience of our nation. her soul's during words taught us how to reach across division and honor the beauty of our world. [applause]

warren e. buffett. as a world-renowned investor and philanthropist, his -- fit he is a co-founder of the giving pledge, an organization that encourages wealthy americans to donate at least 50% of their wealth to philanthropic causes. warren buffett possible example of generosity and compassion has shown us the power of one individual's determination and inspired countless women and men to make our world a better place. [applause]

the hon. george herbert walker bush. [applause] from his time as a decorated navy pilot to his years in the white house as the 41st president of the united states, president george herbert walker bush has led a life marked by a profound commitment to serving others. as president, he upheld the american value of liberty during a time of renewal and promise. as a private citizen, he has united americans in times and crisis, lending his time to men and women whose lives have been upended by disaster. over the arc of his life, president bush served our nation as a tremendous force for good in proudly salute him for his unwavering devotion to our

country and our world. [applause] jasper johns. bold and iconic, the work of jasper johns has left lasting impressions on countless americans. with nontraditional materials and methods, he explored themes of identity, perception, and patriotism. by asking us to reexamine the familiar, his work has sparked the minds of creative thinkers around a world.

jasper johns innovative creations help to save it -- helped shape the pop, miserable, and conceptual art movements. -- pop up minimal, and conceptual art movements. [applause] [applause] gerda weissmann klein.

life iseissmann klein's a testament to the human spirit. a holocaust survivor, she is separated from our parents and sent a series of not to labor camps. she was one of the few survivors among those forced to go 8 350 mile death march to avoid the liberating forces. from tragedy to triumph, she and her a husband probably started a foundation to promote tolerance, respect, and empowerment of students throughout the world. by sharing her story and encouraging others to see herself and one another, she has advanced the human understanding of people. [applause]

the hon. john r. lewis. from his activism in the civil rights movement to his nearly 25 years in the house of representatives, john r. lewis has dedicated his life to shattering barriers and fighting injustice. the son of sharecroppers from alabama, he rose with courage, fortitude and purpose to organize the first student sit- in and the earliest freedom rides. the youngest speaker at the 1963 march on washington, a fearless advocate and distinguished member of congress, john lewis has burned our lasting gratitude for a lifetime dedicated to the pursuit of equality and justice for all. [applause]

elizabeth little, accepting on behalf of her husband, dr. thomas and met little. -- dr. thomas emmitt little. dr. lowell was an optometrist who devoted his life and skills to those in need. starting in the 1970's, dr. little and his wife lived largely in afghanistan in order to provide vision care to the people of that nation. even as they dedicated their lives to healing others, dr. little and nine of his team members were murdered in afghanistan in 2010. our nation mourns the loss of these humanitarian to pay the altman price in pursuit of their

ideals. -- paid the ultimate price in pursuit of their ideals. [applause] yo-yo ma. recognized as one of the world's greatest musicians, yo-yo ma's talents no boundaries of shiner our culture. since performing at the white house for president kennedy at the age of 7, he has recorded more than 75 albums, one more than a dozen grammy awards, and established himself as one of our nation's most acclaimed and

respected artists. his music has bound us together and capture our imagination and the united states probably honors this prolific chalice and ambassador to the arts. [applause] sylvia mendez. sylvia mendez was the thrust to the forefront of the civil- rights movement when she was just a child. denied entry to the westminster school because of her mexican heritage, she sought justice and her subsequent legal case affectively ended segregation as

a matter of law in california. the arguments in that case to catalyze the desegregation of our schools and prevailed in the landmark case of board vs. the board of education, forever changing our nation. today, she continues to share her remarkable story and advocate for excellence and quality in classrooms across america. [applause] stan musial. stanley f. musial represents the best of sports icons. he played for the set list

cardinals for the entirety of his career. a perennial all-star at a three- time most valuable player, he won accolades as a player and championships as a teammate. nicknamed stand the man, he did -- he played the game with unrivaled passion and his humility and decency remain a model for all young americans to this day. [applause] william f. russell. [laughter] basketball was a different sport

before william f. russell don a uniform. with the match skill, he led the ball -- led the boston celtics to a nine-string of titles and earned the name of most viable player five times. he broke down barriers on and off the court, becoming basketball's first african- american coach and serving as a passionate advocate for civil rights. bill russell can reflect with pride on helping change the culture of the sport and the course of our nation. [applause] the hon. jean kennedy smith.

the eight of nine children to joseph and rose kennedy, jasper johns joined the family business of helping her fellow americans and improving our world. in 1974, she founded very special arts, a nonprofit organization that runs the artistic talents of young people living with disabilities. on the international stage, she played a pivotal role in the peace process in northern ireland while serving as the united states ambassador to ireland. with intelligence, compassion, creativity and grace, she has contributed volumes to her family's outstanding legacy of service to our country. [applause]

john j. sweeney. as a champion for the american worker, john sweeney has strengthen our families, our economy, and our country. the son of irish immigrants, he worked his way up in the labor removed and -- a labor movement, serving as the american federation of label -- of labour congress and as reorganizations, all while reaffirming our nation's commitment of the enduring values of hard work and responsibility. the united states probably honors john sweeney for a

lifetime of courageous service on behalf of working people. [applause] >> i know that people try to observe decorum when they're here in the white house, but i would welcome everybody to stand and acknowledge these extraordinary men and women, the 2010 -- [applause]

now you can see why i love this day. i hope everyone has a wonderful time during the reception. thank you very much for your attention. and for our honorees, thank you for setting an extraordinary example for all this. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

>> coming next, a look at diversity in the u.s. courts system. then a discussion of presidential leadership. later, a number of former white house press secretaries talk about their experience on the job. >> one-quarter of all international internet traffic is basically involved in infringing on other people's injured like -- and which will probably right. >> tonight, intellectual property rights on the "the communicators" on c-span2. >> i ask you to come here this evening so we could a immediately hear a firsthand report from the secretary of state regarding the the decisions that have been going on in europe. >> you could look at this as a historical curiosity or you could look at it as we look at

it as a forerunner of today's managed news. >> find something you did not know about the 43 men who served as president of the united states with the c-span video library. thousands of hours of programming all free online. what -- watch what you want when you want. you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning is "washington journal" connecting u.s. policymakers, politicians and journalists. watch coverage of the u.s. house and policy and public forums. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs. you can also watch our programming and the time at c- span.org. it is all searchable at our c- span at video library. c-span.

washington your way. created by america's cable companies. how do politics and having to run for reelection affect the collegiality of appellate courts? how do courts decide whether or not to let television cameras cover their oral arguments? that is a few questions tackled this panel discussion. we will hear their views of the chief judge of the ninth circuit court of appeals as well as the newly sworn in chief justice of the california supreme court. this is about 90 minutes.

this symposium is dedicated to our founder. late judge ingram, whose portrait he may have found in the lobby. the judge exemplified not only the values of our end, professionalism, service and collegiality as well as ability. he served as a mentor to many of us, myself included. i had a great honor of -- of a serving as a judicial extern when i was in law school. i learned more in that summer about being a lawyer that i did in my entire tenure at law school. he was a great influence on me and many, many others. before we get started, i would like to thank our co-sponsors in this event, the palo alto bar association and our host, santa clara university school of law. they are celebrating their 100th anniversary this year, so that is quite a milestone. a couple of quick housekeeping

notes. cards are being passed out so that you can write questions and direct them to the panelists. what we would like for you to do is write your questions out and pass them to one of these to center aisle ways here. will have people sort them out and bring them up here so they can be addressed. one other quick housekeeping notes. for those of you interested in mcle credit, this event doesn't qualify. as i always say, if you did not sign in, you were not here. let me introduce our distinguished panel. we are thrilled here tonight to welcome our newest chief justice of the california supreme court. [applause] before i give you a brief background honor, let me just

say that i have to admit i was a little nervous when i was asked to introduce her here tonight. let's face it, it's not every day you have to introduce a chief justice of the supreme court, at least not for me. more to the point, i will be honest, i was concerned i would bichir name. like face it, it's not brown. i did what we all did in the 21st century, i googled her to find out how she pronounced surname. i was not surprised there were several sites that mentioned exactly how her name is pronounced and since most of them seem to agree with each other, i figured i was probably going to be ok. but what surprised me was when i did and google are, there was an entry from pharmacy.com.

i clicked on that and i was surprised to learn -- i'm not making this up. i brought this because i knew that nobody would believe me. at the bottom of this long list of all sorts of different medications, i was surprised to read that -- "she may cause dizziness, and drowsiness, or lightheadedness that may be worse if you consume alcohol." tonight, you get to be the judge. our new chief justice was born and raised in sacramento and received her undergraduate and jd degrees from the university of davis. she was appointed by gov. schwarzenegger in 2005. her term as chief justice began just nine days ago on january

3rd. she also chairs the judicial council of california as well as the commission on judicial appointments. welcome, madam chief justice. [applause] we are equally thrilled to have our next panelist with us, the chief judge of the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit. [applause] he was born in romania and received his degree from ucla. if i am not mistaken, i believe he was there during the great basketball era for ucla. i don't think he was on the team, though. instead, he was busy studying. he served as a law clerk for justice anthony kennedy before then clerking ford chief justice warren burger at the supreme court.

he was nominated by president reagan in 1985. at the ripe old age of 35. it makes you feel a little inadequate, doesn't it? he served with distinction, becoming its tent chief judge in 2007. i am also informed he is a very good poker player. welcome. [applause] finally, let me introduce our moderator for this evening. not only is he one of the foremost experts studying the california supreme court, he actually was dean of the law school here when i went here. his name is on my diploma. based on that, i still refer to him as the dean. let me turn it over to you to get the program -- "maintaining

collegiality in a contentious climate" under way. >> thank you. [applause] to get right down to business, we should agree on what we mean by collegiality. the late judge harry edwards offered a definition i would like to throw out to you. he said i do not mean all judges are friends. i do not mean the members of the court never disagree. collegiality is a process that helps create the conditions for principled agreement by allowing all points of view to be aired and considered, specifically, it is my contention that the collegiality plays an important part in mitigating the role of partisan politics and personal ideology by allowing judges of different perspectives and

philosophies to communicate, listen to, and ultimately influence one another in constructive ways. would you agree with that? >> could you repeat the question? [laughter] which part? >> is there a part you don't agree with? >> when people talk about collegiality, it is really often to say we don't like what you're saying and tone it down. i'm a little skeptical of those comments. it seems to me our first duty as the judges in the cause of justice is to call them as we see them. if we worry too much about our colleagues getting their nose at a joint, maybe we are constrained in doing that.

i think it is always good to be polite but -- it is always good to be respectful, it is important to mind other people's feelings, all the attributes of living in a civilized society. but i am not one who particularly thinks a court makes great demands on collegiality than any other institution. i think it is inevitable that when you have a group of individuals who are strong minded and, as we know, and judges can be quite strong minded and intelligent and committed and past and at about the law, you are going to have a

little bit ahead of betting. i think it's a good thing. -- you're going to have a little bit of head butting. >> would you agree with that? >> i agree with part. when you get lawyers and judges together, he might always agree on part. i agree largely with judge edwards definition of collegiality. i believe it creates an environment where you can discuss and head butt. i expect had betting and i expect challenges, i expect disputes among colleagues. in fact, i think that is how you develop the best opinions. my first client is always the rule of law. the rule of law, as we all know based on the reporters and interpretations, turns on nuances. it turns on fine points. so when you really get down into

the fine points on a court of appeal or court of review, you really have to have an environment, in my opinion and in my experience, that you can talk about those fine points, that you have had room, leeway, patients and respect to talk about those fine points because that is what drives unanimous opinion are not. i believe collegiality plays an important role. at the trial court level, not so much. but, of course, if i am the d.a., i want a collegial jury. i think it does apply in different institutions, but i have found on imports of review where the question is nuanced, we need collegiality in order to develop that new wanted to something that can be a guide post -- develop that nuance to

something that can be used for california citizens. >> are we just talking about making life more pleasant for judges or is this something that actually affects the quality of the work product? do you think collegial courts produce a better work product? >> i have been very fortunate. i serve on a large court and i realize -- she is 51 on the list, it includes a number of senior colleagues who did not sit so much anymore, but 40 active colleagues that i see on a continual basis.

the ability to live and work together in a large institution like that does have an important value because if a job becomes the state's full because your relationship with your colleagues is distasteful, it will affect the cause of justice. i have been very fortunate in having as many colleagues as i do, if you count colleagues or no longer in the court like justice kennedy, i have been very fortunate to be in a court where we fight a lot but we ultimately respect and like each other and we wind up having that fine balance between being

willing to say what is necessary, to do what my colleagues said, which is to have a dialogue, call the shots, and sometimes have the courage to change your mind. that is an important thing. having colleagues who are secure enough in their views that sometimes they will listen and say maybe i wasn't right. in this case, you have persuaded me. that is an important agreement -- an important ability. he did not have that ability, and that requires respect, i think the quality of justice can suffer. >> i think that you find unanimity a value judges should strive for and collegiality helps promote greater unanimity in the decision?

>> of course i think unanimity is helpful impossible, but not at the sacrifice of one principle -- of one's principal. whether i think collegiality assists unanimity, it doesn't hurt. but i would point out that in my view, collegiality serves a purpose for the court, for the rule of law, for the ultimate opinion. but collegiality also assists the branch as a whole. when a court is not collegial, it can seep out in the edges. you read it in opinions, you read it in dissent. how many of us have read briefs were attorneys attacked each other? to me, that completely distracts from the argument. i flip over the page to see what the name of the attorney is and what his or her bar number is. i experienced attorneys do not engage in that.

when a brief criticizes a person or judge and a personal way -- but i digress. when a court is not collegial, the public gets that and it reflects poorly on the branch as a whole and it reflects poorly on the work of the branch because other people will get the wrong idea about what the branch does based on what happens to be inappropriate behavior on the beds or amongst judges. i think collegiality -- on the bench or amongst judges. i think collegiality makes life pleasant. you are in an environment of collegiality where you trust everyone, that you can change your opinion, you don't feel like you have to dig in to prove a point because you are insecure about your stature in

your group. i think that is really of boredom. i also think it has the effect on the public as well. >> i have to make a confession and that since i made a chief judge, i'm a lot more fun of unanimity that i it -- and i used to be. [laughter] you may find with time this is something that grows. it is a little bit of vanity, but there it is. >> we have heard the u.s. supreme court occasionally referred to as nine scorpions in a bottle. do you perceive the united states supreme court as a collegial court? >> actually like each other quite a bit. justice kennedy came to speak to our law clerks -- he comes on a

regular basis. he spoke when we had our orientation in september or october. he was telling stories about how his new law clerks come in and they say something like it seems that this -- and you're going to have to go after this. i look at him and say my good friend, colleague for 20 years? i know a number of them relatively well, but you can't tell for sure what things are like in a family until you are actually there. my impression is while there is lots -- while there is a lot of vigorous debate, i think they get along quite well. >> to you think the clerks get

along with each other? >> i think the clerks get along famously. they keep marrying each other. >> what is your perception? >> i completely agree that you do not allow a family until you get into it. what i gather is that -- i think that they are collegial group. i understand that they share interest and passions. scalia and ginsburg -- the opera. i think they have that. you have nine brilliant minds and nine folks who believe they have it right, who want to say how, in their own words, how it is right. i am not sure that, based on the opinions that issue from the united states supreme court, that i could form an accurate perception as to whether they are collegial or not. i think there are exceptionally bright people.

>> we hear lots -- all lot about the value of judicial independence, but i wonder if that is a threat to collegiality. is it just a coincidence that the justices we perceive as the most fiercely independent are often the least collegial? >> is the question that the more independent are less collegial? i think that is not necessarily the case. going back to judge edwards' definition of collegiality -- collegiality is an environment. if you have laid the foundation for that environment, then, of course, we can all -- if we are

in a safe environment -- tolerance, respect, and even poke fun at each other, including our independents. if the environment is threatening in some way, then if there is an independent jurist, that adds to the instability of the bridge as a whole, or the bench. >> do you think independence and collegiality are compatible? >> i do not think they are incompatible. i do not think there is a particular relationship between collegiality and independence. there can be judges who are highly independent who are also highly collegial. in some way, as i think about examples of other courts that i know something about, not in california, not anywhere in the

ninth circuit, but other courts that i know something about, iquesimes, there are cool or groups of judges who are separated by politics or region. >> i have heard there are even law faculties like that. >> perish the thought. [laughter] to me, there is a sort of discipline that is imposed on a subgroup, which then creates, by appealing to this common cause -- i think it leads to a terrible lack of collegiality in the court. in some ways, judges who are willing to follow that kind of example perversely lead to a

lack of collegiality on the court as all whole. by and large, what you want is -- you want strong people with a strong ego and a strong sense of who they are. those are the people who are going to be the best to work with. they are going to be willing to listen, willing to change, willing to compromise, because they know that sometimes you can compromise. voicing an opinion -- you do not have all the wisdom in the world when you write it. sometimes, being willing to compromise comes up with a better product than you had to begin with. if you do not have sufficient independence to be willing to compromise, i think that, in many ways, leads to less collegiality. >> does collegiality mean that

justices never criticize each other? i sometimes wonder whether there is not a code of silence among judges, similar to the code of silence among police officers. example that comes to mind here is the presence of a senile justice on the california supreme court for years that was literally covered up by his fellow justices. >> i am aware of that. i think that times have changed from that period. i think judges have come forward more understanding of what their role is as a public servant, to further the rule of law or to further justice. i do not think there would be a concern in that way. i do not -- i know there is not a code of silence, but i think

the best practice is a code of respect. i think criticism is important. i think it is appropriate in time and place. by that, i mean it does not belong at cocktail parties. it does not belong with your staff to be shared with other chamber staff. truly, it means if you disagree with your fellow jurist, you are able to talk to them and say to them in a principled way, in a calm way, why you disagree. if you have to write that dissent, you do it in a way that is the least offensive in terms of getting personal with them. you criticize the idea, the theory, the concept, but not the person. i have seen it done well. i think where i came from on the ca-3, we really made an effort, when we dissented, to do so in a

way with respect. we have all seen examples of those dissents that have been an insult to the majority. it for there's nothing. in fact, to me, casts the judicial branch in a terrible light. there is no positive collateral consequence. >> the appellate justice in california who responded to the arguments of the dissent with an anagram, in which the first letter of each sentence spelled schmuck."ord "as schmu his defense for this was that the word means "jewel" in german. how do you deal with the justice's lack of collegiality? >> calling somebody in names

truly does not advance anything at all, and i think it diminishes the person who does the name-calling. it really is a fine line. people and their ideas -- i mean they hold them very near and dear. when you attack some of these ideas, alternately, there is a tendency for the writer to feel attacked personally. it is not an easy line to draw. when you are writing a dissent or concurrence, you have a number of audiences. you write for the next court up.

the california supreme court does not have that, except in federal cases. we have that in many cases. you're also writing for posterity. do not do what the ninth circuit is doing, because it is not very smart or not very good. [laughter] it is very hard to say that in a way that does not despair is the v-i-e-w that you are telling other courts -- disparage the view that you are telling other courts not to take. chmuck," they"s read that into the text. the cases that are the most contentious are the intellectual property cases. when people come in and their idea is stolen or they think their copyright is infringed or their patent is, it is like you

are stealing them. judges are very much the same way about their opinions. all i can say is -- you can understand it. you ought not the auditor way or be very careful to be respectful -- you ought not go out of your way -- be respectful. a hard hitting descent will aim at the court of the -- a hard- hitting dissent will aim at the core of the writer. if it is really well done, it will change the opinion of the writer. the winning party filed for addition -- a petition. i saw it as a victory.

ultimately, my thought was -- i was being quite harsh about my colleagues. in the dissent -- i was glad i said it. they were fine. there were no hard feelings, but it is a fine line to draw. >> well, let's get to the vitriolic partisan, political climate that we now live in. do you think that, in any way, practices and a threat to the collegiality on an appellate court -- prefaces a threat to the collegiality on an appeal llate court? >> i think it undeniably poses a

threat. i think it is incumbent on jurists to be aware that kind of vitriol is out there. the first affected and the public is led to believe that the judicial -- the first effect is that the public is led to believe that the judicial branch is not unlike the legislative or judicial branch. therefore that the judicial branch determines the rule of law -- it gets lost. michio -- the vitriol turns into who supports this judge or justice during an election campaign, what is the political party -- those are not relevant to whether or not that judge or jurist is going to be able to declare the rule of law in a fashion that is faithful and

loyal to the constitution and the statutes. in terms of collegiality, certainly, when the bench feels that there might be something to be gained or lost from vitriol, it is going to change the formula, the calculation of how people react to each other. it is going to change the calculus. as a result of that, it is going to encroach on the collegiality of the environment. all you can hope, really, in that circumstance, is that all of us recognize that and we talk about it, and that we make some effort -- i suppose this is very idealistic -- we make some effort to not permit that to affect what we do as judges, and

to remember that we are judges, and to remember that we are stewards. we will come and go out of this office. others will come after us. this is the branch. it should not change the nature or color how the branch operates. >> some of the progress of challenges to the obama health care plan -- the media has really played up that all of the judges who struck it down are republicans and all of the judges who upheld it are democrats. doesn't that create a public perception that politics does affect the outcome with judges? >> you mean the comments that people make? >> the comments that we read in the media. based on whether the judge is deciding the case were appointed by a democrat or a republican --

s the -- -- the judges deciding the case were appointed by a democrat or republican. among people say all kinds of foolish things -- >> people say all kinds of foolish things. i do not really care. unless it affects reality. this has not happened in california. it has not been politicized, as best i can tell. it has been quite collegial. federal judges often languished for years in the senate, awaiting confirmation.

that process -- by the time it gets in the end -- they feel like they have some approval. it has not been the case. i have a number of colleagues who waited many years for the confirmation. they came out of the process and it was good and fine and friendly and non-partisan. there is a big difference between my view of a lot and --

the law. theconvinced that, once judges, at least the ones i have seen -- once they get past this baptism of fire -- when you put on the road and you take the office -- robe and you take the oath of office, he put all of that behind you. it will not depend on what people say about us, but it will depend on how we act. anybody who takes a close look at the judiciary where i am, the ninth circuit in the west, will see that you cannot draw that kind of distinction.

whether it is true that these are republicans or democrats -- i do not think it happens. whether it happens elsewhere, it will have a lasting effect. it is an open question. i think that you have to be quite strong to go through that process, to wait for two, 3, four years, while your life hangs in the balance -- many people have law practices. you have clients who do not know whether they can trust cases to you because you have been nominated to be a judge. can they give you business? is this a disruptive -- is this destructive personally, professionally? i do fear that this continues.

we will start getting -- if this continues, we will start getting judges who are affected by it. so far, judges have come through unscathed. >> we are blessed in california with non-partisan confirmation elections. all across the country, state supreme courts have become political battlegrounds with huge amounts of campaign contributions. do you think it is possible to have a collegial court that is selected in partisan elections? >> certainly, that is going to ies. test of those judiciary' the three justices of the supreme court -- i believe it was iowa -- that three were moved by an out-of-state interest group -- removed by an

out-of-state interest group. they successfully ousted those three justices. they vowed to go after the other four in the next election. apart from what is happening in iowa, across the united states, we are reading about massive amounts of money -- millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands, being poured into campaigns for supreme court answered -- supreme courts and courts of review. this is having an effect -- it has to have some psychological affect at least on those who are in common, sitting as justices and jurists. i think it is the test of collegiality when the successful candidate who is bankrolled by an interest group who will later

on have some issue come before the court -- it makes for a suspicious foundation. it is going to challenge the collegiality. it is human nature that you are going to be concerned about that situation because that person is likely to a stranger. it is not someone who came up as a defense attorney or ag who came to the appellate court who came to trial court who came to the supreme court. i would wonder about the soundness of those opinions and the basis of those opinions. so, of course -- i hate to say it, but i think it would be unrealistic to say that thdoes not challenge the collegiality of those courts and cause great consternation.

>> at the process of judicial selection becomes more politicized, are we going to see a greater demand for refusal -- recusal of judges based on positions they took in campaigns or contributions they received? what effect will refusals -- happen on thes collegiality of the court -- have on the collegiality of the court? >> we do not have elections of that sort. one nice and about being a fellow judge is that you do get life tenure and you never have to face the voters again.

it does give you a sort of sense of independence, liberation. the value is hard to overestimate. california, right now -- we have a very fine judiciary. we have not had much -- or any -- of the kind of unfortunate events as we had in iowa. many of us are old enough to remember not so many years ago when the three justices of the california supreme court were defeated at the retention election did something that, at that time, was adopted -- election. something that, at that time, was thought to be unprecedented. this is not the time to rehash

that -- those events. it is like the elephant in the bathtub. when you have, particularly, interests better out of state -- that are out of state, it is something that is a serious threat. i must say, i admire my colleagues in the state courts for resisting what must be -- they have done a fine job of maintaining their independence.

i do think -- hope this does not come to california. it is very hard to say with any assurance that it will not. we have the good people of the state and the lawyers in particular -- people who are not lawyers truly do not know or understand the importance of this. to help teach the rest of the electorate of the importance of that kind of question. >> we have a very peculiar system of succession on our california supreme court, where an appointed justice takes over the term of their predecessor. it has resulted in many cases of judges having to stand for retention elections multiple times i think we all -- multiple

times. i think we all over the previous chief justice for the timing of his -- 0we the -- owe the previous chief justice for the timing of his retirement. >> i have a 12-year term. i have had an eight-year term. i stood for a retention election in 2006. i knew i was up for it in 8 years thereafteer. -- thereafter. when i knew i did not have to stand for 2010, i was elated. i knew if i could stay off the ballot in 2010, that would be wonderful. i took some solace in that. then, to find out i am on the ballot in 2010 -- it was a

nervous october and november. >> why? >> because i never underestimate the power of mr. no. i knew that it was a big year. there had been concerns about people coming to the polls. there were concerned about the issues of the incumbents -- what they reported as income and -- incumbent anger. i received mail that said things to that effect. "i did not vote because i thought that you were an incumbent." i was concerned about that. i was relieved on november 3 to find out that i had been elected. >> election after election, judges with identifiable minority meanings draw the names draws -- leaning

the lowest votes. were you concerned about that? >> i was concerned about that. it did not help that my colleagues were telling me that, historically, judges with ethnic names and a hyphen were names that typically drew no's. i had the northern counties of california. my name went on the ballot in the northern counties. true in 2006, my name drew the least number of yes votes, even though i with my colleagues traveled from editorial board to editorial board, and got on the list of recommended yes votes. i was on the sheet that people

cut out and take to the polls. it was a concern. with some of the names we have had in the past, like schwarzenegger and angelides, i figured i would probably be ok in this one. >> do you think that diversity has enhanced collegiality or detracted from it? having more minorities and women on the appellate court, do you think that -- there have been a number of studies published that suggest both ways. that it may actually be an negative impact on collegiality -- a negative impact on collegiality. many judges say it enhances the

collegiality to have diverse viewpoints. >> about half of my graduating class was women. not many years before that, it was not that way -- way. i went to law school and a good chunk of the class was women, maybe a little more than half. then at law firms and every place i worked, there have been a good number of women and a fair number of minorities. i have -- would not feel on a comfortable -- feel comfortable on the court with all white guys. that would not know how to operate. when i say i, i mean me and my colleagues my age. i cannot say it has been better or worse.

i cannot imagine any other way it could be. you know, i fight with my male colleagues and i fight with my female colleagues. and i kiss and make up with my male and female colleagues. i do not have any suggestion that sex differences or race differences are fisher points for -- fissure points for disunity or lack of collegiality. i think that is nonsense. and 19 -- any time i hear old- time does is talk about the good old days, i think i am glad i was not a judge back then. [laughter] >> i believe the only state court -- supreme court in the country that has a majority of women is in california.

what is your perspective on the impact that has on collegiality? >> unlike judge kozinski, i do know how to work in a room with all white guys. [laughter] i am joking only in the sense that -- my experience has been that diversity does enhance collegiality, for the simple reason that, when you are the different person in the room and the new person in the room or on the bench, people take an interest. as a result of having discussions with them, it broadens our discussions. they get to know me as a woman. i will have the men on the panel say, did you see what that attorney was wearing? would you wear that to court, tani? i will say, you do not know what

the situation is or if she is subbing for someone. we will have discussions that would not have happened, or would have ended at a certain point. as a result, next time we have a meeting, i will say, is that what you did when you were an attorney? we have a give and take with my getting to learn about them and who they were and they having a trust with me and asking me certain questions. i am a filipino. they will ask about food. i will say, what? you have never eaten that? what kind of world do you live in? so we have a give-and-take. a certain behavior comes up and i have a different filter than they have about what that behavior means or whether i think it is heinous or product

of the environment. we will have that discussion about it. they may disagree and never change their opinions, but, at the same time, we had the discussion. the next time it comes up, they will think, i had that discussion with tani. i still disagree with her. those are incremental steps we may together in looking at changing the behavior of society. denver city-diversity brings that discussion into the conference room -- diversity brings that discussion into the conference room and makes for better discussion, but your case, and more collegiality -- a better case, and more disse collegiality. >> someone asked you about how you make appointments. you said that you call the former chief justice and ask who to appoint.

do you think sitting justices should affect the appointments of their colleagues on the court? >> i think they have something to contribute 58 wino the candidate. i would think the governor might be interested -- if they know the candidate. i would think the governor might be interested in hearing about some of those positions. the california process is well known. the judge is vetted. collegiality is a question on the form for review for appellate and supreme court justices. it is appropriate ask, only because judges sometimes know judges, know a history. it is something to be considered. whether it rises to the level of influence, solely, all by itself, i hope not.

i think that is too much authority, too much power for a sitting justice to influence the career of another candidate. i say that with caution. i know that different governors have used different committees to help filter candidates through. i think it is valuable, but i shudder to think the folks who sit on those committees, including judges on appellate and trial, have the ability to stop an applicant. i shudder to think that ability is in the hands of seven to eight people. i would hope that the sitting justices can contribute to the decision, but i have concern about it being -- driving to the level of influence.

>> one of the unique things about california's system is that -- you chair the commission on judicial appointments. so, you vote on whether somebody can be seated as a colleague on your court. i remember a previous chief justice who voted against the confirmation of bill clark, and then had to sit with him on the court. what does that do to collegiality? >> i think that is a challenge to the collegiality of that court. i hope it is just an initial challenge. eventually -- you know yourself. you are secure enough to say, i was wrong, or to go to that person and the principle and say, look, we have 12 years together -- be principled and say, look, we have 12 years together and i want to clear the

air. the sooner you clear the air, the sooner you can be on the road to recovery. that is part of what alex has said about being a strong, secure person who knows himself or herself. >> is collegiality at all the criteria for the appointment of a federal appellate judge? i do not recall the word "collegiality" ever been used in the rings for justice sotomayor or justice kagen -- in the hearings for justice sotomayor or justice kagen. >> i think there were discussions. i think it is one of the things that is considered. and i know that various white

, and i'm thinking way back, a number of white houses from both political parties are looking for justices who will be able to bring around or influence on the other justices on the court. that is very much on their mind, from what i've heard. the idea of, is the sum they who can get along and land that vote -- is this somebody who can get vote?and land at votthat you could disagree with him all day, and i did. [laughter] when you met him, he put his hand on your shoulder. you would feel like a million dollars.

sometimes, we take out the various justices and clerks. our chamber took him out one time. he knew who we had clerked for. he had stories about our judges before the supreme court. there was a man who could land that vote. the justices would disperse. we would say, there he is climbing the vineyards. when i went for my confirmation hearings, he found me. i hadn't seen him since the day i finished clerking many years

earlier. i did not think he would know me from adam. he found in that room and he put his arm on my shoulder. he said, alex, you're gonna be ok. and i guess i was, you know? [laughter] maybe he knew what he was talking about. if you can get somebody like that, i know that the white house is forever looking for that judge who will carry the white house's view of the law. said outif it isn't aloudfact, it isn't said as much as in other places, but it is foremost on the minds of those who select judges.

the idea that if you are collegial and along with your colleagues, you can land that fifth vote for a political position. it is there.s -- it is there in the selection of judges of the lower courts as well. you ask a question about whether we should be expressing a views or influencing the appointment of judges to our own courts. my position is a little bit different -- my concern is a little bit different. i'm not so much worried about judges who hope you will fail, not get confirmed.

i think about eight of my colleagues -- i could tell they could have pulled my confirmation. particularly bother me. what bothers me is the idea that a sitting judge or justice would tlak -- talk to the president or somehow get a friend appointed. i think that's that's a very bad kind of relationship, an expectation -- that sets up a very bad kind of relationship, an expectation, a dependence, something very much counter to the idea of collegiality. the most famous example of all is the minnesota twins.

i think it is now a historical fact that justice blackmun was ultimately appointed to the supreme court, that the chief justice suggested him into the white house. it supports dynamic for the two of them to work together -- it set up a poor dynamic for the two of them to work together. showuldn't pull away and he was his own man. ultimately, it did not work well. i have been very suppressant -- pleasantly surprised when there is an appointment of someone i do not know. i have been exceedingly lucky. the people who have been appointed have been wonderful. either th -- i never follow

them. again, no comment on the situation in california. the situation is what it is. i am personally glad that we do not get asked in the federal system. so far, so good. >> do heavy workloads and the growth of staff threaten collegiality? we have observed a tremendous increase in california in the caseloads of our appellate justices? in some districts, worse than others. been on the supreme court, the number of petitions for hearings

-- even on the supreme court, the number of petitions for hearings has increased exponentially. does that mean you have less time available to be collegial and to really discuss the cases in the detail that you want to, and that you have to rely more on staff? does the staff have to be collegial in order to get the work done? >> i think that the growth in the caseload does not cause, in my experience, a jurist to hurry. i do not think it affects collegiality in that way. of course, it can strain resources. a can strain your clerks and the chamber itself -- it can strain

your clerks and the chamber itself. the backlog can be alarming. unfilled vacancies -- in the beginning, at least -- i have believed -- experience this previously. we realize we have a duty. we will step up to do more. heavy caseload, growth in caseload, even vacancies -- they bring us together, because we now have some think collectively to complain about. we can say, oh, my goodness. there is a collective -- it is also with the staff, i have noticed. i can talk to my assistance to my attorneys, central staff. we're all -- my assistants, my attorneys, a central staff.

we are all swamp. at some point, if the volumes of reducing goes -- recusing goes up, or if you have to transfer caseload to another justice, that begins to affect collegiality. we feel that our team and group are not all doing the best we can. that means somebody else has to pick up that part of the load. no one likes that. >> do you agree with that? >> pretty much. i had not thought of that. the common experience idea -- it will bring you together. we had that tragedy in tucson. horrible. nothing good i can say about it. but, immediately, i had e-mail and phone calls from all over the country from judges who

had worked with judge roll, who knew him. judges who said they were late to take some of his cases. tell me what you need done. we stand ready to step in and help. and there is something to that idea, that a diversity and the lack of resources, up to a point, do bring you together. it comes to the alliance of staff -- when it comes to the alliance of staff, i do worry about that. we have a different way than the state court. we have a strong emphasis on

chamber staff rotating. some judges have permanent clerks. we have limited the ability to hire more than one. they cannot get salaries. i think the fact that we have this strong emphasis on rotating law clerks as a tendency to keep us young. i can get about 28 hours a day out of my clerks. [laughter] because it's only for a year. then they look like they are sleeping. and i -- but i think there is a limit to all of this.

it will become far more stretched. i know we, the court of appeals, are in a far better situation than some of the districts. arizona is in dire straits. eastern districts of california, sacramento, fresno, are in terrible straits. i know those judges are approaching their very limits. when things get that bad, i think collegiality -- tempers and the ethos gets brittle. it can have an effect on judges who start jostling with each other for resources. >> does rapid turnover of justices -- is that a sign of a

court that is not collegial? >> i do not think rapid turnover of justices -- it is hard to say that that points to collegiality. for the folks i know, it is more about personal circumstances and how things change. they may need to go into the private sector for financial or health reasons. i do not think that it is collegiality that affects the tenure of a justice. now, the flip side is true. it is common knowledge that at courts of appeal and the supreme court that staff attorneys and judicial assistants have been there for 30 years, 31 years, which tells you a lot about how the staff gets along and how the rhythm and hum of the supreme court and the courts of appeal

-- that speaks to me of collegiality of the staff. it would be a factor if you came to work everyday and you could not get along with folks. finally decide, this is unpleasant, i am out. the other side, the issues are so exciting and interesting, you might be able to overlook that and deal with your colleagues so you can continue to do the work. the work is so compelling. even if we did not have a collegial court, i would stay as long as i could. >> when justice moreno came on the court, we resolved to hire at least one annual court clerk every year. i think we give that up after about 3 or four years. from time to time, the suggestion is made that we lose something in california by not having that annual turnover of

quarks -- clerks, getting fresh blood into the staff. do uc a change and that's -- you see a change in that? >> i have been there nine days. i have talked to other judges who talked about the need for a fresh perspective, that talk about having rotating annual clerks because it gives you new ideas. when i was at the court in sacramento -- we really like hag a loss students -- law students. they brought fresh perspective. they were up on the technology. there were current was social media -- they were current with social media and what resonated with most of the population. there is tremendous value in having lost students -- law

students come in and out of the chamber. on the other hand, you are in a constant period of training. i have never had an annual clerk. i would be curious to hear how that works for the federal side. >> it any advice? -- any advice? >> when i visit the seventh district for lunch, i always advise them, next time they get a vacancy, to try getting a rotating clerk. the institutional reasons -- it is true about the training, but i think it is always good to retrain. it causes you to rethink some

things. i think it is a good mentoring process. part of what we are entrusted with as judges is not just deciding cases, but also to mentor the next generation. i now have clerks who are colleagues. a former clerk, obviously. once a clerk, always a clerk. [laughter] i have one on the d.c. circuit. i have a former clerk who is a tax court judge. adding the mentoring process is an important function that we play -- i think the mentoring process is an important mention that we play. i can get much more work out of a clerk for one year. in one year, they can endure

just about anything. [laughter] but i -- i learn from my clerks. i do not always tell them i do, but i do. i find it a rejuvenating process. it is a painful process. i never look forward to it. i always think, oh, my god, the year is over. they come from schools like yale, where they do not teach any law at all. i have to teach them law. but there is something about the process of teaching that renews the job for me, that makes it a little bit different every year

because of the chemistry. i don't preach -- i know that when i was in law school, and it's not that long ago -- [laughter] i interviewed with chief justice wright. i interviewed with justice richardson. i got a call from judge kennedy, newly-appointed in sacramento. he made me an offer on the spot. i remember saying, well, you know, thank you, but i would prefer to be in san francisco and i have an application in with judge richardson. i called back and accepted the offer.

at that time, a clerkship with the ninth circuit or the california supreme court -- they were common tasks. my clerks -- one of my classmates was working for a justice. we had friends that -- we, the clerks in the federal system, had colleagues and friends in the state system. my classmates were working for the court of appeal or the supreme court. that provided another area of intercourse, where we knew what they were doing -- i am obviously not talking about cases -- but we were colleagues. we had lunch with each other.

that has completely gone now. rotating clerks are law students, basically. i don't think there is that same kind of intercourse. i>> it is not just a loss to the court, it is a loss to the bar. i always remark on how the first appellate lawyers, i know the clerk likes to see, i follow the clerks and they don't have that input into the appellate bar of a strong cadre of lawyers on the california supreme court. >> i was just sharing my

experience. >> something to think about. >> i hope you come to visit and we can talk about the issues, but we do have judges, including our former colleague, a judge callahan. perhaps you have an end occasional rotating clerk -- that might be something -- >> and we had a role in bringing that about. here are some very excellent questions from our audience. in light of the events in

arizona, how can members of the bench and bar play a constructive role in public dialogue? >> in terms of public dialogue, if you are referring to the tragedy in arizona, that had more to do with a mentally disturbed person who had a fixation. when i read in the paper the next day of this concern that it was partisanship vitriol, i thought this can be. certainly people don't really believe this. first, and had not been investigated and we are blaming parties for it. in terms of how the public can assist, i think lawyers, the

state bar, i think there is a component of your practice that should recognize part of it has to do with some intercourse with the courts outside the courtroom because courts cannot often speak up for themselves. courts cannot explain but lawyers are the best advocates, the best communicators, and so if bar associations, the state bar or any organization that can help educate the public about what is happening in the court or to demystify the court or to explain what might appear to be something negative coming out of the court would be helpful. just yesterday i met with bar leaders to talk about what can be done over the to a hundred million dollar budget as proposed by the governor because

that $200 million reduction is going to borne by the trial courts. that is where you practice. certainly, a large majority practice in the trial courts. the bar leaders are willing to step up and go to the legislator -- go to the legislature, and we know we have to take a hair cut that we have to determine how much because we want to keep the courts open. traditional leaders are going to do that, but lawyers and the state bar association should be going there to keep the courts open and saying this is where we right the wrongs. the public and lawyers can play a tremendous role in that. >> several weeks ago, we were glued to our television, watching the argument in the

ninth circuit about the gay marriage case. do you think the presence of television cameras in the appellate courts will have a positive or negative influence on the leg -- on the level of collegiality with judges? >> we have been televising our arguments, making them available for 20 years are more. we were the first experiment in the very early 1990's. the federal court selected two or three courts of appeal to experiment and we were there. what happened is the experiment was made permanent and was abrogated to the trial courts. we have had television, we have

had television in the courts for 20 years and we see no a negative effects on collegiality. there are seven judges -- some judges always vote no, but it is majority rule and those who get out voted are good sports about it. i think it is useful as the argument in the proposition 8 case. the arizona statutes, i think it is highly informative and useful for the public to know. this after all is an aspect of democracy. we saw a judge is making

decisions that are going to have affect on whether or not the vote of 20 million californians get counted or don't get counted. wherever you are on this issue, it seems to me the public is entitled to see and be aware that the people making the decision are serious, well informed, that ask questions that go to the heart of the matter and anyone who watches an argument would have no doubt that's exactly what was going on. ultimately, china becomes that those who are unhappy with the results are happy to exempted having incited to how the -- happy to accept that having insight into the how the process works.

my view is the trial should have been televised. in the long run, it's inevitable and will have a positive effect on the collegial process. >> their televised on a channel it also televises legislative hearings and such. >> many other state courts as well. there are a lot of things people can say about the courts. we have a lot to be proud of [unintelligible]

>> we have just about run out of time. i wanted to end with going back to judge harry edwards. he says more judges are incensed with the hearing, the more likely it is it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. even if you are able to resist the temptation to conform to a false perception, the continuous assessments of performance in political terms will promote a new reality for most people and they will come to believe the judicial function is nothing more than a political enterprise. this would be a horror to behold. do you think we are to the point yet of be holding that horror? that there is a widespread public perception that judges are just politicians in black

robes? >> i do not believe we are at the threshold, but i could see how we might be getting sucked into the cortex. i think that will happen if good people do nothing. by that, i mean a goes back to the question, what can lawyers do? lawyers can help combat the view when the view seems to be promulgated by the media. i believe the media is promulgating that message to the point that if it gets to the public, it's largely a factor of misinformation and not being informed, being ignorant of the role. judges are trying to get out there and explain the role to the best we can in terms of educating the public, but that is where lawyers command. that is where the bar associations come in. -- that is where the lawyers come in.

ultimately, what they say is if this idea flourishes, your when is the result of politics. your good labor in the trial court, at the delacorte, the supreme court, your meritorious victory is not because of politics. >> a man. -- amen. >> i am sorry we cannot get to all of these excellent questions. like to thank the panelists for making the time to join us for this event to honor the memory of a very collegial and wonderful role model as a judge. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> here is what is ahead on c- span. coming up, a discussion on presidential leadership. then a number of former white house press secretaries talk about their jobs. then a discussion on president obama's budget request. that is on today's "washington journal." >> today, visit the public and private spaces of america's most public, -- the white house. c-span provides a rarely seen look at the presidential residence and take you to the mansion, the west wing, oval office, and lincoln bedroom and focuses on the families which

made it how it looks today. there are updated to views with president obama and first lady and comments from georgia and laura bullish. that today at 6:00 eastern on c- span. >> one-quarter of all internet traffic is involved in infringing on people's intellectual property rights. >> today, the subcommittee work on international property rights. >> on january 25th, former u.s. ambassador to south korea and 31-year cia agent, donald gregg, spoke with students on -- at williams college and talked about dealing with critical military issues based on his experiences with president kennedy during the cuban missile crisis. he also touches on a situations with the korean and isabella,

iran, egypt and pakistan and some decisions made during the vietnam war. this event is just over one hour. let me recognize the organizations that ranged tonight's talk. the stanley kaplan program on american policy, the leadership studies program, and the international studies program, all from here at williams college. donald gregg is a member of the class of 1951 of williams college. he was a philosophy major. when he left, he graduated in

1951, he joined the central intelligence agency and started a career that lasted 30 years -- 32 years. he has held a variety of different posts in different countries, including burma, japan, south vietnam, and south korea. in 1979, he served of national security council staff for the president and 1982, he served as a national security adviser for then vice-president george h. w. bush. in 1989, he was appointed as ambassador to south korea where he served until 1993. after which, he left government service and took on the position as chairman of the korea society. he currently holds a position of chairman emeritus of the korea society.

donald gregg is a great friend and son of williams college. he has been here many times, given lectures, classism in our winters that the term. i have met him once -- class's in our winter study term. one that shows as the true brett of his accomplishment in international relations, it turns out in a 1995 book by tom c, there is a character, and ambassador to south korea character, but that character's name is gregory dawdled. it is believed it is based loosely on our own donald gregg. i learned his middle name is finney. for those of you who are

historians of williams college, it is true there is a long-term ancient connection between the families that shows the depth of his association with williams college. tonight, ambassador gregg will speak to that topic of advice to president obama in 2012. a look to the cuban missile crisis for what it tells you about presidential leadership and military advice in a crisis. it is an apt topic, given that this evening, president obama will be providing or giving his state of the address which we will broadcast in this room immediately following ambassador gregg's remarks tonight. if you would like to stay for that, we could see of president obama takes the advice president obama is willing to offer.

ambassador gregg will speak for about 45 minutes, after which he will take questions. we will have microphones to pass around for people to use for question time. please join me in a warmly welcoming ambassador donald gregg. [applause] >> for somebody from the third century, he looks pretty good. i have to say more about my career as gregory donald in tom clancy's book. in my first visit to north korea in 2002, i was asked three questions by the north koreans. the first was why is george w. bush so different from his father? a good question.

second, how do you function as a country when you elect people who have nothing in common with their predecessor? whenever you have a presidential recollection, your relationships with us are turned inside out. a great question. third, why did you understand us better? with paying them a compliment, i said you are a dull longest- running failure in the history of american espionage. i can say that because i was part of that failure. i chased you around fruitlessly for a number of decades. at that point, they said are you wearing your ops center ahat. i said i have not read that book, but my wife has. would you like her reaction to it? they said there would be

interested. she refers to it as an airport- only pocketbook. she did not mind the fact iodide a heroic death at the end of the book, but she was furious i had a career and mistress. [laughter] the north koreans got a big kick out of that. back to what i intended to say originally. what i was asked to come up here and give this talk, i was delighted to accept and had no idea the president would be speaking on the same evening. he has not asked me to come and do this on the same night, it is just a coincidence, but i think it is a happy coincidence. i am very glad to be able to talk about the issue of presidential leadership as it emerges in terms of dealing with military crises.

i am very happy to be able to speak about president obama and president kennedy. this is an interesting year. is the midpoint of president obama's first term and perhaps his only term. 50 years ago last week, john f. kennedy was sworn in to office. president kennedy was the first catholic to become president. he was the youngest president ever elected at the age of 43. he beat richard nixon by a razor-thin margin of 120,000 votes and he raised a lot of doubts in the american voting public. he was young, he was inexperienced, he was a catholic. he was very eloquent. he turned everybody on by his inauguration speech asking not what you'd have your government do for you but what would you do for your government.

saying things like never to get a seat from fear but never fear to negotiate. something which president obama has spoken of with admiration. president obama is the first black president. he was not particularly experienced when he was elected. he has raised a lot of banks on people's part because he is the first african-american president. he has made some real gains in his first term, but he has also fallen short in some areas. as this is my 60th year as a williams graduate and as these two presidents have made probably the deepest impression on me of any president that has served in this 60 year time frame, i'm delighted to draw a few comparisons between them. i have never met president obama.

but i did meet president kennedy in 1963 when i was part of the first group trained in what was called counterinsurgency in those days. he was a tremendous person to meet. the 30 or so of us who were trained stood in line to shake hands with him. we listened to what he said two people had less. sons behind the general's and kennedy gave him his undivided attention for 20 seconds. the same thing happened to me and i left with a vivid impression of the feel of his handshake, the strength of his glance, the intensity of his personality. he was an electric personality. but in his presidency, he got off to a few bad mistakes early on.

he inherited from president eisenhower the plans for the invasion of cuba in the bay of pigs. cuba was the third and a list of eight countries designated as countries where the leadership had to be overthrown. i think this was part of our history where a sense of the exceptional ism was particularly strong. the dulles brothers manufactured that's. one brother at state and one brother at the cia. the first target of their disapproval was iran. the reestablishment of the shop was regarded as a great success in the cia's early days. the second was guatemala, where we installed a bloody-minded general over someone who looked to be a little too leftist for

our liking. cuba was third. the planning had not gone well at the end of the eisenhower regime. so kennedy inherited that bad planning. he went ahead with it based on some very unfair and unbalanced briefings by allen dulles. the invasion was a disaster. it enraged castro and turned him solidly against president kennedy. his next mistake occurred in june of his first year when he insisted on going to vienna and meeting with khrushchev. he was advised against doing this by the senior members of his staff, but he insisted on doing it. the meeting went very badly.

kennedy was astute enough to realize he had not done well and realized -- he came back and said to his brother i have never met anyone like that. we're talking about the possible cost of nuclear war. 70 million people might be killed and khrushchev look death -- looked at me as if to say so what? he came out of the meeting feeling he was dealing with young, inexperienced and overmatched president. to overcome castro's opposition to us, and chris just judgment of kennedy, led directly to the soviet decision to place missiles into cuba. the first intimation the united states had came from

overflights by intelligence- gathering aircraft. that started late early october of 1962. we went to the soviets and said are you doing anything with missiles or bombers in cuba and they said absolutely not. after we knew for certain the soviets were putting missiles and bombs and to cuba, the foreign minister of the soviet union came to washington and flat out lied to the president about what was happening. it was finally convened and pulled together to deal with what we ought to do about what the soviets were doing. it was not yet known in the country what was going on

because for the first six or seven days of the conference, the secret was kept and nobody knew a crisis was brewing. nobody knew but cia. we were well aware of what was happening. the contingency planning at cia headquarters was unbelievably crude. the feeling was that quarters building would be targeted by one of the soviet missiles and that it would be accurate enough to completely demolished the building. i was taken to a file storage area in virginia where certain files or hurriedly being shifted. i was told if you survive, this is one of the places you can come to perhaps start over.

the general word to people in cia was, if you survive, try to make it to the racetrack in west virginia in charleston. the feeling in the cia headquarters building was apocryphal. about halfway to the crisis, president kennedy announced what was going. in so doing, he completely surprised khrushchev who is still involved in shipping some of the missiles and planes to keep up. in the meeting's leading up to the revelation, kennedy had a mixed bag of people -- maxwell taylor was chief of staff, curtis lemay, the doctor strange

love of that wonderful movie was on the ax,. ted sorensen was there. he died last month that i think was the last surviving member of that group. the group was divided into two. the immediate reaction when kennedy assembled them and said the soviets are putting a muzzle them to cuba, curtis lemay was immediately on his feet saying let's bomb them. that was his a media reaction to that and another occasion which i will mention later on. kennedy said it wait a minute, wait a minute. what other options do we have? through a discussion that went on during that six days, two options emerged. one was a surprise attack on the missiles and bombers in cuba.

the other was an attempt to set up a quarantine trying to stop additional soviet ships from coming to cuba while the initiations went on to get the missiles removed. there was heated debate at kennedy was careful to not show which way he was waiting until the day a final decision was made. general sweeney, who was supported to curtis lemay but in charge of the tactical air command which would have let their strikes against cuba said mr president, we can attack them, but i cannot tell you we will get all of the vessel before some of them are launched. i cannot promise you that.

the estimated killing capacity of the missiles at that time had a bit large was a 80 million people. that swung kennedy toward the option of a corn teed -- of a quarantine. there had been meetings with the soviets. they had continued to lie about what they were doing and continue to be in denial. the question came up, how do we let khrushchev know what we intend to do? at this time, he had written two letters to be indicted states. the first one had shown he had a sense of the humanity involved in this crisis and he had spoken of the millions of dead that would result from a nuclear

exchange between our two countries. i don't know if kennedy had seen any of this during his meeting with chris jeff, but he was struck by that. later came much tougher letter from khrushchev, continuing the confrontation. it was kennedy's decision to respond to the earlier letter and pretend this second letter had never been sent. that letter was sent and it led to the diffusing of the crisis. the key factor, militarily, was not the fact we had put more weapons than the soviet union, a key fact is the ability to amass a quarter a million men in the

southern united states in cuba. the soviets were a mayor -- the soviets were aware we were doing that there is no way they could have opposed it. they did not want a nuclear exchange because they knew we would retaliate. it was our conventional weaponry and soldiers on the ground that tipped the balance toward khrushchev's decisions to back off. katy's decisions throughout the crisis were right on the mark. the country. a collective sigh of relief. i remember going to bed that night after khrushchev had replied and slept well for the first time in two weeks. 20 years later, maxwell taylor, who had been chief of staff at

the x,, october 5th, 1982, in the "washington post" wrote an article called "reflections on a grim october. his comments are very interesting. he said there followed six days of seemingly endless secret meetings. all intelligence determined a limited number of alternatives. the alternatives favored by the hawks, a group to which i belong, was to launch an air attack without warning not all located missiles and bombers that constituted the offensive weapons the president had determined to remove. the doves on the other had recommended a partial naval blockade, euphemistically called

a quarantine to keep out for their weapons. most of them were prepared to consider more drastic action if a quarantine proved insufficient. this is what stuns me even today. this is maxwell taylor -- "i might inject tear that during the discussions, i never heard an expression of fear of nuclear exhalations of the part of any of my -- nuclear experts -- nuclear escalation on behalf of any of my colleagues. if we were sitting the edge of armageddon, we were to observant to notice it. kennedy has asked curtis lemay is that immediately recommended bombing, what with the soviets do? curtis lemay said, based on what i do not know, said they would not retaliate. that was his decision and kept a

little from considering the fact that our attack might trigger a clear escalation. i think kennedy possibility to withstand that kind of advice and eventually come to a good and successful decision is outstanding. i say get means only the president's should be in charge of an issue like that because it's only the president that can decide issues such as this. taylor goes on to draw some lessons. he makes the point that most of the people who were advising kennedy at the cuban missile crisis were the same people who advised him to go ahead with the bay of pigs, which had been a disaster. he said, in my opinion, it

resulted from differences between crises. there was the importance of recognizing the president must be the manager of the crises. he also talked about the necessity for maintaining secrecy, which allowed debate to continue which allowed debate to continue -- without hysteria and without congress getting involved. he settles not our nuclear capacity but conventional capacity that had swung the balance. i had some interaction with some of the same people in a war game focused on vietnam which took place in early 1964. the war in vietnam was not going well. the decision was put forward,

driven by curtis lemay, to start bombing north vietnam. a war game was pulled together at the pentagon to discuss the efficacy of doing that. i was a cia representative on the blue team, representing the american forces. we had a heated argument at the working level as to whether we should or should not start bombing north vietnam. i felt it would be useless and argued against the bombing from the beginning. i was supported only by the state department representative. everybody else was all for bombing. we were outvoted. the general in charge said will you sit down and write and tell legend says of the effectiveness of bombing? he did not tell me to follow the dictates of the vote.

he just said it right what you think is going to happen. so i did. then disappears, the top-level group, which included maxwell taylor, the director of the cia, and the number of other living varies came in. there was a heated discussion, but they decided to go ahead with the bombing. mr. gregg will tell you how that will work out. i was about 15 seconds into my presentation when i was skewered by maxwell taylor. he said yes ma'am, just hush up. he turned to the general of the what do i hear the set going to bomb and this guy says it is not going to work. that is what he thinks and he is from the cia.

they said who the hell was this guy, but i somehow survived. we went ahead with bombing at the head of the red team played his cards very well. curtis lemay's scenario was once we started bombing north vietnam and, north vietnam would try to retaliate by bombing site of. that they did not have sufficient aircraft to do that well and they would call on their chinese our lives and the chinese would supply them pilots and aircraft to be used to bomb saigon. this would enable them to retaliate against china and take out the developing nuclear capacity. the war game was a disaster. the red team retaliated in a

very astute way. it did not retaliate militarily. it retaliated psychologically. the impact of bombing not only worked mentally in terms of the military context but it worked badly and terms of world opinion about what we were doing. curtis lemay grew furious at the final session of the war game. he leaned forward and yelled at the general who had been the head of the red team and said you know god damn well a five bomb your country, you're going to bomb tied. wheeler said i know that's what you want me to do, and that's the last thing in the world i will do. that he said, and that sure he said it many times, we come of those people back into the stone age in 12 hours. there was a long silence and that george bundy said our

problem is that they are too close to the stone age as this. that was the last i saw of those people at less shift our focus now to president obama and what he is likely to face in the next couple of years in terms of military decisions of all i think equal consequence, although of slower impact. in the first place: i think president obama is not going to talk very much about military affairs tonight. he will make a reference to what is going on in afghanistan and pakistan. he may get a sentence or two to north korea, but it is largely going to be about the creation of jobs and i think he is very smart to do that.

he is way ahead of where president kennedy was and where lbj was in terms of generalship. i do all three of the commanders in charge of our forces in vietnam. i worked on that or for four years. general harkins, the first four- star general, told me repeatedly we will be out of vietnam with a military victory in six months. that was started in 1962. general westmoreland kept asking for more troops until his last request, had been granted, would have put half a million men fighting in vietnam. that was turned down at congress gradually pulled the plug on funding. the final general, general abrams, by far the best of the three. i was given lunch by the army when i left vietnam after a tour in the field there by sat next

to abram said said general, you have been here for a long time. he said he had been here six years. i said how do you keep going for that long? he said i keep learning things. i said as politely as i could, what have you learned lately? he said i just finished reading this book called "hell in a very small place." he says that now understand what he said there. the french lost because they failed to politically organized the terrain. my thought was if it took the commander-in-chief of our armed forces in vietnam six years to learn that, no wonder we are losing the war. i have met general petreus, and it was a rather humorous

encounter. i stood in line to shake hands with them. is not something i do often but i really wanted to see what he was like. i listened to him deal with a society matron who is a dashing all over him. he left her feeling very full of herself and that she had an intimate discussion. then he talked with at aged veteran with ribbons down to here. he left the vet just glowing. i went to him that i put my hand out and said general, i was looking for you in vietnam but i could not find you. he said i was a lehigh school. i said i know you were, but we did not have anybody in vietnam who really a understood what was going lot at by want to thank you for picking out men at the kernel level like the man who wrote dereliction of duty and promoting them and have a that

at your side as you everett -- as you every written our counterinsurgencies manual. i think we have a lead general petraeus, probably the best qualified general we have had since world war two. he is coping with an extremely difficult situation in afghanistan and pakistan, but of all the generals we have had, he gives us the best shot at coming out with some kind of viable situation. i think that the real decisions on what to do in afghanistan and pakistan will come next year. there is a fine book out of the war called "the endless war. it is written -- it deals with our war with al qaeda. it is a whole of the impact of

the general's thinking. he feels al qaeda has been so violent and so much that it has done that it has alienated a lot of moderate muslims. he feels we ought to hang on in afghanistan, that we perhaps have a chance of doing so big there. the situation in pakistan is getting worse and worse. i have the feeling the general who is a very fine officer may step into the breach at once again, pakistan default under military rule and that may be the only way to make a decision as to where pakistan is going. is it going to try to play things both ways, supporting elements of the taliban or is it going to take a real stab for modernity? i don't know if that is going to happen.

as obama faces these decisions, he has a very fine chief of staff of the armed forces, mike mullen, who has served in vietnam. he has just called for a review of the armed forces as they stand after 10 years of continuous combat. he is concerned about the impact of the men and women who are fighting. he is concerned about the psychological impact of the general's directing this. i think he is concerned about some indications of neo conservative thinking that appears in some officers after they have departed. he has called a very fine conference to be held. but beyond what the individual officials are doing, there are

two statements and to philosophies at stake here. that is what kind of country do we think we are? what kind of country do we want to become? one of the opinions voiced very eloquently. he is a retired full colonel who lost a cent in iraq. he is now teaching at boston university. he quotes the great theologian and philosopher who spoke at williams what i was an undergraduate. he says, "the essence of statehood is locating the point of concurrence between the parochial and the general interest." that is finding something between the national and international common good. where perhaps compromise or

cooperation can evolve. he says to the end of history, social orders will probably destroy themselves in an effort to prove they are indestructible. he also feels a sense of specialists -- sense of specialness, the fact that the world should follow our lead has led us to almost a sense of entitlement. he feels our sense of exceptional loss of is very dangerous and we need, in today's world, to be more considerate of the major interests of our major neighbors. i think we saw the beginning of

some of that in obama's meeting with the chinese premier last week. are we going to continue to be exceptional power where we feel everyone should follow our lead or should we dilute that and move away from a sense of entitlement to more of a sense of moderation and cooperation? that is one philosophy. on the other side is a loud and clear statement from the neo conservatives, voice tear by robert keeton in an article in "the weekly standard" dated yesterday. he lists 25 interventions the united states has been involved in since 1898. he says we have been at war for about 42.5% of the last century and a decade. his closing line this --

"history has provided some lessons. for the united states, the lesson has been fairly clear. the world is better off and the united states is better off in the kind of international system that american power has built and defended." there you have to starkly different views of how the united states should proceed, how the united states should perceive itself, how the united states should relate to other powers in the world. that is that the love of which president obama is going to have to deal with -- that is the dilemma which president obama is going to have to deal with. i believe he has the qualifications to deal with it effectively. he has very good people working for him. i mentioned general petraeus, i mentioned bob gates, we were

together in the carter administration and also recognize secretary hillary clinton. we're not going to hear much about this living crisis tonight. i hope we don't. it is going to give the things we have put in place a chance to work. i am hopeful that come next year cost 50 years after the cuban missile crisis, that president obama will deal equally well with the crisis he faces. thank you very much. [applause] >> are there questions? i hope so.

>> i have a freshman. -- i am a freshman. you're elated many of the similarities between kennedy and obama. however, there seems to be one big difference. when kennedy was giving us the cuban missile crisis, he had a specific enemy and representative of that he could call up and sent a letter to khrushchev and khrushchev control the opposition. that is different from what obama is dealing with in afghanistan and pakistan. how does that difference influence how obama can deal with this situation? >> that is a wonderful point and it is right on the button. it is what makes the question of dealing with radical islam so difficult. the search for a point of

concurrent might work with china or a bite of work with the soviet union, but it does not work with those of the bottom. -- it does not work with us of a lot of -- it does not work with a solid block them. we have to watch with great care what is happening with indonesia. we have to watch what happens in egypt, which i think is bracing for debug rest. when secretary of state hillary clinton is in yemen, a country to which i have been to twice that is right for all kinds of crises, calls of the arab leaders of the world to be more forthcoming and be better leaders of their people, but she is putting her finger on exactly what you are talking about. that is a profound quaint and makes all the difference between the two crises and makes me glad

it that obama does not have to face it tonight. he has another year with things that work. this book makes the point he feels that's the vitriolic anti- u.s. wave of terrorism may have crested. i do not know if that is true. there seemed to be other strains of that erecting with disaffected young muslims in the united states, but i think we have as good people as possible working on this and i am still guardedly optimistic. but your point is an excellent one. quest -- >> thank you for inside. i am a student from korea. i have a question about another radical less -- by north

neighbor, about north korea. i had read somewhere that maybe you were recommending president obama to go for negotiations with north korea. but so far, we have been trying hard to negotiate with north korea but north korea conducted twice a of nuclear tests and has a bunch of long-range missiles. there is speculation without north korea called up the dismantlement of nuclear -- that negotiation is a waste of time. what do you think about that? >> i think we have to negotiate with north korea. i was a friend of richard holbrooke and i lament his passing. i talked to him about his work

with slobodan milosevic who he said was one of the most reprehensible human beings he had ever met. he said but i have to negotiate with the bad to stop the genocide in the balkans. i think we need to negotiate directly with the north koreans. the current leadership in south korea has undone a number of good things that were accomplished by his two predecessors. to summit meetings were held with north korea. a number of meetings were reached with -- or the sinking of the ship took place, i have been to north korea five times. i think what they are looking for is a guarantee for best that we will not attack them and they have built north korea against

determine what would be seen as hostility on our part. our -- it how the function as a country will have president to have nothing to do with their predecessors? in speaking to the fact that clinton had been invited. they sent their secretary of state had 11 hours of conversation. at the state of the union address in 2002, george w. bush said that north korea was part of the "access of the evil." they had done nothing different but in one year they have changed from someone who had almost posted a president to a country that the bill should ministration called party access to the evil. we say they cannot fulfill their rap -- called the "axis of evil."

negotiations.ued i regret the president obama has not undertaken that. i think he needs a high ranking, full-time expert on korea in the white house. he does not have one. the the and the fletcher school is a full-time job. i did not think that is more than the job requires. we need something full-time at a very high level. thank you for your question. >> thank you for your comments. i am curious about your experience in washington during the vietnam war. he mentioned when you spoke to

david petraeus, "where were you in the 1960's when we needed you?" but there were people who understood the need for the political aspect of the struggle. osmond and ticket, every lansdowne -- i was wondering if you could comment on edward landsdale. >> he had a tremendous success dealing with the philippines and he helped to bring the insurgency to a remarkably quick and. he was in vietnam but he did not have the access and the south vietnamese were wary of him. he never developed any of the sort of influence or access that

had made him so valuable. we tried, but the vietnamese were very different and he was not able to perform in vietnam that she had been able to perform in the philippines. he tried, he just failed. >> drawing on your experience from the cia, but the same of the advanced interrogation techniques and also about the drone attacks on the borders that have killed so many civilians? >> i am absolutely against a defense interrogation tactics. i was appalled when it was employed by the bush administration and did makes

the point -- and it makes the point that got us that they in addition than what we were able to obtain by normal interrogations matters are methods. i am deeply, deeply sorrowful that we employ those techniques. i taught a course here last year on making sense of the cia. one of the guest speakers that i had was the chief of the station in tehran when the embassy was seized. the iranians knew that he had been the chief of the station for the cia so they kept him in isolation. they said we want you to tell us that your orders were to overthrow the khamenei and bring back the shop.

they tortured him because he would not say that. they beat him with a rubber hose, prolonged distressed positions, darkness. he would not confess. they then said there were going to take him out and shoot him, film, and send it to his wife and mother. he would not confess. for some reason, the conditions eased and on the day that reagan was sworn in he was taken to the airport. he felt that perhaps everyone else would be released but not him because he had not seen a single american for the 444 dacey had been imprisoned. when he was waiting in the airport, and became the man who had been his torturer. he had in his hand a heavy rope with a non on a. -- knot on it.

we thought about what we did to you and we came to regret some of it. you can do to me what i did rodentia. he was able to say that we do not do things like that. thank you very much. i am from the united states. he was let go when he felt the was a triumphant ending for him. i have worked against torture. i am just appalled that we have done it. and is totally counterproductive to the individuals involved in the nation as a whole. the second part of your question on drons is tricky. it may be that that is when we are reduced to doing if we cannot find a stable, a viable base in afghanistan or pakistan. it is a very effective deadly,

but a new man, method. it cuts deeply both ways. i spoke to a class today in which a palestinian student participated. i ask them how he felt and he was dead set against it. it works in a certain way. , i think, but it is vastly preferable to an enhanced interrogations. thank you for asking that, i am glad to get on the record for that. >> you said that president obama would not have to deal with a viable solution in afghanistan until one year al. could you give some splits it -- specifics on what that may look like especially given that the entire u.s. military expenditure is about twice the g.d.p. of the entire country of afghanistan? >> at the council on foreign

relations has just done a study on what is going on in about the afghanistan and pakistan. it makes the point that there needs to be a very tough minded assessment made it in mid this year as to how we are doing and how we assess what we're doing and it should have an immediate effect on our troop levels. perhaps going to a smaller footprint meaning fewer troops on the ground, more trainers, less combat, and probably a greater reliance on drums. -- drones. it is very well thought out, but the destruction of the pakistan is particularly disheartening. the governor was assassinated

by a smirking guard because they spoke up against blasphemy. it shows that in the pakistan there is an upsurge of fanaticism that is going to make a third difficult for the central government to cope with it. that is why, i think, the possibility of a military coup is something that may commence a possibility. yes? [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> that is a tough question. and is above my prey grade. i do not know which he is going to do. -- it is above my pay grade. i think that everything possible should be done short of military intervention in terms of air strikes into iran. i am very interested in this virus that is set back developments for a couple of years. i am all for that. i think we need to keep trying to talk to iran because ahmadinejad is that the most popular leader. there are many iranians who are not popular with britons are going. we need to keep trying to return to them and raise whenever we can in the ways of opposition to which he is doing.

that would certainly be where i would put my vote at this point. yes? >> thank you for your excellent lecture. you talked about the option of quarantine about the bombing and the role of america as a moderator and a player in facilitating cooperation rather than the rule of the word. i am curious if there is any prerequisite or precondition for aid to negotiation or discussion to take place. going back to north korea's issue on south korea, i am deeply rooted around their military actions these days. the successors not only military leader but also has taken the lead in the civilian attacks on

the island. i'm curious in this case what will be been a prerequisite for the negotiations or corporations for -- to begin? >> my answer will be rather impolite. how do know that he had a lead role on the island? that is what i call the process of demonizing foreign leaders of -- not like. we did it to her chairman -- ho chi minh. he reached out to as countless times asking for recognition. we fireworks we should never should have fought. i think we also demonized saddam hussein, a man who deserves demonizing, but because we thought he was such a bad guy we thought of course he has nuclear weapons and was in bed with al qaeda.

we would invade iraq and far nuclear weapons and find proof that he had been in bed with them. under which was true. the purpose of demonizing kim jong il and his son has reached this tempo. i wrote to the spurs and the biden about his son having an invitation to the white house. i thought at that point, the summer of 2009, that would have been a good chance to bring in to the united states for he could learn some things about us and we can learn some things about him that we could not learn sitting here. that was not done. the democratic to to me as to why they would not have that it was because there robins would have laughed him out of town. i am all for that kind of move

towards north korea. i love the koreans. i have worked with them since the korean war and the people there are not that different than the people in south korea so excuse me if i'm impolite, but that is what i believe. yes? >> what do you see in after 20 years of the biggest failings of american presidents in regards to korea? what are their biggest success in their politically, culturally, socially? >> the biggest failure was the complete turnaround from the end of the clinton administration to the beginning of the bush administration. from the invitation to bill clinton to visit p'yongyang to president bush condemning them as part of the "axis of evil."

the negotiations on the missile issue were solved well enough so that the general was invited to the united states and was hosted by vice president gore on the top floor of the state department. it was proof that sustained negotiation by high-level americans can work with north koreans. we have not given them the high enough level of participation and we have not given them the sustained length of negotiations that would be effective in dealing with them. >> we've gotten to the point where aldermen who remember how absolutely horrible world war ii was are dying down. army getting too far away so

people running countries now, politicians and the various countries do not remember how awful the war was and they are getting careless? we are throwing bombs around, marches in the streets, and it sounds like we're getting for world war iii. >> the reminds me of two things. when i was an undergraduate here, there's a professor here who was born in germany. he used to say that i was born before world war i and expected to be killed in world war iii. it shook me up and it was a main reason i went into the cia. there is extraordinary writing going on and there's a new book out called "war" by sebastian junger who wrote "the perfect

storm." he was with a bludgeon that was in one of the most inaccessible places in afghanistan. he dramatizes in ridding the tell what life in combat is like. he makes it clear that what emerges from that is the devotion of the man in combat to saving their brothers and that for some of them, when they come back from civilian life does not offer the same taken their reenlist. he saw the film "the hurt locker" it is the same thing. if you are open to reading books like that, it is a clear reminder of how horrible war is. i take your point. i know the people who are actually in war do not like to talk about it, but they remember, as you remember. we're fortunate that the imbedded reporters are doing an extraordinary job of bringing home to the united states would

work today is really like. >> he mentioned the timing of the-initiations and harm court secrecy was in the making sure those negotiations when well. hardier think that the recent events concerning wikileaks and other major leaks of information will have on our ability to continue to use negotiation the secrecy is compromised separately? >> there has been some positive aspects to this. i think the quality of american diplomacy has been shown quite clearly in the way we have conducted business, but it has certainly had a chilling effect, lot of the people we have been

dealing with. if they no longer can feel like they can speak to us in secrecy and confidence, they will not speak to us in the confidence and we will learn less and less about the people we're dealing with. it is a very bad thing. i think we are to do all we can. the difficulty with that is that it can lead toward a tendency of an over-secrecy over- classification where everything is classified. there is a balance the needs to be struck and i think that the wikileaks thing is very unfortunate in itself an even more unfortunate because it may cause an overreaction towards over classification, over secrecy, and a lack of transparency.

>> what seems like a trial balloon was launched last year. several articles appeared in several places about this tremendous mineral wealth in afghanistan and problems with infrastructure, no roads to get to it, no mining companies and it seems like it was being toted as here is another justification for may be getting public opinion to rally behind that. one week later, not a peep. how much of what is going happen is actually political in nature and how much is going to be driven by potential profits

for large multinational corporations? >> i think the more progress that we are able to make and sustain in the afghanistan, the more ability we have to talk with afghan to see themselves as having a potential as a business entity. the more easily that kind of consideration can come in as a positive factor, but i think until we are able to have that kind of dialogue, which is extremely difficult today with the pervasive atmosphere of corruption which it rots everything we're doing in afghanistan, that kind of thing will be at the edges and it will be sort of the prize for efforts on behalf of unscrupulous people. i think that is the best we can say. it has the potential of doing

good in afghanistan if afghanistan can move toward a greater degree of normalcy in which business development can take place free of the fear of instant assassination in death. >> we have time for one more question. >> about 10 or so years ago, i was under the impression that turkey was viewed by many as a toady of the umass. -- toadie of the u.s. it has moved away from that position and it has common borders with many of the countries involved like afghanistan. they have a significantly bigger military than those. world world -- what role do you think that turkey can take up

the structure with afghanistan? >> i spent two weeks with turkey -- in a turkey with you, and, and various others. that is a real plus in my thinking about the future of islam because we saw in turkey in a functioning turkey with a middle-class. a country that, unlike egypt, relishes its own past because it has the money to take the buses to go see the monuments of the past which the egyptians did not have. i think that europe has blown it in terms of their reluctance to bring turkey into the eu. we were shocked at our stop in holland to see the prejudice against turkey because of various populations shift there.

i think that if turkey were able to get involved more with the eu, the potential for reaching out to afghanistan would be greater. i am not smart enough to know whether turkey, as a nato member, has troops in afghanistan are not. that is probably as a key decision in what role they want to play. they may be issuing military involvement there feeling that after nato is evicted perhaps they can move in. that is the best i can do on that. thank you very much for your questions. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, a number of former white house press secretary to talk about their job. then, in discussion on president obama's 2012 budget request from this morning's "washington journal." later, a c-span white house

documentary. >> 25% of all international internet traffic is basically involved in infringing on other people's intellectual property rights. >> denied, va. representative -- tonight, va. representative goodlatte. >> this is a need contemporary of perspective on president lincoln from his early years as a springfield lawyer to his presidency during one of our nation's most troubled times and his relevance today. for presidents day and while supplies last, the publishers are offering the c-span viewers the hardcover version for the special price of $5 plus shipping and handling. long gone to c-span.org/books and use the promo code "lincoln." a discussion now on the role of

the white house press secretary. also, president george w. bush pyroxene press secretaries. george washington university school of media and public affairs is the host of this event. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the president of george washington university. [applause] >> good evening. welcome to george washington university. here at george washington, we provide our students as well as our friends and neighbors with different route seat in the theater of history. tonight is no exception. we are delighted to have on our campus courter a former white

house press secretaries with the faces and voices of presidential administrations collectively spanning two decades of american history. i am pleased that one of them, this is an extension of her teaching role last semester and are graduate school of political management. i am glad that we're joined by cnn's senior white house correspondent ed henry who is teaching is a fellow and lehrer -- in our school of public affairs. this is part of a conversation hosted by former cnn white house correspondent and washington bureau chief, and emmy award winning journalist frank senso. ladies and gentlemen, please joining me in welcoming frank sesno. [applause]

>> thank you very much. what a great proud to -- what a greatrowd. i will hear a conversation that you will remember. i want to thank the support of the university for helping to make this conversation series possible as well as dean of the arts and sciences. i would like to thank our national council members who are here and the great students of the school of media affairs. also a word of thanks to the graduates school of political management who helped us put together a wonderful reception for our guests this evening. this event is produced by the center for innovative media and periodically we meet with people in this remarkably public sphere of life to discuss the direction

of the country, the role of the media and the way we now communicate as a society. in the past start guests have included hillary clinton, tom ridge and the late tony snow. we examined this remarkable intersection of media and public affairs because that is what we do. we study and explore political communication. tonight's event is an ideal place for those here in washington to explore this strange intersection. i am happy to say it is being broadcast live on c-span. it will air multiple times on the satellite radio and will be

heard on the potus channel. i am also prileged to have as one of our visiting fellows i watch ed henry with a very close eye having been in the white house correspondent for a few years and knowing a little bit of what he goes through every day with obstacle course they call a job. and every day he reports to work at the white house. not a bad address. he is watching -- teaching a course with us at this university this summer. unfortunately a few days ago joe was having surgery and as part of the surgery, his leg was broken. he has just gone home. happy to say he started his

physical therapy, and he senses regard in very sorry not to be here. it took a broken leg to keep him away. he teaches with joe and this here this evening. i asked him to get us started with a very few brief remarks on what is at stake every day when he goes to work in the briefing room in the white house. please welcome ed henry. [applause] >> thank you, every buddy. it is really great to be here with frank because we have a new blog at cnn.com. we just did t >> not know much about ronald reagan himself. what i learned i learned through the journalists covering him. they set the standard of

keeping politicians on this. the carrot that they took to the craft of journalism is what inspired me to try to one day become a white house correspondent. i was always impressed with their work, especially frank. he was covering ronald reagan when he was 15-years old. earlier today i got an e-mail inviting me to a farewell party for robert gibbs. it said the nation's highest- paid kindergarten teacher is finally leaving the classroom. [laughter] i thought it was funny until i realized it was an insult to my colleagues and i. i have been here since march 2006. arileisch backstage threaten to turn this around and have the former press secretaries asked me questions. but my point is that i can tell

you having done this for five years this is serious business. when at cnn beside me to the white house i was a little scared. this is a big beat. capitol hill is big, but it has a rrower scope of domestic politics. for the first time i went out on the north lawn and have covered through crisis in north korea and egypt. i know every word i under is dissected here and abroad. peoplen dozens of countries watching these reports on their iphones. with the social media there is even more pressure to get the story purse and to get the story right. the pressure that weave as journalists, multiplied that when you talk about press

secretaries who are at that most publ podium. their words can come back to haunt them. we he seen the cover-ups that literally can change history. so the work we have to do to make sure we get our reports right, you have to multiplying it even more for what these press secretaries have to do. that is why i have enormous respect for all the people coming up here. it is a story i want to pass along when i was covering the bush white house. and it was one tony snow was the white house press secretary. thankfully he left behind a lot of lessons that can teach us about how to carry ourselves. he had just come from fox news over to the bush white house and

i s at cnn so there was already that. i was pressing him on the war in iraq. one time it reached a boiling point and tony said zip it. it came out of nowhere. a few days later at bombed into him on the north lawn and we were talking to him. from a distance his assistant saw us and thought we were close. he said pretty soon i am going to have to buy you guys some boxing gloves. tony said something i never forgot, he said this is not personal. ed has a job to do and i have a job to do. the decisions of enormous gravity that presidents have to make. there needs to be a healthy dose of respect on what we call both

sides of the podium. not for it -- without further ado, i will bring back frank. [applause] >> thank you very much. our guests tonight have given voice to all the incredible history, from black hawk down to the impeachment of a president, 2 9/11. their job is may be impossible to represent the president, to articulate policy and communicate with a skeptical world, to manage the media. to tell the truth or we hope and trust not to lie.

when dee dee mrs step to the podium there were about 50 active web sites. when dana perino left the job there were 20 billion web sites. how times have changed. whether we believe the impression or the information is credible, it is only three years. tonight we will explore the role of the white house press secretary with people who have articulated and shaped this remarkable history set against this phenomenal media backdrop that we all shared in one form or another. i would share one story with you and you will hear many more. after 9/11 i was a bureau chief

at cnn. ari fleischer was the press secretary. he initiated a pool call to the networkureau chiefs and said we are in a different time now. the country has changed. what you must understand is what you say and broadcast will be seen in afghanistan at the same moment it is seen in albany. he had special instructions we may talk about but he was asking us not to report on the whereabouts of the president. it was a really sobering moment. we know the world continues to change in sometimes unpredictable ways. let me start by bringing out to you and men who was the press secretary to bill clinton at a rather compelling time in his presidency.

mike mccurry, press secretary for 1994 to 1998. [applause] i hope many of you know from your experience with her directly in class -- apparently she is a twitter phenom. dana perino. [applause] >> look what i did. there i go. torry fleischer was press secretary at a remarkable time in our history, 9/11, the war in iraq. among other things he is deeply entranced-sports. ari fleischer.

[applause] finally, as i mentioned when she became the first female white house press secretary, dee dee myers took a job -- i am having trouble with these monetarists -- at a very important time. [laughter] we are off to a great start. ladies and gentlemen, dd miers. [applause] >> i am going to sit down and try to be safe here. how many watched the super bowl last night? [applause] how many green bay fans do we have? how many steelers fans do we

have? i will put you on the spot. none of us raised a hand because we learned to not ta sides. >> before the game barack obama sits down with bill o'reilly of fox news for another contest, a secretary is, good idea or bad idea. >> great idea. it is live and there is no editing. everybody in america is in a good mood. bill o'reilly knew that. i thought president obama answered wonderfully. he was that likable person you remember from the campaign. >> i heard some people say it is not dignified enough. >> he is showing he can take on bill o'reilly.

>> the lion's den takes us to the next topic. i want to start with you, we have a real time crisis in the world which we are watching closely. i am talking about egypt and the unfolding crisis. the president and white house has called for a transition. they said it should be now but there has been some confusion over what know means. do you know what the policy is? >> not really but understand it is iolves -- i think that one of the problems yesterday was having two different spokes people from the administration and president obama speaking at the same time. when you are in a crisis you should probably feel things out.

>> this is one of the great examples of the complexity of this job in the global world we live. if you are a white house secretary or state department spokesman you are speaking to multiple audiences simultaneously and you have nuanced messages you are delivering. the ambassador has a specific message he is delivering to president mubarak. that may not be the same message you want a global audience to reach. how do you target days message in a time when everything is instantaneously verbal? >> mubarak has to be there until september. meanwhile we have people saying the transition needs to begin now. confusg? >> this is the reality of when something is so hot and sensitive. ihink you are hearing in the

intense focus on the subtleties. i happen to think -- don't tell anybody this, that obama is handling this quite ll. >> this is one where you want to be slow and steady. slowly say goodbye to president mubarak and slowly pushed for reform. if you think what you are watching now is chaos, just wait until the army decides to settle it. then a gets really massi with a lotf loss of lives. he knows that and he is trying to walk the tightrope. >> i will let you watch a little piece of that type rove -- will piece of tight rope robert gibbs has been walking. i think we have it. let us let you take a look at

this. >> now means yesterday. when we said now we met yesterday. this is -- now started sterday. the time for a transition has come. that time is now. you are asking me if now is september? it is unseasonably warm but it is not september. [laughter] >> bring back memories? >> the meaning of the word is [inaudible] [laughter] [applause] >> i think each of us could

probably name 100 times we wish we had it to do over and explain more articulately as our co- pilot. it is hard when events are breaking and you are trying to walk that fine line and send the right messages to the right audiences. and sometimes you step too far over the line. >> usually you have your best thoughts at 1:00 a.m. >> what happens if you don't expect that question? >> not in my office. that was kind of the role. the worst thing that could happen would be for me to be surprised at the podium. i can remember a few mes where -- [laughter] >> one thing that has changed is because of the 24/7 news cycle reporters are asking questions

all day long, so by the time you have gotten to the podium you knew what they were going to pass. you could tell where robert gibbs was looking. that is where ed henry sits. you know where they are generally trending and you know what they need to get on television. >> he was trying to diffuse the moment and in the questions. >> this is a good example of something important. these are the raw ingredients of news coverage of the white house. i've -- it was an idiot who allow the tv cameras to go in there. that would be made. [laughter] when you are trying to tease out the calibration of what a statement makes that the president has made means, it is not supposed to be carried live on national television.

it is supposed to be what reporters used to go to other sources and formed a story they present to the american people. >> you brought cameras to the briefing room. >> a bad idea when monica lynn steed came along. -- when monicaewinsky came along. >> let's come back to the crisis and talk about this moment because this is the serious business. sending messages from the white house podium, ari, i know you were there when the war started and took place. what role did you play in sending messages? were you conscious you were the messenger? >> on september 12, that was the first time george bush declared war publicly.

that night when he addressed the nation he spoke of reassurance and the next day he deliberately showed up and used the word of war. that changed everything because all of the sudden york press secretary -- you realize troops are starting to move. that sense dramatic signals around the world. it was my b to make the statement that saddam hussein has 48 hours to leave. >> you issued the ultimatum. was that a deliberate strategy? why the white house press secretary? >> it was a last-minute issue with prime minister blair. we were hoping to saddam hussein would leave the country. it appeared that he would. it was a last-ditch hope to say he has 48 hours.

i said saddam hussein has 48 hours to leave otherwise the consequences will be immediate. people jump from their seats and iran. >> did you know you were going out there? >> i did not want reporters to jump from their seats. >> did you push back and trailed those who said we want you to say this? >> no, you knew eventually it was going to happen one way or the other. for six months i was getting prepared for it. what signals did you send the liberally from the podium? >> new kind of caught me -- i did not have to send any to saddam hussein. i was thinking today about when president clinton in his first year was putting together his first budget. one of the things we were doing

as the country was coming out of recession. we were trying to send signals to the finanal markets that the president was going to move towards a tax deficit reduction. we tried to send those markets to get some response so we could show the markets would respond positively. that is one example of a less militaristic situation. it was successful. weaver able to use this positive feedback we were getting. >> when you go out there with a signal like bad when we are in the middle of egypt like this you ve multiple audiences. who are you talking to and how do you calibrate your message to reach those audiences? >> sometimes when you are the press secretary you can walk out into the briefing room which is

a lot smaller than it looks on tv. in some ways you can get caught up in answering questions to the 20 people assembled there and you forget people are listening to you. i remember being surprised there were two places i was recognized more than anyone else. it was south korea and israel. i think that was because at the time the north koreans were quite aggressive in their diplomacy. and the sth koreans would watch every day because they want to know is america still with us? that was the same with israel during the 2007-2008 timeframe when we were looking for a way to get prime minister abbas and olmert to come to the table. that is the one piece of advice i pass on to robert gibbs.

don't forget while those people in the briefing room can drive you crazy people all around the world are watching because they want to know where the leader of the free world stands. >> you are very unusual among white house press secretaries because you have an experience with the state department. >> i told president clinton of the two gre job as he gave me that was a more challenging job to be at the podium of the state department because it was harder work. it is a much more substante press corps. they'll have graduate degrees and don't go for a lot of the silly stuff that happens for the white house. if you have to rise up and express righteous indignatio from the white house podium on a tter of critical foreign policy substance after you have

been engaged in some political sparring about the republicans are doing, it is jarring for the american public because they don't know which hat you are wearing. are you the official spokesman on behalf of the u.s. government? we developed conflict in this role for the press secretary that needs to be resolved. probably all of us agree we were better off when we brought other people in. so that they could actually speak on behalf of the u.s. government. i have been concerned to many of the political actors who worked for the present and migrate into the role of being official spokespeople on matters of state. the briefing since mike allow the cameras in it has become a

tv show. that is not the real relationship between a spokesman and the press corps. reporters play their aggressive role. they really fire away the questions. i do the same thing and give the answers. the real work is done 20 times a day when they walk into your office and talk one-on-one with you. >> i am going to conclude that the american public will not be well-served. what happens to the information that is supposed to be coming from that podium? >> the public recognizes they get their news from a tremendous number of directions. >> i think one of the things we have to do -- we are in the 21st century and are using a 19th century format to educate the press corps. one person no matter how good looking standing at that podium

each day and all the news funnel in through the white house is an antiquated way for the american public to get its information. we have to reinvent the public function within government d marginalize the role of the press secretary. >> there is one thing i want to add to that. every day you see the press secretary defending the president. would you don't see is defending the press to the president and senior staff. that is ner seen. you are trying to make sure the press corps can get into the median. that happens a lot. one of the most important roles of the press secretary was to prect the role of the press to remember that they had a job to do. tony snow once said -- it is a

really important role to remind everybody that while they might drive you crazy, it is what has made o country so great. >> give us an example of when you have pounded on the desk of the oval office and said -- >> the big issue is access. they will not be satisfied until they can watch everything 24/7. the press secretary's job is to fight for as much of that is reasonable. on september 13 the president was going to call mayor giuliani to announce he was coming to new york the next day. that was the famous bull hor moment. i suggested let the press handle it. >> what was your motivation for that? >> i thought it would be good for the country to see the

president talking to the leaders. >> that is actually where he got emotional. he feels like i do. >> a reporter asked him a question, how do you personally feel about what is going on? for the first time with the meras rolling, an emotional man? asked an emotional question. he said something along the lines of i and a caring kind of guy but my job is to care for the people who are the victims and not worry about myself. he was about to lose it. >> there are those who would say that to bring the cameras in to a moment like this is stagecraft. >> he took questions after that phone call.

people are yelling about each other about a divided policy my answer would be of course not. >> this bears directly on this. we solicited questions online from those who were attending and others who might be interested. they were voted upon. this one is from aaron. he asks when is it ok to with that -- knowingly withhold ever mission on behalf of the white house? >> never. >> those are twoery different questions. [laughter] >> i famously got in trouble. sometimes the art i telling the truth slowly. i listened to you do a lot of that. >> all of us have had situations

where we know things are going to happen but we cannot talk about them because sometimes you might put someone's life in jeopardy. there are other times when the political protocol's don't allow you to acknowledge something publicly at th moment. but you can never consciously lied because that destroys the trust that is elemental to serving the president. dana made a good point that you are caught in this position. the geography for those who have watched the "west wing," the back door of the office that all four of us had, you walk out of it and 25 feet away you are with the president yelling at you about h bad the presses. you are literally just -- juxtaposed between these actors.

you have to try to keep both halves of that happy. it ia very tricky thing to do because you will not make your colleagues from the white house happy. you can never make the pre corps happy because the are always bitching about something. it is a formula for having to establish a way in which people get your queues of what you are trying to -- >> do you feel you have lied on behalf of the esident? >> because on that i said here is the state and i have. i was very conscious since i did not know what the whole truth was. i never wen beyond a statement that was approved by lawyers. it was a very uncomfortable thing. i prided myself on being on top of the informational and giving

it to the american people come bank but it was a matter that was being investigated by a very determined prosecutor. the president had some privileges that we cannot put in jeopardy. so we wouldn't pollute the environment by saying what is the deal with you and this check? -- you and this chick? >> you were asked any number of times to decline things. what does it mean when he says this? >> other reports that are out there. those all came to you and a lot of them you talked around. -- the white house line was this was a political line that the special prosecutor was pursuing.

and the president was reportedly denying some of these things happen. you had to repeat that the nile. i did not repeat that denial. i repeated the statement he had issued and said that has been asked and answered. the president is doing the job he got elected to do. the good news is the american people agreed with that over time. they said the press needs to find the off button, because they are pursuing this thin >> how tough did it get for you? when you know something is happening legislatively or a scandal, where you have more information you want to pass on. >> i think that is something you learned to do over time because not only do you have to give accurate information, but you have to set up your answers so they don't track you down the

line. i got trapped by one of my answers. when president clinton first came to the white house president h. w. bush went back to kuwait to celebrate the second anniversary of the liberation and there was an assassination attempt on his life. the fbi began to investigate. i started to give guidance prepared by the national security council. it was the fbi is investigating. the president will make a decision about how to proceed. i would periodically get asked a question what is going on with the assassination attempt? i would give the guidance in exactly those words. on friday i was going through my briefing with the deputy for national security and he said nothing has changed. the president will look at the results when they come from the fbi.

i got asked a question. and announced to me the president received the information they did before. he decided iraq was responsible for the assassination attempt and the united states would retaliate by bombing day agency in baghdad on saturday. i did not know it. then i realized i have now given them that guidance. i realized in hindsight what i should have said was when the president receives information from the fbi he will make a decision. but i did not. i think it is an example of how you have to think five moves ahead of all the time because it is not only about what is happening today, but the future. i learned to do that much better.

>> some things people don't realize is in many ways the press secretary acts like a reporter as well. i don't know the answers to everything. i will call somebody at the national security council that i trust. i might also ask the chief of staff to make sure i got the same answer. then you know those two have to talk. >> the most common question is who tells you what to say? no one tells you what to say. >> or everyone tells you what to say. >> it is of to the press secretary to be a reporter. >> what is the biggest mistake? >> that was it. >> i am sure you could put a montage together and it would be horrible. [laughter] >> funny you mention that. [laughter] >> it is a burnout job because

you have the press banging on you to get me everything, don't tell me you don't know the answer. you havether times where you are not going to. especially after 9/11 a lot at it was the security-related. it was covered by aljazeera whether the u.s. would move security forces on to the ground. we have pre deployed our troops. [laughter] >> but aljazeera wasn't the only one. >> in the american media there was a report that we capture the bad guy. regularlysecretary's have to confront things on a background. reporters came into my office and said is it true we capture this guy iyemen? i said i cannot help you on that. i amot asking for your nam

just tell me yes or no. i said i cannot help you. the press secretary's job is to help. i cannot even explain at the time but i can say it now. when we did capture a bad guy we did not want anybody to know. we wanted his satellite phone to ring again. we wanted to get another e-mail so we could chase it up the line. if i acknowledge anything, the trail could go cold. this is where you are doing what you think is right that the press ner thinks is right. >> i will give you an example of a mistake i made that was not substantive, it was tone. there is a lot of pressure on the secretary. i remember one time in particular embarrassing a reporter for asking a question

that had already been ked. they were behind by about five hours with the news. i embarrassed him on national television and it was really unfair. the easiest thing to do is to be sarcastic and try to be funny. the most important thing you can do is swallow that and save the funny moments for your deputies and give the reporters in the randy information they are seeking. i did call and apologize to the reporter but it does not take back the fact i did it. >> tone and substance are very important. i am remindedf a situation we encountered at cnn. after 9/11 we put together guidance as a result of the conversation you and i had. we understood we could be used

as a vehicle for nefarious means. the obama -- osama bin laden tape, what is our responsibility? we said we were going to be sensitive to issues that might imperil operations of national security. we will try to tune it in. there was a time when we first deployed u.s. troops to lose pakist -- to uzbekistan. we were approached and asked not to report that because it might jeoparze security. we chose not to report that. then if it leaks some other place and a pakistani news organization puts it up. another network reported it in the u.s. what is your guidance to news

organizations? how can you say i will not address at when it is going out through these other means? >> this is why that clash takes place. whenever the president called me in the oval office and said were you the source i would give him a honest answer. i said you go with it. you go with it and the president sees it on cnn and ask are you the source of it? i would say no, the source was another organization. >> it is a world of difference for someone in the name of the u.s. government and the president to confirmomething than some murky report. >> you would rather live with that ever mention that comes from another source?

>> i would rather make sure journasts workg to keep the american public informed move towards the truth in a way that is not going to jeopardize people's lives. someone is getting ready to write something that is flat out wrong or going to move away from the truth, then you have an obligation to warn them against that. can press secretaries lai, the answer is no. the only press secretary that ever did that is jody powell who denied a rescue mission was derway to get the hostages out of iran, long before many students here were born. that was the test case. it has never been challenged sense because nobody has ever lied to the press corps. what gets you killed is when someone forgot to tell you something, which is why dana is

right. we have to be reporters ourselves to get sources. it is hard work to stay on top of that. >> what is the day in the life of the press secretary? >> i don't think they ever sleep now. i think it has changed a lot. you don't sleep as muchs you like to. you have to have the papers read it r the first meetings. >> do you get phone calls in the middle of the night? >> there we five web sites when i left the white house. >> you are looking pretty good for 105. >> for all of us to remember the old fashion newspaper is, even when you are on the hill you know something will be in the paper thin next day where i have to open it up and find a story. then you are either happy or sad.

now there is no element of surprise anymore. a "washington post"reports would not necessarily know they were beaten with a story by another per. >> back in the day when there was a bulldog edition of the pape what wod happen is there would be something coming out that was a proprietary story. i would sit there and wade and the fund would start to ring. there was no black berry. -- the phone would start to ring. that was a big deal. they could cram it-just in time for their deadline. >>ari, if you had to some of the job of white house press secretary in one tweet, what

would you say? >> ec, joyful, lots of sleet. -- lots of sleep. i would call it the most intellectually stimulating job. >> one of the things that we studied in political communication and throughout our school is framing an issue and how agenda's for issues get set. i would like to ask you from your perspectives, who set the agenda? did you set the agenda from the podium? is it reporters who set the agenda? could you control it? did you try? >> all of the above. >> the press secretary rarely sets the agenda. the president certainly can. events outside of the white house, weather it is markets

crashing -- >> it is pretty rare. that is the exception. >> that is the precedent setting the agenda. -- that is the president setting the agenda. >> people in power tried to set angenda. >> what worked best? >> anytime the president makes hard news. and the press assembly covers. my easiest briefings were when there was one big story going on. the new 30 minutes would be on that nasty topic. on a slow news day, my hardest. 15 or 20 questions, they always asked interesting questions. >> we used to say is it going t

be a kitchen sink day? that was a lot harder. >> you tried to set an agenda. you try to move away from what was called suici bombing. talk about that. >> whereveryday lives are being taken as a palestinian suicide bombers were taking lives in israel. it was reaching an unparalleled proportions. it occurred to me one day if this is called suicide why are all these other people getting killed? i asked condoleezza rice what do you think? she said she will bounce it off the national security adviser. i did not bring the president into it. i call them homicide bombers. that seemed a more accurate description. >> how did that work? >> it caught people's attentio i think it worked well.

a lot of people still use that phrase. >> do you think it worked well? >> i think changing the vocabulary on something like that is a way in which you can use that job to do things. there are rare opportunities to use the podium -- >> is there a danger of going too far? >> yes, the greatest danger associated with that job is the american people don't trust the information they have. they lost faith in the media. we know there faith in the established media has declined to all-time lows. they see to me -- they see to many people doing this political speak. they're looking for someone to help the mold with what really matters. that is the hardest part of this job. reconciling the political things you have to do to be a

protagonist for t president's point of view and conveying simple factual information to the american public that the american public needs to hear. those roles are so much in conflict right now. >> how do you think brought gold -- barack obama and robert gibbs have done? >> what a surprise. the reason that president obama 's party lt 63 seats in november is not a message problem. he overreached his mandate. he enacted policies that the overwhelmingly majority of americans disagreed with. i do not see that as a communications issue.

>> do you agree with that? >> no, not entirely. i think that the process of making legislation is compared to sausage making for a very good reasons. president clinton had some of the same problems. if you want to accomplish anything in washington, one of the ways to do it is legislatively. president obama came in and said, i want to do couple of big things. i want to reform the financial system bred those are big things and they are legiative things. the republicans have adopted a strategy of the just say no. could be predent have done a better job of intervening? of course. i think he had a lot of political capital and he took it

out and he spent it. >> he went into debt with it. >> he was willing to do that. who would have thought two months after the midterms, and he would be in the same political shape he was then. >> they called ronal reagan the great communicator. is barack obama a great communicator? >> i think he gives a good speech. i do not think that is the same as understanding your audience and understanding the moment and the bait -- and being able to deliver on that. >> i think the ability of the president to use the bully pulpit to help move a country in a direction is so different today than it was in ronald reagan's time because of the difference in the media and technology and the way in which -- -- the way in which we reach people. people want to have an emotional attachment to their president and know that the president feels like a field and knows

that the president understands what their lives are about. president obama is acquiring the art of doing that effectively. sometimes it was not prevalent in the first two years. there was a price paid for that. robert gibbs, who was instrumental the importance to the president, something that i am interted in my colleague's point of view, it is nearly impossible to be a decision maker and a key policy maker on behalf of the president and simultaneously do the job that we have to do. you almost have to be a fly on wall watching all of these actors play out their roles to watch the president makes deep -- watched the president make the decision. >> if you are a participant in the process, your colleagues

know that you have a point of view. they want you to go out and do the briefing. i consciously and never tried to give the president my opinion on something. i gave him a point of view a couple of things privately, but not as part of the policy-making process. >> i totally agree with that. you simply do not have time. it is dficult to return all the phone calls. you have to be a hand holder to be a press secretary. >> do not be an adviser, ba press secretary. -- be it a press secretary. >> it is beyond the credibility. you have to go back to those people, who were just on the other side of a big fight that

was important to them, and they will not be as reliable. you need to be an honest broker in side. >> i want everyone to -- i wanted to hear everybod's point of view. >> when i was press secretary, i had access to all meetings that i could manage. i've played that fly on the role to role. sometimes i was asked my opinion. i did he a sense -- you go down that road, this is what is going to happen. it does not mean that we cannot management. -- we cannot manage it. you had to deal with it.

i go back to the state children's health insurance program. president bush vetoed that legislation ice. finally, we revealed the secret. [laughter] he wanted to -- he wanted the money to go to the poorest children first. we are crazy, right? we are going to veto it twice. >> nicely done. >> how about an example. when you go to the president, warning, warning, warning. when did you do that? >> i have a good one. >> you have the ear of the president to do thi george bush was the easit. >> his dad had been vice president. he ran for governor.

there is not a reporter that we had not tangled with. he had the highest tolerance for bad news. [laughter] >> clinton did, too. he did not have such a high tolerance for bad news. he would take it in any would blow off a little steam. >> we did not have that. >> there was one time when president bush had done a press conference and he was in the briefing room. after he left, i followed him and we went into the oval office. ne sd, that was good. i said, that world war ii comment is going to get a lot of press.

about 3:00 in the afternoon, i just wise to call and tell you that you're right. i love to hear. >> mindless somewhat similar. ---was somewhat similar. it was 2003, the war in iraq was winding down. all the sudden, the attack started up and we were losing a lot of our troops. the president was doing a news conference and he got ask about it. he said that if anybody tries to attack america's military, my message is, bring itn. we walked from the roosevelt room and i said, mr. peres -- mr. president, think of how bring it on is going to sound. he got indignant and he said, i

have so much faith in our military, if anybody wants to tangle with us, bring it on because you will lose. he was sending a message to our military about the fate he had in the military. i said mr. president, it did not come out that way. he healed. >> mr. it -- mrs. bush repeated what you said then that helps. >> a question from one of my colleagues. i love this question. why did the democratic press operations have so much more trouble controlling the party's message compared with republicans? >> i will take a crack at that. if you scratch any professional democrats or people who worked in the party, they came up the

1960's and 1970's through movement politics. they were late -- they were union organizers, feminist, environmentali. they worked in a movement politics and believe that the press was going to be on their side. they were in the business of speaking truth. republicans never had that fiction in mind. they started from a viewpoint that was more corporate, more fuel than public relations. it goes all the way back to nixon. it was more about mass communications. republicans were more adept at the skills, public relations from the beginning brayed democrats just mistakenly -- >> that is pretty plausible. bush had the advantage of

watching all theistakes made in his father's administrations. there were a lot of powerful individuals that fought against each other. they regularly lking again each other. bush watched that as a son and he made the decision that t people he hired would really be team players. i cannot tell you how many times i was in the oval office and it never leaked. the press loved the leaks. with our administration, white house is secretive. >> you are secretive and tight- lipped. >> congratulations. >> that is where we have the clash of priorities. when i covered the reagan white house and the bush white house,

some of it was disarray. it made it a little easier to take the story to the public. >> each was fighting for his own turf. that is what did it. >> you are not going to stop turf battles between heavyweights in the administration. >> they seldom leaked in the bu administration. >> there is a myth that the republicans did not have message problems. if you look at the social security debate of 2005, that is not a cohesive message. >> is that the same problem that obama had at reelection time? that is debatable. when you take on these big

issues, it is not necessarily -- you will not have a cohesive message. >> lightning round. i want to go to a few questions. with regard to the television series the west wing, how realistic was that? >> one of the funny things about that, t creator of the show had been in washington. he read a script for the movie american president. he asked me if i would read his pilot and consult on the show. all of my friends in washington started calling me. hollywood never gets washington right. the show is going to be a disaster.

the first show came on and i got calls from all of my friends. two weeks later, i got a story idea for you. it was a -- it felt like the clinton white house. it was written during the clinton years. the culture was right, in some ways. events move fast and it was a way to depict the constant motion of events. the one thing that was least realistic was there was about five people that made the decisions. the sense that most people betterorking hard trying to do e right thing every day. the fact that just when you think you have the answer to one

question, another issue comes crashing over. the kind of gravity about what people face every day and sometimes the little things that when the day or ock you off your course. all those things were realistic credit it was the characters that people related to. there is a sense of idealism. there are a good patriotic americans, regardless of party. >> the panel rresents two decades of media relations. what'd you think are the most salient chase it -- changes? this one touches on the technology issue. >> in some ways, we have fundamentally different jobs. reporter weiser, you've lost a lot of that senior level talents and broadcast

media. this is coming down in a couple of hours. i am thinking of having the president do this. we could have a conversation. there is a more cooperative relationship than you think. d.c. is not as partisan as it is madeut to be. on the technology side of things, at first, i resisted. >> how many followers do you have? >> i think it is 30,000 now. i have a long way to go. >> h many followers to you

have? >> i will follow you. >> here is a very interesting questi. 5.3 billion mobile phone subscriptions around the world. high-resolution remote sensing satellites generating enormous amounts of data. more satellite news network's every day. how has this changed what a white house press secretary can do to set national and international priorities? is the essence of government itself changing? >> ask mubarak. >> one of the challenges that we are going through right now is how do we slowdown the transfer

of information so that people can actually get information and use it, get a coherent information and use it effectively to make decisions. all the competition in the news business -- and this is based on speed. breaking news. something or other. every 30 seconds. we have got to slow that down so that people -- >> that is not going to happen. >> the spokesperson can slow it down. >> a can win the white house consciously says, you have to stop and get things right. one of the things that has eroded the confidence of the american people is all this misinformation that gets out there when there is a crisis.

instantly, we had a congresswomen from arizona who was dead for two hours. wording how to slow down, at be thorough, it is something that both sides of this have to get better at. >> how is this change in the nature of governance? >> it is changing the press more than governments. reporters have got to respond to it. >> you do not think that it changes the nature of governance? and >> i think it has changed the press more than officials. you still have a higher obligation to get it right and figure it out. waseteran's day 2001,here a plane crashed on long island. it was two months afte september 11.

is this terrorism again? i was in a brief. i was coming in at 7:15. i heardt on my car radio. i stayed down there with the president and i did not come up to greet until noon. that five hours -- they were furious with me. i made some enemies on the press that day because i would not briefs until i was ready to. i slowed down. the press has to go live. is it terrorism? yes or no? >> if you get it wrong, and you have to correct it. >> the consequences of us getting a wrong is that we lose a job. we lose credibility. the consequences of you getting it wrong is you do a correction and you fix it. >> it is a little tougher than

that sometimes. i also know that it does change the decision making function. and the role the people are playing. when you have pictures coming directly into the white house. i know that when the russian attacked, the white house was watching those pictures in real time. when you elevate that, put all that on steroids and attach it to is part of it. look how difficult it is for the ite house to sustain a narrative on the topic they want to talk about. the president wants to talk about jobs, and egypt blows up. the president wants to sell his health care message ne has 15 seconds to get that message across.

no matter how trivial, no matter how unimportant it might be. we have to spend two days on it. >> it takes us to another question. what skills to rely on most as your rolas press secretary? >> it is not necessarily a scale -- skill, but aot of it is gut instinct. in some ways, it is falling your gut and knowing when there'll be a big story or when is not. >> you had training. >> i had worked as a journalist.

when i say how important it was to defend the press to the president, that comes from having that bit of training. an understanding what it means when a journalist would call and they would tell you, i have this story. i have to sources. then i have 30 seconds before this thing hits the airwaves. you would tell the chief of staff. he says he has to sources, what am i supposed to do? a little bit of training from that perspective. a lot of it was trial and error. i had a wonderful chief of staff on capitol hill. >> he just got a new job.

>> what advice would you give a former journalist applying for a job in the white house press job? >> good luck. it will be a great test. two years and he buys prident's office. -- in the vice-presidenoffice. when you are a journalist, every skill you have is to cover the news. it is different than selling the news or promoting your boss. this will test him to see how quickly he can make that transition. he is smart, fast on his feet, a very good-looking. it is a great test. >> advice? >> i sort of disagree.

i think a sense of humor will diffuse tense situations. >> if it is self-deprecating. >> correct. that is the most important thing. >> you escaped that day. >> you managed to preserve yourself some howl through that whole monica mess. >> thank you for reminding me. >> i try not to relive those days. >> i do not think i could devote -- did away with some of those trips i did now. they would all be on youtube. someone would start callinge

out. >> you set on live television, let's go on backgrounds. he tried to put the president on background. >> i remember that. >> it did not work. >> is special did not work with at present. >> do you have a comment about the recent news that aol is buying huffington post? >> no. >> fascinating. >> it is whatever. just three months ago, and newsweek was sold for a dollar. the overhead costs, the legacy costs, not being able to keep

up. the new media at is taking the world by storm. >> there is a real danger if we think that all information that we value ought to be freely available. if we do not value and pay for the content. >> the huntington post started as a liberal bloc. -- the huffington opposed started as a liberal bloc. -- blog. >> it is a proudly liberal organization. you look at -- this is the turn of the last century where in new york city there were 23 or 24 newspapers. we're back to an era where all news comes from a point of view. people did n expect anything else.

the huffington post was established i2005 and was profitable last year. that is pretty remarkable. >> can its aol? >> it has a good enough shot as anything. >> she is a creative -- she has created something. the other person who is running newsweek is tina brown. it is to be the other way. you take and on paper publication and you hitched a website to it. >> you had rupert murdoch announcing a new paper just for the ipad. he would not do that if he did not think he could make money. youave to be willing to pay for it.

that will be $40 a year. >> every model under the sun is being tested. how do you make the news business profitable? >> you have had an incredible job. incredible view of history. an incredible opportunity to help shape it. as you look at our political process now, as you look in armenia and tecology now, as you look at the nature of our civil discourse in this country, think about our students, many of whom would like to do what you have done. how do you define this moment in history?

how should someone that is 21 years old lookit as look at how we -- look at how we are as a culture? i will let you take it wherever you wanted to go. it is a great weight to close the conversation. >> i am very optimistic about where we are going. we have a lot of dysfunction, bitterness, poisoned in the environment of our political culture. over time, i detect among young people a row pragmatism and desire to solve problems, a real hunger for real information that allows them to make choices and allow them to shape their own choices about the future. i think that will results in a new journalism with a new business models are affected. it will result in a new civil discourse that is really focused

on solving problems. our generation has failed to -- in not answering honestly, how much government do we want? we're all celebrating ronald reagan's 100 anniversary, but it began when we made that faults bargain. you can cut taxes and not cut government. it happened during his presidency. until we resolve that and get serious about those fdamental questions, up we will be back into place for we can have a coherent government. the students here today are going to be much more courageous in aressing those questions. as a result, they will invent a new politics and a new journalism.

>> talking to young people, it is more like asking them where are we as a culture. the things are changing so quickly and i think the tools are aille and the view that is resulting from this technology age has totally transformed the world. what is happening in egypt is a facebook revolution. did never would've happened with a couple of facebook pages. to organize, to plan meetings, to save january 25 is the day. that is just the beginning of people organizing themselves. politics, we are in a bad place, but the next generation is going to jump over where we have been to create a completely new model. the model of the white house press secretary -- we're not

going to have another network -- a generation of network news anchors. it is an exciting time. it is fraught with danger. with all that energy and that democracy, it is on manageable by anybody. the repercussions of its are completely unpredictable. but it has potential to unleash innovation, new ways of thinking and new ways of creating wealth for the country. it is mind-boggling to think of the tential. it is a very exciting time. >> i share the optimism.

d.c. and pitics is not as partisan as some people. we are showing that tonight. you can disagree on things and still be able to have a civil coersation. got a chance to teach at gw last year and i really enjoyed at. i grew up in a rule environment -- rural environments and the internet has allowed to people all across the country to have a say in what is happening. that has made some people uncomfortable. people who never -- people from wyoming who are now online and participating and reading

things in the did not have acce to all this information. nobody is dropping off "the new york times at my grandfather's ranch in the middle of wyoming. now they can have access and they can participate. just a year ago, when scott brown won the election in massachusetts, at they were successful in getting small donations from people all over the country. it is a very interesting and exciting time. take advantage of being in d.c. and take the internship, the job, the one that does not sound very exciting. he starts in the credibility deficit. i took all of that -- i was able to handle that.

always take the deputy job. i traveled on the weekends and all the holidays. i listen to so many young people who are so exhausted all the time. you have to take advantage of what is going on in washington. work very hard and meea lot of people. you find that all over the city. it is a wonderful place to be. tw is a fantastic place to have this experience. >> i started 22 years old on capitol hill, right out of college. if you like politics, died then. this is what makes art -- dive in. this is what makes our country so great.

there is also a lot of smart people who come together and work for a cause. as much as people will say tuftings or how bad things are, look around the world. we have settled their differences peacefully in this country. it is a noisy process, died in ve into it. it is right ayour doorstep. capitol hill has more young people than anywhere else in positions of influence of power. you come to capitol hill and you can really move up fast and move up well if you are sharp, smart, a team player. the best town for ideas.

so many people here are political communications majors. this is kind of like a rock concert. did better rock stars. that is my advice to you. [laughter] [applause] >> on that note, we are all privileged to have had a fascinating conversation here tonight. we've explored some of the cultural and journalistic and technological trendsetter altair. as well as some remarkable personal insights on the lives that you of lead. to our radio and television audiences on c-span and elsewhere, thank you for joining us.

i have to see wt ounext conversation seriesn march 23. we will be talking to another pioneer of media. thank you for joining us this evening. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

lincoln is a unique perspective on mr. lincoln. from his early years as a springfield lawyer, he was president during one of our nation's most troubled times. while supplies last, publishers while supplies last, publishers are