deadline to withdraw around afghanistan? >> i would think so. there's no other way to have u.s. forces step in and take on a will the of these responsibilities without slowing down the timetainl for -- time table for drawing down troops. >> is there another bill like it in the senate? does it have traction? >> i don't see it going anywhere in the senate. in particular, the hearings this week with secretary of state hillary clinton, there was a great deal of concern with a number of lawmakers, senators barbara mikulski and lautenberg about an increase of violence in afghanistan and that we should be leaving there. >> a wrap-up. what did you hear? >> i think he harbors personal doubt about whether the administration is being tough enough in its communications with the iranians and in making

clear to both the israelis and the iranians what we're going to do and why. he wouldn't discuss the detail. he had a detailed briefing yesterday. >> thank you colin, donna. thank you both for your time. >> if you had said that in 2006 the world would be begging the united states to use force again in three 1/2 years, everyone would have said you were crazy. >> robert kagan serves on secretary of state clinton's foreign policy advisory board. >> what i've been writing for years, actually, is that there is a lot of continuity in american foreign policy, more than we expect.

a broad consensus. i think what you are seeing here is the kind of consensus that exists in the foreign policy community, and probably from -- probably there is a lot of overlap. >> more from robert kagan and his latest book, "the world america made." >> "game change" will -- the book title is "game change, obama and the clintons, mccain and palin, the race of a lifetime. it is just under an >> none of these middle-age white guys are game changers. >> from the new hbo movie booked -- based on the book "game

change" john heilmann and mark halperin, they say, the plan was to shock the world. mccain's core conviction was that mccain's v.p. choice had to be a game changer. mark halperin, let me begin with you. why four years later are people still writing and talking about the 2008 campaign and now your book turned into an hbo film? >> i think in a way because it was, as we say in the book, "the race of a lifetime." you had people competing for an open race for the white house and a lot of plots and twists that if you brought to hollywood for fiction they would throw you out and say it is too implausible.

the story of john mccain's collapse and then comeback and john edwards' extraordinary role only revealed far after the fact of what was going on in their lives as he was running for president and making a strong play to be the democratic nominee. >> and your take on this new hbo film that people will be talking about four years later. >> we were thrilled to work with hbo on this. they have a high quality they bring to these films. mark and i were honored and gratified when they bought the option to do the book. we knew there was going to have to be some choices made. it is a big book. it is 500 pages. it is a big campaign. if you didn't want to sit down and do a mini series, you would have to pick a story line. jay roach, the guy that also directed the award-winning

recap, they were very attracted to the palin storey. it is an iconic american story that this woman had only been governor 18 months before she is sort of snatched out of obscurity and put on the republican ticket on the most pressure-filled environment with the brightest spotlight you can imagine. what that was like for her at the human level, what the political ramifications were. john was attracted to that story and you could say what it is like to be a politician in this lebrit culture we live in and what the mechanics are of how these things go down in the back room. that is something mark and i were attracted to. so when they were seizing on that story, they said yeah, that's great, and they found a great job in the movie. the performances are spectacular. we couldn't be happier with how the whole thing turned out.

>> mark halperin, let me ask you how the book came about, when the two of you decided to collaborate and how you applied this to your current work in the 2012 campaign. >> well, we were coming back from annapolis when senator mccain was doing a tour with his bog if i. this is mike huckabee getting out of the race and hillary clinton and barack obama were still very much contending in the spring of 2008 for the presidential nomination. the sculingse execution was pretty bad for most of it. including the event in annapolis where he spoke at the naval academy where he spoke at a football stadium in an incredibly windy day.

it was not best executed event he had ever seen. driving back, he actually parked. i was doing something with c-span that day. we parked in front of c-span and your viewers will be delighted to hear "the game changer" was born right there in front of c-span because what we said initially it was not about a book. it was about a movie. we said if you look at the characters here and how cinematic had had -- this wlole thing has been, well before sarah palin, there is so much here, someone should make a movie about it. we talked about various ways of trying to do the storey. every reporter who covers these presidential campaigns says to themselves maybe i can get a book contract out of this. it is hard to publish political books. we talked about how could we successfully write and publish a political book, and what we said

to ourselves was, there is so much about the campaign we don't know. we were covering it every day. we didn't know the answers to some basic questions. what role did bill clinton play in hillary clinton's campaign. how did barack obama decide he could run for president and make a credible effort to beat hillary clinton? lots of questions like that that we didn't know the answers to. we thought, what if we went back and as archeologists tried to figure out what happened. before too long we had taken that original conversation, shaped it a little bit, but what we ended up writing was close to the idea we had on that day originally. we were basically doing the same thing for the next cycle. but for this cycle, there is no reason to tamper with a formula that readers seem to like and that we think is a great way to tell the story of a campaign that people are focused on as much this time as they were last time, but to tell the story through the eyes of the people

involved in a way that maybe is impossible to do in daily, weekly, or monthly journalism. >> what we have done is gone back through your book and selected a couple quotes from a company, loehman's that maybe reflects what happened during that part of the campaign. let's begin with the announcement that senator barack obama, you write that colin powell had his questions for senator obama, but the main one was, "why now? i think i might have been what the country needs today. i think it might be my time. >> for the past six years we've been told that the anxiety americans feel about rising health care costs and stagnant are an illusion. we have been told climate change is a hoax. we have been told that tough talk and an ill-con seeved war can replace strategy and foresight, and when all else fails, when katrina happens, or

the death toll in iraq mounts, we have been told that our crises are somebody else's fault. we're distracted from our real failures and told to blame the other parties or gay people or immigrants. and as people have looked away in disillusionment and frustration, we know what fills the void -- the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play. they write the checks, you get stuck with the bill. they get the access while you get to write a letter. they think they own this government. but we're hear -- here today to take it back. [cheers and applause] the time for that kind of politics is over. it is over. it is time to durn the page right here and right now. [cheers and applause] >> it wasn't a foregone conclusion that despite his

success in boston in 2004 that barack obama would run in 2008. >> not at all. he was, i think, inclined not to run in 2008. certainly his wife michelle was against the idea at first. the thing you read there from his conversation with colin powell, that theme the notion that this could be a time for him to run, and that there is a time for a candidate to run, a right time, was inflention to barack obama. he was hearing it from i -- from a lot of people. the conventional thinking would be you have only been in the senate a couple years. you need to wait your turn, wait around, get more experience and so on. what obama kept hearing from senior democrats throughout the senate and others was that, you know, that actually in the new era might not be true. that old rule might need to be thron away, and that if you stuck around the senate a long time you would be weighed down with all the votes that he took

and the positions he took on controversial matters. that he was a fresh face. that the country was sick of the clintons and sick of the bushes and wanted to see something new. for that reason, coming out of that incredible storm in boston and coming out of the 206 election cycle where -- the 2006 election cycle where had he raised money for democrats across ohio, that he had the magic thing, ask he had the lightning in a bottle. and it would be bool foolish for him not to recognize that so much of presidential success is timing. in the end, in were a lot of factors that went into his thinking. that will notion that if he didn't go in 2008 he might not ever get another opportunity ultimately influenced him more than anything else. >> yet in the summer and spring he was lagging in the polls and many expecting that hillary clinton was at that point the clear front-runner according to surveys in a couple key states

in new hampshire and iowa. and then there was this moment that you outline. the plan was set. the following month with reference to november 2008, 2007, senator obama would be appearing with all the other candidates in des moines, iowa. that would be the perfect place to unfurl the new strategy. >> we have a chance to bring the country together in a new majority that tackle the problems that george bush made far north but had censored long before bush took office. problems that we talk about year after year after year after year. and that is why the same old washington textbook campaigns just won't do in this election. [cheers and applause] that's why not answering

questions because we're afraid our answers won't be popular just won't do. that's why telling the american people what we think they want to hear instead of telling the american people what they need to hear just won't do. [cheers and applause] triangulating and poll driven positions because we're worried about what mitt or rudy might say about us just won't do. [cheers and applause] if we are really serious about winning this election, democrats, then we can't live in fear of losing. this party, the party of jefferson and jackson of

roosevelt and kennedy has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the american people when we led not by polls but by principles. not by calculations but by conviction. when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose, a higher purpose. and i run for the presidency of the united states of america because that is the party that america needs us to be right now. [cheers and applause] november of 2007 you write this was a turning point for this democratic race. why? >> well, because up until that point barack obama had gotten into the race with a lot of excitement around his candidacy.

he had not shown he could break away from the pack, not just hillary clinton but john edwards as well, and that jenniferson-jackson -- that jefferson-jackson dinner has been an opportunity for a candidate to shine. hillary clinton's speech was really good that night, i thought. but we saw in that book even some clinton supporters that barack obama's speech was a lot better, and it really reframed the race and introduced in the most prominent way to date this theme, mostly implement plift, that the clinton years had flaws in them that democrats should not want to go back to. the same old washington operation per son identified by democrats even in the clinton years is something the country did not want and should return to. >> mark halperin, how did you go about getting the inside story on that speech and how barack obama rehearsed and prepared for it?

>> from talking to the people involved. we don't reveal the sources now, but as we did throughout the book, we were very meticulous about talking to people involved. every person involved where ever possible and made sure we had documentation, hand-written notes, et cetera, to paint the picture. both his preparation for the speech and how hillary clinton approached her speech at the dinner are sort of a good micro-cosm of how the candidates operated in dealing with the titanic clash between them. >> let me go to the new hampshire primary. a race in which hillary clinton won narrowly. in the book john you wrote, she looked like a quarterback who had just completed the last second hail mary pass in

overtime. >> i come tonight with a very full heart. [cheers and applause] >> i want especially to thank new hampshire. over the last week i listened to you p and in the process i found my own voice. [cheers and applause] i felt like we all vote from our hearts. i am so gratified that you responded. now together let's give america a kind of comeback that new hampshire has just given me.

>> the narrative on that day, that moment with hillary clinton's win, when you were sensing in new hampshire leading up to her victory and how that became important to the obama campaign in 2008? >> well, you remember, steve, you know, she after obama had won in iowa, everyone in the national press and really on both campaigns, except for hillary clinton and her husband, they looked at new hampshire as the day barack obama was going to seal the democratic nomination. he was going to win new hampshire on the basis of his momentum. independent voters would vote there and that was seen as a big strength for him. he had the wind at his back. the polling showed that going into new hampshire that it had have been an easy win for obama. but he decided to campaign in a very different way there than he had in iowa. he got disconnected from human beings on the ground with the voters, and she got down closer to the voters. you remember those couple moments, the one in the debate where barack obama made the icy

cold comment where she was -- enough, and then a couple moments where she broke down and teared up and showed a side of herself that a lot of democratic voters had been longing to see, this human and approachable side. one of the things we talked about in the book is how the obama campaign, many people, including hillary herself that thought it was kind of -- in the immediate moment that that was a disaster where she had had an ed musky moment where she had weakness. the obama campaign looked at that and said this is a problem, because that's the humanity we have not seen in hillary clinton. they saw it as something that could change momentum dramatically. even leading up to the day of the primary vote, most reporters on the ground thought barack obama would win the primary. the people around barack obama thought he would win the primary and even the people around hillary clinton thought that. the only exception to that rule

were hillary clinton and bill clinton who as they were campaigning over the course of the last 72 hours, they felt they could feel something shifting in the electorate. bill clinton knew the politics in new hampshire probably better than anyone on the planet. everywhere they went they felt the tide was turning, so they were not the only one's -- they were the only ones perhaps who were not surprised that they won that victory. people at that moment thought -- and it would change again shortly -- people thought well hillary clinton is on her way to being able to put back her rightful place as the front-runner. as you know, things got more complicated after that. >> maybe with mitt romney's win in february is a parallel to what john mccain faced in early march. two months after hillary clinton winning -- losing the

nomination, john mccain won his nomination "having dodged a bullet after bullet, mccain clinched his party's nomination on march 4, concluding one of the gleatest political victories in history." why such a lag between clinton's nomination and determining the nominee late in the summer? >> that is an excellent question. it goes to the heart of this election with sarah palin. president mccain had been around presidential politics and he enjoyed the opportunity to go through the rituals that the party nominee gets to go through. one of which is hiring someone or retaining someone in this space, a respected washington lawyer, to go through and begin a process of studying the prospect of potential candidates. given it was a mccain operation which would be likely to have loose lips and a lot of leaking. this was kept re relatively

confidential in real-time. the day we decided to do this show was the day john mccain went on imus' program and talked about the betting program in a way he was not supposed to do. that was one of the last times there was public window into what was going on exactly. they looked in the background in kind of the normal way of a lot of candidates. some of whom were mentioned in the clip you showed at the top. senator leeberman was at the top of senator mccain's wish list for a lot of the process. but after they did the standard week-long background checks on a lot of candidates and considered any number of others, they left themselves, you could argue, inexcusably, they left themselves with no one who thea they thought would be a good pick and no one they thought would be a net plus for them. as we write in the book, there was a serious consideration about senator lieberman,

choosing someone who had been al gore's running mate years before, was a liberal on most issues. in the end they thought it was not going to be politically -- then they turned with just a week to go. as you know, having squandered not betting anyone who they wanted to pick. with a week to go, they not only reached out to sarah palin but they began from a standing start and with not the normal due diligence to look at sarah palin's background and to decide in sarah palin's background to pick or even though, there were, as he knew, a lot of rifts involved. >> the co-author of game change, the 2008 book, looking at the obama and clinton's and mccain and palin and the race of a lifetime. convinced that he would be the nominee, barack obama wanted to start be dealing with the issues he was convinced to confront in

which race was plainly one. they had set up a timetable. >> i -- for some nagging questions remain. did i know him to be an occasionly fierce critic of american domestic and foreign policy? of course. did i ever hear him make remarks that could be controversial while i sat in the church? yes. did i strongly disagree with many of his political views? absolutely. just as i'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you've strongly disagreed. but the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. they weren't simply a religious leader's efforts to speak out against perceived injustice.

instead they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country. a view that sees white racism as endemocratic that elevates what -- endemic that elevates what is wrong with america above what we see as right. instead -- siding with enemies to israel. as such, reverend wright's comments were not only wrong, but divisive. divisive at a time when we need unit. >> that was another defining moment in the presidential race. as you indicate, this was a speech that barack obama had wanted to give for a very long time. >> it was.

as he got closer and closer to being the party nominee and it felt like he was on track to get that, he knew that the question of his race, being the first african-american nominee in the party's history would be something he would have to deal with. he wanted to give a speech. he is also a high-minded guy. he had been grappling with issues of race. it was a teachable moment. the question was when the moment would come. and reverend wright's explosion onto the political scene was a mortal peril for him. they felt within the obama campaign that because of the delicate mass that he was destined to be the nominee. but hillary clinton was winning the texas primary, she was staging a comeback. there was -- were a lot of states where hillary clinton would be strong. there was a chance if there was m some controversy that erupted that disqualified obama as the democratic nominee that was the only thing that could knock him

off, reverend wright was that kind of thing. when he appeared on the scene saying the things he said, obama immediately moved. he said i've been wanting to give this speech for a while. he went and gave that speech. he was roundly applauded for it across the political spectrum. then of course reverend wright came back on the scene thereafter and said even more disquieting things and that was when obama did something he didn't want to do which was to really sever ties with reverend wright and throw him under the bus. he felt like he had to do it. there is a moment where he is standing before the press conference where he goes out and cuts wretch rend wright loose where he's standing there alone looking into the mirror, and then his press secretary cuts in, and he said, is this really how america sees me. they think i'm like reverend wright? do they think i'm an angry black

man? he understood what a politically dangerous perception that could be, and that was part of the motivation why he knew that even though it was painful for him personally he had to ultimately sever ties with reverend wright so he could get past this and be a viable nominee and election candidate in the fall. >> certainly the politics differ in 2012 and 2008. one of the similarities, we don't know quh this primary is going to end, but many are referring to the length of the primary, and says in essence it did really hurt barack obama. can you talk on that point? >> well, as we write in the book and as the country saw, there is the epic nature of the battle and the big personalities that may have been cited. i think what is clear is it that both candidates handled it really well.

particularly barack obama used the occasion to build the states to become better as a candidate and to give a message for the jedge general election. i think if you look at the reception that hillary clinton got, she is still to this day the most respected woman in the country. in part, i think, because of the toughness she showed and the skill she showed in this campaign. in this presidential election, i think you don't find all those dynamics. at least not yet. i don't think you have seen much improvement in the candidates. i don't think they have been effective, including mitt romney for laying the groundwork as barack obama and even hillary clinton was four years ago.

the final thing i will say s. these candidates in the race now, they create kind of factions within the party. you don't find romney supporters really enthusiastic about rick santorum. in some cases you don't find romney supporters enthusiastic about mitt romney. that's a separate story. in the case of barack obama and hillary clinton although their were different, and the passions were strong, once barack obama became the nominee, people got on board with that and the party was united to win the white house. i don't see that dynamic yet in the republican race. that could change. but for the most part the bitterness that exists between the candidates extends to a lot of their supporters and leaves them potentially in a much less strong position than barack obama was when he emerged from that battle.

>> you write "the perception that she'd behaved badly had taken hold in the immediate -- media and threatened to eclipse everything she'd accomplished." >> as we gather today, this historic, magnificent building, the 50th woman to leave this earth is orbiting overhead. if we can blast 50 women into space, we can some day blast a woman into the white house. [cheers and applause] and although we weren't able to shatter that highest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it got about 18 million cracks in it. [cheers and applause]

and the light is shining through like never before filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time. >> and that was a quote that obviously hillary clinton made famous that sarah palin also used in her 2008 acceptance speech. >> it was a very powerful image. and after she decided to stop, she had to make a decision. there were people around her that really wanted her to fight on all the way to denver. she had seen her advisors who didn't want her to drop out of the race. who felt that something could happen to obama over the summer in terms of negative information that might come out that she should maintain her viability as the nominee. there were factions within her world about how to proceed. if you read from the book, she openly made the decision that she needed for her sake, the party's sake, she needed to not

pursue that path and she needed to give a speech that would be a gracious endorsement of barack obama but also one that would serve her interests. one that would make clear she had run a historic campaign. one that would touch on -- she initially ran so much as the strong commander-in-chief, not as the woman, the historic candidate of women. she had not hit on those themes until late in the campaign. once she found her way to that, she became like a hero for a lot of democratic women, so she wanted to hit that theme in a strong way. the glass ceiling lives on. i think it lives onto the point where i think you said sarah palin adopted later. but to this day i think she began the process where barack obama and hillary clinton were enlarged by the fight, the fact it was not inevitable that that would be the case for hillary clinton. if she had been stinting in her

support of barack obama, it could have diminished her, instead she made a wise choice to really get behind barack obama and do whatever it was that he asked. and that was the beginning of her seizing the mantle of self-enlargement in some ways. she ended up being a bigger figure at the end of the campaign than when it started. she was a big figure when it started. it was the result of some very fundamental decisions that she had to make, and he she made them -- i think in retrospect, you can't do anything but plaud them in the sense that they served her ultimate interests in the best possible way. >> let's look back at the republican race. finally electing sarah palin late in the process. my question to you is how much of that was a political decision and how much of it was a decision that john mccain truly felt that sarah palin was qualified to be vice president?

>> that's a great question, steve. it's clear that they had a lot of political problems they needed to address. given that john mccain was being tied to george bush whose record at that point was unpopular with a lot of republican and centrist voters, they needed a game-changing pick. in a perfect world, senator mccain would have found someone unambiguously president. most of the other people he considered seriously, all men, i think would have been seen as instantly qualified to be president. sarah palin had a higher bar, she was uven known. she hadn't even been governor of a largely populated state for all that long. i think it is clear that senator mccain took into account the political consideration. i also think it is clear that had sarah palin been given more time to prepare, had the

campaign been given more time to prepare, after a hand handful of staffers, even though in chaverage of how to launch the vice-presidential pick, had they been given more time for those things and framed sap as a maverick and someone who understood the real lifeds of real people based on her family situation and her financial situation i think she would have been not just a strong political pick but a strong pick in terms of projecting the image of a ticket for governance. but she did have some real challenges that were exacerbated by the fact that she was not afforded sufficient time to prepare. >> lessons for any nominee. you go back to dan quayle, he was thrust onto the national stage but was not a well known figure when george herbert

walker bush selected him and also sarah palin in her selection? >> i think the overarching selection is some of them are kind of alluded tofment i think the best political pick is also the best substantive pick. i don't think most american voters do not vote for president based on who is on the ticket. i think vice-presidential candidates move few voters and only on the margins. i think the way they look at it as the first big decision a nominee is making. and they evaluate the decision of the decision-maker and how serious and scrupulous that nominee is being. what they want to know is has this person chosen someone unequivocally qualified to be president. if you meet that bar, you think about someone like joe biden, the choice was, whatever you

think about him, agree with him or disagree him, there are few people to don't look at him and say, this man is qualified to be president. same true for dick cheney. it answered the fundamental question. it said something about both of those presidential nominees -- barack obama and george w. bush -- that they were taking this seriously. that they wanted to have someone who could obviously succeed them. i think that's a huge important decision that people look to as a question of their judgment. i think that is the lesson going forward. if you satisfy that, you do yourself a world of good politically. the best way to do that is to have the kind of process that george w. bush and other presidential nominees have had in this regards, which is a serious rigorous, well executed process. not something done on the fly. not something with surprises on the other end. you conduct this like a military

operation. you get serious people on it. you give them enough time to do it prorlt so that nothing that comes up later turns out to be a jack-in-the-box surprise. those are the two key things. pick someone obviously in the minds of everyone qualified for day one. >> sarah palin accepted the republican nomination in st. paul minnesota in 2008. >> i love those hhoskey moms. you know they say the difference between a hockey mom and pit bull? lipstick. [cheers and applause] so i signed up for the pta because i wanted to make my

kids' public education even better. when i ran for city council i didn't note focus groups and voter profiles because i knew those voters and i knew their families, too. before i game governor of the great state of alaska, i was mayor of my hometown. and since our opponents in our presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me edowlain to them what th job involves. [cheers and applause] i guess a smalltown mayor is sort of like a community organizer. excne.t that you have actual

responsibilities. >> captured in a book and the new hbo movie. what was happening behind-the-scenes in team mccain. >> well, a lot. in the years from the time she was chosen to election day was preucay packed. part of what attracted us to that story and aucaracted hbo t focus on that part of the book for the film is it is a compact narrative for 60 days in which so much happened. sarah palin performed extraordinarily well at the three biggest moments a vice-presidential nominee has to perfohap. the day she was announced and then in the debate where she held her own for the most part against one of the most experienced politicians in our national government, joe biden. at that moment, there was a lot going on. her family was being integrated into a national campaign.

they were geucaing -- dealing with the secret service. she was getting briefed on how to do a round of national media views, and the mccain campaign was starting to realiuni that based on assumptions of what her level of nominee would be to deal with national and snauth international affairs there would be a lot that had to be done to get her through the initial interviews with charlie gibson and katie couric. >> your thoughts on that two-month process? >> when you asked the q apstioni was thinking in a more granular way, they put her out there on that speech on the convention stage in st. paul to give that speech. and though she had done well in her introduction speech, this was a much bigger deal. this was a national audience of many tens of millions and the

pressure was extraordinary. and john mccain was watching backstage with a fair afilunt o nead ousness. not because he didn't trust sarah palin, but because he had never given a speech with that kind of focus on it or that kind of audience. you will see in the film, he is watching with mounting ergaitement as she gives this speech. he can't believe how good she is and what a red ligkno perfohape she's turned out to be. as he gets more and more ergaited, she finishes the speech, and he's over the moon. and i have to tell you, part way throulie the speech her teleprompter was malfunctioning, and the proediter was moving to slowly. and mccain looked at him and said, i hope that doeain w't han to me. she not only performed under those cirto mstances, but she d another handicap imposed on her by the technology. you can't really imainine the degree of pressure she was under

or how much the campaign was on tenterhooks, and she really did hit it out of the park. her edowectation cominrnmout of that speech was that she was an unalloyed asset to the campaign. and for a week or 10 days, she was. they came out ahead of barack obama as much a bifive points. people on the democratic side were sort of freakinrnmout abou the way she had injected so much energy into that campaign. it waain w't until latery sntil financial crisis kicked in that the game changed again and the pick began to have complications that were hard for the mccain caediaign to deal with and the campaign gave obama the chance to rise to the opportu hbty to rise to the financial crisis that made a lot of voters confident about his abilin

ionseal with what was a >> and more potential stumbles as the campaign tried to -- you write in the book, sarah palin conti q ed to stumble over an unavoidable element, her rivals name over and over. over and over she rsecerred so senator o'biden." finally three staffers suggested, why don't you just call him joe. >> can i call you joe? thank you, rsr w. thank you. >> take us back to that moment, and your reporting on this book. >> well, it is a chahaping moment. it is one of the rare momene a where sarah palin seemed to for

ear at least a little nervous walking out on that stage. then in the debate she did well and found her voice. she did rsecer to him as o'bide general as -- as o'biden in the debate prep. and that would beintoo awas perceived by her campaign as it might look likeintoo afor most candidates it would be seen as a funny gaffe. they were worried it would be larger critil wsm if she said i in the debate. she said what if i call him rsr. she decided to a on tha him to e irony is she did once refer to him as omaliden, and it really didn't get any attention at the

time, even though she did the very gafffe. they were concerne about. >> what's so funen in, jo bo hshe dkindann? >> it is a funny story. you are not really sure -- they were never sure whether she was conflating obama's name or whether becauseinto- because of the irish asshosiation. i think it is funny for all of the conceher h they had over it that she made that mistake, and literally nobody noticed. you can watch the tape of the debate, and i don't think there wasfully press cover i de whatsoever. it is funny the way the campaigns over byhink it. iy snderstand why they obsess over this, for the reasons mark said, but in the end because she or t ave such a strong performa in that debate, and there were ways you coupiy poke holes in it by and large she did well against rsr w biden.

she fouliet him to a draw. in that context, given the conceher hs they had, that was huge win for her.

>> we felt because these people are so well known, we didn't have to take viewers back to hawaii in the case of barack obama or the -- or hanoi in the case of john mccain. we thought we could tell an interior story about what they were going through as human beings in this meat grinder process that running for president is. and we wanted to have the pace of the book move from big scene to big scene. not with a lot of history. that was a conscious choice. we wanted it to read like a screenplay, and have a lot of dialogue. we spent an extraordinary amount of time reading for the book and trying to go back and recreate dialogue or paraphrase as best we could. we wanted it to be a human scale story. one of the things mark said before that we had pretty much executed, we thought, for better

or for worse. we ended up with a book that red to us about the guys on north capital street. >> you indicated you want to duplicate the success that "game change" gave readers in 2008, but are there lessons you learned from this book that you may aplay to the campaign of 2012? >> just to focus on the humanity of the story. we were talking to publishers and hbo and the rights of the book, we said, don't think of this as a political story. think of this as a human story about couples, families, and individuals putting themselves in an incredibly difficult environment with a lot of scrutiny with a lot of hard-fought competition and pressure, and there can only be one winner, and that was our focus. and that will be our focus

again. to try to tell the story from a human point of view, not so much about polling or punditry but rather the important question of what's it like on a human level to do this? you saw in the campaign, a lot of great examples of that. and you have that already in 2012. >> let me conclude on that point. we don't know how it is going to end up. we don't know who the republican nominee will be, and one of the best lessons from your book is expect the unexpected. size up 2012, and what stands out so far? >> well, i think the wide-open nature of the republican race and the context of a tea party movement on the other side that has created a much more enflamed environment than any presidential election i have covered. then you have a series of

candidates that have gone up and come back down. a half a dozen people that were seen as big rivals, and mitt romney who has been a constant all along. then a lot of candidates that chose not to run. so you have a field that left a lot of activists looking for the right person. again, a president proud of his record and happy he -- the job situation is the dominant and most important story in the country today. how are we going to turn the economy around and deal with the unemployment rate? there is a lot going on in terms of personality. as you said, we're not done yet. we don't know who the republican nominee is going to be, and i think it would be wise to not make assumptions about that. >> do you have a title for the book yet?

>> heilmann and halperin project. no, we can't have a title until we know how it ends. >> we like to call it the gamier chan gefment ier. >> well, i think mark laid it out pretty well. i think when mark was answering your question about how this nomination fight is affecting the race, there has been, i think, in the republican party, this is one of these moments where there are deep ideological factions. this is a party in deep transition. you have the coalition that has been behind mitt romney which is a more upscale coalition. it is a more downscale

coalition. the party is pretty deeply fractured. that doesn't mean that the nominee can't win. in the past, if you think back to races where similar things happened between 1976 between gerald ford or ronald reagan, those have been hard races to win. when the fight goes on fr a long time and there are deep divisions represented in the party, it ends up often, if history tells us anything, you end up with a disunited party, i think it is going to be a challenge for whoever gets the republican nominee to overcome that in the face of difficulty that always obtains when you have a republican incumbent. especially if the economy is improving in a measurable way or a small way. it is going to be hard. not impossible, but hard. everything that -- barack obama was in a bad place six months ago when his approval rating was down. over the last six months, he has

improved tick-by-tick in terms of approval rating. the right track, wrong track numbers are moving a bit in his direction, and the economy seems to be getting a little bit better. there are a lot of down sides that could happen. whether that is spiking gas prices, bad scenes in iran, collapse of a country or another in europe. bad things could happen. but right now obama is in a stronger position than he has been in a year and republicans are in a weaker position than they have been in a year, but on both sides, they expect it to be a really, really close election, ask that barack obama is not going to win 50%, 60% of the vote. both sides will be heavily mobilized. in that kind of environment, it will be crazy to predict what the ultimate outcome will be. >> the book is titled "game change, obama the clintons and

mccains and the race of a lifetime." change two coming out after the 2012 campaign. our guest joining us from new york. gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us. >> steve, thank you. thanks to mr. brian lamb and the cable community. >> dlt ditto from me. >> "game change" airs on march 10. last week, the -- sarah palin p.a.c. released an ad responding to the 2008 campaign. here's a look.

>> this is sarah. well, i'm not a member of the permanent political assignment. a feisty straight-talking governor. >> 80% approval rating. >> i'm not going to washington to seek their good opinion. i'm going to washington to serve the people of this great country. >> she did a great convention speech. we came out of that convention ahead in the polls. >> mccain take a.i.g. four-point lead over obama. >> last week obama had a seven-point advantage. how much credit do you give sarah palin? >> she gets a tremendous amount of credit. >> she has transformed the entire race. >> i'm glad to have a real reformer on the ticket. >> her focus was extraordinary. working 15, 16 hours a day. >> we're very pleased with the results.

>> we planned events for 5,000 people, and we get 25,000 people. she gets that reception everywhere she goes. >> everywhere crowds are going wild over john mccain's running mate. fired up a crowd of 10,000. >> she speaks directly to the american people. >> she's a thoughtful woman. she is not throwing out sound bites. >> i may not answer the questions the way you want to hear, but i will talk straight to the american people. >> how about sarah palin last night? >> the highest rated presidential debate in american history. >> she did a good job in the debate against senator biden. >> this was unbelievable. the level of skill in communication i have not seen since ronald reagan. >> she is a once in a generation politician that has that something. >> senator mccain looks like he knew what he was doing. >> i'm proud of my campaign, i'm proud of the job we are doing,

and i will always be grateful for having her as my running mate and the support we got from millions of americans. >> joining us from mclean, virginia. newt gingrich. thank you for being here on c-span. >> it is always good to be here on c-span. >> after initially supporting you, now some are supporting santorum. what does that say about you? >> i think there is some kind of personality fight there. we had a good day yesterday with her man cane and my daughter

jackie. we won a straw poll at a conservative caucus meeting. we won it earlier in the week at the national business council poll beating out both romney and santorum in their poll. we have some significant there. in one case there was a disagreement, and he switched sides. i think that is unfortunate. it sometimes happens in politics. but i'll be there in the tri-cities area and in chattanooga on monday and we hope to do well in tennessee. i'm excited to be here.

guest: georgia is the biggest delegate count in super tuesday. we're competing in ohio, tennessee, in oklahoma. we also have idaho, alaska, north dakota, vermont, mass mags. there will be a lot of votes counted. in addition i'm continuing to develop the idea of $2.5 gallon gasoline and a national energy policy that would make us free of the middle east so no future american president would bow to a saudi king. i am getting increasing traction . we had a terrific response in ohio to the response of a national american energy policy that would lead back to $2.50 a gallon or less. so i think there is an interest in a big solutions candidacy,

and that's what i am trying to develop. >> romney is obama-like. how can you get back on top. can you win the nomination at the convention? >> he raises a couple good points. romney's tactic has been to out-spend. he will not be able to out-spend barack obama. that won't work. he tore me down in iowa and florida. he tore rick santorum down in michigan. he won't be able to out-negative obama. i think that's why a romney candidacy in the end is sort of a dead end. the key will be who can debate him in october, cut through all the advertising, and force the president into a position of defending a record that is not

very defendable. i think most people believe i would be a better debater, better explainer of conservative values and that i could carry our message against obama in that setting. my hope is to continue to gather delegates, and next weem we'll go to mississippi and on to kansas, and our hope is to continue gathering delegates. i have been told we can sweep texas, and then we can go a week later into california. we already have, for example, 17 hispanic co-chairs across the state. we are working hard to organize the whole state congressional district by congressional district. i think a lot of these delegates are soft, they are not legally bound, and you could see a very surprising convention by the time this is over. >> are you prepared to stay in this race through the convention? >> sure. i said all along, the key for

georgia, just as romney with michigan, and santorum, in pennsylvania, which is not automatic. santorum in 2006 lost to the senate seat by the largest margin in the history of pennsylvania of any incumbent senator. the one thing that i think would have knocked me out of the race was losing georgia. we're going to win georgia by a very substantial margin on tuesday, and we are back tuesday night. then huntsville competing for alabama.

caller: i just wanted to eart america to your wonderful series of books. i feel if i'm reading that number one the "red badge of courage" and "the killer angels" and "the battle of the crater." i believe are three great books about the civil war. the other thing i wanted to say is that "to try men's souls" should not be made into a movie but an opera. thank you. i'll take your comments off the air. guest: well, my wife is very

musical, and i'll tell her for a birthday present that you suggest "to try men's souls become an opera." she will think that is amazing. she and i are sort of a mutual author family. thank you for your kind words. part of my passion for running for president is illustrated in those books because i have a deep patriotic belief in american history and in particular in learning the lessons of our founding fathers. host: caller. caller: i am a democrat, but i consider it a real honor to talk to the former speaker. i want to mention a talk you gave right here in new york a number of years ago as the background for two quick questions that i have.

the very inspiring talk on the need to improve education in poor inner city areas which you called an issue of national security which you say otherwise kids in these areas would be suceptible to al-qaeda without having much hope or a belief in the future of this country. you gave a speech at the school of former senator bob kerry and you praised kerry for his work on education. given that we are still at war in afghanistan and americans are dying over there, if you could update -- do you still believe improving inner city education is an issue of national security for the reasons in that speech? and my question is, if you do, as president, how do you see the federal government's role of implementing that issue of national security?

>> well, this goes all the way back to a report in the reagan administration called "a nation at risk" which said there was a foreign government that was doing as much damage to our children as we are. we consider it an act of war. so for some almost 30 years now we had a report that told us our schools are in really bad shape. particularly poor schools. in the hart commission report which bill clinton ask i worked on, we said the greatest threat to america was a bomb going off in an american city. but the second greatest threat to american security is failure our to invest in math and science. so as president i bo do everything i could to convince

people to do some very bold, very dramatic reforms in schools in order to get charter schools so parents have choice yesms i favor a program for k through 12 so the mone money goes to the parent and the child and they get to decide where to spend it, not the bureaucracy. i challenge the state departments to shrink. give the power back to local boards, and recognize that the teacher's union to have moral authority has to put the children first and not protect bad teachers. i think it is a very, very powerful moment in american history. we say that we are endowed by our creator with certain up unalienable rights of life and liberty. i believe that applies to every american of every background in every single neighborhood, and i

want to change the safety net as it is called into a springboard and give every person who currently is poor a chance to join the middle class by getting a job, getting an education, having a chance to rise and earn their way in the right to pursue happiness. >> this question and comment on the facebook page saying "speaker gingrich, if you go not win the nomination, would you consider a v.p. position? i believe you would be a great asset to the republican campaign. " >> no responsible citizen can turn down a request from a potential president. it is not something i think will happen. if i am not the leader, i will help the leader. defeating barack obama i think is essential to the future of this country and i will do everything i can to help defeat barack obama, but i hope to do it as the republican leader, because i think i could do a

better job of debating him. when you look at how much money he's going to raise, it is pretty clear that the traditional romney strategy about razing his opponents is not going to work against obama, and the traditional negative strategy will not work because obama will be more negative with more money. i think $250 a gallon gasoline and the idea of an american energy policy is essential. a gingrich strategy of $2.50 or less per gallon and relying on american energy, i think we can win that debate in october. >> if you were the republican nominee, would you consider mitt romney as a running mate? >> i can't imagine romney would want to be on the list, but i

think he would be. i think we have a number of very talented people. >> thank you for joining us. what an honor to peak the master debater. you -- i love science, exploration and new frontiers and all that, so your moon base idea caught my attention. you might have missed in the news that we are paying $50 million per astronaut for a taxi ride up to the space station. that's about $238,000 miles from the moon. now john kennedy is the republican an -- antithisis, if he had not been shot, there

would be no apocalypse in southeast asia, no continual robbing of the truffs by the republicans -- trust funds. >> stop you on those notes and get a response from speaker gingrich. >> well, first of all, i think the tragedy of president kennedy being killed is one that affected all of us. i still to this day remember where i was when i learned about it and how shocking it was, and how the whole nation watched for 24 hours really the first time in a very long time we've seen something like that happen to a president. and i think he was so young and so vital. his wife was so beautiful. it was a stunning moment that is unforgettable for our generation. i do share his passion for exploration for going into space. the difference is i want to use lots of private sector settings. you know, the wright brothers

spent five summers trying to learn how to flithe fly in kittyhawk, north carolina. they made about 500 experimental flights before they got it right. it cost about $1 a flight. this was back when money was more dool difficult. so add two zeros. they were bicycle mechanics. they didn't have much money. they camped out every summer at kittyhawk and they ultimately managed to learn how to fly. the smithsonian had $50,000 from congress it invent their plane and failed. i give you that example because we spent $181 billion on nasa in the last 10 years. if we had taken a fair amount of that and put it into prize money and incentives for the private sector for entrepreneurs for people who just want to go do it, i think we would have generated probably four or five private sector dollars for every

dollar the government put up. so you might have had almost a trillion dollars invested in getting into space and getting to the moon. when i talk about getting bold and exciting new things, i am not talking about spending taxpayer money. i'm talking about building an incentive plan. governor romney said he would have fired someone with a big idea like that. it would have come to me later that is sort of like saying you would have fired christopher columbus for proposing to discover the new world or fired the wright brothers or fired henry ford for designing the mass produced automobile or for that matter fired steve jobs. i am a visionary. i believe in a bigger and better american future. i believe we can use science and technology to create new things for our children and grandchildren, and i'm willing to gamble on that belief, and i believe we can do it largely in

the private sector by using government incentives in an tent way and getting bureaucracy out of the way. >> and let me go back to your earlier point. are you talking about regulating businesses? what is your plan specifically? >> if you go to newt.org you will see a speech where i outlined, you will see because it is on private land we have new technology producing 2,500% more oil than they thought existed in the balkans. because of new technology we have gone from a seven-year supply to a 125-year supply. in fact, the price of natural

gas has dropped from 8,000 cubic feet. if you compare that to the current price of oil you would have gasoline down to around $1.20 or $1.30 a gallon. that's how big the drop would be. we have historic amounts now. if the president would sign the keystone pipeline that would bring gallons of oil every day to houston. two, open up the gulf of mexico areas. that would be about 400,000 a day, and open up designated alaska areas we know about, that's three strokes of a pen to get two million extra barrels of oil. if the president would open up federal lands, by the end of this decade the united states would be the largest oil producer in the world. prices would be lower. and the contrast between dr. chui who is the second of

anti-energy, which you can see in his two speeches in miami and new hampshire in the last week where he is against drilling for oil, he talks about using algae as an eventual solution. i'm for bio-fuels, but algae as a replacement for drilling is like the candidate in 2008 telling us if only we inflated our tires we would save enough gasoline to not have to drill. these are fantasies. we have proof drilling works. only the president's ideology is blocking us and pushing us toward $9 or $10 gasoline which is where dr. jhiu said he wants us to get. >> republican presidential candidate gingrich is joining us from virginia. one of a number of states with

primaries. on tuesday. >> you call the president's call opportunistic to fluke. why? >> i think rush comprectly apologized. i think that issue passed us. it is interesting. the apology. and i have watched all the media. the apology that i worry about is barack obama as commander-in-chief to apologize to fanatics while they are killing americans. i find that a bigger problem than a radio commentateor. i think it is fascinating how much the media honed in on rush limbaugh and avoided honing in on barack obama. now you have the high commissioner to afghanistan calling for trying american

troops. remember, these were korans that had already been defaced by muslim extremists that were being held in prison. yet none of the clerics call and condemn the prisoners who were defacing the koran to use it to send messages. i think this is one of those politically exploited messages. if we want to talk about apologies, i think president obama's apology at a time when religious fanatics are killing americans is a much bigger long-term issue than a radio commentateor. >> the president said his apology diffused the situation and may have saved lives in afghanistan. >> it communicated a sense of american guilt which is very dangerous. you now have religious clarics demanding that we try our troops . you have the u.n. high commissioner suggesting that we try our troops.

i think our troops have been bravely and courageously trying to help the afghans find a way to achieve freedom, and i think if we will be faced by fanatics that think they have right to kill americans over books, this is not a society we are capable of modernizing at the present time. there was a great forum with mike huckabee on fox. if you go to newt.org you will see a -- see information on $2.50 a gallon gasoline. i have been talking about the economy, the importance of becoming independent from the middle east on energy.

so i'm very happy to talk about jobs and energy. >> republican line with newt gingrich. good morning, carmen. caller: good morning. it is an honor to speak to the next president of the united states. i want to thank you for being in this race. i have more of a statement than a question, because all my questions have been answered from mr. gingrich gingrich. he has answers for everything. big ideas and great answers to the questions that we need. in this time, what's so terrible now, we need somebody with his experience. we do not need another inexperienced person, republican or democrat, sitting at the white house. and again, i thank you sir. please keep going. do not drop out. please stay in there. you will be the next president of the united states. thank you.

guest: thank you. we need your help in new york. that was a very nice statement. host: at the end of the day you need more than 1,100 delegates to get on the ballot. what is your path to 1,144? >> we'll start with georgia. we'll get some delegates in tennessee, idaho, ohio, alaska, maybe in north dakota. i think possibly in massachusetts with the conservative wing of the party did not like governor romney who they thought was much too liberal. we then go to mississippi and alabama, which we hope to win in a week, and from there to kansas where i once lived at fort reilly as an army brat for three years, and went to school in junction city. we were very competitive there. our goal is to keep picking up delegates. more about $22.50 a gallon

gasoline to build a coalition. we have donars. people attracting -- we have a space at newt.org where people can give one newt gallon of gas at $2.50 cents. we have thousands of people that have done that. we have a huge base of people. our hope is that by the time we get to texas at the end of may where governor perry says he thinks we can get 155 delegates, that sets the stage one week later for the biggest state, california. we already have 17 hispanic co-chairs in california. we have a number tf republican co-chairs and we are building out our base among chinese americans, tai americans, japanese americans. there will be a broad coalition in california. if by then it is clear that i am the one candidate that can

defeat obama in debates, i think frankly these dell indicates, very few of them are legally bound. i think you could easily see all summer attrition away from other candidates toward a big idea, big solution gingrich candidacy. and by the time we get to tampa i think there is a real chance of taking the nomination. in the end, people realize governor romney's strategy has been to raise money 0 wall street and run negative ads, that it is a basically a scorched earth policy. that will not get him the presidency. he has yet to offer a program that draws people to him. host: there huh been cases, richard nixon 1972, who opted out of any debates. any case that the president may say i don't need to debate you and i won't?

guest: he can try to say that, but we live in an age where it is almost impossible to sustain. lincoln when he announced against the incumbent steven douglas, challenged douglas to debates, and he said no, so lincoln said fine. so everywhere douglas went lincoln went everywhere and answered him, and after three days, douglas agreed to the seven three-hour debates that became famous as the lincoln-douglas debates. i have said if the president does not agree to seven three-hour debates by the time i am the nominee that i will announce at that night that the white house will be my scheduler, and given the nature of modern news media where ever he speaks i will answer him four hours later. if you look at his energy speech for the last two weeks, they are absurd, and it would have been great fun to have been able to rebut him within a few hours. i think the president will

rapidly realize he looks silly refusing to debate, and it is impossible to hide in the modern era. the fact is, the people of mississippi ask alabama also deserve to have a debate among the republicans next week. i wish my colleagues would agree to a debate for mississippi and alabama. host: from alabama. good morning. caller: good morning, mr. speaker. i have been following you since you were in the house. i'm 81 years old, i'm a veteran of two years. i went in the service when i was 15 years old. i agree with everything that you say. i am a conservative reagan democrat, and we have to get this man out of the white house because he's ruined this country from day one that he went into office. host: thanks for calling, george. guest: i think this is the most important election of our lifetime. i think a re-elected appointment

of president obama would be so radical that after eight years of obama we would be a very, very different country. i think what is at stake is a country that believes in the declaration of independent -- independence, believes in limited government, and believes in defending america. this may be the most important election of our lifetime. i agree with him. host: will you support the eventual nominee if it is not newt gingrich? >> sure. because i think the re-election of barack obama is a disaster for my children and my grandchildren. i think you will find all of us will support the nominee because all of us are in agreement on our side that re-electing barack obama is a disaster for our country and a disaster for our children and our grandchildren. host: mr. speaker, thank you for your time. we'll be in touch. thank you very much for being with us. guest: thank you. >> "q & a" next with