♪ host: after nearly one week of debate on the u.s. postal service, the senate is expected to vote this week with as many as 39 amendments. on the campaign trail, but running campaigning in the advance, tomorrow he will be with marco rubio with new speculation on the beefsteak. we will begin with the obituaries this morning, the passing of charles colson, and his legacy on american politics and on watergate. our phone lines are open.

for republicans, 202-737-0002. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. the story from "usa today," watergate figure and christian leader, charles colson, dies. host of this photograph is available online, at "usa today." he served several months in prison and turned that experience as an -- turned that experience around as an evangelical. our question -- no larger role of watergate and the impact of

american politics. reflecting on that time in american politics, chuck colson. [video clip] >> i remember vividly sitting outside with friends. and i remember i was asked -- where is your pal, hunt, these days? he said -- does to work for us? i said -- no, he left months ago. that he was off the payroll. why are you asking? he said -- well, some of these guys are involved in the break- in and must have known about it. must have seen something. in his pocket he had the name and white house phone number.

i thought -- oh, no. if we are involved in this, it could be end of this president's term in office. host: he had the position of white house counsel at the age of 38, he passed away in virginia over the weekend. the question -- but the watergate pollock -- the legacy of watergate on american politics. we will get your calls and comments in just a moment. from inside of "the washington post," this photograph with chuck colson inside the oval office.

"he underwent a profound religious transformation." "he said that prison was filled with embittered prisoners who contemplated escape and revenge at every turn." our phone lines are open. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for republicans, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can join us on twitter, twitter.com/c-spanwj, or send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org.

let's join richard nixon in his rather emotional address -- he talked about his political career and the ups and downs of politics. he left the white house on the morning of august 9, before gerald ford became our next president. [video clip] >> it is only the beginning, always. the young must know it. it must always sustain us. greatness comes not when things go good for you, but when you are really tested. when you take some knocks, some disappointments. when sadness comes. because only when you have been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain.

and so, i say to you on this occasion, we leave, proud of the people who have stood by us and work for us and served this country. we want you to be proud of what you have done. we want you to continue to serve in government, if that is your wish. always give your best. never get discouraged. never be petty. always remember that others may hate you, but those that hate you do not win unless you hate them. and then you destroy yourself. host: richard nixon, saying farewell to his white house staff and the american people, the morning of august 9, 1974.

he was forced out because of the watergate scandal. our question was the legacy of watergate of american politics. whether it was in the amount of money being used or the so- called dirty tricks that came to light during the scandal. this piece from earlier this month about the program on the discovery channel, the second draft of watergate reporting. host: the discovery channel has commissioned "all the president's men," revisited. it will explore the effects on politics and the media 40 years

later." it will come out next year. that story is from earlier this month inside of "the new york times." the legacy of watergate. ted, good morning. good morning? caller: thank you for c-span. i was just a kid, but the legacy of watergate is shameful. if we do not get campaign finance reform that is not watered down, getting the money out of politics -- i think that money in politics is the root of all evil. i do not see how things will never change. i tell you, if i got busted for watergate or an involvement in such a scheme, i would come to jesus pretty fast myself. i would note to put that forward in a way to bring down my

sentence. host: thank you for the call, ted. a photograph here, charles colson, nixon's so-called hatchet man. joe is on the phone. welcome to the conversation. caller: my perspective on this, i want americans to think about this. here you have two reporters who went after this guy for breaking into that office. yes, it was wrong, but they took this and overthrew a good president. richard nixon was a good president for the nation. he did a lot to advance the united states around the world. they took this little break-in and wound up destroying the

presidency of the united states and all the confidence. there has not been that confidence in the presidency since then. my point is that the media -- you would think that these some of reporters were both billionaires and their boss, bradley, who controlled the washington post, a look at how liberal that ragged is. all the candidates around the country -- the media, leaving the country, instead of the presidency. you would think it that deal in florida, msnbc controlled a mob going down there with their coverage. host: thank you for the call. bill makes this observation that

is interesting host: our question, the legacy of watergate on american politics. there is a photograph of chuck colson back in 2003, outside the oval office. henry is on the phone from poughkeepsie, new york. democratic line. good morning. caller: i was always very suspicious of him, but i have come to the conclusion now that he was being set up as a fall guy. he had a lot of integrity. he copped a plea against the lawyers that he paid for. we have all been given the chance to see how dirty and conniving these politicians can be. nixon, i thought he knew about

watergate, but he did not. but this whole generation has grown up with watergate, like the previous caller, they have no respect for politics because of this stuff. and they are right. with politicians on both sides. host: thank you. joseph you can join the conversation on journal@c-span.org -- on twitter.com/c-spanwj.

host: johnny is on the phone. cambridge, massachusets, good morning. caller: this legacy question is a joke. pension, pardon, the whole line yards. if i was in jail today i would use my pension and everything. it does not feel like politics, republicans and democrats are nothing but a bunch of crooks. when i was a child this was a respectful country. a handshake was good. now, today it is just terrible. i do not even know what to think about it. it makes you -- makes me so mad.

host: thank you for the call. developments over the weekend for more and hatch, who has faced a republican convention. he failed to get even 60% of the vote. he mustered an 18. win on saturday, but the gaping margin felt nothing like a victory. it was a failure to knock 60% of the delegates in the contest, which is the threshold for claiming the not out right in utah, forcing this sixth term incumbent into uncharted and uncomfortable territory. his first primary campaign since 1976, when he was an underdog. at several points there were cheers for his opponent. joey is on the phone from roseburg, oregon. good morning. the legacy of watergate on

american politics? what is it, joey? caller: ever since watergate, i have not understood what has been happening with our precedents that we have been electing. they come out of nowhere and you have never heard of these people before when they come out. who do they represent? what i want to know is -- why does the president of the united states not have the power to do things? democrats are the only ones that take care of us, the people. host: thank you for the call.

carl, new jersey, good morning. caller: how are you doing, steve? these things kind of connect presidents. we have our friend, nixon, here. not a crook, they made me do it. jimmy carter, [unintelligible] farmer democrat to run down? host: thank you for your call. we got a twitter message -- host: you can join the conversation at twitter.com/c- spanwj. independent line, union city, new jersey, welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you so much for taking my call.

several months ago there was a tremendous american poet who played the blues tremendously. he had some beautiful thoughts about that whole time, as well as the economics of war, which at the end of the day is what it is usually about. thank you for c-span. thank you. caller: thank you for the -- host: thank you for the plug. on the front page of "the washington post," the obituary for charles colson. he had boasted that he would open " walk over his grandmother," for the reelection of nixon. passing away yesterday in fairfax.

host: michael is on the phone, new york city, the legacy of watergate on american politics. caller: thank you for taking my call. that was a nice lead in. thank you for c-span. anyway, what i want to say about nixon's legacy from watergate is that i no longer believe that conspiracies can be successful. so, i know that big secrets get released by lots of people. that is my story. host: thank you for the call. the weekly standard cover story -- face-off, the hockey

metaphor. "president romney," that is how reuters sent it up. host: the legacy of watergate of american politics is our question. bedford, pa., good morning to you, republican line. caller: good morning. actually, in pennsylvania you have to register as democrat or

republican, and you cannot vote in the primary, i am actually an independent, so i had to come in on this line. when cable television came in, there were many to stations and they were on 24/7. the problem is we need less but better journalism and media. there are those who have called it a crime college, the prison. there is a lot of -- why in america do we have 25% of the incarcerated people when it is only 5% of the world population? host: thank you for the call.

another story that will continue to be lots of conversation, especially in things like "cq weekly," a $100 billion sequester with a hazardous vote on the debt limit. this is coming off after the election. they outlined exactly what we can expect from president obama or president romney, facing the financial crisis with a $16 trillion debt and growing and what congress will deal with after the election. mike, good morning, democratic line. welcome to the program. caller: thank you for being so civil. when you consider that 60,000 manufacturing facilities have closed -- i should repeat that, manufacturing plants have closed in the united states, miami beach went out there, and

as a marine corps card for president carter. watergate, it is the democratic headquarters for the global climate shift. 1984, george orwell, and how they use language. funding education for children, privatizing education, it is all in the corporate his asian of everything. public services, that is for the right wingers, who are so question that we care about each other. -- so christian that we care about each other, dehumanizing and prioritizing what we are supposed to be doing, caring about each other and taking care of each other.

i wanted to let the listeners know, as a former marine and korean war officer, i respected by other marine corps officers. samper five. god bless you. host: thank you for the call. lewis says the watergate was the beginning of all true-cynicism for americans and their government. you can join the conversation at twitter.com/c-spanwj. 1974, this is a photograph of charles colson heading into a court room. tom donahue is our guest on "newsmakers," following this program at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. this year marks the 100th anniversary of the u.s. chamber commerce. amongst the topics covered, how much money will they spend in this campaign? what is their role in the 2012

race? [] b of >> -- video clip] >> you have to look at the next list. >> ok. the budget? >> i have been around a long time and am smart enough to do that. the press reported that in the last exit, we spent more than $50 million. i do not know if that was right or wrong, but it was not a lot wrong, and this is a more important election. host: our conversation with tom donahue, in about two and a half hours from now. back your calls and the question, the legacy of watergate on american politics. send us an e-mail, if you like. journal@c-span.org.

virgil goode has been nominated to serve as the constitution party nominee. from rocky mountain virginia, he has historically held strong views on citizenship and illegal immigration. host: he then joined the republican party ahead of 2002, losing in 2008. virgil goode, accepting the nomination of the constitution

party. c-span is covering his nomination speech, available online at any time, and it will be airing later today on the c- span network. frank, bristol, va., good morning, welcome to the program. caller: good morning, sir. watergate contributed to the ignominious end of our involvement in vietnam. we had the vietnamese at the paris peace table. they had no supplies coming in. they were at odds with the chinese. they could have been starved out to making a better compromise then we ended up with. that happened because the president was busy covering up his involvement in watergate. this was corroborated by william colby had a talk here in

bristol. as a vietnam veteran, i was very, very upset with how the president handled vietnam. in the wake of the watergate involvement. that is my comment. one more thing. if people decry the involvement of money in politics, it would come to a screeching halt with the senate if we could rescind the 17th amendment. those are my comments. thank you for c-span. host: thank you for the call. one of our viewers saying that it was the beginning of all for that cynicism for americans and their government. a lot of people weighing in at i it -- weighing in on twitter.

republican line, texas, good morning. caller: how do you do it? listening to all of those people? people talking about what they do not know anything about. ailing them like a tomato. host: alright, wanted to hear real had to say. sorry about this. all of this can be found on line at "the financial times," web site. they point out that the campaign involving cavorting with prostitutes in colombia has overshadowed the efforts of barack obama to build his campaign.

host: again, that perspective is from london and "the financial times." you can read it in its entirety on line. michael, good morning, the legacy of watergate of american politics? what is it? caller: good morning. you have a great show. the press did a study of watergate and woodward possible. i have read a number of them.

it is amazing that woodward was left out. i do not question that nixon did the conspiracy for the cover up. what the chairman of the republican party got was the checkbook for who was paying for these operations, which was george bush sr.. he was there for over three years. thank you so much, you have a great program. host: thank you, michael. gladys, from cleveland, ohio. water a leader reborn as an evangelical leader. this is the photograph of him from 1977. 1998, he met with pope john paul the second. caller no good morning, steve and viewers. one afternoon, my sister, my

nephew and i, we were city -- sitting comfortably watching the television. he is a wounded iraqi veteran. he lost his leg up through the pelvis. he has a colostomy bag for his bowel's. he is 24 years old. college-educated. a gentleman. we saw george bush running around in the oval office, for tending to look for weapons of mass destruction. he looked behind the sofa. saying that there were no weapons of mass destruction there. he was under his desk, behind the chair. it was such a game to him. with jobs we could buy a chicken for the pot. we had hoped.

you could go two years to a community college and pay for your books and tuition with a grant. you only had to supplement your expenses for living. there is nothing worse than the criminals, george bush and dick cheney, who walk freely in this country. give respect. as long as we tolerate that, we will get worse. this republican party is going to get worse with mitt romney. host: thank you for the call. from our twitter page, the legacy of watergate -- host: it was a remarkable scene over washington, d.c., tuesday morning, in case you missed it, the space shuttle discovery come into its final destination.

this is a scene from over washington, d.c. "the baltimore sun," more about the potential of the space station with a broader look at the future of the american space program. $100 billion in construction costs, nasa saying that the international space station is finally ready to bloom. doubts linger as more than one- quarter of the space experience sits empty. much of the research done on the station deals with living and working in space with marginal applications back on earth. related to this scene from last tuesday, if you are interested, it is now open to the public and the space shuttle, enterprise, the prototype, is on its way to new york city.

back your calls, allen is on the phone. republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me all right? host: yes, go ahead. caller: i could not let that second call go. it surprises me that people still talk about nixon as though he made a slight blunder. he had an enemies list. he used the office of the presidency to go after people he hated and groups that he hated. he destroyed most of them. he was an out and out criminal. people say that he was not so bad, but he was a criminal. i do not see how people can defend the man, given what he did. host " this is chuck colson, sitting down for an oral history of his time in the white

house. this is available, but the way, on our website, c-span.org. here's a portion of his reflecting on watergate, nixon, and the legacy of that time. video clip] >> it must always sustain this. the great news comes not when things go wrong for -- though good for you, the greatness comes when you are really tested. when you take some knocks, some disappointments. when the sadness comes. because only if you have been in the deepest valley can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain. and so, i say to you on this

occasion, we leave. we leave crowd of the people who have stood by us and work for us, and served this country. we want you to be proud of what you have done. we want you to continue to serve in government, if that is your wish. always give your best. never get discouraged. never be petty. always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you do not win unless you hate them. and then you destroy yourself. >> what i remember vividly was a telephone call from john ehrlichman. i remember that i was sitting outside of the time.

p.s. -- where is your foul, alan hunt, these days -- he said -- where is your pal, alan hunt, these days? he said -- does he work for us? i said -- no. he left. that he was off the payroll. i said -- why are you asking? he said -- some of these guys are involved in that break-in. he had in his pocket a name and a white house phone number. i thought -- oh, no. it hit me. i turned to my wife and said -- if we are involved in this, it could be involved -- it could be the end of this present time in office. host: reflections on watergate and the words of "the new york

times," that on election night in 1972, mr. colson watching the returns with the president. "i could not feel any sense of jubilation. here we were, supposedly winning, and it was more like we have lost." charles colson passed away at the age of 80. mike, akron, ohio. welcome to the conversation. caller: i look at the legacy of watergate from two perspectives. on the day that nixon resigned, i was 22 and a student at kent state. i had an epiphany at that time. i can honestly say that richard nixon, colson, and the rest of the people involved in

whitewater were the last people i had ever hated in my life. i hope that nixon made peace with his maker. i hope that paulson does as well. i had the epiphany today. as a 21 year-old kent state college student. in host: certainly, a big part of the nixon and ministration, with the shootings that took place there in 1971. caller: it was directly linked to his resignation. just asked john dean, whose father lived in akron, and whom i knew. he told me in the 1990's that his son was approached on the impeachment. that there was payback and we would be forced to resign. host: thank you for the call.

this from "the washington post." "nude in retracts up $3 million more debt as campaign disintegrates -- newt gingrich racks up $3 million more debt as campaign disintegrates." the justices been tested again, coming after the historical arguments in health care, they will conclude one of the most significant and controversial terms in decades by taking on one more issue that has divided the nation. robert kearns, writing about illegal immigration crackdowns.

host: florence, ky, democratic line, good morning. caller: it is hard to believe that if the president does it, it is not illegal. dick cheney came into office believing just that. one of the smartest things that george bush did was starting to push dick cheney out of the picture in his second term. far as i am concerned, the legacy of watergate and the reagan new administration, the iran contra. ,ince the bush's administration that is. thank you. host: let me read to the last couple of sentences. you brought up nixon and his relationship with colson. "he remained on good terms with nixon, visiting him after being released from prison.

host: next on the phone, republican line, good morning. paul, are you with us? caller: baba. host: bob, i am sorry. caller: ok, yes. my belief is that watergate was not such a big deal. that he was forced out of office because he was not personally liable as a person. and if he was a popular president, like kennedy or clinton, or reagan, then it would have been different. host: thank you for the call.

sasha says -- host: a showdown in congress. they want to address the budget cuts and a vote on the debt ceiling, but they cannot do any of that until after the election. this past week the senate budget committee held a markup that was a chance for members of the committee to deliver remarks. action on the proposal will not come until after november. john, independent line, good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: please do not cut me off. but it is all about obama, now. in north carolina, in the democratic party, you have

probably read about this. [unintelligible] our government got in for a felony. but nixon did not do right. this has been going on with republicans and democrats. it is the fault of the american people. they want to whine and cry on both sides. the people, they get what they deserve. have a good day, steve. host: john, thank you for the call. this from our twitter page -- host: there is a story and some photographs online at the los angeles times website, pointing out that landfills are

livelihoods and homes. that on trash mountain, families earn $1 to $2 for day slogging through the muck. they pray and celebrate life and other milestones on their dirt floors. an outgrowth of the rapidly expanding middle class, new delhi produces about 9,200 tons of trash everyday, up 50% from 2007. a reminder that next on newsmakers, we will have a conversation with tom donahue, the president and ceo of the chamber of commerce. as part of that conversation, a look at the president and his handling of the economy. here is a question from that program. [video clip] >> i would give the new president a b +.

some of that comes from the environment. the administration -- by the way, we do not do presidential politics in the house and senate. i do not think of the it ministration was well served by the people, who insisted the president move on these issues. host: that is today, 10:00, here on c-span. coming up in a few minutes, our sunday roundtable and our focus on first ladies and presidential candidates. nora johnson will be joining us -- camille johnston will be joining us. later, the project on government oversight and where the money is being spent. that is coming up later on "the washington journal. nancy carroll is keeping track of the topics on the sunday

shows. >> yes, the secret service scandal, gsa management, presidential panel -- we start with "meet the press." hosts is david gregory. the chairman of the house oversight and reform committee. then new york congressman, peter king. then the republican chairman of the house committee on homeland security. also, david axelrod, the senior political strategist of the reelection campaign. "this week," with ranking republican member, susan collins, of maine. "fox news sunday," with chris wallace and joe lieberman, along with mitch daniels. "state of the union," rearing

at 3:00 p.m. eastern. a strategist for the obama reelection campaign. also in the program, a republican senator from florida, marco rubio, elijah cummings, all ranking members of the oversight committee. "face the nation," completes the lineup. at 4:00 p.m. eastern, senator lieberman in another appearance. also, the former director of the u.s. secret service. also on the program, tom coburn, elijah cummings, and sheila jackson lee. stephanie comfort and eric bergstrom, a senior advisor to the romney campaign. noon, "meet the press." to a clock, "fox news sunday." 3:00, "stated the union." for clock, "face the nation."

-- 4:00 p.m. open " face the nation." brought to you as a public service -- fort clock p.m. open " face the nation -- 4:00 p.m. "face the nation." listen on your blackberry, , or god as an iphone at thepp online to c-span.org. >> when i was imbedded, they told me that the u.s. government was wasting tens of billions of dollars on completely mismanaged development and logistics contracts. >> in "funding the enemy," the offer follows the money into the hands of the taliban -- the author follows the money into the hands of the taliban. >> this was not long after president obama took office. he was out there saying -- we

will give you a whole bunch of development money for counterinsurgency. nation-building. we will do this. win hearts and minds. colonel coward said -- do not send any more money. send me the contract officers that oversee this stuff. that he did not need more money. >> that is tonight, 8:00 eastern, on a "q&a." on may 6, the interview coincides with the release of "the passage of power," is multivolume biography of the 36th president. >> "washington journal" continues. host: i want to welcome two veterans of the white house camille johnston. -- white house. camille johnston and anita mcbride, thank you for being

with us. guest: thank you. host: stephen frames the debate this morning in this newspaper and i wanted to share it with you. playing a starring role in what he calls the mommy wars, "increasingly squaring off as surrogates for the battle for women's votes on the campaign trail." your thoughts on what we're seeing on the campaign trail and on capitol hill? guest: so much of what we hear about women's issues are some much larger than what is issued. not just things that women care about. i think this notion of where women belong in the debate is strange, they belong in the entire debate. i think we have put ourselves in a position of limiting the role of women and what they can do in

this conversation. host: in this post, "five myths about women." two of them, female voters favor female candidates, and women vote together. guest a first of all, i want to reiterate that women care about all kinds of issues. at the end of the day, when it comes to voting, who is the person that you think is going to best represent the issue that you care about and try to move the marker? a woman? man? republican? democrat? people do split votes in this day and age. host: i want to ask you about the comments from hilary rosen. what she said, the political tactics that followed. was she right? was she wrong? guest: it was the non-apology

apology, which bothered me more than anything. when i saw that clip of her saying that, what she was responding to was the fact that the candidate listens to what his wife has to say. but what his wife is telling him are things that she's hearing on the road. when she hears these things on the road, of course she will share them with her husband, the candidate. i think that it was unfortunate that it came out that somehow her voice was not of value because she, herself, had not been a working woman outside the home. host: this has been in the news cycle for the last eight days to 10 days, made by a democratic operative, a paid consultant to cnn, yet the romney campaign jumped on it. even today there is writing that

it was a win for the gop in the news cycle. guest: the remark is very unfortunate. i do not think that she intended to align mrs. romney. we can both speak to the fact that most campaigns agree that spouses and children are off the table in terms of comments about them. that each of these women, out campaigning for their husbands, are doing the best job they can. bringing a perspective on the voices that we have listened to , the outside world -- outside world needs to respect this. host: you wrote about this, saying you dealt with this back in 2004. what happened? guest: there was a similar circumstance in 2004, when mrs. hines carry alluded to the fact

that laura bush did not have a real job in her life. that as a teacher and a librarian, it did not stack up to other jobs. but mrs. bush never feel the flames of for comment and knew that this was politics and that sometimes in politics we say things that we do not mean. she really did not enter into the debate at all. but i think it made her feel bad that she had said that. similar to hillary, we say things sometimes that we do not mean. there is a great example of this from 1984, when barbara bush made a comment about geraldine ferraro, we knew those words were not kind. to this day, she regrets having made that comment. many years later, the ferraros

and bush's became very close friends. that this is sometimes what happens and they have to get past it and get back to the issues. host: you study and teach this subject at american university? guest: yes, we enjoy it. first ladies have had an impact on policy and diplomacy. some have been more willing partners than others in the political process, but they are the best advice giver, the best confidante to the president, and their antenna are greater than most political operatives. host: let me share with you this, going back to 1992, when hillary clinton made news not only for her comments, but for the interview she gave to "60 minutes." this is the excerpt from the story that msnbc did a couple of years ago.

>> i suppose i could have stayed home and baked cookies, but i decided to fulfill my profession, which i entered before i met my husband in my public life. host: yet, bill clinton went on to win two terms. guest: that is what is unique about the role of first lady and candidates' spouses, each woman brings something unique to the table and each needs to be respected for the role they play in the campaign and public life in general. each of them find their way through a campaign, which is a very long process. many of them have served in public life for their husbands chose to run for the presidency. so, some of them are more familiar with what can come up during a campaign. some of them are not. i think the really interesting thing is how different each of the mark and how they choose to campaign and on what issues.

guest: could not have said it better. even tell we have given this some thought. host of democratic line, good morning to you. caller: good morning, how you doing? -- host: democratic line, good morning to you. caller: good morning, how you doing? in terms of what hillary meant to say, she did not mean to disrespect mrs. romney. even she admitted that. why are you sitting there, letting this man getting away with talking about hillary and not the candidate romney talking about women not working outside the home, that there is no dignity in work. that is what is mean spirited. i do not understand you democrats. you let the republicans did away with -- you do not stand up for the democratic party. i wish you all would stop that.

romney is the man running for a candidate. flay his clip, that is undignified. host: what, specifically, do you want from mitt romney? what do you want to hear? caller: he should apologize. what makes him think that women that stay at home with their kids, that are not rich like his wife, do not have the dignity of work? of they talk about work all their lives, in one capacity or another, but cleaning someone's house, what makes them think that we do not have the dignity? he is supposed to be running for president. why would he say something like that? his policy is going to make sure that women are in trouble. i would not fall for that, if i was a woman, about that hillary statement. .

those are the types of things that happen to the candidate's side of the equation instead of the spouse's side of the equation. host: there's some things that i want to show you the role that sidwell friends played in first families. there's a photograph of pat nixon with daughters trish and julie and then vice president richard nixon and there's a photograph of first lady hillary clinton as she congratulates chelsea graduating from sidwell friends. i'm not asking about sidwell friends but how the role of the

first lady has changed from the 1960's and 1970's and the 1980's and today? guest: they've continually evolved throughout our history. a first lady has been a bellwether of changes to come but also has been reflective of what's happening in the country at the time. and we have seen -- you know, most people when they think of activist first lady, they think first of eleanor roosevelt and in some ways, yes, she broke the mold but well before her and all through modern times all first ladies have had an impact on issues that they care about and they are really best when they select things that they have some background on, experience and have credibility. guest: absolutely. when they choose something that they're passionate about and when they intend to do something with it and really have an impact and oftentimes when it aligns with the work that their husbands are doing, they really can be a force to be reckoned with under those circumstances where you can really have an impact on something you care about. host: from capital file, ladies

first and the essence of this is not only everything that they say, everything that they wear and everything that they do is a focus of scrutiny from back to jackie kennedy through nancy reagan and michelle obama. guest: it's true. we have a fascination with what the first ladies wore, how they wear their hair. their jewelry. it's a fact of life. it's human nature, i think we want our first ladies to be comfortable with who they are and to represent us beautifully and sometimes some of that plays out in how they're dressed. host: can either of you share any advice you gave to michelle obama or to laura bush as they entered the white house? guest: my advice from having worked in the white house before, it wasn't just to her but a number of people that we worked with, let's make sure whatever we're doing is really authentic to hear. mrs. obama also shared some very important advice which was there's nothing on her agenda than what's more important than

what's on the president's agenda. between those two pieces of, you know, two pieces of guidance, we were able to have help her create a very impressive set of -- set of work and objectives that she wanted to accomplish. i think her let's move initiative is a big example of that. the garden is one of those things that, you know, a garden on the south lawn of the white house can really capture people's imagination. and it has around the world. her work with military veterans and spouses, you know, with the country that's fightings two wars, for us to be able to step up and fill that void and raise awareness of what these families are going through, i think if you're able to connect all those things, things that you're passionate about and things that you can have an impact on and support the work of the administration overall, you do have a winning combination there. host: and to laura bush? guest: laura bush came to the white house before i worked for her directly as chief of staff but she also brought with her the experience, of course, of having been the first lady of texas and issues that she cared about and some of those she

brought to washington. her love of reading and literacy and the national book festival going into its 12th year. it's something that's a legacy that you leave behind but i absolutely have to agree, you're best at this role when you select things that you care about, that can support the issues and goals of the administration, that you have background and credibility because people respond to that authenticity so i think when i came to work for mrs. bush in the second term, you know, you are freed up from elections now after you've won a second election and she knew exactly what she wanted to do. frankly, she knew what she wanted to do when she first came to washington. but in the second term, to do more of the global work to support some of the administration's efforts in africa, particularly, with aids relief and malaria. and we made five trips to africa, 15 countries. went to the middle east on also a health diplomacy projects, we traveled really all over the

world on issues to support the administration and things that she carried about, women's rights and health. host: it's the top of the hour, our guest anita mcbride veteran of the bush white house and camille johnston from the obama administration and from the tipper gore term, vice president al gore and bill clinton. and our look at the role of spouses in american politics and first ladies. our phone lines are open and you can send us a comment on our twitter page. one of our viewers has. jodi saying hillary clinton has split from most first ladies becoming secretary of state. impressive for anyone. guest: absolutely true. she's an impressive woman. she always was. there were moments for her that were harder than others. because she was one of those transitional first ladies but i think her career has born her out in terms of being an impressive person from start to finish. guest: i would like to add one

thing to that. she's been quoted oftentimes as saying her first of first lady of the united states really helped her in the other position that she's had specifically as being secretary of state, being the nation's top diplomats, any of the leaders that she's met and over eight years as first lady, they were countries that they visited so it was a platform that allows her to be a terrific secretary of state. host: asking about some of the other first ladies, he mentioned on the twitter page. don't forget about dolly madison. guest: absolutely. i thought about that when you were talking about how one dressed and, you know, jewelry and all. i mean, she was truly the nation's first hostess as a prime example. and used the white house as a means to convey a near fledgling nation and what we had to offer the world. host: michael is on the phone. north carolina, republican. good morning.

caller: good morning, steve. good morning, ladies. steve, this is kind of a -- i don't know, with $16 trillion deficits, this seems kind of a diversion but it is an interesting topic. you made a comment about miss hillary rosen and you stress that her business connections or her professional connections were with cnn as a journalist. that's probably so and from what i've seen, it is. host: she's not a journalist. she's an analyst and she gets paid by cnn. caller: the audience probably would be well served to know, too, she's been to the white house over 30 times. i think she -- you stressed or tried to stress she has no connection with the obama campaign and i find that a little bit doubtful. i find any analyst that's been to the white house 30 times, i think she's got ties to the obama campaign. host: you're absolutely right and i said she's a democratic

strategist. my point and i'll let you follow up is you didn't have somebody directly involved in the campaign but certainly involved in democratic party politics and yet her comments then made part of the news cycle over the last 48 hours after her comments in part because of the way the romney campaign -- so i was really asking a tactical political question more so than her comments specifically. but please go ahead. caller: the reaction by the obama -- by team obama, as i like to call it, team romney, team obama, reflects their recognition of her connection to them and what a sensitive issue this is. it is -- i'm old enough to remember when the women's movement started. i'm a conservative. and i think it would be fair to say that -- that generally liberals and i'm generalizing, have found stay-at-home moms and traditional leave it to beaver, father knows best type moms which were fictional, of course, but that aspect of american

womanhood to be less than what they think is -- can be accomplished or should be accomplished by american women. and this is reflected in their attitude in many, many things. you played the comment by hillary clinton and so on and so forth. and i do think it's an undercurrent that runs through the left that stay-at-home moms, that women that don't pursue professional careers and even if they do, as you mentioned about laura bush who was, i think, a master's degree in library science and a teacher, they still get derided. host: i'll stop you there and thanks for your calls and your comments. guest: i couldn't disagree more. the democratic party has a very big tent and there are women who stay at home and women who work outside the home. women who do one or other at certain times in their lives. women who single mothers and work for their those reasons but women who stay at home and vote

democrat. it's too much of a generalization. and also, the president and the first lady both came out and spoke very highly of ann romney and of all the choices that women make and they made that point that these are choices that women can make and whichever they choose to make is to be respected and i think that that despite the fact that we're still talking about this more than a week later, i think ultimately everybody agrees with that. host: laura has this point. who is hillary rosen and who cares what she said? let me raise the question to you, anita mcbride, political tactics behind what she said and how the campaign reacted. guest: the campaigns reacted very quickly. this is something that people are sensitive to. the women's vote are a demographic that both parties care about. but ultimately, i think the leadership in the parties whether it's the president or candidate romney care about

women and care about women's choices and care about the fact that the debate should be that we respect the choices that women make and that's at the heart of it, it's making a choice of what you want to do. you want to work outside the home? you don't. it's up to you. some have to. you not only have to respect that, too, what the economics are for the women that make these choices. pugh research just had -- actually, some great research that came out in the last week about the growing trend of how many women particularly that 18 to 34 demographic that really care about getting out in the work force and it really matters to them to have a career. yet, it also -- they also care very much about being married and having a family. so it is a classic, we always are trying to balance to doing both and make sure you're making a contribution in both ways. it's hard work.

guest: most people do something of each at one point in their life. at different times in their lives and i think that's the piece that needs to be reminded. these aren't monolithic issues. host: two plus centuries of first ladies. when will we have a first man or first spouse? guest: you know, we got close in 2008. we almost did have a first spouse. with secretary clinton, well then senator clinton running for president. but it will happen. and you know what? i'm very optimistic about how our country manages transitions and we will manage that transition well, too. i mean, that's the wonderful thing about our country, how we elect transition and inaugurate our presidents is always peaceful and we do just fine. guest: probably less focus on what he's wearing than the first spouses get today. host: we go to richard in new york city. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i have a question for miss mcbride and miss johnston before think statement.

what does the salary and the communications director of the first lady? guest: the white house. all the staff on the first lady's staff are considered the staff of the president of the united states. assigned to the first lady's office to assist in those duties. guest: it's actually helpful to have anita here. i know there's been some misnomers to what mrs. obama's staff looks like as compared to mrs. bush's staff and the truth is they're identical. host: did you want to follow up? caller: in this era of concern about government spending, hello? guest: yes. caller: yeah. how much money is wasted here? the first lady isn't elected. she's a family member. she deserves civil service protection. but does she deserve this continual god knows how much spending? we're all concerned about paying taxes because most of our taxes are wasted and i think this represents a significant waste

of our money. guest: you know, one thing i could actually say -- i'll use a quote that a former president said, ronald reagan said, we get only one employee in the united states government for free. and that's the first lady. you're absolutely right. it's not an elected position. it's not an appointed position and has no statutory authority and also gets no salary that freeze up the first lady to do the kinds of things that they care about and without having any statutory requirements and i think by and large, we can examine the role and see how much of a contribution that they have made to raise the national debate and awareness on issues of concern to everybody in the country. and they have had an impact on a number of issues. frankly, we can't drive down a highway in any state in the united states and not thank lady bird johnson for her efforts for the highway beautification act that her husband signed but it's because of her that we don't have litter on our highways and we didn't pay her to do that.

host: michelle has this point on the twitter page. this rosen kerfuffle was a gift to the romney campaign. they made hay from it and now move on to another area. it continues to come up. this is a piece from the former governor from the baltimore sun and now a columnist with "the baltimore sun" it's about women up for grabs, the all out battle for women's votes has begun in earnest with the respective presidential campaigns seeking to take advantage of real and perceived mistakes by the opposition and acolytes. he also points out that gloria steiman once dismissed kay bailey hutchinson and kirk patrick as being uninflicted about the experiences of the female body. this goes on both ends. guest: women can be as brutal to women as men. but women's votes are up for grabs. guest: let's focus on the issues that everybody cares about as ka mill said at the beginning.

host: margaret on the phone. caller: you got yourself in a pickle this morning by mentioning hillary rosen's name and i'd like to concur with the lady from chicago. if you listen to hillary rosen's entire comments, it was that women of means have an easier time of deciding whether or not to stay at home and care for their children as opposed to those women who have to work outside the home and care for their children as well. and i have another comment, if i may. for the fellow from north carolina, i'd like to know if he considers ted nugent's comments reflective of romney's views and where was romney -- romney apologizing for ted nugent's comments? thank you. host: thank you, margaret. guest: find themselves in these situations fairly often in the campaigns come out fairly regularly and clarify their

positions and i think the obama campaign did that this time. host: jim has this point. please ask how many first families have been poor and the president talked about it this week growing up in a single family and how he and michelle took out student loans and laura bush grew up in central texas, in midland, texas, middle class family. guest: sure, of course. and how many have been poor throughout our history? probably a great number of them. look at abraham lincoln. his wife spent her entire time as first lady trying to prove to the country and prove to everyone in congress that because he came from the country that somehow he was not able to govern. and really was the only one that could hold the nation, you know, together. i just think it's reflective of our -- our candidates are reflective of americans and we have americans of all stages in their lives and all demographics and all economic stages that represent our country.

host: ann romney said her husband needs to loosen up a little bit. he has a great sense of humor. it doesn't come across on the campaign trail. guest: i think this is another important role for candidate's spouse is humanizing the president. you know, you want your first lady or candidate's spouse out there doing no harm on the campaign trail, spreading a lot of good will, trying to humanize who the candidate is and show a different side of who they are as a husband and family man. unfortunately, because our campaigns are so expensive we need the candidates' spouses to go out and raise a lot of money. at an event with romney last weekend and she talked about the decision-making process to even decide to run for president, some in the family who didn't want him to do it and those, you know, who did. i mean, at the end of the day, these are family members, too. i mean, they're just like any of us, you know, they have struggles and decisions and hopes and joys and fears. and happy times and sad times. and you want to hear a little

bit about that human side. we want to find some way to connect with these candidates instead of just seeing the soundbites on tv. host: that same process in 2007, you were not part of the campaign but michelle obama sitting down with then barack obama, her husband. guest: absolutely. you know, for mrs. obama, this hadn't been a lifelong career for them. it had been a new pursuit and under the circumstances there is a lot to weigh because you don't have that history. working for tipper, you know, she and al had been in public life for many years. so the decision to run for president was different for them. but the process of running is no different. you know, you hear about the wife as a secret weapon. it shouldn't be a secret anymore that the wife is an important arsenal in the weapon of the campaign. tipper certainly played that role in the 2000 election. you know, everybody said al was better when tipper was around. and so there was a lot more of the concerted effort to have us do things together. people say the same thing about

mrs. obama. she was the closer. they say that about mrs. romney now, the secret weapon. he's better when she's around. there's a reason for that. bring about a comfort level that lets them -- reminds them of who they are and what they're best at and go out and be authentic. host: michelle obama on the campaign trail, let's look at her schedule including a number of public events. she'll be in nebraska this week on tuesday foor a series of campaign-related activities and then on to iowa which is a key battleground state and another key state friday in naples, florida. how does this come together? how does her campaign schedule mesh with her duties as first lady? guest: they're very symbiotic to that extent. i think you'll see mrs. obama on the campaign more than she has been because of the timing. it's also doing things that she enjoys and the ways that they enjoy them. i remember a campaign with tipper and we'd have lobster rolls when we were in maine. you got over the same press at

the market if you had met with 20 people in the coffee shop as if you had 2,000 people in a stadium. whether the ladies can actually make campaigning interesting for people and not just a drudgery that you have to get through sort of thing. mrs. obama will be fundraising. she will be out doing events. she'll be talking about the things that she cares about and important to her as well as her husband's agenda. and the one thing that they all share in common is that they're as passionate about this as they are anything else because they believe that their husband is the best person for the job. if we start with that premise, then the amount of work that they can devote, the amount of time that they can devote to it is based on their other responsibilities as a mother or as another job that they have in terms of the role of the first lady but all of them out are out there doing that. host: communications director for first lady michelle obama and a similar role for mrs. tipper gore from the late 1990's

to 2001 and anita mcbride, chief of staff to first lady laura bush. i want both of you to think about this question for a moment. what little known fact of laura bush and michelle obama that you would share with our audience? we'll go to joanne joining us from sar oasotsarasota, florida. good morning. go ahead, please. caller: my comment is we have not elected a team, a presidential team. we've elected one person. and also, i'm mindful of the fact that women's work is important. whatever we can do, whatever kind of work that we can find if this kind of economy is important to us and to the country and to our families. also spent -- concerned on the amount of money spent on images, the first couple as people refer to them to and the staff for a first lady and my final comment

is what happens if a president is a male and he's single. does he have to find a wife and get a proper person with a proper image before he can expect to be elected? host: grover cleveland? guest: there's some that used a niece or sister or someone to fill the role. host: only one single president since james buchanan. guest: you're right. we do not elect the first lady but we elect the president but once they are elected and they are a partner and the spouse is a partner in the process and has a tremendous opportunity and a platform neimmediately to talk about issues that they care about and raise issues that they care about and we have an increasing expectation as americans that the president's spouse step up there and do something with this privilege and this time that they have of

living in the white house. host: the role of spouses and the role of first ladies in american presidential politics and i want to share with you again, one of the moments from the 2008 campaign, the comments of michelle obama that generated a lot of attention as she was campaigning for her husband. [video clip] but what we've learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. it is making a comeback and let me tell you something, for the first time in my adult lifetime, i'm really proud of my country. and not just because barack has done well but because i think people are hungry for change. host: the comments that people are hungry for change and the first time in her adult life being proud and that generated a lot of political buzz in 2008. guest: it did. i remember it well. we just touched down from slovenia after coming from

afghanistan. mrs. bush made her third secret trip there and we were doing an interview with abc news and he asked mrs. bush about that comment and we had not had the background of the benefit knowing that it happened. and mrs. bush's instinctive response was i'm sure she didn't mean that. she tampered those flames down immediately. again, she understands trick questions. she also understands, too, that in a campaign, sometimes in politics, things get said, people don't really mean it. but yet, she also respected the fact that, of course, michelle obama is going to be proud that her husband, first african-american running for president and she did not take the bait and i wrote about that, too, in the political article. host: cindy is on the phone from palm bay, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i am just -- you were talking about how the first ladies will work towards things that they're interested in. you know, the republicans want to take all the services even though they send all the jobs overseas, not just republicans,

they're all involved in it. but talked about if the men have to pay child support to support their children, the women might not having to draw food stamps and i don't understand why a first lady has to take that, even michelle, you know, talking about hunger. why are the kids hungry? you know, i mean, it just drives me nuts that nobody wants to talk about any men issues! host: ok, cindy, thanks for the call. let's take the two issues most prominent with your former bosses. first of all, the let's move campaign. how did that come about? when she came to the transition and entered the white house, i'm sure there's a lot of competition for a lot of issues she could hang her hat on. guest: mrs. obama chose this issue because it's something that she had seen in her own family and experienced in her own family, how to make sure your kids are eating right. and getting enough exercise. and paying attention to the things that matter at that stage

in their lives. she knew that there was an obesity epidemic in the country and she felt like she could have an impact on this. the garden was the first part of this and it was that little piece that captured the world's imagination and kind of stands as a symbol for the overall initiative. since then, there have been pieces of legislation and there have been changes in the supermarkets. there have been changes in how companies manufacture their food and how they sell to kids, all are part of the larger let's move initiative. it can start as something small as a garden and blossom into something big where you can have a big impact. host: for laura bush with the literacy effort? guest: absolutely. this is an example of using your voice, something you care about, something you fought about and something you've experienced in your own life and used this platform to raise an issue. you know, i think we talked about the literacy and education and, of course, being manifested

in the national books festival but also in supporting reform, education reform and no child left behind. and also, what mrs. bush said on the campaign trail in 2000, of course, is as a librarian and as a teacher, she visited school libraries and schools all over the country and really saw the sad state of some of our school libraries and just how outdated some of the books are and created a foundation that was managed separately out of the white house. we didn't mix the two but a foundation that was created, the laura bush foundation for america's libraries that's still in existence and in fact, during katrina when so many school libraries were destroyed, i mean, that foundation gave grants of more than $25, $30 million to rebuild those libraries. host: this is a speculative president but if the obamas leave the white house, do you think the garden will remain? guest: i hope so.

i would imagine any first lady coming in and respecting the fact that this is michelle obama's legacy in the white house in the same way that other legacies from first ladies are protected in that same way. host: the garden at the white house a tribute to first lady jackie kennedy and there are townhomes along lafayette park that are there because of her. why? guest: all along jackson place, you know, right outside lafayette park which you can see from the north side of the white house these are historic homes. i mean, some of our former secretaries of state and others lived there. and they were slated for removal at a period of time during the kennedy administration. she cared about historic preservation and appealed to a number of wealthy americans to establish an endowment called the white house historical celebration. just celebrated its 50th year and does enormously important work but she did protect those townhomes and did raise this level of protecting our p

patrimony that is inside the white house. it's a living democracy to who we are as a country. host: early in her term in the white house, nancy reagan did not have a cause in 1983 and then she embraced the just say no campaign. lessons for a first lady coming into the white house? guest: people expect you to do something with your role. find something that's meaningful to you and have a way to have an impact on that and pay attention to the national conversation because you're going to be a part it was and what you choose to do will have an impact of what people talk about. host: little known fact about michelle obama, what would it be? guest: little known fact. i feel like so many things about her are known at this point. she's a mean tennis player. she can get out on the court and really compete on the tennis court. host: and laura bush? guest: she's very funny and she's a very humorous person and, you know, one of the best examples of that is just her

willingness to get out there at the correspondents dinner, white house correspondents dinner in 2005 and give a speech and give a funny speech but she's really quite a sense of humor and can life wildly. a lot of fun to be around. host: you knew we had that video ready. let's go to that in 2005. this is first lady laura bush as she took the podium away from her husband, the president of the united states. [video clip] i am married to the president of the united states. and here's our typical evening. 9:00, mr. excitement here is sound asleep. and i'm watching "desperate housewives." with lynn cheney.

ladies and gentlemen, i am a desperate housewife. host: anita mcbride, what's the story? how did that come about? this week is the week of the white house correspondents dinner. next saturday, we'll have live coverage saturday evening with jimmy kimmel as the headliner. what happened? guest: actually, what happened, mrs. bush was supposed to deliver the remarks at the radio and tv correspondents dinner that year. but it was the same time that pope john paul ii had died and so we all went to rome for the delegation for the funeral, and so it was really the president's idea, said, laura, why don't you do this one? do the white house correspondents dinner. and she was game. she said ok. actually, the funniest part of that, practicing a little bit for the speech, there was a line in there about barbara bush and having barbara bush as a mother-in-law is somewhat like don corleon, being an italian

american, i was practicing with mrs. bush on how to say don corleon and that was actually a funny moment for me. host: if you want to watch the event, all the white house correspondents dinners including laura bush's go on our web site at cspan.org. few more minutes with your phone calls as we talk about the role of first ladies and spouses in presidential politics. grace is on the phone from neighboring montgomery county, maryland. good morning, grace. caller: good morning. yeah, i wanted to comment, i think, on the hillary rosen comment. i think she was taken out of context. i think what she was talking about was the choices, you know, the choices women have. all women do not have the financial choice to stay at home. i don't think any mother would leave a 3-month-old baby in daycare and go back to work if she didn't have to and i think that's the point she was trying to make, you know, that women with their paychecks represents almost half of the family and if they were to stay at home, you know, permanently, it would affect the standard of living of

the family. and this is millions of women all over america have to make this choice. it's not an easy one to make. it's not easy to work and have kids, you know, you have, you know, emergencies come up. your child is sick. school closes early for the day and races all over the place. it's not an easy thing. most women would choose not to do it. ann romney had the choice. that's great for her. let's not miss that point and, you know, produces artificial controversy because from millions of american women, the financial choice just does not exist. that's a comment i wanted to make. guest: and that's why -- and that's why i think that this -- this conversation will continue. but it's exactly one of the things women should choose to vote on or not vote on. these are the issues that are most important to people. these have a huge impact on how people live their day-to-day lives, the financial situations of their families and these are the exact issues that people should be voting on.

host: the five myths of female voters. from "the washington post." number one, women vote together. number two, female voters favor female candidates. number three, women vote based on women's issues. number four, a candidate's wife can deliver women's votes and number five, men decide elections. guest: i don't know if i agree with at least four or five of those. i think women vote on a wide variety of issues as you can tell from the calls that you got here this morning. this debate about the economy and people's concerns about their future. i don't think that women vote only for women. i'm not sure if a candidate's spouse delivers votes. we don't vote for the candidate's spouse but i think they clearly have an impact as an important surrogate. >> yeah, i agree that the spouse can have an important role. when i was working for tipper,

tipper has come out and discussed the fact that she had been treated for depression. and from that point on throughout the rest of the campaign, people came up along the rope line in every aspect of our lives, there was someone who came in and said thank you for coming forward with that. tipper's role was not just to come forward with her own treatment program but it was to raise awareness and then it was to advocate for parody in health insurance. that is something that can have a major impact on a family's life and people voted for al gore because she respected what tipper had done and they had come out and that they were facing the same battle and they appreciated someone in public life advocating for them on that. a lot of people vote for health care. i think a spouse can have an impact of the campaign. host: veterans of the clinton and obama white house and anita mcbride from the bush administration. carol is on the phone. fountain, colorado. good morning, welcome to the

program. caller: good morning. thank you so much for bringing this to people's attention because i don't think these first ladies get enough credit. and i do think the obamas are really a class act. i love the show. i have a son in afghanistan right now and she's brought a lot of attention to the military families but i also would like to talk about ann romney because i think it's hard to identify with her because she never had to pay half her income in daycare. she's never had to put her kids to bed in their jackets because she couldn't crank up the heat. she never had to haul her kids to the laundromat. or worry about losing her job when her car broke down. if she can answer to those things, i think people could actually identify with her. i don't feel anybody really could! you know, i -- and we do need to bring attention to the fact that women cannot get their child support in this country. but thank you for having these ladies on because -- and you can see from the male callers that call in how angry they are that

any woman would have a secretary and these women are voted in. host: thanks for call. that issue and it did come up with the president saying this past week he wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth and mitt romney saying he's not going to apologize for success. another battle line in this 2012 campaign. guest: i don't think that either person cares less about the direction of the country and the future of the country and that people can feel that they can participate in the economic opportunities that we want our country to have. so i think this is where it does get really difficult and i hate to see these divisions. >> i think the issue itself is very important. i think it's more about the fact that it was directed at mrs. romney. had this comment not been directed at mrs. romney, there would be no issue here. women know they're making the

exact choices that this woman just described. it's not a matter that the issue is important. it's a matter of who the answer is directed at. unfortunately, it went to mrs. romney and these things do happen in campaigns. people regret it. they make mistakes. they move on. but i think we've all agreed that the spouse doesn't need to be the ire over the position. that's where we can come to some agreement. host: alan from boca raton, florida, independent line. welcome to the conversation, alan. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i just don't understand the acceptance of hillary clinton as secretary of state, the world is on fire, thousands of people have been murdered. the middle east where they can't stand women in general aren't going to listen to anything she says. the thing with her husband years ago set back women 30 years ago

because she was affluent, she was educated and yet, she stayed with him where other women were stuck in terrible situations. that's what i don't understand her popularity. she was known to be a liar. that's all i want to say. host: thank you for the call. can you respond? guest: she has been in all fairness a tireless advocate for women around the world whose rights are not realized. like they are for us in this country. i think she deserves a great deal of credit on this. host: the last three secretaries of state have been women. guest: absolutely. they're advocates and they can act, they bring a personal level to the job that i think a lot of foreign dignitaries and people around the world admire and respect and i think that they bring a personality to an administration and to a country that they put on display around the world and people admire and

respect it. at the same time, they're tough as nails. guest: have to be. guest: yes and they compete on any level. i think condaleeza, madeleine and mrs. clinton have done that. host: our last call from champagne, illinois. isaac is on the phone. go ahead, please. caller: yes. i first want to thank c-span and "washington journal" for having the open forum that they do and also, i want to ask is the fascination with the, i guess, the first spouse because it's just a matter of time before we have a female president, has anything to do with our fascination with european monarchies? guest: royalty? i don't know about that. i think that each of these women in each of these administrations has had the roles here done so differently that it would be hard to find that level of

commonality and royalty. but i think we have a fascination with our first families, you know, with the president and their spouse and the relationships of families behind the mysterious, you know, white house. so i think we want to connect with who they are as people but it's quite different than a monarchy. host: before we let you go, it's not royalty but a white house state dinner and the profile of the first male secretary for the obama administration, the piece "white gloves not needed" and a look at those who have attended past state dinners, a combination of donors and media entertainers, public figures and washington political figures. guest: that's true regardless of the administration. the interesting thing about a state dinner is you showcase some of the best and brightest minds that the nation has to offer with the visiting

country's dignitaries. and you look for commonalities and interests. state dinners are opportunities to engage in diplomacy. and they're also opportunities to showcase the best of the america. host: and competition to get invited. guest: absolutely. any social secretary can tell you some of the funny calls they get to get someone's name on the list but actually, i think that there is a lot of thought and a lot of attention and a lot of detail that goes into planning a state visit and sinto planning the state dinner. you want to feel that the united states has rolled out the best red carpet for that. host: what calls did you receive? guest: actually just a couple for the queen's visit, you know, queen elizabeth visit came around but actually the social secretary for the defense for

that, in the series of conferences i'm doing on american first ladies around the country, the social secretary who lyndon johnson talked about a phone call she got from an american c.e.o. that their wife was dying of a terminal disease and they had to absolutely come to the state dinner. and they did and i think the -- beth held this particular person was in a perpetual state of terminal illness for many, many years. guest: that's a lie you have to live with. host: camille johnston from the obama white house and former communications director to tipper gore, thank you very much for being with us and anita mcbride, former chief of staff to first lady laura bush, appreciate your time and perspecti perspective. come back again. host: coming up in a couple of minutes, we'll turn our attention to g.s.a. and where some of your government dollars are going. danielle bryant is the executive director of the project on

government oversight and later, robin wright of the u.s. institute of peace as we talk about the situation in syria, a new book looking at the muslim brotherhood and the islamist movement, what it means for u.s. foreign policy. that's all coming ahead as "the washington journal" continues on sunday, april 22nd. back in a moment.

>> how many months will it take you to get the progress report? >> we're already starting to make changes. that's part of what i'm here to report on today. we have the good fortune of having the budget process, the 2014 budget development process, we're entering view that now. and so i think we're going to use our 2014 budget development process which culminates in recommendations to o.m.b. in september and a budget in february. we're going to use that process to start delving into this. that doesn't mean we're going to wait until the outcome of that process to make necessary changes. >> the new acting administrator of the general services administration spent the past week testifying on capitol hill over the more than $800,000 spent by g.s.a. officials for a 2010 training conference held in las vegas. watch the rest of this hearing or the others held this week on

line at the c-span video library archived at cspan.org/video library. host: we want to focus on congressional hearings and the role of government oversight. our guest is danielle brian, the executive director of the project on government oversight. good morning. thanks for being with us. there's a headline this past week on the g.s.a. scandal. four hearings in the house and the senate wondering if congress is engaged in hearing overkill. this, of course, looking into nearly a million dollars being spent on the conference in las vegas, certainly a lot of money but pales in comparison to other areas of potential government waste. guest: there's no doubt that four hearings are held on the same issue, congress needs to get back together in that way so they can spend the time to find out which hearing, they're happening simultaneously so they have no opportunity to find out what one hearing is uncovering

while the other one is happening. i have to say that that congress is not doing that kind of oversight. so i would hope at the end of the day, that's not sort of the lesson learned, that congress should be doing less oversight. it's good for them to be getting involved and saying how does the congress spend their money? they don't do enough of that. host: if there's a republican in the white house or when the democrats have the control of congress and there's a democrat in the white house like the clinton or the obama administrations, is there a difference compared to the opposing party having control of congress when it comes to oversight congressional hearings and the like? guest: that definitely becomes a problem in the last, i think, 10 to 15 years. it didn't used to be that way. in the old days, there was much more of a sense of pride in the institution of the congress where it really didn't matter who the party was. there was a sense that the congress had the right to information from the executive branch. it didn't matter who was president. but that sense has really been lost and you have more of the sense that if you're in power, you're there to protect the

administration and that's a real problem. host: a republican from south carolina weighed in on this. he, of course, is a member of the house oversight and government reform, a hearing that looked into g.s.a. [video clip] >> you know, mr. chairman, while this conference was being planned and executed, i was working at a small d.a.'s office in south carolina. we had budget cuts. we had to furlough secretaries that were making $20,000 a year. we started a fund out of our own pocket to pay for kids' birthday presents. we never thought about spending taxpayer money on it. working for the government is a sacred trust which you have blown! so instead of a team building exercise, you might want to investigate a trust building

exercise. because you have lost it. host: this goes to the heart of the issue involving g.s.a. and that now controversial 2010 conference in las vegas. guest: that was a great speech and i'm glad he made that. i think it's tremendously embarrassing to find people in our government wasting our money that way and it really does erode our country's faith in government entirely. host: so what either advice or recommendation would you give congressional leaders and in particular, the chair of the key questions, congressman darrell issa appearing today on nbc's "meet the press." guest: first of all, get your act together and talk to each other. it isn't that hard to pick up the phone and find out who is going to handle the hearing and also, spend some time, you don't have to rush to the hearing. you can take a couple of days, learn what each of the people have learned. it's not necessarily that bad an idea to have multiple hearings. there are different angles to be pursued and part of what is an important part of this story is the role of the inspector

general that actually uncovers this. that's actually sort of the success story here is there are whistle blowers inside the g.s.a. who came to the inspector general and they actually uncovered these problems so there are actually all kinds of lessons that can be learned from this. host: when is there a sense of overreach? there have been some that complained that congressman issa has been on fishing expeditions and spending a lot of time and a lot of money searching for something when in many cases there's nothing there. guest: i have seen a couple of examples where there's a good idea and they take it too far so when they do a freedom of information act request, for example, they make it so broad that it's at every agency for too many yeeshz and a little more thought making it more surgical in the request would actually, i think, result in a more fruitful inquiry by that committee. host: our line for republicans and 202-737-0001 if you are a democrat. also welcome independents and you're watching outside the united states on the bbc

parliament channel or elsewhere on cable or satellite or you can join us on the web, e-mail at journal at cspan.org or on twitter. erol is on the phone on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, steve and guest. good to speak with you this morning and steve in the beautiful new studio. i'm a federal employee and i work for the department of health and human services. i, like many of my federal colleagues, were appalled of the revelations that what took place, this wasted money and i would like the american people to know that this is not representative of what those working in the federal government or at most of the agencies. my question is, in regards to the fact that this took place in 2010, my question is where was congress for so long in their oversight responsibilities to have the hearings, you know, the

first opportunity to be over a year ago. why did it take so long? thanks for taking my question. i'll listen to you off air. host: thank you. guest: i think the comments responding to that inspector general's report that was just released so all oversight takes sometime and in this case, it was the tips to the inspector general occurred, i think, just after that hearing. i mean, after that conference took place and it took the time to do their inquiry and release their report and that's what the congress is reacting to. host: our guest is a graduate of smith college and earned her master's at johns hopkins university in maryland. danielle brian is the executive director of the project on government waste and the web site is pogo.org. you'll see where are all the watchdogs? and a look at nuclear waste and other topics. what else can we find on your site? guest: we were created over 30 years ago by insiders in the pentagon concerned of wasting

fraud in federal spending and we have continued to work with those insiders across the federal government now uncovering those problems and then working to solve them. host: next is richard on the phone from florida. actual we're going to patty next in seattle, washington. patty, go ahead, please. caller: yeah, i wanted to make a comment on this. the people that were elected in 2008 to take care of this. that's what the problem was. that's why the tea party got activated and got these people in there to work on this. when the senate is controlled by the democrats, they can't get anything through. and that's the big problem. it has nothing to do with anything that the senate itself, they can't get anything through with the bills so that is just a waste and stuff. and that's all i have to say. host: thank you, patty. guest: i've been in washington for a long time and both parties

are responsible for the problem and both parties have people that are trying to fix them. i'd say not put your faith in either of the parties in that sense. host: how about faith in the media? the media is supposed to be a pillar of government oversight. now a department of the government. are we in the media doing our job? guest: i would say not. i wouldn't entirely blame the media for that. we're watching consolidation of media so there are fewer outlets. there are fewer resources that are being put into investigative journalism and what we're finding in our sector, in the nonprofit sector is we're actually increasing our role as sort of helping to help do the job that the media used to do. host: ivy on the phone from georgia. independent line. good morning, welcome to the program. caller: good morning. thanks for taking up this subject. my observation or question is about actually the role of oversight in general because the congress seems to be focused more on the appearance of a

meeting, the appearance of oversight, and much less on the actual oversight. because if you watch the hearings that you broadcast on c-span, you'll see a congressman comment or a senator comment, they'll ask their question and then they'll leave. they really have no thought or no sense of continuity of what's happening within an entire hearing. and so because of that, oversight seems meaningless in that sense. is there a way to actually compel congressmen to actually sit in, listen to an entire meeting instead of come in, leave, what are they doing outside of the hearing? host: we'll get a response. danielle brian. guest: that's actually heartbreaking to see that really was what we are often left with in the congress. we at pogo began, i think, at this point about seven or eight years ago conducting monthly training sessions for congressional staff on how to do oversight because the art of oversight has really been lost in a lot of ways.

there's so much turnover of staff that it's the youngest congressional staff in history because they don't have a historical knowledge to know how to conduct the oversight and part of the underlying reason for that is members of congress are spending so much of their time raising money to get re-elected they aren't spending time doing this job. in article 1 of the constitution, it's something that's an important part of the role of congress and we're very concerned that's not taken nearly serious enough. host: go back to the situation of representative issa. joe wants to know is he desperate for a scandal which is probably one of the lines of questions he'll get today from nbc's david gregory? guest: we certainly believe that real oversight is not about gotcha and trying to prove that the other side is the bad guy but actually identifying problems and trying to fix them. this is the kind of thing that you -- that, this being the g.s.a. conference is ridiculous waste. there's no doubt about it. i think it's silly to say this

is a particular administration fault. this is the kind of thing that can happen when there isn't enough oversight, frankly, by the congress as well as the executive branch. and i see this in the end of the day also as sort of a success story for the inspector general of that agency. one of the things he referenced that's on our web site is the fact that there are 10 agencies that don't have an inspector general right now. that's the kind of thing that worries us. host: you focus on government waste. in our first 45 minutes we were looking back at watergate, the impact it's had on american politics. we have the creation of the s.e.c. of what happened in watergate. whether it's a campaign in general, is there more transparency today than there was 30 or 40 years ago? guest: first of all, we don't just focus on waste. we look at all kinds of corruption and government misconduct. because of some fundamental laws like the freedom of information act, there is more transparency in some ways.

on the other hand, when you're looking at the national security arena, i think there's far less transparency and that's where far more of what the government is actually doing is being conducted under secrecy in that sense and we're terribly worried about that kind of secrecy. host: who funds project on government oversight? guest: we are largely funded by foundations and individuals who have no finance interest in the outcome of our investigations. we don't take any money from unions, corporations or any government. host: you have been executive director for how many years? guest: well, i've been there for 22 years, i think. a long time. host: and you stayed there that long, because? guest: i love my work. i work with incredible people and i get up every morning excited to get there again. host: wayne in birmingham, alabama. welcome to the conversation, wayne. go ahead. caller: good morning to you. i think if you really analyze this leadership from the top when you say the president's wife having to leave four hours earlier than the president and take an entire plane, 757 and a whole entourage of people to go

on vacation and not waiting four hours. and then you see the lavish parties at the white house. i think leadership starts at the top. and if you don't want to set the example for these people like the g.s.a. folks to say hey, it's ok to just waste this money because hey, this is how we're supposed to act when we're in government. and i wanted to say to gladys earlier that george bush wasn't looking in the oval office for weapons of mass destruction. he was trying to make sure there weren't any female interns still stuck in there! host: ok. that was an earlier point about an earlier topic but to the caller's first point. guest: i think that in general, we do need to revisit the concept that this is the taxpayers' money and often, there are people inside the governments that aren't treating it that way. however, most people are. most people in the federal government really are trying to do their job and i think it's dangerous to overinflate this kind of ridiculous behavior is

something that's endemic but it's important to see that people did lose their jobs right away. as soon as this came public, the head of the g.s.a. was asked to resign and i think that's the kind of accountability that you need in this case. host: another e-mail and a twitter from one of our viewers saying what happened having the bills on line 72 hours before they are signed? guest: that's an important thing and it hasn't happened yet as far as i know. i think that's an essential role. congress is going to be probably one of the last places to implement the kind of transparency that we talk about. we need more transparency in the congress to be sure. host: our next caller james from chattanooga, tennessee. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. i would like to add another aspect to this conversation and that conversation is that this partisanship that's going on with representative issa, what you'll notice is most of those workers are career workers. they was working when george bush was in office. so president obama should have put his own people in place. you cannot do that because

they're career workers. what i would like to see in this oversight is there are $12 million a day that is missing in afghanistan and iraq. i don't mind money being spent on americans who actually pay these taxes. these taxes that these people keep talking about, different people want different taxes paid to different things. but everyone pays. also, if you really look at the situation, what republicans are doing is trying to scandalize, the most important thing should have been to president obama's safety. not looking at what money should be spent. there should be no amount of money in order to protect our president. host: thanks for the call. did you want to respond? guest: there's one point that you're making is absolutely right which is this is a relatively minor amount of money in the context of how the government spends money. this is less than a million dollars on a stupid conference,

frankly. but, for example, the commission on wartime contracting concluded $30 to $60 billion wasted or wrongly spent in iraq or afghanistan. that's a lot of money and there have been a pathetic amount of oversight from the congress on that question. where has that money gone? what are we doing with it? that's what becomes frustrating. you have four hearings on yes, sensational stupidity, but you're not getting the serious oversight on the real dollars that we really need to be looking into. host: which goes back to my earlier point is as you watch this story unfold on cable, you have pictures from las vegas. you have the las vegas backdrop for this story as opposed to the situation as you pointed out, up to $60 billion in waste in iraq and afghanistan. we covered those hearings looking into wartime contracting, is it because it's an easier story to tell, las vegas vs. what's happening with contracts in iraq? guest: absolutely.

and i would give them a little bit of a break because we all know what a meal should cost. so it's easy when you start to see extraordinary expenses or things happening like magicians and commemorative coins. we know because in our lives, we know we wouldn't spend money like that. it is harder to know how much should you spend on a war? how much does it cost for logistics? that does become more complicated because those aren't intuitively obvious to us. but i think that congress needs to step up and rely on the work like that of the commission to understand they did do the work to make sure what it costs, that's why you don't get the hearings fortunately it's more complicated. host: next caller is lisa from oklahoma city. good morning, independent line. go ahead, please. caller: good morning. i think the oversight committee should be just that, oversight. i don't think it should be looked at before a penny is spent. you know, if congress would do their job, maybe we wouldn't have all this wasteful spending

in our government. government is only reflective of the people of the united states. we pay for certain services and the oversight committee is not doing their job where they allow expenditures of this amount. host: lisa, thanks for the call. it goes back to your earlier point, danielle brian about oversight or lack thereof. guest: there's no doubt that the congress needs to do more work on oversight. i wouldn't buy into the idea that the government shouldn't spend money without congress approving it first. in some senses, the congress approves appropriations so that already is occurring. you have to have at least some level have agencies that are competent and qualified to do their job so there can be the spot checks by the congress on the big ticket items or the more difficult items but we need to have both branches of government working. host: from michelle. has the problem been exacerbated because of the stallings of appointments in these agencies?

doesn't congress spend part of this blame when it comes to the nomination process and the nominations being confirmed in the senate? guest: there's no doubt that's true. of the 10 inspectors general not currently seated in their position, there are a couple of nominations that have been held up by the -- by the senate. on the other hand, there has been a number and the one that we're most concerned is the state department that is going on over four years without even a nominee for inspector general and that can't be blamed on the congress. host: this from cbs sports. they question the cost of congressional hearing and points out that prosecutors and the judge in the roger clemens retrial are finding potential jurors who view the congressional hearings where he allegedly lied as a waste of money that could pose a serious hurdle to convicting the baseball pitcher on doing drugs.

hearings at congress, six people will show up. but convicting a baseball player, a whole lot of people will show up. host: i think the -- guest: i agree. i think the steroids hearings was absurd. got all this media attention. congress sometimes like to get on television and the television really obliged on that one. host: are we to blame? guest: part of the problem, for sure. part of the problem. i think, you know, television except maybe c-span really cares about ratings. can we get people to focus, for example, much bigger problem at the g.s.a. in terms of dollar amounts is something called the industrial funding fee and this is essentially the g.s.a. is the buyer for the entire federal government. and right now, they have a perverse incentive where the bigger the contract, they get a percentage of that at the agency. it's essentially a slush fund that the agency itself gets back. so the bigger the contract, the

bigger the percent they get. it's a crazy incentive. they have no incentives to cut costs down. that's a really important issue but are with you going to get hearings on it? i don't think so. and not going to get it covered anywhere but on c-span. host: danielle brian, the executive director of the project oversight and the role of congress and what it is and isn't doing. jim is on the phone. cedar creek, nebraska. good morning. caller: good morning. this is a great introduction because isn't c-span, if i'm not mistaken, isn't it paid for by all the cable companies and stuff? and this lady, i mean, bless her heart, but she does bring her ideology with her. for instance, saying there's no i.g. inside the state department. doesn't president obama want someone to look over their shoulder? we know that. and as far as oversights before

the congress spent money, solyndra? huh? remember solyndra? but they were told no, you can't do this. you can't do this one. but obama has the tv appearance he had to do and it was green energy and everything. so that's what he always does -- what he wants and not what the congress wants or the people. and this g.s.a. is the government employees kicking us in the face. what would you do if you gave somebody a credit card and told them they could go ahead and use it for one little trip and come back? host: we'll get a response. guest: actually that's the point that i was making is that president obama has not nominated the inspector general at the state department and that is on his watch that he has allowed his entire administration essentially without an inspector general at that agency. so i think that that is sort of the point, that he is to blame for not nominating an inspector

general for a number of the agencies. and others are being held up by the senate and at the end of the day, you need to have balance. you need to are a -- have a strong i.g. having an i.g. is not enough. there was an inspector general called the special inspector general for construction and he was no good and we actually worked with senators grassley and coburn and mccaskel to have him removed. just having him there isn't enough. you have to have somebody good at their job. host: we get our funding from the cable industry, $0.06 per month per cable subscriber, that funds the three networks. our radio station heard coast to coast and our web site offerings and we are commercial free and we are a nonprofit, a public service by the cable industry so thank you for your is it not -- support to help span for c-span operations here and arnold the country. -- around the country. good morning. caller: good morning. while i was on hold, i heard something that has always bothered me.

that a million dollars is not real dollars or it's small potatoes compared to the real important things. if you have principles, it should apply for every dollar. not just the billions that some people think are the only ones that matter. this millions dollars waste is to me a symptom of really deep lack of principles but i have an experience i wanted to mention and i've never heard of miss brown's organization before. maybe she needs to contact "60 minutes" or some of the other investigative tv shows and then people would listen. but does she issue any reports that detail the waste, not just general but anything that details exact examples of waste and then my experience years ago i took a job as a government worker, it was on the state level but i worked as a social worker and it was appalling to me to find out that near the end of the budget year, we were told

oh, we've got this extra money we haven't spent. go out and buy new furniture. spend it somehow. we have to spend it so we'll get the same amount next year. caller: thanks but a lot of issues on the table. short on time. we'll get a response. guest: i certainly agree that million dollars is still a million dollars and all the tax dollars go towards that. of course, as we were discussing earlier, it is a worthy conversation for the congress to not only be conducting oversight but holding people accountable for wasting that kind of money. my point is that we shouldn't stop there. we should have the oversight of the bigger issues as well. i think that's where we're really not seeing the work done that really needs to be done by the congress in terms of oversight and definitely, i welcome you to come to pogo.org web site and you'll see endless reports that detail in excruciating detail. we're nerdy and get into the leads to show where the misconduct is and how to fix the

problems. for example, we have a spending smarter plan where we show $600 billion over 10 years that could be cut from wasteful spending in the national security arena. host: will the government listen? guest: a lot of the times it does. we over time have really been able to persuade, cajole, whatever words, you know, you might say to get either executive branch or congress to start taking on some of our recommendations. so that's part of why i love my job is we actually have some great successes. host: jan has this point, who audits the federal agencies? anyone? guest: yes, there's a number of different auditing elements, of course, the congress has an arm called the general accounting office that's full of auditors that do important work helping the congress do the audits and there are other agencies like the defense contract audit agency that unfortunately is not doing the quality of work that it used to do. that's one of the targets that we'd love to sort of strengthen their capacity and then you have all these inspectors generals that are -- there's actually 73

of them across the federal government and they, of course, have auditors as well. host: next call is john from atlanta. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm going to be short and sweet. i know we're short on time. i just wanted to mention to miss brian that mr. issa who is over the oversight committee, i'm talking about representative issa, should stop this witch hunting because all he's trying to do is find some kind of link to blame president obama and that's pretty much all i wanted to say. thank you. guest: i have to say, i had high hopes for congressman issa when he was becoming the chairman. when he had been in the minority, he did some terrific oversight of the former middle of management services, the department of interior and their lack of accountability of holding gas ministry accountable. we gave him a good government award at that time because he was going against the party really and pointing out problems

in a republican administration. i have to say to some extent, the investigations that his committee have undertaken do appear too partisan for us. host: with regards to the g.s.a., james saying it's not the money wasting. it's the mocking us. is that the problem many taxpayers have? guest: we didn't talk about that. there was some you tube videos of g.s.a. officials that actually were mocking the fact that the i.g. is never going to catch us doing this. that really gets you, you know, i mean, that's where it was so insulting. and yeah, that's true. it was -- it was outrageous. host: in a sentence, the mission statement of the projects on government oversight is what? guest: we aim to create a more effective, accountable, open and transparent federal government. host: the web site is pogo.org and you blog at pogo blog? that's right. guest: i said look us up!

host: thanks so much for being with us. executive director of government oversight. come back again. guest: thank you so much. host: we'll turn our attention to the developing situation in syria. a lot of news over the weekend and the last 13 months and the largest issue of developments in the middle east and the islamist movement. robin wright will be joining us at the table with the u.s. institute of peace. "the washington journal" continues on this sunday morning. we're back in a moment.

host: we want to welcome author and journalist robin wright. the book is called "islamists are coming, who they really are." for many years, robin wright has posted for "the washington post," cbs news, written for "the new yorker" "new york times" and "wall street journal", a long resume. thank you for being with us.

guest: always delighted to be with you, steve. host: you point out in your book that the islamists are not only coming in several countries they have already arrived. their rise to power happened quite abruptly within a single year, a rippling wave of uprisings opened the political states for the muslim movements that had struggled for a decade. guest: it's amazing since october you've seen islamist parties elected to rule governments. they're likely to do in elections in the next several months and those six countries alone account for over half of the arab world's 300 million people. this is a trend after decades of just trying to get in the door, the islamists have moved into the corridors of power. host: you point out because of the economic conditions and the backgrou background, the next decade will

be far more traumatic for insiders as well as outsiders with the inheritors of the arab world's broken and economic systems, whoever they are. guest: i think the next decade going to be tough in part because what started this all is a desire of having control of their lives politically but even more so to have a sense of dignity, to be guaranteed a job. the whole uprising is started by a street vendor in a remote town in tunisia that had been hassled and demanded a bribe by a government inspector. when he refused, she then confiscated all his goods and he went from government office to government office trying to get his goods back. just because he wanted a job. and in many ways, that's echoed. i went to tunisia last month and went back to the remote tunisian town where he set himself on fire and talked to the food vendors on that corner and i asked them how they felt a year later and their bottom line is

we have many more freedoms but far fewer jobs and they're unhappy. host: the united nations calling for as many as 300 observers to enter the country. the associated press reporting this morning that syrian troops storming and shelling districts outside of damascus and one activist in damascus saying that the u.n. observer's thing is in his words "a big joke." guest: the problem is this is a very big country and over 22 million people. and the idea is it's 300 u.n. monitors that can really control the whole country and have an accurate sense of what is happening. the government can basically play cat and mouse games with it as they move to one place or having a problem over whether they can use their own helicopters to move from city to city. the government can move elsewhere, flank them. and the fact that the regime has not met that basic criteria

which is removing its troops from the towns that have been under siege for months, reflects the fact that president assad doesn't seem to be serious about this. host: from one of your former employers, "the washington post" reported on the editorial page that their point was plan c for sir yashg the longer the obama administration backs diplomacy, the more syrians will die. mr. assad will never be induced by diplomacy to end insult on syrian cities, allow peaceful demonstrations or release political prisoners. this will not happen with president assad. >> i think that's true. i think anyone that knows syria well believes that's the case. and i think assad feels that the whole legacy of the family is a mistake.

i believe he doesn't have the kind of condition. he grew up in palaces and had a sense of the countryside but assad doesn't. and i think he's -- he doesn't understand the scope of this. he thinks by following the iran model which in 2009, the iranians put down dissent after the presidential election was disputed and millions were put out in the street, if he can do it, he can have it disappear. i think they've surprised me in their endurance given the oppressive nature of their regime for so long. host: we'll take calls in a moment and you can send us a comment on our twitter page. or send us an e-mail, journal at cspan.org, our conversation with robin wright. her newest book out this week

and we want to share with you the comments of defense secretary leon panetta on capitol hill this past week and asked before a house committee about syria. [video clip] >> we are leading an international effort to help stop the violence and support the peaceful political transition in syria. even as we speak, secretary of state clinton is meeting with our international partners in paris to determine what additional steps could be taken to make that happen? we know achieving that trend is a tough task from every angle, the situation in syria is enormously complex. there is no silver bullet. i wish there was but there wasn't. at the same time, the situation is of grave consequence to the

syrian people. host: and robin wright, there is that narrative that we did enter in libya. we're not in syria. two different countries and two different political situations but at the end of the day, there's still people being killed or harmed by their leader. guest: libya had a number of different things happen. you had, first of all, the arabs come together and say muammar qaddafi was no longer a legitimate leader and you had the united nations pass a resolution that had something called article 7 in it that allows the use of force. and the military's most mighty alliance took the lead in attacking his intelligence and military facilities to weaken qaddafi's hold on power. qaddafi was a very unpopular man both in africa and in the arab world. i've interviewed him several times. and so you had a sense of unity. there's no other situation in the arab world's 22 countries

that mirrors the kind of skepticism about qaddafi. and the problem is that the chinese and russians claim that they were duped by the europeans and the united states in passing the resolution. that authorize the use of force and they're quite nervous that this sets a precedence if they do it again or use of force against the popular uprisings and both of these countries have seen their own uprisings and unrest of muslim community in western china. china is one of the five largest muslim communities and you saw a protest movement before the election of vladimir putin in moscow so they don't like the idea that the u.n. is going to stand with people power and think it's a dangerous precedence to set and russia

have long standing commercial ties and both have veto powers at the united nations. it's been difficult to get the international community to stand as one and that's limited the american options. i don't think anybody likes the idea of the use of force. syria is a much more complicated country. more larger, much more sophistica sophisticated communities, and the idea that force could work in weeks and months is probably doubtful and it would be much more costly and this is the time that the europeans are facing their own financial woes and the united states with its obligations in iraq and afghanistan. host: our guest has edited or authored a number of books and she's a senior fellow of the institute of peace here in washington, d.c. and graduate of the university of michigan and author of rock the kazbah, rage and rebellion across the muslim world. getting an award this week?

we'll talk about that next week. let's go to ken in boca raton, florida, good morning to you. caller: good morning. miss wright, it would appear that the arab spring has become the winter of our discontent. and the immediate demise of mr. mubarak, iranian gun boats were floating through the suez canal. there has been, you know, unrest and uprisings all over the arab middle east and this idea of hoe s -- hosanahs and halleleujahs of a democratic future of the middle east appears to be somewhat realistic. i think in real politic terms, you know, this recent thing where the army in egypt disqualifies the muslim brotherhood, i think that's a good sign and i think we have to

stop thinking in naive terms about democracy, we'll solve all the problems because i don't think that the that the culture would support and i made that same statement that mr. sharansky some years ago when he published his book on democracy, i don't think there's anything in the arab historical experience that supports democracy. host: thanks for the call. robin wright? guest: the arab world was clearly the last bloc of countries to hold out in the democratic tie that has the rest of the world over the last 25 years. i disagree there's something inherent in either islam or the arab world that is in opposition or makes it incompatible with democracy. i think what we've seen over the last year is really kind of extraordinary and i remind you for a couple of things because i spent on years as a foreign correspondent and i covered the demise of the foreign soviet union and a generation later, you still have a former

communist and k.g.b. chief in power in moscow who could stay in the presidency until 2024. i also was in sueto the day the first black uprising began in 1976 and spent many, many months covering it. i then went back 15 years later when nelson mandela walked to freedom and now again a generation later, you find that the majority of blacks are worse off than they were on basic issues when mandela walked to freedom. the average life expectancy back then was 60 years. today it's 41. so this plays out in very tangible ways. change takes a long thing. i always felt the arab spring was a misnomer. that it assumed that you could change countries that had been ruled by pharoahs or kings or military generals. it takes more than 30 days of

public protests in tunisia and 18 days in egypt and in many ways, i think we're actually only beginning to see the revolution play out in egypt. as protesters are taking on the military, the last symbol of the regime and the ruling power right now. our next caller from overseas from wales. it is mid afternoon in great britain. go ahead, please. caller: hello there, how are you guys? yeah. just wanted to talk about the safety of the issues in the middle east. from the european, it's that it's our immediate neighborhood, as it were, you know, and we are always having a delicate balancing act and because there's no way to secure the land borders with the middle east and europe so that it is a

potential threat that somebody can bring something nasty in europe. something of that nature, a major threat to us. you guys have a major capacity to actually deal with a lot of the issues in the middle east because of the extreme system but what i would like to know is why you haven't gone to syria and actually said that we will not honor any u.s. aspect that you have unless you actually sort this issue out. guest: the most interesting thing that's happened is by the european union. and it has cut off oil sales from syria. that's been happening and went into effect late last year but started playing out in the fall and it's had an enormous impact on the syrian economy. sanctions have been far more effective against syria than iran. in part because syria has a limited economy and it made a

tragic mistake. when it discovered oil for export in the 1980's that it so focused on that income that it didn't use its new resources and revenues to try to develop other industries and oil has already begun to decline production, the quantities that it's able to produce and, of course, it's finding it very difficult to sell to anyone. there's some smuggling going on. but this has had an enormous impact. the united states has imposed sanctions for facilitating the clampdown and assisting the clamp down by the assad government. so the united states has used some of its resources , not everything, in its tool bag, you're right. host: joining us on the twitter page. now that u.n. is in syria, i saw footage of people huddling around u.n. troops. will the war begin when they kill one u.n. troop? guest: i don't think so.

and the danger is that the protesters get blamed by the government. this is -- it's a murky kind of situation and that's one of the problems, you cannot send a monitor out by himself. you have to have a team of them and 300 if it's going to take a while to get them there. and to have them patrolling the whole country, but you know, this is -- it becomes harder and harder for the russians and the chinese not to back tougher actions and they vetoed important sanctions against syria. if the peace process doesn't work and if assad is seen in violation, if he doesn't sit down at the negotiation and follow the six point plan outlined by u.n. -- former u.n. secretary general kofi anaan, then i think both moscow and beijing will be forced to kind of reconsider. host: shane is on the phone from concord, new hampshire. democrats line with robin wright. look at her book "the islamists are coming".

go ahead, shane. caller: hi, i just think we should bring an age of reason to the area. i think we should actually infiltrate the washington institutions which they call the education system. and actually teach those kids about comparative religions, science and all the other education that actually brought europe out of the crusades and the inquisition. i think, unless you do that, you're not going to get people on the same page of peace. i think you got to get people into thinking with reason instead of with superstitions and extreme dogma and that's my comment. and also, i want to say that, you know, putting books out into the public, teaching about comparative religion, maybe that will cause an uprising of peace

instead of shooting everybody in those countries and killing them and extending the war on terror and having american lives lost, thank you very much. >> thank you, shane. guest: shane, education really is a critical issue and one of the interesting things about these uprisings is they come at the intersection of a perfect storm. one of the big factors is the majority of arabs are today illiterate and they may not have high school or college degrees but they have a sense of the world. they can read about other ideas. and that includes women in the two most oppressive muslim countrys in the region, iran and saudi arabia, over 60% of the student body in universities is female and that's really changed their access to ideas, their sense of the world and that also means when they go on the internet, they can go beyond their immediate environment.

and the sense of the world and what's happened elsewhere, the ideas of globalization have been very profound in shaping both their agenda and what they want next in this so-called new order. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio heard coast to coast on xm and here in the washington-baltimore area. our guest is robin wright. she is at the u.s. institute of peace and the author and editor of "becoming who we really are." here's a point from the twitter country. why aren't other mideast countries stopping the violence in syria as we saw in libya? guest: libya is in unique in part because of its geography. most of its population is along the coast. very small population of 1/2 million people and so there are a lot of incentives for whether it was -- particularly the

european union but other institutions in agreeing to joint actions. syria is going to be so much more complicated and in many ways, since the ouster of hosni mubarak in egypt, syria is the bellwether for what happens elsewhere in the region. host: egypt? guest: no, syria. now that hosni mubarak is gone, i think syria is the bellwether for how far these uprisings go and if he -- if president assad is forced from power, one way or another, i think he will find that there's enormous incentive in growing movements in other arab countries where we haven't seen protests. i think within a decade, you're likely to see challenges and change in virtually every one of the 22 arab countries because there is this popular issue that they pointed out, they know what's happening elsewhere in the world and they don't want to be excluded. and if you can topple assad,

anything is possible. host: go back to egypt, though, because the contributor to your book "islamists are coming" says this. more than any other group, the muslim brotherhood reflects the way islamist politics have transformed arab politics in the early 21st century facing regular repression under successive presidents in egypt and now poised to play critical roles as egypt trends towards democracy and that has not been an easy transition. guest: i think the next decade will be more difficult than the last. muslim brotherhood is a fascinating case study and it was the first modern islamist grum and it was started by a 22-year-old teacher and he mobilized six disgruntled workers on the suez canal and the idea was a religious and social movement that would both

spread the word and create social outlets. sports clubs. women's groups. youth facilities. for those who are devout muslims and today, it has over 85 branches with tens of millions of followers across the islamic world. it's the granddaddy of them all. and it's done very well in the election in egypt for parliament in one -- over 40 -- i think about 47% of the vote. almost half of the vote but there's another group. and this is where you begin to see the islamic world splintering, that it has its own political spectrum now. and in egypt, there's someone called salvis who are ultraconservative, muslim brotherhood has evolved over the years and it's saying now that it doesn't want to rewrite the constitution any more than it

was under president sadat who first talked about having islam as a basis for all legislation and in the south, he's won about 25% of the vote even though they only formed their party in the summer of last year. and the two groups don't like each other and i went to see them in january as the election results were coming in and the muslim brotherhood would say about them they're extreme and naive and they're not a legitimate reflection of the mature outlook of islamic parties now and what they said about the muslim brotherhood, oh, they've proceed economized all their islamic principle and they're rivals and it's been fascinating to see the new islamic spectrum emerge in the region. host: our next caller is carolyn joining us from louisiana. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about how the islamists want to either

convert or kill you that would be you on tv, too, anybody that doesn't convert to islam. that's what the quran says and also outnumber european and american babies and we murder a million american babies a year. i want a comment to see how she would feel when she is forced to convert to islam or wear the burka and how we will never catch up with the baby number because we're killing a million babies a year and they're not. guest: well, on the baby boom issue, it is true that the largest portionate baby boom in the world is in the arab world. the birth rate has actually started to go down. so there's a group of activists who are in their early 20's

through their kind of mid 30's who are a very large number in terms of the society. in fact, 2/3 of the arab world's 30 million people are under the age of 30. but i think that there are an awful lot of stereotypes about arabs and muslims that are misnomers. most americans i'm surprised that they don't understand that islam is the continuation of a single religious tradition, that they embrace whether it's jesus or david as early prophets, the only woman mentioned by name in the quran, the only woman is the virgin mary. i gave christmas cards every year for muslims who "from the quran" about the birth of jesus. so this is one of the dangers, i think, there's such stereotypes that come from iran, from the iranian revolution from the

suicide bombs that began in beirut when i was there and i lost a lot of friends in all of them whether it's 9/11 attacks that there is such a suspicion and fear that we tend to embrace many of the myths and the stereotypes when that's really changing. with this young generation. host: this is a simple question and it could be the topic of dissertations, could anybody provide the u.s.a. a mission statement on syria and the middle east overall? guest: that's such a good question. we had a common set of goals when it came to helping the end of military dictatorships in latin america. we had to come to the standards when it came to ending minority rule and apartheid in africa and the same when it came to eastern europe and the collapse of communism, we wanted the same thing. we are seen by many in the arab

world as consistent, that we want freedoms and open political systems across morocco, tunisia, algeria, libya, egypt, yemen and jordan but then it comes to a screeching halt on the oil rich sheik-doms of the persian gulf. there we prefer stability over the implementation of our values and even saudi arabia is going to face, i think, real challenges. this is a country where you have the average age is 26 and the average age of the cabinet ministries is 65. the king is 87. his heir apparent died a few months ago at the age of 83. and the third in line is 78 and he just finished a month in the cleveland clinic. we're not talking about one generation gap. we're talking about two or three. and the problem is all the oil wells in saudi arabia, unemployment rates is 10% to 12%, higher than it is in the united states and yet, among the young who are the largest proportion of society, unemployment is well over 30%.

and so you can see that ground swell. you can co-opt them for a while by injecting money, creating, get relief and housing loans and sports and literary clubs but long term, they, too, were aware of what's happened and they too are going through an education spurt. for writer, author and now fellow at the u.s. institute of peace, robin wright, rich is on the phone from london, england. go ahead, please. welcome to the conversation. caller: hi, thanks. good topic. i think essentially quite shallow because the lady that's talking, i'm sorry, i forgot your name isn't really mentioning like the previous caller the petro dollar that controls america's vast interest in the middle east and it really controls all the arab springs which, again, are essentially hollow and if you look at egypt, it's won out so far because the military is still running that government and i think probably would be naive to think that wasn't really backed by america.

that's why they're not telling them not to allow islamic groups to come in. so when the lady talks about the arab spring seeing how far they go, looking at each other in their own countries, i don't think that's right because if you look at the countries that controlled mostly by america, they're not going to allow a full revolution. guest: i actually agree with you very much. that was my whole point in my last comment that we are supportive of democracy movements or political openings anyway in , you know, several north african countries and a little bit into the arab heartland but not in saudi arabia particularly but in the other sheik-doms as well. this is a real point of controversy and there's a sense in the arab world that the united states is hypocritical, that it would rather see stability because it needs oil. and -- host: we had a comment from james who says we're spending a fortune trying to avoid an arab

spring in saudi arabia. let's go to theresa who is joining us from bolling brook, illinois. good morning to you. caller: religion to me is manmade. it's organized. your relationship and your faith and your spirituality has nothing to do with manmade religion. so that's what i want to say about that. but i want to go back to what she said earlier about qaddafi being the enemy to also the african nations. that's not true. qaddafi was not an enemy of the african nations. i mean, he helped them, you know, build their telecommunications system that was controlled by france and they were paying exorbitant amount of money and imf and the world bank would not giet them o help create their own telecommunications system and qaddafi helped them. qaddafi was going to help the

african nations build their own central bank. i think qaddafi was killed because of currency, what he was doing to make the african nations independent of the west. host: theresa, thanks for the call. guest: thank you, theresa. there are over 50 countries in africa and some of them had decent relations with qaddafi in part because they bought oil from libya. and qaddafi used some of his oil wells to help some of the countries but nobody trusted him. this is a man who was extremely eccentric and not reliable as a partner and so there was a great deal of concern about the stability of the country and you didn't -- with a couple of exceptions, he didn't have many people, many leaders in african countries really rally to him in the end. host: and gary has essentially that point, but for the oil and israel, we could care less about what happens in the middle east,

ask the ugandans how much we care about suffering. guest: i couldn't agree more. if you want you want to counter terrorism, i've often said that you need to develop alternative energy sources. iep not talking about drilling in alaska. i think long term, we'll continue to support some of the most autocratic regimes in the world that we need their oil. there's no sign that we're moving towards diminish our consumption. host: and to go back to syria, the associated press has put together syria by the numbers and you said a large country that as many as 9,000 to 11,000 people have been killed since the uprising took place in march of 2011. the number of syrians who have fled or taken refuge, 230,000. the size of syria's armed forces estimated to be around 250,000 active personnel and syria's rebel forces, those trying to oust the regime estimated to be around 10,000. so a huge disparity.

guest: and that's -- and most of the -- those that they call the pre-syrian army are defectors and it's the fact that they took their rifles and a bit of ammunition with them and it's very difficult to cross the border and carry weapons -- weaponry or new supplies to the -- to the rebels and so there's no military solution in terms of the syrian army taking on the syrian government. it can annoy the regime, it can kill some of its troops. but it will -- it -- not for the foreseeable future and i mean years could it be really -- it would take, i think, if it's -- if there is any military outcome, it would take someone who is still within syria's military to say the costs are too high for us. to engage in a coup. host: we have about a minute left. trey is in the phone from

houston. good morning with robin wright. caller: good morning. i've been waiting a long time. i think it's a pretty orwellian name, the peace institute, syrian rebels as in american officials admitted to being armed by them. hillary clinton says, well, if assad tries to put down an armed uprising, he should be accused of war crimes. meanwhile, in america, where, you know, we're really free. we have t.s.a. riding the bus, and the department of homeland security has bought a half million hollow point bullets and then the peace institute, have they ever asked for peace? host: thanks for the call. guest: i'm a joint fellow at the u.s. institute of peace and the woodrow wilson center and the united states is actually not arming the syrian opposition. they've talked about providing some kind of humanitarian assistance from the refugees but no one has figured out a good

way to do that. united states' actions really are largely limited to sanctions. and the u.s. institute of peace is really engaged full time in trying to prevent conflict and dealing with post conflict society and how to help rebuild whether it's politically or economically. host: what did you learn in putting this book together? guest: well, we actually tracked over 50 islamic groups in 14 of the 22 arab countries that are now major players in shaping the new order. and so it was fascinating. for many years, the idea is that islam and democracy were incompatible. that was a conventional wisdom and one of the things that's striking today is that islam and democracy in these countries are now interdependent and whatever happens to one will also happen to the other. host: robin wright who is the editor of "the islamists are coming". we'll continue the conversation tomorrow morning on c-span's "washington journal."

the program gets under way every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. "newsmakers "coming up next at the top of the hourment thanks for joining us on this sunday. hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great weekend. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]