guest: this caller, like most of the others, expresses a serious concern about the united states intervening overseas. what we're talking about in the ukraine is not a deployment. it is diplomacy. there are no dangers of the type that existed when we put military forces on the ground in afghanistan. the caller is right. other countries do not get involved in our civil rights movements. we have a history as the world's oldest democracy to encourage democracy around the world. there's nothing wrong with that.

i think he makes a very good point, but this is not iraq or afghanistan. the anti-interventionist tendency as a result of our problem deployments in afghanistan and iraq. what we're doing in ukraine is a little bit more active, little bit more intelligent -- a little more active. host: possible sanctions? guest: that is diplomacy. it does not cost anything to issue sanctions. sanctions talk is having an impact. a positive impact. host: who does it impact and who does the cost? guest: it costs those that are causing and promoting violence in the ukraine. host: what about the people of the ukraine? guest: that is the beauty of the

sanctions. we put the sanctions on iraq -- all the sanctions on iran. sanctions against a few oligarchs does not hit the people of ukraine. they pay no cost for it. if it leads to better policies, that is their benefit. host: "ukraine opposition leader urges demonstrators for truce as protesters seize government building in kiev." guest: that sounds like it is the right thing for the opposition leaders to ask. one of the problems is that the opposition leaders do not control the demonstrators. host: milo, independent caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was wanting to ask -- these people in the ukraine, not just in the ukraine, but venezuela,

thailand, egypt, syria, all over the world, they are probably against their government looking into -- listening to their phones, watching their e-mails and texts, knowing everything about their banking, their health, parts of the government putting down any kind of groups that do not agree with them. does that sound familiar and does this country need to look at our own situation when it comes to democracy and liberty? the new thing now is that we want regulators in our newsrooms, radio stations. they want to monitor our license plate tags. i imagine people all over the world are protesting against that type of situation. host: let me jump in. i want to update our viewers about the story you mentioned

about license plates. the homeland security has canceled the plan for a national license plate tracking device or database. that has been canceled after it was revealed yesterday by "the washington post." guest: i agree with the caller that many people around the world aren't happy about the authoritarian policies of their government. it seems to be that call is more about what is happening in the united states. of course we have to be vigilant to preserve our own freedoms. host: how many of these eruptions are in putin's backyard and attributable to his influence? guest: he lives in an unstable region and i do not blame the russians for the current term don't in ukraine.

-- turbulence in ukraine. they are not playing a helpful role, but the problems are of ukrainian origin. host: what will you be watching for today? guest: we will see if mr. yanukovych issues a state of emergency, decrees a state of emergency. that is important. we'll see if the military does anything to help control crowds. that is important. and also, the efforts by the opposition to pass constitutional reform. these are the things i will be watching. host: where do you get your news? guest: online, i have good contacts with people in ukraine. i get a lot of stuff directly from there. there is a good group of 10 to 15 people in washington that know the ukraine well. over the past several months, we have been in regular touch with each other. host: what are you hearing from the people you know inside ukraine?

guest: my job is to try to make sense of the various reports i get. most of the folks i hear from our people who are on side of the demonstrators. we get reports about the nasty tactics of the government and we get a lot of reports about their fears. going back to early and mid-december, every few weeks i am getting stuff in from people out there saying the crackdown is coming. while there have been efforts of crackdown, there has never been a serious effort. host: thank you for being here. i appreciate your time. guest: my pleasure. >> going to the ap for the latest on the situation in ukraine, at least 70 people are reported dead in the clashes in the ukrainian capital of kiev. that comes from a medical coordinator for the protesters. video on ukrainian tv shows protesters being cut down by

gunfire and lying on the pavement as demonstrators rushed to their aid. ukrainian officials say that 67 police were also captured. cnn reports that 100 people have died so far in the uprising. emerson congress are tweeting their reactions. senator bob casey remarks, "i support the imposition of a visa bans on key ukrainian officials, and we should consider additional sanctions if the violence continues." mccain, "as john crisis in ukraine deteriorates, the u.s. and all nations must support the territorial integrity of ukraine." the white house has issued a statement about the clashes in ukraine. we are also expecting more from the white house on all of this.

we hear about it at today's administration briefing. deputy spokesman josh earnest will answer reporters questions this afternoon at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. this morning we posted a facebook question asking you what you think the u.s. role should be in the conflict in ukraine, and here are some major comments. easilyrbara you can post your comments at facebook.com/cspan and we could read years on the air. to two u.s.ill talk senators about the personal lives, careers, and some interesting fact about their names. senator heidi had cap tells us how her name went from mary

catherine to heidi. >> i grew up in a very small catholic community and when i was growing up, the 2 classes, whether it was first and second or third and fourth, were in the same classroom. at that time, a really small group of girls -- there was a lot of marys. she was betsy, marianne, that mary jo, and there was mary katherine. my parents never called me mary. my name is kathy. my best friend's name was cathy. she decided in the third grade that she would rename me. she was a voracious reader and had already read hundreds of books of the time she was in the third grade. favoriteas one of her books, she thought it was great alliteration, she gave me the name and it stuck. >> later, we talk to senator john thune on how his grandfather changed the family name. >> my grandfather and great

uncle came over from norway in 1906, and when they got to ellis island, they didn't know english with the exception of i guess the words "apple pie wa" and "coffee." they were asked by immigration officials to change the name because that that it was difficult for people to spell and pronounce in this country. so when they got to ellis island, they asked them to change their name and pick up the name of the farm where they thune farm.way, the my grandfather was nikolai and he became nick thune. they got to ellis island and had a sponsor in south dakota and cannot work on the railroads. >> "american profile" interviews and senators heidi heitkamp johnson, tonight at 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and the c-span.org.

a discussion on a new book examining hillary clinton's life and political career, from today "washington journal." host: we're back with two authors. amie parnes and jonathan allen. co-authors. what story are you trying to tell in this book about hillary clinton? guest: a couple of storylines. one is her comeback story. i find it fascinating. i think anyone would find it fascinating. mostly how she would govern if she were president. this is her biggest management job. how does she manage a 70,000 person bureaucracy and how does she govern and what decisions does she make and who does she surround herself with? all of these things are highlighted in the book. host: if you are trying to figure out what kind of president she would make, what did you think you needed to say about her?

guest: we needed to figure out how it is she makes decisions, what she puts an emphasis on, what her priorities are. she has had a lot of experience inside washington. nobody campaigns successfully as the ultimate washington insider. that might be good on television but not necessarily for presidential candidates. the truth is what we see with a lot of recent presidents is the inability to maneuver in washington and work with congress, a lack of understanding of how agencies and the private sector work and interact. we wanted an idea of her views on those things. one of the things we found is that she is seen as having a bias for action, wanting to do things and be willing to take risks, calculated risks, but take some risks in order to try to achieve something.

most politicians are risk-averse. host: what did you learn about her, her personality, her decision-making process? guest: the so-called bias reaction she has. she is a retail politician in her own right. we think of bill clinton as a gregarious guy but she does it as well. we tell a story about how she left the state department and sent 16,000 thank you notes to people, 5000 of them handwritten. quite a task. we thought that was interesting and also how she kept tabs on politics. she was away and travel to 112 countries, but she always had her pulse on what was happening here back home. host: why do you think that matters? guest: it matters in terms of politics. running for president, we detail how she cut the operation and

continue to reach out to the business community, to supporters throughout her time in the state department, helped her husband settle scores on the campaign trail, held president obama with the election. it all sets her up in a better position for 2016, thanking people. a lot of times when presidential campaigns do not work out, candidates end, it is the end of the world for them. not only does it help in terms of trying to win an election later, but it helps when you are trying to move them on public policy issues later on. it is classic politics, the thing all old-school city mayors would do, and something that is one of hillary and invite these -- one of hillary clinton's ways of reaching out to people. her husband has great charisma in terms of winning people over. she has got to work harder at

that. host: it is interesting there is a lot in here about bill clinton and what he is doing at the same time that she is secretary of state. why did you include that in the book? guest: they are interwoven. i see her as an individual person, but he is so much a part of her life. his story is her story. they are tied together for good and bad. host: would her aides like it? guest: i do not know they necessarily like the image. i know not all of these things in this book. there is a hillaryland and a bill world and they make a clinton universe and there is a crossover when you have two principles with their own interests, sometimes, it lines

up perfectly and sometimes less than perfectly. there are strategies for getting things done. a lot of conflict. host: did you hear from the former secretary of state? guest: we are not talking about who we got it from. we heard the reaction. mixed reviews. some clintonites not happy with us. some happy and content with the book. guest: that is probably a good way to say it. one of them was this hit list where they tracked the people who do not treat her particularly well and then bill clinton went out on the campaign trail and knocked many of them out in the primaries. nobody in clinton land like that at all. host: that made news, but there was one part in here where you talk about claire mccaskill, the senator, and how much she is disliked by the clinton camp. why is that?

guest: to this day. it is interesting. she has come out early to endorse hillary clinton. it dates back to 2006. the clintons had campaigned and fun raised for her and she was on "meet the press," and she was asked about president clinton, and she said something to the effect of, i think he has been a great leader but i would not want my daughter near him. that angered a lot of clintonites and following that, she made a quip to a friend saying, she would not want to be stuck in an elevator with her, which we found to be interesting. guest: in 2008, she not only endorsed senator obama, but the issue of a fresh endorsement every day on television, they had -- the headquarters, people were cursing their tv sets every time they saw her on whichever

show she would be on. they got very upset or you now see it come full circle where she is trying to get back into clinton posses good graces. hillary clinton herself and bill clinton will be gracious about that, but when you talk to their aides, they still hate her and it will not change anytime soon. host: i want to go back to her personality and what goes into it. this is one part of your book. host: what do you make of the role of faith? guest: is something she has spoken about at times before, but clearly, it is important to her. we found out she is on an e-mail chain with a small set of old friends. her faith adviser in 2008, a

longtime clinton aide, jesse jackson before them. they discuss religious teachings and stuff like that. she does not often want to go to church in public because she worries about disturbing other people's ability to worship because of the fanfare that comes along when she sleeps in with the secret service or state department detail. it is something that matters to her. her fate is in methodism, a strong component of public service in it. she sees it as her role to do things for the better good. not everybody agrees with her view of how that should happen or what is the better good, but it is something driving within her. host: you write that played a role in her decision to accept president obama, many please for

her to join his administration and take over the state department. guest: she dodged him a few times. went out to chicago and they sat down and she said no and he said to think about it and sleep on it. she dodged his calls a few times. what eventually happened was he offered it to her, and she said, let's talk conditions and called him back one morning and that was a sign. the way she explains it is, if she had been president-elect, and she had asked president -- senator obama to serve for her, she would have expected him to do it. she has a call for public service. she is a politician, but this is something she really believes in. host: there are more details to delve into from the new book, what her role was, what her responsibilities were, what she took credit for, what she did at the state department. we will get into that here.

but howard is up first in pennsylvania. a democratic caller. caller: good morning. i would like to say i think the middle-class, which i consider myself a part of, whether you are a republican or independent or democrat, we are looking for someone to address the problem of our jobs going to china and india, bringing them back to america, and i think obama made a big mistake by emphasizing health care. i think the economy is number one and our jobs. that is all i have to say. host: you write about the role hillary clinton played on president obama said he would push health care. guest: secretary clinton was generally attempted to stay out of domestic politics, generally not the job of the secretary of

state to get involved in politics. because she had been involved in health care in the early 1990's, there was a level of toxicity she might have for obamacare had she been publicly involved. behind the scenes, she was offering advice to president obama's top aides on her history with health care, trying to fight in the early 90's, her insight. she spoke to a few lawmakers for the white house who were considering what they should do with their votes. we write about a cabinet meeting in 2009, right after the tea party summer in september 2009. basically all the cabinet members were getting upset and there was a lot of frustration and complaint for the white house that their agenda was getting consumed by health care and health care would end up bringing down the party and the rest of the agenda. hillary clinton made an impassioned plea for the cabinet members to get behind president obama.

there is not an opportunity that comes along like this very often. let's get this done now. folks in the administration told us they felt that was an underappreciated moment, but still a pivotal moment where she was bringing the force of her political weight behind president obama in front of all these leading democrats. host: you have in the book this picture of president obama receiving a congratulatory hug. clinton had pushed for health care reform when her husband had -- was president. supported obama's insistence the law be passed and she spoke up on the president's behalf. let's go to bob in illinois. independent caller. caller: good morning. i look forward to reading your book.

guest: thank you. caller: i have two questions. we are told we should not talk about the past with fast -- with secretary clinton. if she does run, looking forward, i wonder if you guys would rank her accomplishments as secretary of state. would it be with russia, slowing down iran posses development with nuclear bombs, egypt, syria, benghazi, how would you rank those? number two, we saw the photos when osama bin laden was taken down in the white house situation room. as far as we know, hillary clinton and the president were both in washington when that happened. in all your interviews and research, did you ever see a photo in the situation room or know where she was on that day? host: let's talk about her accomplishments at the state department. guest: one of the biggest things is that she did support the president and was a big advocate for him on libya, the afghan surge, the rate for bin laden, but i think the reset button is also a big moment for her. there are other moments i think jon can also talk about.

guest: generally speaking, the united states was seen around the world after the first term of obama administration and she was a chief advocate abroad. relationships with european partners, some relationships in in the arab world improved. not everything got better, but i think that was an important thing she contributed to. she elevated development and diplomacy as part of american foreign policy for so long in the post-9/11 world. american foreign-policy was all combat. it was all military. that elevation of diplomacy as part of the foreign-policy mix was an important accomplishment and it would've been harder for some folks with less influence to do it as fast in the american government. host: what about weighing in on the controversial issues that the secretary of state has to take on? the middle east peace process. guest: there is obviously no

middle east peace. she did not get israelis to sit down and join hands. nor has anybody else in a long time. and the white house really wanted to control those particular issues. she had a special envoy for the middle east. ended up quitting. so yes, she did not make a lot of progress with that. the last time there was an outbreak of violence in the area, israel and the palestinians, it was hillary clinton who went in and literally did shuttle diplomacy between the israelis and palestinians and the egyptians to get a cease-fire in late 2012. we detail it in the book. she was skeptical of how long that would hold. it has held for about a year and a half so far. no long-term peace deal, but at least they're

not shooting at each other. guest: before we continue, it is really interesting. leon panetta came to her one day in the situation room she came to lunch, no one knew about it. her aide thought she disappeared for a little while. he actually wanted her buy-in. we think that is a pivotal moment. he saw she had a so-called bias for action that we talked about. he we really wanted her support on this and was important for him. i was a strong moment for her. host: she disagrees at the time with secretary gates. this is someone she really aligned with and they shared a lot of opinions, but this was where they disagreed. guest: vice president biden as

well, who might run against her in the primary, generally better in the democratic primary to be a dove, but she was the hawk in the national security meetings and biden was the dove and a president obama ended up taking a more hawkish position then democrats thought he would. host: you write that she and president obama were in washington the day of the raid. guest: the bin laden raid, yes. guest: before the correspondents dinner, you might recall, there was a funny moment where there was a whole situation, what happens, what do we do if the whole thing interferes with the white house correspondent dinner and she used profanity and said, who cares? guest: we are not allowed in the situation room but there is no reason to believe it was fake. host: you write president obama had to change his jokes because he knew what was about to happen later in the evening. but a lot of his aides did not, including his speechwriter. guest: they thought it was an interesting moment, like, why are we changing this.

guest: at that point, they did not know mitt romney would be a nominee. they went through a series of republican nominees and give them nicknames. they had to change it because they knew the raid was going down, so they changed it. that is one of the fun stories in the book. host: let's get some students involved in the conversation. our big 12 conference tour. today, iowa state university, we have six political science students. i want to start with kristen johnson. go ahead, you are up first. caller: good morning. such an extensive history. it seems remarkable hillary clinton has been able to keep

such a positive image for most americans. i was curious what you thought of that? guest: resilience. this is something up and down and when she gets knocked down, she has not stayed down. for her adversaries and enemies, some of them at least respect the fight in her. for those inclined to like her, they see her as an inspiration in terms of coming back time and again. at one point, amy wanted to call the book of the phoenix because she thought hillary clinton was rising from the ashes one more time. we saw on the campaign trail in 2008, she was -- we see the echoes in 2016. as an underdog when barack obama was beating her, she suddenly gained more popularity and seemed more comfortable in that role. it is an interesting thing. a lot of people identified with the basic comeback story.

we think that is one of the reasons the book is readable and enjoyable, whether folks agree or disagree with her. guest: she had high numbers at the state department and largely was told by one of her friends, because you are not in politics anymore. as soon as she is coming back in politics, you're seeing that already. her numbers are coming down. her friend advised her one day in a car ride. they were talking about numbers and she said, once you come back into politics, watch out here at your numbers are high now. i think the clintons are very aware of this sort of thing. host: gerald is next, a democratic caller. caller: how are you on this beautiful morning? please bear with me. i'm a disabled vietnam veteran. i have got a couple of quick items.

i think what is wrong with america, one reason why hillary clinton keeps bouncing back, is that most americans do not confuse the definition of scandal, which is with proof, versus accusations, which is without proof. we do not confuse that. the second item is benghazi, somebody brought up this morning. i understand that is a tragedy but most people leave out the senate report that just came out. the bottom of page 20 and the top of page 21, when the ambassador refused security two times from december 16 -- august 16 until september 11, when the commander offered it to him. one last item, the situation over in syria, russia keeps intervening, the only report they have, why don't we just rented -- hong kong for about 50 years.

we could settle the problem over there. host: let's begin with scandal versus accusations. guest: this interesting because of recent papers coming out. monica lewinsky a little more, and the 1990's, the clintons in the 1990's. they want to move past this. there is disagreement in the republican party about how to handle it. you have some say everything is fair game. karl rove saying, not so much. there is so much to focus on right now, benghazi, where we dredging up the past? they have to decide how to handle that. i do not think you will hear a peep from the clintons on that right now. host: a tweet -- guest: interesting. i think the book probably has the most serious, concise, independent, nonpartisan,

description of what actually happened in benghazi, what the foreign policy was there, the decision to go into libya, how hillary clinton first put the coalition together to go to knock them out of power, the effort that was put in there to normalize relations with the government, all the way through benghazi not only on the ground there, but in washington as well. then the aftermath, talking points, classified briefings on capitol hill, the famous moment in the senate hearing when she says, what difference at this point does it make? as far as benghazi goes, she says it was her biggest regret. there is no evidence the request for security in tripoli, a long-distance from benghazi, ever actually made it anywhere near her desk. she says she is responsible. the question for blame lies with the terrorists first and

foremost. then there is a secondary question, anybody else? the caller mentioned and others reporting we heard since we finished the book, basically suggesting, kristi vince wanted -- kristi vince wanted to be out there. stevens wanted to be out there. i would recommend that readers, particularly read our parts on benghazi. we try to take a serious and fair-minded look. caller: when it came to gathering research from your

book, what was the biggest obstacle you faced? guest: good question. it was a long complicated process. we started a couple years ago in 2012 around the convention season. the research was really a particularly difficult thing, it was hard to get access. this is a very insular world. john and i had sources on the hill and at the state department, at the white house. we tried to cobble together our source list, talk to as many people as possible. we talked to more than 200 people. people who like her, don't like her, everyone. guest: it is unusual for two reporters to have completely different source lists. there is very little overlap between the people amie talk to and the people i talk to. that was helpful, we were really expanding who we were talking to. another thing i found difficult,

the state department summarily rejects a lot freedom of affirmation act requests that seem simple. we had a researcher helping us, you have to frame these things pretty carefully. i was surprised at the types of things that came back as rejection letters. makes me want to spend more time constructing requests. host: nancy, texas, independent caller. caller: i have two points of view. what we need in the white house -- we do not need all these politicians and old blood. we need new blood and leaders. host: got your point, nancy. amie parnes? guest: that is tough for the clintons, they have monica lewinsky and the 1990's. i think they would actually fare

quite well. guest: that is one of the reasons you see karl rove and republican leaders saying these scandals are not fertile ground, if it did not stick to bill clinton and hurt him politically, it is not going to hurt hillary clinton politically. who was more than a bystander but not much more. host: tweeting in, nearly all female democrats i know want hillary. guest: i am sure there are some female democrats who do not want hillary, it is a small minority. host: what about the female vote, i want to show from her concession speech in 2008. one line, a couple lines she put in there. and the talk about the back story. [video clip] [applause] >> we were not able to shatter

that hardest glass ceiling, but thanks to you it has about 18 million cracks in it. [applause] the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with hope and knowledge that the past will be a little easier. host: amie parnes, next time? guest: it was arguably her best speech of the campaign. jim kennedy came up with that 18 million cracks line, which we discovered in the book. i think she is going to embrace it a little more this time, she was reluctant to do that during this particular speech, there was back and forth with one of her aides about how to address the fact that she was a woman candidate, i don't think she will have the same hesitance.

guest: taking that speech apart, we do that in the book, there is a rhetorical refrain where she echoes sojourner truth, the abolitionist and suffragist. sojourner truth was famous for saying "ain't i a woman." hillary clinton is saying at the end, but i am a woman. sort of linking through sojourner truth the women's movement and the black civil rights movement. as a way of getting her supporters to see obama as somebody making history. that same logic could be applied should she be running for president, to be the first woman president, to talk to african-americans, hispanics, and others who have seen glass ceilings and went to see those come down. it is interesting to see those seeds planted and later in the

convention speech, she uses harriet tubman, known as an abolitionist. a little different from sojourner truth, still using that arc of unifying in one person the hopes of folks who wanted to see the first african-american president. host: let's go back to ames, iowa. matalin, go ahead. caller: good morning. you described hillary clinton as a formidable states woman, drawing attention to her adoption of traditionally masculine traits to achieve success. i was wondering, with hillary's success as a strong female leader, do you think she has inspired other fema candidates to defy traditional gender roles

in the political realm? guest: she got advice throughout her campaign from people who said do not let people know how strong you are. she had a series of sessions at her house that summer, she learned she should have done that a little more. it does signal you can be a powerful woman and embrace the fact that you are a strong female. guest: i want to know whether these students think hillary clinton could win the iowa caucus? if we have any more students, i would like their opinion. host: we can have them think about that. dana says, why did hillary resign? guest: it was never her intention to stay longer than years. most cabinet secretaries

do not stay on past a first term. aboard air force one, the president asked the secretary to stay on for another year, he says will you stay? someone told us he did not put the screws to her, she did not want to stay, she left a few months later. guest: leon panetta had told him he was not going to stick around, hillary clinton was leaving, the successor for hillary clinton, susan rice, the one obama wanted, was getting destroyed on capitol hill over benghazi and the talking points on the talk shows. in her charm to win over some of the senators, she ended up making more enemies than friends. looking at a situation where he will have to have a new defense secretary, a new secretary of state. he has got somebody leaving who has become a pretty loyal and strong advisor to him.

he thought we can keep hillary clinton for a while and find the next secretary of state, resurrects susan rice a little bit. interesting moment, she just says i am done. host: what he think the impact could be on john kerry's tenure, what he might accomplish. could he overshadow -- if she decides to run in 2016 -- could he overshadow what she did? guest: sure, he has a few years left, he is reaching for the stars, and efforts to clean up syria's chemical weapons, get iran to give up nuclear weapons, peace in the middle east. on iran, the state department under hillary clinton really started those negotiations. if there is a victory, john kerry will get credit, that is a shared victory.

we also know there is a possibility for a lot of things to go wrong. a lot of folks thought they were the ones to go into the middle and solve the problem, as we see, assad is still solving his own -- is still slaughtering his own people. host: amie parnes, given what is happening in ukraine, how do you think hillary clinton shaped obama's decision-making process, how do you react in a situation like ukraine? guest: she made him more of a hawk. that surprised a lot of democrats, she brought him farther than he was willing to go. that is why leon panetta wanted her buy in on bin laden. what do you think? guest: we will see what happens with ukraine. the problem for the u.s., we simply do not have that kind of

power we would like to have internationally. there was a time when the u.s. would speak and other nations would respond. i think the american public expects there is something the u.s. can do to affect a situation. really, in terms of affecting foreign politics, often it is a long-term thing we can do through sanctions. it is very hard to do immediately. if you are in the ukraine and fighting for your life are fighting to put on a revolution, what the u.s. says or sanctions might not have any immediate bearing. host: talking about hillary clinton's career and her future with the authors of a new book, "hrc." amie parnes of "the hill," jonathan allen from bloomberg. this line from your book on libya. "libya was hillary's war."

guest: this could have been her crown jewel, republicans think that was the attack they were taking, then benghazi happened. guest: in terms of it being her war, in the u.s., the president and many of his advisers, including bob gates and joe biden were reluctant to get involved in libya. they were already involved in afghanistan and iraq, some knew there was a plan to go after bin laden, another strike on a sovereign nation potentially. internationally, the europeans wanted a no-fly zone, americans thought that was ineffectual. you had to get arab nations on board.

different politics within them, you had to get them bought in, they were bought into a no-fly zone, then i got turned around -- then it got turned around into a strike. a set of strikes to take out gaddafi. all that was done on the ground in various capitals by hillary clinton. she came back to president obama and said the coalition is here for this if you are willing to do it. guest: she put together this coalition, she had her stamp on it. host: terry, indiana, republican caller. caller: good morning. i am a ron paul republican. but i love the clintons. guest: go figure. caller: when president clinton was in office, the economy was great. i am sure if hillary was the president, it would be great again.

host: can i ask you why you think because it was great under bill clinton, why you assume it would be great if hillary clinton became president? caller: she forgave her husband, he is still by her side, he would help her become a great president. host: she is a two-fer. caller: yes. marijuana should be legalized. if that is what she is for, i am cool with them. host: let's leave it there. guest: a good way to win colorado. that is a great example of a paul-clinton crossover voter, interesting to see what he would do a favor and against each other. the economy was in better shape during the clinton years than it is now, some of that is a result

of policies that president clinton put in place. the economy goes in cycles and the presidents tend to get too much blame for what is going on. it is fair to say there was a clintonian worldview when it comes to how society should operate. the role of government and the private sector. what is interesting, the clintons seem to believe in both the government and the private sector and that they need to work together to move the country forward and have a economic growth. republicans tend to favor the private sector and have a skeptical eye of the government. democrats tend to favor the government, the clintons have a triangulation of saying we need the private sector and the government as well. i would expect you would see her adopt economic policies that were not too different from him. guest: you make the point of a two-for. people say it is a two for one

deal, but she has tried to establish her own brand away from him. she got upset when somebody asked her what is your husband think of this? she said i am the secretary of state. she has worked hard to separate herself and develop our own brand. host: let's go back to iowa, dakota, go ahead. caller: hillary clinton is a celebrity politician with a mile-long resume of qualifications. she is dealing with her husband's legacy, she is dealing with potential fallout from 2008, she is dealing with being the novelty of being the first female president, and then all of those preemptive strikes with her being in the front running for so long. i was wondering if you thought -- is she still a viable democratic candidate for 2016?

host: let me turn that around. do you think she is? caller: i believe that iowans are ready to see hillary clinton in 2016. guest: pretty bold prediction. i think she is a viable candidate for 2016 right now, if you look at the polls, polls change fast. she is far and away the leading candidate for nomination. she was that in 2008. and leading republican candidates. what happens in the next few years. whether she is viable, i think she is. guest: the landscape is already set up for her, she has fundraising and researching going on, they are waiting for her to jump in. host: on twitter-- did the dems

show their war on women when they chose obama over hillary in 2008? john, pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i have been around a little longer than the commenters there, the guests. there has been a clear deterioration in the integrity of the political class. and were president eisenhower -- he would never consider. jimmy carter -- his post-presidency has been fantastic. he has been selfless, all for others. the clintons, for instance, when they retired and left office, when bill clinton left office, he was in debt. within 5 years, they were worth

$100 million. books, speeches. he went and was giving speeches for $150,000 a pop for a 15 minute speech at financial firms, jewish community centers. host: do you think this hurts her chances in 2016? caller: the fact is, it is really not even discussed. host: amie parnes? guest: i think the clinton people would say they have done their share of good. bill clinton has cgi, the clinton global initiative, he travels the world and does good things. if a clinton aide were sitting here, they would point out. guest: that the caller would call me on my youth and inexperience, it gets me. these are questions that will be answered in a presidential

campaign. reporters will attempt to make. we have a scene in the book where hillary clinton has to raise money for the world's fair in shanghai in a short period of time, the chinese has said it will be an embarrassment if the u.s. does not show up. under the bush administration, there was a decision to not support the world's fair. there was a loophole that allowed the secretary to have some involvement. basically, she hired a couple clinton fundraisers, family friends, to go out and raise money from the private sector, they tapped into the clinton donor network to build a pavilion at the shanghai expo. showing how involved some of those old donors were to her work at the state department. we have a scene where bill

clinton inscribes the coffee table book from the shanghai world expo for one of those aides. he says "we did it, buddy." concern that his network was going to be a conflict at the state department. i don't think we saw that publicly over the four years, any scandals. there definitely was not a complete disentanglement of the two clinton worlds. host: one thing you write about, the lessons she learned from the campaign. how she applied them to being secretary of state. you write, "in her first five months at state, she had poured mental energy and resources into making sure that her operation was far more forward leaning that her campaign had been. hillary was aware that technological superiority could become the force behind a second

bid for the presidency." guest: she learned this lesson, she saw barack obama run circles around her campaign in terms of technology. she said what went wrong? she plucked one of his people and brought him over to stay. he started this movement, she implemented a lot of what she learned at state. i think if she were to run in 2016, she would do the same. host: does she have a team built? guest: she has the team, there are a number of new age tech warriors who grew up studying under innovators like jerry cohen, he was a condi rice protége. he is running a crowd of people who are even younger. they were figuring out how to use technology to affect political movements abroad.

you could train revolutionaries in another country to upload video of the atrocities going on in their country. you can use gps and text messaging to try to warn people of troop movements. you can raise money for the haitian earthquake victims. all these things they could do to affect political activity abroad could be turned back into a political campaign in 2016. host: she meets with the heads of technology companies and says to them, use me like an ad. guest: isn't that interesting? guest: she may not be able to write code, we say she understands technology. there is a joke, she is a person who is detached from the actual mechanisms that are involved but very well aware of how people communicate and organize.

what she is saying, in this case, it was in terms of companies being able to do foreign policy, doing commerce abroad, talking to foreign leaders, in some cases threatening foreign leaders. we get into that with syria. she is saying i want to be helpful to you in expanding your footprint in a way that helps the u.s. and its foreign-policy goals. guest: a woman who said she asked her daughter to send her first text message and bill clinton was receiving faxes. host: let's get our next student. go ahead, nicole. caller: good morning and thank you for having me. my question is about your chapter titled "hrc brand," you

mentioned the photo diana walker took that turned into an internet sensation. did that have an effect harming her reputation and brand for young adults because of that picture turning into a joke? > you may have a better perspective. that is not mean that there may be a segment of young voters who think it is ridiculous, trying to be in touch and is actually out of touch. there's a careful line you have to play with popular culture. obama and all guy who listens to jayz? i do not think he has been credited for being cool or hip. host: she uses that picture on

her twitter page. it humanizes her a little bit. she wants this lighter side of her to come through. host: independent caller, illinois. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. hillaryi do not think clinton should be blamed for her husband's dalliances. what i have not heard, although we have heard about what she said recently about at this point what does it matter. i would like to hear somebody whenss the filegate issue hillary clinton was first lady. thank you. the book was very much focused on the primary in 2008 through 2013.

we thought it was unexploited territory. most american voters want to judge her how to make decisions, so we did not get into file gate or travel gate or the travel office scandal or the impeachment. and iat stuff is -- think most americans will be voting in 2016 have a pretty good handle on these issues. "?st: why the title "hrc guest: an interesting question. i actually wanted to call it "the phoenix." hrc.e actually call her we thought it was kind of like a hip way to refer to her. host: a brand? and? is are bro

hill, it comes from the all the members of congress are referred to by their initials. bho, and paulas is fpfs. that is where it comes from, and as a result when you see mail communication, they refer to her as hrc. we just thought it was simple, the, and hopefully it brand book more than her. host: fred in pennsylvania, independent caller. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. appreciate it. a couple questions on hillary's becameand before bill president.

there was a big white water banking savings and loan scandal , and then moving up from there, from what is on the internet, it said hillary clinton work for monsanto as an attorney. host: what is your point? caller: you say she is a viable candidate. it is as much as what the press says about her, and what are we not getting? a treat from one tweet.flesh a tweet -- the thing with the clintons is that we already know all of the skeletons. ,uest: whether old news or not the senate hearings on benghazi happened in the same room, same where thestudio area

whitewater investigation went on in the senate. it is not that these things were not discussed, but they have not been reported on. to, you remember him going after whitewater in those years and the subsequent scandals grew out of that. this is pretty plowed turf. host: on the benghazi attack, you right after ambassador body was brought back, president obama asks the secretary of state if he can go back with her to the state department. why? guest: it meant a lot to her. she wanted him to come back and see the people at the state department who were heartbroken by all this. tost: and to address them,

talk about the people at the state department who had just of their own, including the ambassador. i knew someone in the foreign , chris class with him stevens. president obama came to the state department that next day after he made remarks in the rose garden, and he made some unscripted remarks to the people at the state department. host: was it reported at the time? was, but his actual comments were not. there was no tape recording or that. basic sentiments were recorded. afterward he met a group of people who were particularly close to chris stevens. themry clinton introduced

to the president. people we talked to at the state department who are not in the clinton world cited that moment as a big thing in terms of trying to get the healing process to begin. it meant a lot to them that the president was there. host: john in vermont, republican caller. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have two questions and a comment. the first one is for amy. early on in the show you hillary had her finger on the pulse and everything that was going on, and i know the benghazi thing has come up a lot. they lame that on a video and sent their folks all over the country blaming benghazi on a video. was a littlet strange that you would make that

comment, amy. in researching your book, both you and the other author, did you read a book called "john body," posted 2004 -- published in 2004? anybody to read it. i think it was a moving target at that point. they were trying to figure out what was happening, and they were trying to piece together what was happening, and they might have erred in doing that. host: why did she refuse the talk shows? onst: hillary clinton goes the shows when she needs to and

does not when there is not a politically compelling reason for her to do so. when she is trailing in a political campaign and needs that good moment, she will do it. generally speaking, our best bet is to stay away unless there is a reason to do it. in this case, there was a lot of other stuff to do, and she recognized the potential evenical danger and maybe found it was inappropriate for her to be on television shows when there was so much to do in terms of trying to figure out what was happening, healing of people, and what we do know is once she was not available and haders for the tv shows gone to the state department and the white house asking for her, they said she was not available, and susan rice used the talking points and even gilded the lily when asked beyond what those

talking points said. members of congress decided that --an rice -- not all members decided she had lied to the public on those shows. hillary clinton had been doing briefings on the hill where she about the armed militants going into the compound. most people thought she said terrorist. ing betweenuish militant and terrorist. host: what did you learn about hillary clinton? guest: i said this earlier but i think i came into that thinking that she was very buttoned up and there was not a big human side to her. i learned she not only is quite funny, has this wicked sense of humor, but she does have this feel of duty for public service.

guest: one of the biggest things i learned is behind the shell -- and all politicians have it -- behind that there is some pretty raw energy and emotion. she is decisive. she used profanity to say she did not want to think about what effect it would have on the white house correspondents dinner. there was some raw human emotion, good, bad, indifferent, and in a way that some politicians are more careful about hiding. she is not as calculated as her husband is in terms of political payback. thedoes not figure out what

right moment is with the right person. host: authors of the new book " much.thank you very we want to thank our students from iowa state university and a special thanks to the sponsor. the students did great. thanks for all of those questions. >> a live picture from the white house briefing room. in a couple minutes, josh earnest will come here to answer reporters' questions. it is running late. unrest in the ukraine to be high on the list of topics is a. a diplomat says the e.u.'s foreign ministers have decided sanction officials there. images ofraged by the ukrainian security forces firing automatic weapons on their own

people. we urge the president to remove his forces from downtown kiev and respect the right for peaceful process. that is a portion of the white house aide and on ukraine violence today. the briefing set to start shortly. live coverage when it gets underway here in season. right now and look at the oninistration's stance climate change, from today's "washington journal." reporter herea talking about fuel efficiency standards. what did the president announced this week? guest: those standards applied semi-trucks, delivery vans,

garbage trucks. this is the next date -- step. host: what did he announce earlier? standards that reduce emissions for trucks and cut fuel consumption. host: what has been the impact of those and what is the impact of the latest announcement? guest: the 2011 standards are expected to cut and some should million barrels of oil. they are expected to cut emissions i do hundred 70 million metric times. carbon emissions are some of the most potent greenhouse gases. he has not said what the new standards, how much they will fuelmissions by, consumption by, but what he said is he wants them to go into the next decade.

standards toe reach into 2025, the way his car standards do. what has been the reaction of the auto industry? guest: it seems like it is a good reaction. you're the speech on tuesday obama touted that the auto industry has come back because of these fuel economy and fuel it hasncy standards, helped them, that these technologies need to be used. the new efficiency standards announced on tuesday, there has been slow reaction to it so far from lawmakers on the hill. why do you think it has been slow on capitol hill? sure they will try to fight him on the status. when the 2011 ones were announced, republicans were not

exactly take to it completely, on ice to senator john hoban the phone yesterday and he says he still has to look over the new standards. on announcement obama made tuesday. they are in recess now, and there is probably one part of it that republicans will not take too kindly which is the energy security trust that obama is talking again. that takes revenue from oil it into and it pushes finding alternative fuels. and here is what the president said the other day. [video clip] their charge is to develop standards for heavy-duty trucks that will take us into the next

decade. they will partner with manufacturers, auto workers, and other stakeholders, truckers, to come up with a proposal by march of next year, and they will complete the role after that -- rule after that. businesses who i these trucks have sent a clear message -- they want us to use less oil and cut pollution. host: what was the argument he was making? guest: right there he was trying to say that these new standards are important, that they are crucial for the u.s. to reach their admissions and it's -- [indiscernible] keeping you updated on that score.

good afternoon. thank you for being at the white house for the briefing today. you are coming back from a late-night trip to mexico, which sounds more exciting than it probably was. i appreciate you making the effort to be here. exactly. i do not have anything at the top, but in the spirit of the olympic games, i will let you go. >> could you walk as through what the theory is behind the president plus budget this year? is it as an acknowledgment that the grand argan could be -- could beant commerce and now it is gone? andt is important for you your readers to understand this offer from the president remains on the table. you recall in the context of discussions we have been having with congressional republicans about reducing the deficit the

president put forward some specific ideas about how we can do that in a balanced way. that means the president put forward ideas that republicans themselves support, like changes to entitlements, and things that the president favors, like , savingsax loopholes from the entitlement changes that republicans sought and use that to reduce the deficit. the president was willing to put on the table a concrete proposal. unfortunately, republicans refuse to even consider the possibility of raising revenue by closing loopholes that affect only the well connected. thatis the choice republicans made. the thing that is also important to understand is we have made substantial arborist in reducing the deficit. there is more we can do, and that is why the offer remains on

the table. over the last few years did visit has been declining at the nce the ende sic of world war ii. what the proposal will show in a couple weeks that the deficit at the end of this 10-year window gdp.be less than 2% of that sounds very technical, but i am raising it for an important reason. you recall that when democrats and replicants agreed we should work in a bipartisan fashion to the simpson balls commission to reduce the deficit, the goals reduce gdp toe to less than 3%. what are projections say in 10 years the percentage will be below 2%. we have made substantial

progress. we welcome opportunities to cooperate further and reduced the deficit further with republicans, but the president also believes it is important to focus on what kinds of policies we can put in place that will expand economic opportunity. >> even though [indiscernible] could it be seen as a good faith gesture by republicans? nothis a signal that you do see the possibility of opening larger budget negotiations? >> that will have to be up to republicans -- >> isn't it a signal that [indiscernible] is -- reason for that there is a good reason for that, that traditionally what budget proposals have been is there have been a tangible proposal about how the president in an ideal world believes the

government should be funded. what we have seen over the last toeral months is a return regular order. we saw democrats and republicans on capitol hill get together and agree on a budget agreement in which both sides had to compromise. --saw and the proposal the president will put forward will reflect the spending levels that were the presidentt will live within that compromise and will have a specific proposal how we can do that. this is the submission you will see, a return to regular order. last year was a little different, that the president presented a unique budget offering to affect the circumstances. there was a point in time when there was a little more opposite -- optimism for republicans to budge on closing tax loopholes.

over the course of the last year they refuse to do that. we just returned to regular order in congress and we are seeing a return to regular order in terms of the budget offering. it does not reflect any reduction in the president cost willingness to -- president's meetngness to republican's in the middle. ukraine -- ials in do you plan to follow sanctions of your own? i am in no position to confirm additional steps the united states has decided to take at this point. the president and others alluded yesterday to the fact that there were a range of tools that could be used by the administration to

hold accountable those who have either ordered or are responsible for the violence being perpetrated by the ukrainian government against peaceful protesters. so there are a range of options available, and it is fair to say that a range of options is being actively considered at the white house. i do not have specific things, any specific decisions about those options relate you now. as soon as decisions have been made, if they are made, we will let you know. ok? >> [indiscernible] confirming -- [indiscernible] close consultation on a range oflies topics, particularly the situation in the ukraine. >> when a decision will be made? >> i cannot offer you insight

into that now other to say that there are a range of options available. he is considering those ranges of options, and when there is a decision to announce we will make sure you and your colleagues are among the first to know. >> yesterday when the president said there will be consequences if people step over the line, as that line been crossed -- can you explain more about what that line is and what that meant? >> i think the president was turned to make a couple points when he said that. the first is that the government ,n ukraine has responsibilities has a primary responsibility for making sure that the violence we have seen does not continue. absolve protesters of their responsibilities to exercise their right of peaceful protest in a peaceful manner, but the government of ukraine has a unique responsibility to

allow and to protect the rights of assembly and peaceful protest and freedom of speech that the ukrainian people are seeking to exercise. the president was making clear that there are options available to the united states and the international community and our those to hold accountable who perpetrate violence against peaceful are testers. -- protesters. the options here are for us. allies think we are making decisions about them. that is what we are considering at the white house. we do not have any specific decisions to show you here. there was ane, ebraska court decision -- >> you have heard me and say

other times that this is a process being run by the state department. if you have questions about the factors, youternal might direct this question to the state department. >> how can the administration given thatis tack the situation in nebraska is uncertain after yesterday's court decision? >> i have not reviewed the decision myself. i have seen reports of it. decisiont of a court and ongoing litigation, what impact that might have on the process is something i cannot say from here because this is a process run by the state department. >> [indiscernible] >> the state department is reviewing this process. they have been in charge of this for a long time. this is a state department process and the state department will be the officials to evaluate what impact ongoing

litigation may have on their process. african-american civil rights leaders, did they talk about [indiscernible] at all, the georgia judicial nominee? met withesident leaders a couple days ago, i believe it was on tuesday. i have not seen -- there is a blog based about the con verstaion the president had with those leaders. he talked about the affordable care act and the importance of communicating to the public, particularly to individuals in the african-american music, about the potential benefits available to them and the protections available to consumers. we have had a number of conversations about some of the ideas related to criminal justice reform. in terms of specifics, i cannot

go beyond that in terms of whether or not a specific nominee came up. >> there is no more than two dozen progressive groups including the human rights campaign that are all calling on obama to pull down the nomination because they are on gaybout his position rights and civil rights. they want him to a nominate someone else. do you think obama would nominate someone else if the pressure is continued at these levels? >> i have not seen those statements. i will collect more iteration and get back to you. >> back to ukraine. what you tell the american people who are sitting in their lounge chairs about what strategic interest the united states has in getting involved in this protest? what is the strategic interest of the united states?

>> >> there are a couple things and the american people are justifiably concerned, certainly the president is. when we see the basic human rights of anybody around the globe being so flagrantly trampled. that's been part of the situation that appears to be underway in ukraine. it's a source of great concern here at the white house. the other concern that we have is the desire -- and i guess it's a related concern, for countries to have governments that reflect the will and aspirations of their people. and what we have seen is an regime by the ukrainian to stifle dissent. and it's related to the desire of the ukrainian people to have a government and leadership that reflects their will and their preferences. so what the president has been

encouraging is for the violence to come to an immediate end and for the government and opposition to sit down at the table and try to reach a diplomatic solution to this disagreement that would include a unity government, that would allow the country of ukraine to be integrated into the international community and to have solid relationships with their neighbors but also to have solid relationships with countries all around the world. and that is our longer term goal here. but any time that we see that there is this kind of turmoil that's resulted in some basic civil rights being violated is a source of some concern. >> as far as the national security of the united states, is there anything that's happening in that square in kiev that really impacts the united states? >> i think this is something

we're monitoring, this is something that has aroycal of a lot of concern. as a freedom-loving country and a freedom-loving people, it is the subject of significant concern when the rights of peaceful protesters who are trying to exercise their rights of peaceful assembly and trying to exercise their rights to exercise their disagreement with political decisions, having those rights being trampled is the source of some concern and why the president is considerings options like sanctions and why the state department announced the decision they made yesterday to put a visa ban in place for government officials in ukraine who have been journaled to be accountable for some of the violence that's taken place there. so this is the subject of some concern and why the president is considering a range of options available tom. >> how much is the bigger picture of the united states and russia, quote, unquote, spears of influence, going back to echoes of the cold war?

how much of that is a concern to the white house? >> the president talked about it a little bit at the news conference and this idea of spears of influence is a pretty outdated notion. that what we're seeing in ukraine is a frustration on the part of the population that their government, that their elected representatives are not reflecting their aspirations and we're starting to see a rolling back some some of the basic democratic institutions in that country. and it is clear, at least some of the human rights -- basic human rights that we hold so dear in this country are not being respected in that country. and that's the source of quite a bit of concern. but it's not necessarily related to any effort by former cold war adversaries to try to

gain a foothold in one country or another. this shouldn't be a zero sum game. it's in the interests of the international community for peace and stability to be restored in the ukraine and what we're striving toward. it's the view of the president and the view of this administration that that stability and peace will only be achieved through conversations and through talks and through a willingness of both the government and the opposition to sit across the table and try to find some solutions. the situation will not be resolved through violence. >> josh, we're over a month out from the a.c.a. time of deadline and beginning to sound like you're not going to reach that $7 million goal. the vice president said $5 million or $6 million and the c.b.o. said $6 million. what's the number, if you know it, and if you don't get to $5 million, is the a.c.a. in trouble? >> well, you mentioned some of the bad news, joe and i

recognize it's part of your job. there's also some good news yesterday if you look at the state of california, they announced yesterday they already exceeded the projections they had made for the number of signups they were hoping for this year, despite the fact there is another six weeks left in the signup period. there's some states that are ahead of the curve when it comes to signing people up and exceeding their projections. that indicates a couple of things. one, it indicates that the health care website that was the subject of so much consternation and frustration both in this administration but also from people across the country were trying to use it, that a lot of those problem has been resolved and we have a website functioning pretty well. the second thing that it indicates is that functioning website is presenting options to people who visited that are attractive, but people are looking on that website, finding there are health care options that previously weren't available to their family, that these are health care offering of a higher quality and lower cost than previously available. they're taking advantage of that opportunity by signing up and why we're seeing the strong

numbers. there is some good news out there and we're pleased to see it. ultimately what our goal is particularly the goal we're focused in the next six weeks is to sign up as many people as possible and educate them with the options available to them and tell them there's an opportunity to sign up. >> is coming in lower than seven million a problem for you, though? either in terms of optics or in terms of, you know, fundamentals? is it a problem to be at five million or a problem to be at six million? >> the fundamentals are determined by the kind of mix of the population that's incorporated into the exchange. but, again, we're not really focused on the optics, what we're focused on is making sure every single american can enjoy the benefits of this important law. if you're one of the vast majorities of americans with health insurance, this law affects it by adding additional protections, that you can't be discriminated against with a

pre-existing condition and in some cases for seniors, make the prescription drug costs a little lower. but if you are in that group of americans that has to purchase health insurance on your own or you don't currently have health insurance, the affordable care act, for the first time, there are some high quality affordable options available to you. and that's the message we're focused on delivering in the next five to six weeks. >> quickly with a political question, the c.b.o. has come out with things that caused a lot of heartburn with democrats including these latest numbers as well as the stuff on the minimum wage earlier this week. how are you going to sort of get through to the american public when they're seeing this 30-second spot that no doubt is going to hit the airwaves sooner or later that says the administration has some real problems with some of its key issues? >> well, in terms of how people

are going to choose to respond to individual attack ads, attack ads that are directed at the president who is not facing re-election i guess is money i'd welcome our opponents to spend, if they chose to do so. i assume some of them may be directing attack ads at individual members of congress who are on the ballot. i would leave it to them to those individual members of congress to decide how to respond to them. but there is no doubt there is a strong, persuasive case the democrats across the country can make about this party, this president, and individual members of congress, laserlike focus on expanding economic opportunity for the middle class. that is something the minimum wage would do, raising the minimum wage would ensure that hard work can lead to a decent living, that you don't -- that if you're working 40 hours a week and making minimum wage, you shouldn't have to raise your family of four below the poverty line. raising the minimum wage is one reason i think you see strong support across the country for raising minimum wage, about everywhere except among the

republican house and republican senate, unfortunately. when it comes to the affordable care act, there's a strong case to be made about the security that is now available to individual middle class families and small business owners that their health care costs will be lower, or at least the growth in this health care cost will not be at the same rate it was before. and that many people, particularly those who didn't previously have health insurance now have quality options available to them so they no longer have to go to sleep at night wondering if their family is one illness away from bankruptcy. >> c.b.o. is not a problem for you? >> when it comes to the c.b.o., the c.b.o. has an important role to play, they're the nonpartisan arbiter to evaluate what impact different proposals might have on the budget or on the broader economy. but the fact of the matter is a lot of the things the c.b.o. found, particularly when it comes to the minimum wage report you mentioned, are reasons to be strongly

supportive of raising the minimum wage and they found it would tamilions of families across the country all out of poverty, it would raise the salaries of millions of other family who currently make below minimum wage or currently are less than $10.10 an hour and would raise the wages of those who make $10.10 an hour. and the resulting positive impact on the broader economy would have strong benefits for communities all across the country. so in that c.b.o. report that was the subject of some discussion, shall we say earlier this week, there was plenty of evidence that was presented by the independent nonpartisan c.b.o. to indicate raising the minimum wage would have really good economic benefits. >> can you tell us what the message is tonight and how it would differ from what he tells all the governors on monday? >> i don't have specific marks from the presidents to preview

so i would encourage you to tune in and hear what he has to say. >> afterwards? we can't tune in. >> not literally but figuratively tune in to your email and read the full report in the transcript we'll issue. over the course of the next several days the president will have the opportunity to meet with governors who are in town for the national governors association meeting in washington, d.c. so the president will be meeting tomorrow, friday. the president will be meeting with democratic governors to talk about a range of issues. over the weekend the president will hold his traditional formal dinner for the governor and his wives in town. then as you point out, on monday the president will be speaking to a bipartisan group of governors here at the white house. the president is looking forward to the opportunity to talking to this bipartisan group of governors about a range of proposals that the president himself has been urging congress to act on.

i think you'll find strong bipartisan support among the group of governors the president is advocating currently being bought by republicans in congress. that from raising the minimum wage to investing in early childhood education, to reforming our job training programs, those are the kinds of proposals that governors, republican governors across the country are supportive of in their state. there's no reason republican members of congress shouldn't be willing to sit down with the president and try and make progress in some of these areas. so i don't want to preview exactly what the president's message would be to the governors but encourage you -- you'll get a chance to hear what the president has to say to them and it should be interesting. >> do you anticipate these remarks to be identical? what are you going to tell them? >> i think there will be a lot of overlap. i don't want to predict two different -- you asked me to predict two different sets of

remarks the president hasn't delivered yet. i think the message the president wants to convey to those governors about expanding economic benefit to every single american in this country and the ideas that he's presented related to funding for early childhood education and funding for projects that would create jobs in the short term and strengthen the economy in the long term and reforming job programs and investments in clean energy are all kinds of ideas that should have appeal to democratic and republican governors and unfortunately they don't, for some reason, seem to have much appeal among republican members of congress but we're going to try to change that. major? >> what's the sense of your honor enzi on sanctions with ukraine? what's the time line? >> well, i can't give you a specific time line but given the violence we saw overnight in ukraine, i think it's fair to say that the options available to the president are

being considered with some urgency. >> why does the administration think the angeses -- sanctions would help and not punish the very citizens of the ukraine the united states would theoretically like to help? >> unintended consequences of the sort you highlighted here are one of the reasons that these kinds of things are under consideration, that making a decision about sanctions can't be a knee-jerk reaction and it's important to consider the range of consequences that could ensue from applying some sanctions. but, again, there is a sense of urgency being felt because of the terrible violence we saw overnight. >> is it fair to say you're looking at maybe granular sanctions that might focus on those wealthiest in ukraine that have assets inside and outside the country that have been supportive of the government? >> i don't want to speculate about what the end result might be or what specific options the president is considering.

there's a full tool kit i think i described it yesterday and that's what the president has taken a look at that entire tool kit and will make some of sions based on the kinds policies that would have the maximum effect. and again, the result that we're trying to get to here is an end to the violence on both sides, and conversations between the opposition and government about a unity government that could be formed, about a technical government that would reflect the will and aspirations of the ukrainian people. >> there were reports this morning vladimir putin wants to send an envoy to ukraine to participate in talks between the opposition government and how would they look upon that, favorably or unfavorably? >> i don't have the information from personnel being sent from the putin administration to the

ukraine. the united states and russia do share a common interest in peace and stability in ukraine. that's certainly what the obama administration is advocating for and because it's in the clear interest of the russians, that putin -- >> wouldn't view that as meddlesome? >> i wouldn't have anything to say specifically about an emissary from the putin administration heading to the ukraine. suffice it to say there's shared interest not only with russia and the united states but all over the world for peace and unity to be restored in ukraine. >> peter -- josh -- >> i have been called worse. >> i'll leave it at that. needless to say things have gone from worse to worse and there are 45 million ukraines affected not only in kiev but

other major cities across the country. how does it complicate things that it's been reported the protesters now have taken 67 police officers as prisoners and they will not back down yanukovych has resigned. >> we're looking at a complicated situation and looking at the actions that have taken place a cross the country is very difficult. but we've been very clear for ite some time now that the yanukovich's government has the primary responsibility to ensure violence does not occur or to bring violence to an end when it does. and that is a responsibility they should take seriously and they need to exercise the authority and control that they have to bring that violence to an end. there's also a responsibility on the part of the protesters to make sure they're expressing

their concerns and rights to peaceful assembly in a peaceful way. >> it looks like it's no longer peaceful, josh. >> no, that's evident from the report. >> that the carnage is unbelievable. there are molotov cocktails burning. >> that there is chaos and violence there of significant concern to this administration. we are calling on all sides to end the violence. we do need to get to a place where we can have constructive talks between the opposition and the government while the talks are ongoing, the violence should be put to rest. and, you know, that's what this administration is working to do from the vice president's repeated calls to president yanukovich to the members of the department that traveled there several weeks and to the democratic staff in ukraine now putting themselves in harm's way to bring an end to the vie lents. >> can you tell us the conversation the president may have had with the leaders of nato, for example?

>> i'm not in position to do that right now. i wouldn't rule out the president may have conversations later today with some of our allies around the world who do have a vested interest in peace and stability in ukraine. if we're in a position to read out those calls today, we'll do it. welcome to the briefing room, buddy. >> you talk about the change on the table, where is it on the onus, on the speaker or the white house? >> given the white house has put together a tangible, formal offer that was included in last year's budget proposal, there's an opportunity for republicans to respond to that proposal. that includes the balanced approach the president has advocated. we've not seen that from the republicans so far. it seems to me that based on common sense that republicans have the opportunity to advance those discussions if they choose to do so. if they choose not to do so, that's up to them as well, too. >> they say you guys refuse to

negotiate. >> well, the first step in negotiating is put forward a specific, tangible, compromised proposal. and that's what the president did in december of 2012 and here we are in february of 2014 still waiting for a constructive, specific formal proposal from republicans that, again, acknowledges the spirit of what the president offered and it's important for people to understand that the president -- there would be more legitimate criticism if the president were just putting forward the ideas he supports and tell the republicans to take it or leave it. but what the president did was very different than that. what the president put forward was a series of proposals that led with ideas that republicans themselves advocate. changes to entitlement programs is something the republicans in congress ran for office on. had been aggressively advocating. the president in a sign in his willness to compromise included those entitlement changes into the formal offer and coupled them with things the president

would like to see done in the form of closing loopholes that benefit the wealthy and well-connected, tax loopholes. we haven't seen a willingness from republicans to do anything other than just try to accept the things they said they support. that's not the kind of spirit and compromise that's going to leave to a kind of solution they say they'd like to see. >> with the debt limit pushed until next year and the budget figured out until later in the year, it might become a midterm issue, do you see large scale deficit reduction talks in 2014? >> well, again, those are talks the president is willing to engage in. but i think it would be fair for you to say the president's focus, while that offer remains on the table, is squarely upon ideas that he has and ideas that are supported by, as i mentioned, republican governors expand e country to the economic opportunity for the middle class. that there are a range of ideas to clean energy,

infrastructure, research and development, early childhood education, that, you know, the president is focused on. the president will have as was reported earlier today, some specific ideas for how we can make those kinds of investments that are so critical to our economy and do it in a fiscally responsible way. even if republicans don't want to sit down at the table and try to reach a broader agreement that would result solely in deficit reduction, maybe they'd be willing to sit down across from the president and have a conversation about policies people on both sides of will aisle is good for our families. >> part of it is immigration reform. would the white house support democrats filing a discharge petition on the senate immigration bill in the house? >> that's a good question. i don't think we've taken a position on the specific discharge petition. if we have, i'll get back to you on that. what we've said is that there's an opportunity for -- now that there has been a bipartisan compromise passed through the

senate, the process now rests with the house. and the president and this administration have committed to taking a step back and giving house republicans the opportunity to consider a range of proposals, there were some principles that leaked out from a republican meeting a couple weeks ago, for how to move forward on immigration reform. so we're going to give house republicans the opportunity to have some conversations among themselves. we're hopeful they will make a decision to act in a bipartisan way. that's what we saw in the senate. and if we get that same kind of bipartisan spirit moving in the house, then i'm confident that we could move pretty quickly to resolve something that both parties acknowledge need to be fixed. >> if you put your muscle behind a discharge petition, all you need is around 28 republicans, you saw it came around in the debt limit increase, why not move on that? are you worried about losing immigration as an issue around the midterms? >> no, i think what the president is worried about is reforming a broken immigration system that if we put in place

the comprehensive, commonsense, bipartisan compromise that republican senators voted for, that we would strengthen the economy, create jobs, expand economic growth and reduce the deficit. so there are a whole lot of reasons why implementing immigration reform along the lines of a bipartisan compromise reached by the senate would be good for the economy, that's what the president is focused on. the politics and the elections will take care of themselves. and they can take care of themselves, frankly, in a number of ways. i think many republicans who know much more about republican politics than i do, have spoken to the danger of republican members of congress continuing to oppose bipartisan immigration reform. >> ed, josh, back on ukraine, when you were talking about the full tool kit, is this just a conversation about sanctions or is the u.s. military option on the table like it is for other crisis like syria, is this a different separation or is the military option on the table? >> when i talked about options

under active situations right now we're talking about sanctions. >> as specifically reported earlier today, the sanction, potentially u.s. sanctions have been on a fast track and they're actually already here ready for the president's signature and waiting to see whether he'll decide. would you say urgency, has it been fast-tracked and is it sitting at the white house ready to go? >> i don't want to get into the behind of scenes details of this process but understandably so. but suffice it to say the president and his senior members of his team have been acting quickly to consider the range of options that are available, and acting with a sense of urgency because of the terrible violence we saw overnight. as soon as we have a decision to announce on which of those options make the most sense and would produce -- or are most likely to produce the intended result, we'll let you know that decision. >> the president last night at the news conference downplayed this is a cold war kind of back

and forth with putin. "the wall street journal" in the front page today reports, quote, the obama administration has found itself repeatedly caught offguard by putin's moves in places like syria, iran, egypt and even n.s.a. leaker edward snowden. is there a frustration at the white house there is a perception around the world that putin is indeed control over the president on some of these issues? >> i'm not sure that's the prevailing sentiment around the globe. it might be the prevailing sentiment in the wall street currently editorial. >> this is a front page news story. >> ok. ok. well, again, if you take a look at the -- some of the examples hat you cited, there is a -- there's a lot of common ground between the united states and russia that could be staked out. again, there is not in russia's interest and not in the world's interest for there to be this continued violence and instability in ukraine. it is not in russia's interests, i think as they

themselves have said for their client state, syria, to be coming apart at the seams based on some sectarian tensions. >> but the president has made that case directly to putin and he doesn't seem to be listening so isn't there a perception that he -- you've made that case on syria again and again. and he doesn't listen. >> i guess the point i'm trying to make here is it's not as if mr. putin has his feet up on the desk sighing with relief about the current situation in either ukraine or syria right now. the fact of the matter is, it is not in russia's interest for there to be this continuing sectarian violence that is threatening to pull apart this client state, the only client state that russia has in the middle east right now. so i guess this highlights something the president alluded to in his comments yesterday, that resolutions to these terrible situations are not a zero sum game, that trying to bring peace and stability, or at least to get both sides to

put down arms and sit across from the negotiating table from one another, to try and put in place governments that are actually representative of the will of the people are in the broader global interests, and that there is nothing for the united states to gain at the expense of russia for some of these changes to start happening. in fact, the perpetuation of this violence, you know, frankly runs counter to the national interests of the united states, and i assume, and i think it stems to reason that president putin would think the same thing about russian interests in these situations. >> quick last one, several republicans on capitol hill have expressed outrage about an s.e.c. proposal to put monitors in news rooms, is there a white house position on that? >> i haven't seen that report. i'll have to take a look at that. >> carol? >> you guys have repeatedly said you're not going to preview the president's budget

and yet today you're coming out with not only specific details of the budget but also a general theme on how he's approaching his budget. why are you doing that now? >> well, a couple of -- i guess a couple reasons. there's been a lot of interest in trying to understand what the president's approach will be in putting forward his budget, that budgets traditionally have been an opportunity for an dministration to lay out its principles, its priorities when it comes to funding the government. you know, you've heard people in both parties talk about how budgets are basically nothing more than articulation of one party's or one individual's priorities. that budgets are about priorities. and so given all the interest and attention on the president's priorities of the last couple weeks, particularly in the aftermath of the state of the union, it makes sense that i try to explain to you what those priorities are based

on an associated press report. >> is there a message you're trying to send at this particular time to republicans? >> no. at least not a message that's any different than the message the president delivered in his state of the union address. the focal point of this president's policymaking agenda is expanding economic he is going to leave no stone unturned for his search for policies that will strengthen the likelihood that economic inortunity will be expanded, his search for individuals on the other side of the aisle who are willing to work for him to achieve that agenda. the president has been clear he is not going to wait for those individuals to materialize. >> he is throwing in the towel? >> i am not sure which context you