national security looks at the iran nuclear agreement and how it will be unlimited, and its impact on the middle east. as always we will take our calls and -- your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ for the first time this election cycle the five democratic presidents -- candidate for president met in iowa. they had messages about republicans, income inequality, the military, even some foreign policy being discussed by hillary clinton. not only will we hear from candidates in the next hour, but for democrats in this hour we want to hear directly from you. specifically at this point in time, for democrats only you can give us a call.

it is 202) 748-8000. if you live in the pacific time zone, it is (202) 748-8001. if you want to give us an e-mail journal@c-span.org. host: i want to point you to a poll that was done, democratic voters taking a look at 2016 and two people would support if the election took place. hillary clinton getting the top honors with 51% of those democrats even their support to her. bernie sanders, 17%. vice president joe biden not declared to run for the residency, garnering 13%. jim webb followed at 1%, as well

as martin o'malley. the des moines register lead story this morning, takes a look at that event that took place in cedar rapids, the five candidates talking to democrats there. the headline "linton and sanders rev up audience." to tell us a little bit more about the events that took place last night and who was there covering it, and neither kumar she is there white house correspondent. good morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: tell us a little bit about why this event takes place. guest: it is an annual event and it is a hall of fame dinner. they are giving out awards to democratic activists across the state. i believe they gave up seven last night. there are a lot of rank and file democrats.

it is not a big fundraiser, it is a money raiser that it is not making a lot of money just because each person giving a lot is making a lot and a lot of people are going. i believe they had about 1300 people there. host: it is taking place in iowa. guest: yes, it's very significant. people are coming, i talked to a lot of people last night. they just wanted to hear the candidates. i think this is the first time they got to see everyone together. in iowa they very much like to see the candidates, talk to them, see them together. see how they interact. see what issues they are talking about. this is really their first time. on the republican side they have gotten to see so many, see them together, and they have just not had the opportunity here yet for democrats. host: did the five take an opportunity to distance each other -- themselves from calling each other by name? guest: that's actually the

really interesting part. we were waiting to see if that happened. it really hasn't happened much on the campaign trail. here and there you might catch bernie sanders say something about hillary clinton, and mostly they have not spoken too much about each other. he did not really at all last night. they were very aggressive, particularly, hillary clinton, bernie sanders, about the republicans. hillary clinton actually singled out three of them by name. several of them talked about donald trump, but they did not talk about each other. host: as far as the mood in the room taking place, who do you think garnered the most support? guest: you could definitely tell that people had their activists their supporters in different parts of the room. hillary clinton, hands down i think, got more people across the room, but the bernie sanders people were more enthusiastic. they were on one side, but they were banging their hands on the table, clinking their glasses

like you do at a wedding. they were sort of interrupting him to say i love you, almost like a preacher at a church. both of those two people. the most, i would say jim webb, very tepid response. martin o'malley sort of started out low but by the end he was getting a lot of applause. i think he said a lot of things they wanted to hear. host: as we got -- saw this morning, there were even supporters out there, martin o'malley supporters, holding signs. was there a lot of crowd outside of the event? guest: we received a portion of people there beforehand. i only subgroups for o'malley and clinton, i thought that was interesting. the clinton crowd said they were a mixture of volunteers and staff, some were paid. when i went over and talked to

the o'malley crowd, which i think was larger, they said they were paid by him -- by his super pack, so they were actually employees. i can't tell you all of them were, but it was definitely a thing for candidates to try to show their strength outside. i don't want people to think that these were just democratic activists that happens to be wanting to be outside. it was definitely an organized effort. host: before we let you go, aside from the things we talked about, what is the takeaway. what is something that caught your interest? guest: i would just say that for me, i have been mostly seeing hillary clinton. i've seen it bernie sanders only a couple of times, i would say i was not surprised, but i had not witnessed how enthusiastic his supporters are. they truly are. they really are quite the fans. i don't know if it will be

enough for him but he is definitely going to give hillary clinton a run for her money. host: anita kumar covers the white house for mcclatchy newspapers. you can see that on c-span. anita kumar thank you so much. guest: thank you. for democrats only in this hour, we are going to hear from some of those democrats. who do you like for 2016? democrats only. (202) 748-8000 for the eastern time zone and for the mountain pacific time zone (202) 748-8001 . caller: ms. kumar had a point. the higher crowd that has been happening. however i was really taken aback. bernie sanders, she is correct he is kind of like the rand paul -- ron paul of the democratic

party. he has that natural grassroots. jim webb really caught my eye. i have been researching him on the internet, about his service in the military and his scottish irish back ground. he just really appeals to me and i actually just ordered two of his books on amazon. i wants to hear more about jim webb, but thank you for all you do. host: before you go does jim webb's military stance, his foreign policy, what is it? caller: what it was, i've only had 10 minutes to reach her -- research him because it was the lead into your program, but he is anti-, not antiwar so much, but antiwar's -- anti-wars of choice. he was against afghanistan iraq well bill clinton was sitting courtside he was getting

bloody with the marines. useless wars he called them i believe. that is what he has been about to me. also he is a straight shooter. that is just what i have gotten so far. i was with bernie sanders and now i am leaning towards jim webb. that's the best i can do for you now. i was an organizer for obama in 2008 i'm a little disillusioned with hillary. jim webb definitely, i for some reason, the more i research him the more i like him. host: that's jack in florida. here's jim webb from last night. >> we've talked about the -- a lot of issues that everyone is in strong agreement with. let me think just for a few minutes about my view of what the american dream really means. i call it the american trifecta. what i mean by that is when our system works right, we have a safety net under people who need it, who have fallen into hard

times or who have retired. we have absolute fairness in the middle. if you can truly make it, you can go all the way and this country. that is the american dream. what does it look like when it doesn't work, and what does it look like when it does work? when i think about a time when it didn't work, i will never forget the experiences that my mother had growing up in utter poverty in eastern arkansas. she was one of eight kids, three of whom died in childhood. not childbirth childhood. her father died when she was 10. there was no educational opportunities. there was no medical. there was not social security at that time. she chopped cotton, picked strawberries, when my dad met her at the age of 17 he set her hands felt like the bark off of the tree from having worked so hard. she gave me the energy that i have today to be standing in front of you today, but it was

franklin roosevelt's programs that gave people in that part of america the safety net under them and a chance for true fairness. host: that's jim webb. that event you can watch in total on www.c-span.org. caller: good morning c-span. host: hoodia like for 2016? caller: i like hillary rodham clinton. she is my girl. i think she will go all the way. she is for regular people, not just for the rich. you tell everybody, all she's got to do is take elizabeth warren for her vice president. you know, in the bush administration, he got thousands

of people killed and they never investigated the war with iraq. they say saddam hussein did it bin laden did it, we don't know who did it. we just need to get together. people, the republican party they are so mean. you think of donald trump right now, you think he is that nasty to people of color, he isn't worried about anything. he's got it made. he's got the trump hotel, las vegas. host: what do you think about people who wants to see hillary clinton be more like elizabeth warren as far as her progressive stance on specific issues? caller: here's what they are trying to do. they want elizabeth warren to get into the race, elizabeth warren and hillary clinton. hillary tells it like it is. you know she will speak her piece, if you rub her the wrong way she will rub back against you. you go against her, she will go against you.

they would make a good couple. it is time for the women now. vice president and president. host: ivory from chicago illinois, hi. caller: hi. i'm calling and because i really like bernie. i didn't think so at first, when he first got in, but i think he would be marvelous. i think he is completely sincere. as far as hillary clinton, i would not vote for hillary clinton. i think she is reading from cards. she is insincere. she doesn't mean anything. she doesn't even know why she is running. i'm really with bernie. i do like jim webb. i don't know if he is going to catch fire. bernie is the man. host: you said that at the beginning maybe you weren't so certain about bernie, that changed. what's changed it for you? caller: it changed because i think he can really do it.

i really think he can do it. i'm going to get involved with the campaign as much as possible. i've already sent money. i think he is the guy. i think he can do it. i know other people don't think so, you know what i really hate, people is saying that he is a foil for hillary clinton. i don't think that's so. i think he's the real deal. host: we will hear from bernard from utah, hello. caller: hello. i'm a supporter of burning with the heart, hillary with the head. i don't think mr. sanders can be elected in this environment because he is basically a socialist. but hillary is more moderate, and i don't believe she should

take bernie's positions, just to stick with her positions and not moved to the left. host: what is it about her positions that you like? caller: she's ok. senator sanders is to the left that's not going to fly. hillary is more moderate. she seems willing to compromise with some of the, you know, republicans and the more conservative democrats. host: nancy is up next. nancy is from north carolina. hi there. caller: hi. host: you're on. caller: i'm going to support bernie because i feel, like the other people, that he is very sincere. he has been a great senator.

i would support jim webb as a vice presidential candidate because i felt his age was also very good. i felt like hillary did come across as phony, and i have felt that before with her. host: when you say with senator sanders, you like his ideas. what ideas do you like the most so far in a campaign? caller: i really like the way he is going after the big money. that is the key behind many other issues, these billionaires that are controlling our country and we don't even realize how insidious that is. we really don't see the whole picture. host: do you think he is electable? caller: i do think he is electable. i think it will be more of a struggle than it would be with hillary because of her fame already, her connections, and her money. but i do think in this atmosphere, of the changing demographic in this country where there are younger people

who don't care about the money and they do care about the issues, i think he is electable. host: for this hour we are looking to democrats only on who do you like for 2016. all five of the democratic candidates for president of hearing in cedar rapids, iowa last night for the hall of fame dinner there. we are hearing from some of them in this hour, we wants to hear from you. %(202) 748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for the mountain and set -- pacific. senator sanders, specifically about his statements towards secretary of state clinton, her views on banks. saying that sanders will ultimately help clinton's restrain her expectation here, mr. sanders growing support in

the polls, vast base of small dollars contributors and sizable crowd have prompted some of ms. clinton's backers to make not so subtle comments about the importance of nominating a candidate who can capture the funding. i don't have a lot of time to mess around like i used to, i wants to win said dale todd, a democratic activist from caesar -- cedar rapids. sandra, hi. could you like for 2016? caller: i'm supporting wynonna laduke. i don't know if your member her or not. she was ralph nader's running mate when he ran for president. she is a lovely, smart, really concerned citizen. she is a native american, and for vice resident i would recommend jim webb. what a dynamic team. host: why do you like wynonna laduke specifically?

caller: she's a native american. she grew up dirt poor, as they say. she is, she has a handle on the ground, on the land. i think so many candidates do not have that. is she a declared candidate, and what party is she running on? caller: this i don't know. i am hoping that this will spur her on. i've talked to other members of various tribes, i know that she is considering a run and i hope that she will continue to do so and get into the race. host: at a from california, good morning. caller: hi. i like hillary clinton, i also like elizabeth warren. i would like, i would like to see her run for president. but i think it is time for a woman to lead this country to be the leader of this country.

i think hillary has the experience, and i think she has the capability. i really like her. i hope she becomes the first woman president of the united states. host: what is it about secretary of state clinton's experience that you like the most? caller: she has been first lady. she had that experience. she has been secretary of state she had that experience. and senator. i'm sorry, i didn't hear you. host: you answered actually what i was looking for. let's move on to a caller from bellevue michigan. caller: good morning c-span. hillary all the way. i want to say to my colleagues out there, democrats, be careful what you wish for. we don't want our party to go to far left and become the tea

party. i know everybody is concerned about economic issues, but i don't see bernie sanders elizabeth warren, or anybody else being commander in chief, dealing with the world stage. military iraq, iran. they seem to be focused too much on the economics part. as president, they have to carry the world stage. i just don't see bernie sanders or elizabeth warren. you need to get out and vote and get involved, because the republicans will cheat. maybe if hillary clinton does get the nomination, maybe she can choose a non--- moderate republican as a running mate. it's time to bring our country together. thank you, that's all i have to say. hillary all the way, democrats be careful what you wish for. let's not try to bash any of the candidates too much. thank you c-span.

host: the former secretary of state was one of the speakers last night. she spoke about the concept of trickle-down economics. http://twitter.com/cspanwj >> we believe in a basic bargain. if you work hard and do your part you should be able to get ahead and stay ahead. we believe that the measure of our success should be how much income rise for hard working families, not just for ceos and money managers. [applause] >> well, republicans believe something very different. their answer is always the same. cut taxes for the super wealthy let eggs corporations write their own rules. that's it.

trickle-down economics has to be one of the worst ideas of the 1980's. [applause] >> it is right up there with new hope, shoulder pads, and big hair. i lived through it. there are photographs. we are not going back to that. host: that is hillary clinton from last night. don't forget that poll of democratic voters when it comes to support for 2016. 51% of those who participated with support to hillary clinton. 17% to bernie sanders. 13% to joe biden who has not declared a run for the president. jim webb and martin o'malley 1%. lincoln chafee, 0%. robert, thanks for holding on. you're next. caller: yes sir. i would like to say i love bernie sanders, he is a statesman. he is not a politician.

he is the only one out there that has been against the iraq war both times, against the iraq war. he is honest, he did not have people out there pay people like o'malley and clinton to hold signs and stand outside last night because bernie sanders is the real deal. this man is honest, no super pack money -- super pac money no special interest money. we can do it with bernie sanders. he is a national treasure. everybody listen. he is the real deal. host: oakland california, erna. caller: i'm for bernie sanders because he is an honest man, speaking for the -- from the heart.

i have been following this for a very long time. i used to be a goldwater girl. i was working for goldwater when we were fighting for civil rights, when we went to the south to fight for civil rights. goldwater, if he had been president, they would never have passed civil rights. they are responsible for nafta. they are responsible for taking away wealth. three strikes, you are out. nafta, and wealthier -- welfare. those are the grassroots of the people. mrs. clinton you have to be very careful. you are supposed to want a woman , doesn't mean any woman. i come from a third world country. she reminds me too much of

people in a banana republic of third world countries. she -- they are treating her like a queen. the only people that have tony in my country are royalties. mrs. clinton is paying people to hold signs out there for her like, what's his name. trumpeted. -- trump did. my mother was a politician. so many women are politicians. she almost got killed. instead of going out there and talking to people and really knowing people. she wants to mobilize. when she announced, africa is a continent. what have they done to black

america that they are voting for her. what would she do in the south. i'm tired of lying. i did that here, i did that there. she was the governor's wife. she was the 2000 president's wife. i watched him for a long time. host: ok. that is erna from california. let's hear from fayetteville north carolina. caller: good morning. i'm for hillary. the reason i am for hillary -- host: go ahead. caller: i have followed this woman for at least 25 years. she has been consistent on her views and support for women's rights and the rights for all of the people. she is a strong leader.

she is consistent in her views. i would caution democrats to be careful. yes, bernie speaks a good game, but he is too extreme. he is a socialist. stop vilifying hillary. we are democrats. host: when you say that senator sanders is too extreme, what do you mean by that? caller: you know, because of his ideas on dividing the wealth. i understand that economic conditions, economic influences for people the problem is, the way he speaks about it. they will vilify him as taking the money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. they will vilify the man as a socialist. never in america can a socialist win.

they are vilifying socialist -- hillary as well. it will divide the party. unite behind someone with a proven record of working hard and supporting the rights of american people. host: lisa from california. caller: hello. i have been living in europe for the past 20 years. i'm african-american, coming back to america i will be voting for hillary clinton. but i really agree with donald trump, america is looking like a third world country and it is shocking to see how our country is voting. donald trump is very right about immigration. i don't agree with hillary on immigration. i believe our country is folding . it is shocking to see this. coming back to america because

as an african-american living in europe and other countries dubai is like the wizard of oz compared to what america looks like. bernie sanders, i don't know much about him. i don't believe in know much about him, but i do not believe in socialism. i have lived in socialist countries, scandinavia, norway and trust me, people are not -- it is a lazy situation. they live off of the government. and this is scary. as an african-american, i was not born with a golden spoon in my mouth but my sister and my family made sure that i got education and that i was able to travel and represent my country in a very good way, so i will be voting for hillary clinton. host: lisa, you talk about how you do not agree with her on immigration. what one thing do you agree with hillary clinton on?

what one policy do you agree with her on? caller: i believe -- i have watched hillary clinton over the years, and i followed her and president clinton, and i just think that hillary clinton is an honest woman, she is for women's rights she will be the best way we can, and i think the way our government is ran is just so much negativity. no one knows how to come together. everybody is about putting each other down. this is destroying the country. i have not heard any positiveness. it is just putting the country down, putting each other down, no one is coming up with any positive views of how to run the country, but i believe hillary clinton will be a great president, and i will be -- host: that is lisa from oakland california.

again, if you're joining us for this hour, we have been talking to just the democrats about who you like for 2016. fortinet hour, if you want to give your thoughts, (202) 748-8000 in the central time zone, (202) 748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zone. new jersey, go ahead. caller: i support bernie sanders. i think he is the only authentic candidate out of the whole race of either party. i think he means everything he says, and i believe him. i think he can be honestly the next fdr. i agree with the regular on wall street, bringing things back like glass-steagall, as well as raising the minimum wage and so on. and i think a lot of these other democratic choices like hillary jim webb, and lincoln chafee are more moderate republicans than they are real democrats.

jim webb and lincoln chafee both held office as republicans. i think that says more about the republican party, that they do not have moderates anymore. host: do you think senator sanders might be -- and some of the viewers this morning described him as someone who could make things hard for hillary, could let the democrats to put support in 2016, do you think that he will have that role in the race as far as drawing both away from secretary of state clinton? caller: i don't think so. i have watched a lot of the interviews with him, and i think he has gone out of his way to not be inflammatory of hillary and the media seems to only want to ask him about hillary and his own campaign, sophia sort of forced to deal with the issue. -- so he is sort of forced to deal with the issue. i think if hillary ends up getting the nomination, he will fall into court for her, but i would rather see him get it. host: if hillary clinton does

get the nomination, will you support her than? caller: yeah i think she would be the best at worst options because i do not like any of the republican candidates, so i would rather not get anything that hillary said she would do that get with the republicans are offering. host: he has been mentioned several times during the 30 minutes. here's what he had to say about the political revolution. mr. sanders: given the politics in america today, no president can bring about the changes we need in this country unless there is a political revolution. [cheering] and what that means in all honesty is the powers that be in washington, the billionaire class the koch brothers, the

lobbyists, the corporate interests that nothing will get done in less billions of people stand up and loudly proclaim "enough is enough." this country belongs to all of us and not a handful of billionaires. host: some tweets this morning from viewers. gregory james saying he would like to see hillary and bernie run as a team. also this guy saying i was happy to see jim webb in the race right until the time he began to defend the confederate flag. not anymore. sheila from california, you are next. hello. caller: hello. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: oh, ok, thank you. i'm sheila from california. i am for sanders for sure.

i see hillary as another republican to me. she is putting on an act as a democrat. one of the callers called earlier, she said she is from california, she was not raised in the states -- yes, california is going down a little bit. yeah, one of my daughters physicians said to me yes california is going down, and we are in crisis. however, i see sanders back up obama's -- a lot of his laws have changed. i was not raised with a gold spoon, either, in my mouth, and i think the health plans and everything i think sanders would back up. sanders would. and clinton i do not think would do anything from our country. i am from iran. i do not agree with the war, and i think he would do a lot. host: you started talking about mrs. clinton talking about or

being like a republican. what leads you to that conclusion? caller: as far as her statement saying -- she is very, very wealthy, and as far as moneywise, she is always talking about money. she has put down a lot of what she will do and how she is going to do it, and she makes it sound as if she is going to cut a lot of wages, you know, to save -- it just seems to me that she is not going to fix anything as far as income goes, and she is going to cut social security, and she is going to make a lot of cuts even if she raises the minimum wage a little bit, a lot of the health that obama has helped out, just to help out wages and stuff, it is going to be very terrible. everything obama has done for this country -- she is going to

change a lot and it is going to be very sad, and the democrats are going to be really does disappointed. she is putting on an act. host: that is sheila from california. elizabeth warren was speaking in phoenix, arizona at a convention, talking by the presidential candidates. she made no mention of specific candidates during the speech but she issued them a challenge. she said "i think anyone running for that job should say loud and clear that they agree -- we do not run this country for wall street and megacorporations, we run it for people." more specifically, warren said that candidates should be asked if they support a bill introduced by senator tammy baldwin, democrat of wisconsin that would prevent wall street banks from giving multimillion dollar bonuses to executives who are departing for government jobs.

within the hour, martin o'malley's campaign released a statement putting out that he has already issued a comprehensive plan to crack down on wall street that includes his own ideas on "closing the revolving door." a spokesman for sanders' campaign said that "of course" he supports ball once legislation and added that sanders is cosponsoring a warrant bill in the senate that would reinstate the glass-steagall act. that is in the "washington post ," by the way. mary is up next. caller: hi. i saw bernie sanders speechless night, and i just felt energized by it. i was exposed to a lot of his ideas because of the strength of his social media campaigns and has shared a lot of those with my facebook friends. i think that he has done a lot to not only energize those of us who are like, middle-aged and getting closer to retirement and getting concerned that social security is going to go

away, even though i have money put away in a 401(k), i really take offense to the -- take offense to the republicans saying that social security is an entitlement. i put money into social security all of these years, and i expect to take advantage of it. it is not going to pay for my needs and retirement, but what i've been able to put in my 401(k) with the ups and downs of the economy is not going to take care of my needs in retirement, either. what is going to happen to all of those people that nothing put away? which the statistics say is quite a few. in addition, i have a daughter in college. she was fortunate enough to get a scholarship to go to a private college. that brought her rates down to about the same as umass but it is a big concern for the young people coming into the workforce , that they are saddled with all of this debt. host: mary, can i ask you a question?

caller: yes. host: talk a little bit about senator sanders' social media campaign. is it tweets, facebook posting -- how to see work that angle of his campaign? caller: i see most of it on facebook, but he gets very hard-hitting heartfelt, you know ideas as part of his social media campaign about education or about social security or about, you know the imbalance in earnings in corporations or the power that they have. i think it resonates with a lot of people. i do not know why republicans do not take to it. that is another issue. but i think it resonates with a lot of people. i am a bit concerned about all of the comments that came up about saying bernie sanders is socialist. i think that if he did rise and became president that he would

not be a socialist in the true sense of the word. i mean, i lived in europe when france was nationalizing all of the corporations and everything and actually worked for one of those nationalized corporations and, you know, i do not think it would ever go that far. host: gotcha, mary, for massachusetts. let's hear from gary in california. go ahead. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call, and thank you so much for c-span. your show is just awesome. i don't know what else to say about it. i am totally, 1000 percent bernie sanders. i think he has a real grasp on the role of government through the nation and the populist, and i agree with just about everything he says. one of the things he said recently was you know, if the

banks are too big to fail, then they are too big to exist. oh my god, what a statement. host: did you ever have support in this process? i know it is early on -- for mrs. clinton at all, or no? caller: you know, i would not say i am against democrat because she is a democrat, and i am's watch democrat the board -- and i am staunch democrat right across the board. i used to be republican, but i changed. i did not vote for many years because i became so disillusioned, and then i became aware of the government role in our nation and what it can do or the people, and you know, it is our country, come on. and then i started paying attention to, in general republicans seem to be for big business, and i am all for big business -- do not misunderstand. on the other hand, there will be business to the exclusion of the rest of us and democrats seem

to be totally on the other side of the that fence, but i hope that there can be a balance there, and we certainly need somebody on our side. and in my experience it is not republicans on my side, it is the democrats. host: gary from massachusetts. let's go to aaron, hi. caller: how are you doing, sir? host: fine, thank you, go ahead. caller: i just wish the democrats were just as strong as the republican side because hillary and sanders, joe biden, if they choose to run, there's really no one else who can make as good of a president as most of the republicans will. so i'm just going to say, you know, i just wish more republicans with as good

credentials would choose to run. host: aaron from california talking about who he likes as far as a 2016 that presidential candidate. democrats only off of twitter. james -- where is all of the martin o'malley love this morning? he did speak last night targeting some of his comments to the gop field. here is what he had to say -- [video clip] mr. o'malley: you're ar republican governor terry branstad has showed us the direction he would take us, cutting taxes for big corporations and then telling you that iowa did not have the money to invest in your own children's education. well welcome to today's republican party. they once had leaders and measure visionaries -- lincoln eisenhower -- now they create traffic jams and dismissed science. [applause] [cheers and applause]

and now the leading candidate for president is donald trump. [laughter] after his racist hate-field comments the "l.a. times" wrote -- republican still divided on donald trump comments on immigrants. divided? as in not show he is wrong? it donald trump wants to run based on demonizing immigrants he should go back in time and run on the know-nothing party. host: that is governor of maryland martin o'malley. you can watch that whole event on our website at c-span.org. dan from post falls, idaho. good morning, go ahead. caller: yeah, i am for hillary all the way. i think that her husband did such a good job -- they live

together obviously, so i think a little input would come from him. it would be another wonderful country again, put us on the plus side of the deficit again so i really think she will do the job for us. host: from grand field, oklahoma ricky, you are next. hi there. caller: hi, like you said, my name is ricky, and i'm from grantville, oklahoma where democrats are few and far between. i would just like to have my voice heard and say that i will be voting for hillary all the way. because, you know, down in this neck of the woods when it comes to democratic candidate, we still value the most conservative of those that are running, just like in texas just south of us, and richards --

anne richards had appealed to a largely republican base. i feel like hillary could largely have that same appeal to people in a state like this. and i think that that will definitely play in her favor in the next election. host: ricky, we have a tweet this morning as has hillary as well as the gop candidates equal a vote for the status quo. i don't think you would agree with that, but what you think about that kind of statement? caller: well, i would definitely say that that has a negative connotation to it, but i do not think that is necessarily a bad thing because in places like oklahoma, you know, texas we, you know, we believe that the institutions that we have are good yes, but they could be better. while we believe that they should be improved, we do not

want to see a complete overhaul of them. we do not want anything quite that radical. host: leilani is next from connecticut. hello, there. caller: hi, good morning. i am supporting hillary clinton. i think that hillary clinton's experience as first lady of arkansas as first lady of the united states of america, and i also think she was copresident with her husband as a senator elected twice from new york, and as president obama's secretary her paper resume alone is greater than anyone else in the field. if she was elected president of the united states, she would be the most qualified president i think that we have ever had. i think that this go round she is not as appealing as she was in 2008. i think that bernie sanders is

definitely motivated, but the bottom line is hillary clinton is the only candidate in the race, republican or democrat, that can hold the world's stage. elizabeth warren is not prepared. hillary clinton is the only person that can match angela merkel and margaret thatcher. host: democrats had an event last night. republicans will be speaking at an event in ames, iowa today, a family leadership summit, set to star at 11:00. those scheduled to attend include marco rubio, ted cruz, scott walker, mike huckabee, rick santorum, ben carson, and donald trump as well. that event starts at 11:00. you can watch it on c-span, that is the family leadership summit in ames, iowa. part of our road to the white house 2016 coverage here is c-span. william from eureka, california. good morning. expert holding on. go ahead. caller: good morning.

i am 72 years old, lifelong democrat, have never voted on the other side of the aisle ever , never even considered it. on my side of the aisle, democratic side, i would want bernie sanders. the reason i would want bernie sanders -- he does not show any special interest groups for favors to anybody. on the other side of the aisle i believe we have dr. carson, and we have donald trump. now, people laugh at donald trump, but he used to be a democrat so i believe he is that some interests as far as the way democrats think. furthermore, i've never ever watched "the apprentice," but all they say is he is a sideshow. i do not believe that. i think that man has got some backbone and some guts, and he does not tell anybody anything. and it if it came down to donald

trump getting the vote to be the front runner and hillary clinton is a front runner. donald trump gets my vote, i am sorry. i would cross the line. host: if you have shared this thought with any of your other democratic friends, what has been the reaction? caller: yes, i have. some of them giggle and laugh and others stand behind me. they say boy, he is really turning everybody upside down. i say, yeah, the reason he turns them upside down as he does not oh them anything and he does not back down from anything. as far as immigration is concerned, i'm very interested in that. i'm reading the book "adios, america." the only thing is he did not present that properly. it was coming from his heart but it just did not come out of his mouth properly, and all they

are doing is running on that so that nobody will vote for him. host: steve from indiana, good morning. how are you doing? caller: ok. bernie sanders is the one, but whoever gets nominated for the democratic party, i will go with, but i think bernie is the best that right now. and, you know, maybe he will turn hillary towards what we need. host: what do you mean by that? caller: turn her more to the left. host: when you say that you would vote for whoever the democratic candidate is, let's say it is mrs. clinton, do you think that democrats by and large within the party will take that approach if they were supportive of sanders, and and that being mrs. clinton, they will go ahead and support mrs. clinton? caller: yeah, i do, because bernie sanders is going to tell them to support her. host: longview, texas, david is next.

david, good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i support jim webb all the way. he told the crew we should not have gone into iraq, but we also should not have gone to libya. when he said that, he was quiet as a mouse. i support him. host: when did you start supporting jim webb? caller: last night. [laughs] host: had you not heard him before these kind of topics? caller: no, i had not heard anything about him at al. i like his story, a two-time purple heart winner, conservative, middle of the road, he could easily get elected. host: the polls do not show a lot of support for him. let's say that there is itself out in the election process. other than jim webb, who do you support? caller: none of the above. host: would you vote or not? caller: i would sit out.

host: alexandria, virginia, betsy, you are next. caller: hi. i am about 90% with hillary and even higher with bernie, but i would vote for hillary because i do not think a socialist can win in the u.s. the main thing for me is we need to be able to have our presidents select the next supreme court nominees. host: why do you think that bernie sanders is getting the support that he is if you take even the hour that we have had, in of support for him, why do you think that is? caller: i think his economic stand -- he stands on general human rights for americans and around the world. it resonates with a lot of people, it resonates with me. america will not vote for a socialist, you know, outside of

the far left to moderate left of the democrats, yes, but you also have to get the people in the middle and some of the more mildly conservative people if you want to get the presidential vote, and i do not think he will get all of that. he is very popular in colleges, you know. my grandson is a big bernie supporter, and as i say, the things he is saying about basic human rights and needs resonate with a lot of people. host: when it comes to mrs. clinton, what is it about her policies that you support the most? is it economic policy, is a foreign policy? where do you like her most when it comes to that? caller: well, i think that -- she has got a tremendous resume and i probably support her most on economic and social policies in the u.s., but i also like the fact that, with her experience

as senator, she was -- it was largely acknowledge that she worked well with the other side of the aisle. she cosponsored bills, she worked very well with the republicans, and we need that. host: barton, vermont, andy. good morning. how are you? caller: how are you doing? it is great to hear you again. i love your show. i think you are one of the truly democratic individuals that we have that going today. i love to spend anyway. i am desperately opposed to bernie sanders, therefore i love hillary. i also like hillary. she has never been elected except for senate, you know, which was sort of a fill -in. she really will do a good job form policy wise. benghazi, i think once bitten, twice shy. her radar is on, she is aware she is very much her own person. i live in barton, vermont.

i do not have a fire hydrant that works. i live in a third world country. i do not have portable water. i have not since february. the streets froze so badly. we do not have any democracy in vermont so to speak. the town meeting system is very much fixed, it is very difficult to get anything done up. here. i was not born in vermont. i am part jewish. those are two strikes against me up here. it is a tough place, and bernie has done nothing for us. host: i was going to ask you, when you say desperately opposed to him, though it little further. tell us why. caller: he has really been an of abstainer especially when he was in the house, he abstained more than anyone. he does nothing for the state nothing. he is gone now, so the cat's away, the mice will play. he was mildly sympathetic when

he was a congressman, and he was sort of available as a senator, but now that he is a candidate he is done. he is gone and this place is badly, badly run. our governor is hopeless. he is going to quit -- a rich, rich man. he has already announced that. we have no one. we have one representative who is an obamaite, straight ticket, but he does know thinking. bernie was our only mind, and he is gone. host: andy from vermont. sheila from florida, you are next up. caller: yes, here i am. thank you for taking my call. i watched all five candidates at the hall of fame dinner. in fact, i watched it, like, three times because they repeated on c-span. i was so proud of all five of them. i would take any one of them to be president.

lincoln chafee, so kindly, so presidential, then hillary, oh hillary. we have watched her go through so much, and there she stands so beautiful and so wanting women to come forward, and that is what is so needed in our world today. we will not have peace on earth until women have a voice. where women are suppressed in those countries, that is where there is the most violence, so i love her. and i really love bernie. i mean, he is so likable. and jack webb, what a background, how he grew up and how he voted against the war in iraq. host: sheila, as of today, who stands out among that field, though? who is your number one choice?

caller: oh, well, i want to say something about martin o'malley. he -- his compassion -- he would be wonderfulk, too. i say all five of them, but hillary, i am voting for hillary. host: peter from georgia, good morning. you are up. caller: hello? host: hi, you are on. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i am a supporter of mrs. clinton. i want to see how -- the nomination. and i want to say this to my fellow democrats -- please stop immunizing -- stop demonizing the woman. she has been on stage for almost 25 years.

it is just sickening this morning to hear almost every caller from california, that calls from california just trying to tear the woman apart. i will say this right now -- if bernie sanders can win the nomination, i will gladly vote for jeb bush or john kasich for president. i want a performer. i want someone that can lead this country forward. the independent, god bless his soul, he cannot lead this country. you can wish yourself all the great things you want to hear -- america remains a capitalist country. they need someone who can manage capitalism, not someone that would destroy it. host: that is peter from georgia finishing out our conversation

from democrats about who they would like to see run in 2016. in our next segment, we focus on republicans running for president, a larger field easily, and joining us to talk about that field is the weekly standard's daniel halper. we will turn our attention to the iran new nuclear deal. ellen tauscher from the obama administration will join us later. on our "newsmakers" program labor secretary tom perez will join us. here's a little bit where he talks about the new digital economy, should be concerned about contract -- should concern contract workers and whether employees should be free of regulation. sec. perez: what troubles me at the outset is it reflects a false choice. you either have innovation or you have regulation.

that is a false choice. i see innovators across this economy, and the new economy and the long-standing economy that understand that when you take care of your workers, it is good for your workers come it is good for your bottom line, and it is good for your customers, so this notion that we have to have either an independent contractor driving you or else we cannot create a business model is, i think, simply incorrect. when i talk to employers all the time to recognize that their most precious asset is their employee and their workers, and when you treat them fairly, u.n. of having -- you end up having a more fair workforce. when i hear people talk about the need to make sure that if someone is an employee they are treated as an employee, that is right, and you can do so and innovate at the same time.

that is certainly what the president feels. i know that is what secretary clinton feels, and that is what others feel, and i've seen the and our work. we talked to innovators all the time in the silicon valley and elsewhere who understand that i can create a new business model and still take care of my workers. >> don't impede in any way. sec. perez: i do not think so. innovators understand that is the right thing to do. sometimes i hear people say that innovation has to occur at the access of -- absence of regulation. does that mean that if you are driving uber, you have the right to say someone in a wheelchair "i cannot serve you," because that is regulation? we can it, it all of these things. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we turn our attention to

republicans who are running for president in 2016. for that discussion, daniel halper from the "weekly standard," thanks for joining us. we are talking about 19+ with more entering the field. the headline of the "new york times" says it adds volatility. you agree with so many people running for the office? guest: yes, it is totally applicable, and it is good. the democratic side is a snooze fest a bit. you kind of know what will happen, but everybody can kind of britain other can be berniementum, john kerry johnson and challenges hillary at the end, but we all know hillary will most likely be the nominee. you cannot say the same about the republican party. there are a lot of different backgrounds. you have a lot of diversity ideologically, and that is good

for a party, i think, whether the party is able to harvest that toward a victory is obviously a for more complex question, one we will not have the answer to for a long time, but it does but a lot about that , obviously a lot of downside as well. host: upsides for whom and downsides for him? guest: upsides being the republican party can grow, get new ideas, they can upgrade exchanges, they can open their tent and bring a bunch more people in. downsides being when you have such a widespread field, to win a field like that is not take that many votes, by comparison, to a smaller field so you can maybe win the iowa caucus with 15%, 20% of the vote. that is very plausible as we are looking ahead toward next year. we can win the new hampshire primary with maybe 15%, 20% of the vote. that also suggests that we can have a very, very long republican primary, possibly even going to the convention, i would say.

that is not necessarily a a bad thing, either. it all comes mixed. it could be a good thing to have a robust debate that engages for more voters and americans than on the other side where there is obviously going to be less of a debate. host: some say taking it to the convention would be problematic. guest: yes somewhat they would be problematic. the republican national committee is freaking out about that prospect, but i disagree. i think, well, it is possible that that is the case, but it is also possible that you have a scenario in which there is a very robust debate that is not quite get into bitter and you know, it is not sort of drag out the worst elements of a party but that is robust and exciting, and i think the key is whether the candidates can capture that, whether they are able to do that. it is not necessarily an easy task, but it is possible. host: daniel halper, more people

at least on the republican side seem to be captured by donald trump. guest: yeah, again, when you have such a huge, huge field one person being different than the rest of the field is able to garner a lot of attention. that is ok. it is no big deal. maybe it will say, probably at once, and probably his support will dissipate a little bit. again, this is one of the things that seems to be annoying the republican national committee and sort of state republicans here in washington, but that is not such a bad thing. it is much better to have a lot of people engaged in the process, excited about it. their meddling is that. i do not think it is a good way of doing business. frankly, there was a report, that ryan's reince priebus called donald trump to tell him to tone it down.

that is healthy republican party, if you are anti-establishment to say won't you turn it down, that is so good for him. they do not know what they are doing. if you are a republican, that might be a bit of a concern, but i think an organic process is very good. just let things go where they might come and do not try to be metals in, do not be controlling. host: do you think because he talks about immigration is a lot, that it solidifies immigration as a key point discussion in 2016? guest: if someone else wins, then they have defeated the donald trump wing of that party. the flipside being yeah i'm a it shows some elements -- the foot side being that yeah, it shows some elements of conservative voters, but it also shows a healthy five good fight could occur, the winner being able to lay claim to these voters,

saying that element of the party has some support, but it is not the full representative of the party. it is not necessarily as bad as these people freaking out about it seemed to think it is. host: daniel halper our guest talking about republicans running for 2016. we are hearing from a public is only in the segment. who do you like for 2016? you have heard some names being mentioned. (202) 748-8000 for those in the eastern and central time zones (202) 748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. at this point, is there a front runner in your mind? guest: well, you have got to look at the polls, and though say donald trump and jeb bush. there is an argument to be made that donald trump is helping jeb bush that trump is taking votes from other people who are anti-establishment and solidifying them around him. again, we will see if that holds. jeb bush has a ton of money, obviously, and he has great name

recognition -- host: $114 million raised. guest: an incredible amount of money. that is a huge advantage obviously. i would say there are from runners, and there are tier s of the republican party, no question, but if jeb bush is polling at 15%, and 12 spots down their polling at 1.5 percent, to present, the difference is only 13%. that is not a huge difference in politics. remember, donald trump was not on our psyche a year ago, and look where he is. a lot of it depends on can marco rubio sees a moment, -- seize a moment, ken ted cruz sees a moment -- can ted cruz seize a moment? we do not know, but we will see

if that is possible. host: these debates are controlled by polls and who gets into them. that is going to be problematic for those in the bottom part of those they are polling. guest: obviously. it all comes from this notion, again, talking about the republican national committee, there are elements in the building that believe that mitt romney lost because he debated too many times. i do not think that is the case, i do not think anybody serious think that is the case, but i think that shape their toview of the debates this time. they started being meddlesome, and they did not let the process be organic and it goes back to my point -- just let it be. let it be a more organic process. this is democracy. we have a certain amount of trust in the voters. let's just a base election off that trust in the voters, do not try to be meddlesome. that should have been their approach all along, and i think we are seeing the results in

there is debates and how people are not going to be able to get the exposure that they need to make in order to bring their case to the american people. host: again, republicans only for the segment, taking a look at who do you like for the 20's teen -- for 2016, daniel halper of the "weekly standard." go ahead. caller: hello. how are you doing, c-span? i love you. i have got to say donald trump is just what the country needs right now. he is a businessman who has made money, knows how to invest money, he is not there to waste money, and nobody ever addresses the national debt, which is ballooning. obama has more than doubled the national debt that he took over from george bush, and he is the right man we need, a businessman to bring this country back. nobody ever talks about the national debt, which is crazy, man.

and he knows how to run business, and he is going to be great for the country. he says when he speaks, and he does not apologize, and that is the kind of leader we need. we need him because when jimmy carter hasd his disastrous term, ronald reagan rescue the country, nothing has been better than the 1980's with ronald reagan and control. i think it is a joke to talk about bush or any of those other republicans except for maybe bobby jindal that has a strong sense of leadership, patriotism, and he is not afraid to say what he thinks. people can love him or hate him, but he is just what our country needs right now. host: mr. hallper? guest: yeah, look, donald trump clearly has an appeal to people. other candidates would be wise to look at what he is appealing. part of that obviously is his anti-establishment rhetoric. a lot of are publicans are not

happy with president obama obviously, and the democratic party. they are also very unhappy with the republican party. they elect the republicans overwhelmingly in 2014, and they get this trade deal that a lot of people are unhappy with with president obama. they see republicans working with president obama instead of stopping president obama's agenda, like the nuclear iran deal and things like that. so trump is able to speak to that. i thank you, david, raise a question, when he talks about national debt -- well, donald trump is not, either, and he has not put forward a conference of plan to do with the national debt. i think candidates will be required to do so because as you say, it is a huge issue. he is able to do that,1 obviously will determine whether or not he is a serious candidate, his plan compared to other plants might be what repairs him -- what propels him forward and what sets them back. these campaigns have a way of

progressing where more details are required, more policy is required to be set forth. each candidate has to rise to the occasion, and we will see how he is able to do going forward. host: justin from massachusetts you are next. good morning. caller: yeah, good morning. let me tell you i have not voted since ross perot ran, and he was a businessman. all of the -- especially clinton, he was the worst president we had. when he deregulated the banks it ruined this country, it ruined the economy around the world. him and all of the politicians that voted for it should be put in jail for life. but i like donald trump because donald trump does not have the top 1% telling him what to do. if you watch fox news, and fox news says well, romney had money -- why do people put him down? well, romney had worked for

capital, which borrowed money bankrupt them, and then shipped all of the equipment to china. donald trump wants to bring all of those jobs back. republicans say we need more money for the military, well the republicans send all of our jobs over there and give china all the money. host: thanks caller. guest: there is a lot of frustration at the republican party. a lot of people like the businessman. romney was a businessman and was not able to harness that to his advantage, certainly not overwhelmingly. you did not say this correctly but you do suggest another problem, and this is a real republican problem and should have been freaking out as a party, and that is is donald trump does go the ross perot route, if he does run as a third-party, i think it would be devastating to the republican party. that of course goes -- why don't

you treat him well why do you not try to banish him, and why don't you try to accept them into the rosses and have them go organically because he is less likely to abandon the party if you are able to keep him an engaged member and his fans. he has many of them come in as who obviously think he would be a good president of the united states. host: arnold from indiana -- and from indiana, kevin, go ahead. caller: i'm a lifelong republican and to tell you the truth, i am embarrassed. i thought my friends, and they say you are going to vote republican, are you a racist? no i am not a racist. that is what i am embarrassed about. i'm not even know if i'm going to vote because everybody is played off by the -- is paid off by the koch brothers, and i am sick of it. and i don't know what to do. i love the middle class. no one has any jobs anymore.

one question to all republicans have you rode down the streets in michigan? for the last decade, they have been taking more money and more money and more money, and the roads have bigger holes in them. it is all the republicans -- they take all the money. i do not know what to do anymore. i'll family is republican, but every candidate -- everybody says just vote for donald trump he does not have any interests. well, what is he going to do bankrupt the country? that is all this man does is go bankrupt. it is very frustrating. host: aside from donald trump is there anybody in the republican field that you support? caller: bush. host: why so? caller: because i do not think he is paid off by the koch brothers. i really don't. host: mr. halper. guest: i am not sure there is a question in there, but you first

started by talking about race. the republican side is far more diverse racially than the democratic side, which is all the same race, all white older people, except for martin o'malley, who is a little younger, and jim webb. the race issue is obviously a major political issue, but it has not -- it is not really divide along party lines, and it really should not be these days. i think that is hopefully changing, and look, the republicans need to talk about these issues. they need to not just tell people "i am not racist or cope that never sounds good if you are out there saying "don't worry, i am not racist, some of my best friends -- " some of them have been doing this into inner cities, they should reach out to anybody. host: rand paul has been doing that. guest: rand paul has been doing

that really well and i think others would be smart to emulate that. so as paul ryan, and the romney folks seems to be more against it. there is no reason to write off voters. he should try to be as inclusive as possible, you should try to explain to everybody why your party best represents their interests, and what you are going to do about it. it would be wise of the republican party to put more emphasis on that, not less. host: what about the whole discussion of the confederate flag of the last few weeks? guest: south carolina is run by republican governor nikki haley senator scott, who is african-american, and lindsey graham, the senator who is also running for president, and they are the want to took down the flag, so republicans and show that they are for the most part against having a flag-waving, or they do not think it represents

south carolina, which is a very republican state. i'm not sure what role the democrats played in it, to be honest will set they debated it, talked about it, but they did not do anything. it was the republicans. host: roger from california good morning. caller: i am going with trump. i am a lifetime democrat, union man, and i have a commission given to me by the united states navy after i got back, the united states army released me and i voted republican pretty much all my life because i believe in fiscal sanity, and i believe in passionate and compassionate republican ideas and i believe that he either bobby jindal or jeb bush or donald trump could easily leave the republican party, lead our

nations, and i'm going to talk to bob weir to see if i can get the dead heads out here on the west coast to campaign for trump, bush, and jindal and challenge their friends or they're following to consider the sanity of the republican party and bringing sanity back to the united states federal government and stopping this wasteful spending of this party. i do not agree to a rift in the united states armed forces. i know the united states army, i know the united states navy, i know what a 600-ship deepwater fleet leads to this country. host: ok, caller, thanks. guest: it is interesting in that list he said jeb, who we have heard tossed around a lot trump, and bobby jindal, the louisiana governor.

we have not talk that much about bobby jindal, who is a very accomplished man and a very smart man. he did a wise thing in looking -- he figured he was going to run or likely to run a year or two ago, and he started thinking about the issues more carefully. he is the only person who has put forth a comprehensive replacement for obamacare. he is the only person that i know on the republican side to put forward a comprehensive energy plan and defense plan and he has sort of thought through some of these ideas. they are not necessarily radical shifts but it is an example that it is good to think through the issues, come up with a real substantive plan that people can look at and make assessments they stop that. you will recall in a 2012 election, one of mitt romney's strategies seem to be not to go into details and not to go into details. i do not think that helped him. i do not think that did him a great service because a lot of people were uncertain about how he would govern, so i think

laying out your case how you might govern really does help you out. but of course bobby jindal is polling at something like 1.5% he may not make the first debate. he does have a fair amount of money between him and his super pac, there is affiliated groups, but he is sort of a compelling candidate to keep an eye on. whether he gets that traction or not -- there just could be too much talking for him to get any oxygen in the air. host: if you are on twitter says -- one thing for sure, we do not eat a bush or clinton. it is time for the usa to move on to bigger and greener pastures. how problematic -- it is a problem for jeb bush to have the name bush? guest: i think it is a huge problem. there are a lot of republicans out there and frankly american voters are just worried. even barbara bush said, "aren't there anybody else but these two families, the bushes and the clintons?" i think a lot of people believe

that, and there is a lot of fatigue around and frustration that our politics is dominated by hillary clinton and jeb bush. it does of course give somebody like donald trump, somebody who is an outsider a huge opening to come in. i think -- i mean, it is really hard to overcome if you are jeb bush, the last name. it does not mean he can't raise a lot of money because obviously he can. it does not mean he might available to squeak out the nomination -- it does not mean he might not be able to squeak out the election because i think he can but i think people are so frustrated by the bush dynasty and the clinton legacy. i think frankly the bush at this point is very close to george w.'s presidency, and some people have a bad taste in their mouth. i think that hurts job more than the bill clinton presidency hurts hillary clinton. host: republicans only the

segment, (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zone, and (202) 748-8001 if if you live in the mountain and pacific time zones. sharon, you are on from riverdale, maryland. caller: yes, i like jeb bush. i think george w.'s biggest problem was he tried to reach out to the democrats, having them in his cabinet, and they get him all kinds of terrible, terrible advice. i do like trump, but i'm nervous, just nervous on the fact that he flip-flopped on major issues like being pro-choice and, oh, gosh there were two others, i just cannot think of it at this point. foreign policy is important to me and i believe that the bushes had did a lot better on foreign policy than the clintons. they were terrible, terrible as far as foreign policy is

concerned. i believe this country will pay dearly if hillary clinton is elected. host: sharon, what do you like most about jeb bush? caller: because i think that he is an intelligent guy. he is intelligent levelheaded and, i mean, you know, they just cannot connect him with, you know, everything his family did, like i said, and especially his father, his father was just excellent from the time he was 18 years old. that i just like him. i think he is intelligent, i think he can do a lot better protecting this country then hillary clinton can. she could not even protect four americans, so how is she going to protect the country? i think he will do a lot better on foreign policy. it is reported to me, the safety of our country, national security, and economically, i think he will just do a better job economically.

and i want somebody who can debate the crap out of hillary clinton. somebody really needs to let the country see just how -- i am sorry, but just how boneheaded this woman is. host: ok, sharon, thank you. guest: a couple of points -- there will be a couple of republican debates, not as many as there should be, but there will be a couple, and that will provide a good opportunity for a very good debater to come out of the republican nomination republicans at should probably be happy about that. the democrats are having have as money that happens many debates -- are having half as many debates. that will help the republican process a lot. you mentioned foreign policy being a huge issue. i think it will be. we see this tendency -- there is a growing threat of isis and

islamic extremism, terrorism that is not being addressed adequately by president obama. a republican who can speak on that as well as this iran nuclear deal which a lot of republicans universally oppose they are skeptical that iran can be trusted on a deal like this, bringing up those issues will help the republican candidate look strong compared to obama's weakness and hillary clinton is boxed in. president obama has been making this case around hims iran deal that if you opposed to nuclear deal, you are in favor of war. i don't think that argument is for the republican party come i don't think it has any residence in the republican party. he is trying to box her and the

rest of her party in. obama as the antiwar candidate and hillary clinton is running scared of her or past. -- war past. i think the republicans would be wise to hammer that. let hillary clinton bet on iran and make the argument against the deal. host: the iran deal was part of scott walker's entry into the campaign this week. part of this speech to highlight just that. [video clip] >> we've got a president who drew a line in the sand and allowed it to be crossed. a president who thought isis was a jv squad, yemen a success story and iran a place to do business with. think about that.

when my brother and i were kids come i can still remember, we used to tie ribbons around the tree in front of our house during the 444 days that iran held 52 americans hostage. one of those hostages was kevin who grew up down the way in no creek. kevin was the honest of the hostages come a marine who just had been assigned to serve at the u.s. embassy in iran. kevin is here today with us. [applause] -- kevin was the youngest of the hostages, a marine who had just been assigned to serve at the u.s. embassy in iran. kevin is here with us today. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> kevin knows that iran is not

a place to do business with. iran has not changed much since the day he and the other hostages were released under president reagan's first day in office. we need to terminate the bad deal with iran on the first day in office. host: he goes back in history and talks about the u.s. relationship with iran during those times of the hostages being held. guest: a lot of republicans have compared obamas foreign policy to jimmy carter speared a smart way of presenting the issue that resonates with a love people and makes people concerned about putting our trust in iran and whether they follow the steel and whether they commit to following the rules that have been put forth. even if they do follow the rules, they will be able to have a nuclear weapon in 13 years and

have ballistic missiles and other huge artillery in 5-7 years. republicans -- it should be something congress takes up. it would be smart of the republican congress to make it a huge issue. let obama defended and hillary clinton defended. scott walker made the case pretty well right there. scott walker is somebody that has not come up -- he is one of the leaders on the republican side. he had a good launch this week. he was able to get some supporters -- a lot of news with this shooting in tennessee and terror attack in tennessee and the iranian nuclear deal which seems to overshadow's the coverage -- that is probably ok. you want to build up your campaign, you want it to grow.

you don't want huge momentum out of the gate. walker is wise to vote for a victory in iowa, a neighboring state of wisconsin. he seems to be well positioned their. whether he can capitalize on that and has the foreign policy background to talk about these issues in a q&a, that has not been seen. he is somewhat untested on issues that are not wisconsin related. that is ok. we follow these presidential campaigns. host: from oregon, john is up next. hello. good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: go right ahead. yes. caller: i really like trump. i like his straightforwardness. it makes him more lively, brings

entertainment to the whole thing, breaks the boredom of the gridlock people there that are going nowhere. he has a successful background. i worked at hp under the offices of carly. i like her straightforwardness. as a vice president, maybe she could be considered. or ben carson. i like his attitude. these people are not -- they did not grow up with a political attitude the whole time. they can identify with the common folks. it would behoove trump -- he needs to exercise some temperance and prudence in each when he chooses his words.

some people put a spin on his words. he needs to be more careful. i tweeted him and said hey, he should use john paul ii's idea. he would print out his speech and handed to the media after he was done. host: thank you so much. a lot out there. talk about carly fiorina. the only female candidate. how much attention is she getting? what impact does she have? guest: you are getting less attention -- one of those candidates affected his carly fiorina. she is a very well spoken, very articulate. she is very good and tough during interviews. putting these restrictions on these debates and getting -- one

of the downsides will be carly fiorina will not make it to the debate. her downside is that she has not one an election. she ran for senate in california in 2000 and it was not that close. california is a very liberal state. she moved outside of washington to the virginia suburbs. she is good and brings a lot to the debate. she is no longer the only business person in the race. that is donald trump stalking her support -- taking her support. a lot of people do want somebody with business experience for one reason or another. host: do you think that is overrated? >> we have not had a business person as president of the

united states. it could be very good. on a little unsure as to what it brings. i don't think much -- that much experience in the senate prepares you for a job as president of the united states either. there is no real preparation because there is nothing like it right? maybe being a ceo of a huge company does help you do these things. we don't have anything to base that on except a guess. host: donald trump took to instagram to launch a short ad about reaction once he decided to get into the race. [video clip] >> this guy -- could he be --

>> it's not going away. host: talkshow hosts weighing in. >>guest: it's good that he's got some humor about him. it brings more people into the process. that's what you want. there is a lot of skepticism around donald trump. some of that is mocking that skepticism. it is his destiny. he is positioned himself better than anybody expected. he has enough money to support his campaign. he can help lead his own destiny and determine where he is going to go. voters can decide or not decide to support him. that's how this process works. as much as we hear that it's

couple can, there are some basic facts to it. desktop located, there are some basic facts to it. let's see what he does. -- complicated, there are some basic facts to it. just relax and enjoy. host: let's hear from brian in west virginia. your next. caller: donald trump -- leaders in congress and the republican party have not adopted immigration laws. they gave amnesty and said they would have border enforcement. none of that has occurred. under bill clinton, we had a nafta. sending jobs to china. now we have a president who wants tpp. if the republicans did what they said they would do and what they always promise to do, you would

not have this position. as for carly fiorina, she was supportive of outsourcing -- fired thousands of americans and send our jobs to india. how can the middle class support such people? guest: the republican party has lots to answer for. this is why somebody like donald trump or somebody outside does get a bit of traction because people are not -- they're just as upset with the republican establishment and congress. they have sent them here to do a specific job and they have not done it. actions in congress have

consequences as well. if you want to avoid things like this, you want to not have these huge fights and these outsiders come in and use your stage to bash them, you should do a better job of reflecting these people because they are people and they devote. -- do vote. brian was able to articulate that frustration pretty well. host: you say let the process work. seems like the other candidates have to not only separate themselves from clinton and from trump. guest: from trump or bush. trump has sucked up a lot of the air. you need to come up with an idea to get yourself out there. putting out statements that attack president obama is not enough.

you have to come up with something creative, you have to come up with an attack or a new policy idea that gets a lot of attraction and can help bring in people. the onus is on these other candidates to do it. to have avenues to do so. there's always reporters. they can come on c-span. they can reach an audience and try to convince people that their ideas are better. if you cannot beat donald trump and cannot beat jeb bush, you don't deserve to be the republican nominee. the onus becomes on these lesser-known candidates to break out and be successful. the winner of the campaign will have deserved it and will not have taken it for granted and will fight tooth and nail for it. host: who was the dark force at this point?

guest: john kasich. he will enter next week. he won a very impressive reelection battle in ohio, which is very crucial for a republican to win. i don't know whether he makes the debate. he is pulling at 2%. he is not catching on. a lot of people don't know him. he seems to attract a lot of establishment support. i think rubio, walker, ted cruz -- ted cruz has $2 million. -- $50 million. one thing about this primary that we have not considered is that a lot of the -- half of these states are going to give

out their delegates -- it is not winner takes all in all the states come in on your percentage of victory. if you are coming in second or third, that means you can stay in this race for a very long time if you have the money to organize. big states like california and texas, that can really help you. it will be a complex process host: in a very long one. john from florida. -- and a very long one. host: john from ford florida. caller: donald trump says what's on his mind. he knows what he is doing. any man that's got that kind of

money that says he will build a wall around mexico -- he is the man, let me tell you. he is not running for the money. everybody needs to listen to him. he comes out and says and stuff straight, tells it like it is. he is my man. that's who i'm voting for. i hope everybody listens to what he says. host: how long does donald trump happy for he has to start presenting solid plans -- have before he has to start presenting solid plans? guest: another month or two. once you start getting to

debates -- here is my plan for obamacare, what is yours? that shifts things and makes him have to put something forward. donald trump seems to be winning the c-span primary. on the republican side obviously. that is not nothing. it is impressive what he has been able to do. people should learn from him and take notes rather than try to banish them from the party. that doesn't accomplish what -- >> what are you paying most attention to? guest: the iran deal will be big. how congress and the republican candidates respond will be big. the debate is coming up pretty soon. we will see some candidates at the bottom feel panic that they

will need to do something big to get attention. it will be high risk high reward. we will see some odd things attention grabbing things, some things that might work and some things that don't. it will be exciting, it will be fun for observers. i cannot wait for that debate. for the first time in a really long time, these debates mean something. the republican party nomination is up for grabs. that is probably good for the party. host: talking about republicans in campaign 2016. thank you for your time. we turn our attention to that nuclear deal announced this week. our guest is ellen tauscher.

she will join us to talk about the deal and what she thinks of it as washington journal continues after this. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> this weekend, the c-span cities for travels across the country to learn more about the literary life and history of lexington, kentucky. a state hero who had eight tortuous career -- a tumultuous career. >> if you had asked who is a bright shining star in american politics on a national scale someone who will be a governor or president, a lot of people would have said and prichard of kentucky. he worked in the white house when he was in his early 20's. he seemed destined for great things and then came back to kentucky in the mid-1940's, was

indicted for stopping in ballot box and went to prison. that incredible promise flamed out. >> we also visit ashland, the former home of henry clay. >> the mansion is a unique situation. clay's original home had to be torn down and rebuilt. his son found that it cannot be saved. he rebuilt on the original foundation. what we have is a home that is essentially a federal style home with italian details come architectural elements etc. and an added layer of aesthetic details added by henry clay's granddaughter and so on. >> see all of our programs from lexington today and sunday afternoon on american history tv on c-span3.

>> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house congressional hearings and news conferences, bringing you events that shape public policy. washington journal is live every morning with elected officials policymakers and journalists in your comments by phone, facebook and twitter. c-span created by america's cable companies and brought to u.s. a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: ellen tauscher served as the former undersecretary of state for arms control from 2009-2012. joining us now to talk about this week's announcement of a nuclear deal with iran, good morning. thank you for joining us. guest: host: happy to be with you again. host:give your assessment on the deal announced this week. what are the strengths? what do you have as far as concerns about it? guest: my technical assessment

of it is, it's the best we could get. it's a deal that really confines iran's ambitions outside of their civil program. and puts us in a position where we have more access and more ability to understand what they are doing. and the ability to snap back sanctions if we need to. the technical side of the deal, it is a very good putting back in the box of iran. this deal has become enormously political. it always was political. the united states and iran have not had relationships and 35 years. we've had every sanction you can imagine we put on a iran. the whole idea that if we only had more sanctions that things would be better -- we had completely sanctioned iran and it did not work. we needed world community to put

a lot of pressure on iran and that is why the confection of the e3, the european union germany and the p five countries , the five permanent members of the security council putting all of that together and sanctions from the world community is what brought iran to the table. both the bush administration and obama administration put that package together. and really put iran in a very tough economic situation and that's what brought them to the table. that's why this deal from a political sense always has had more politics to it than a normal conventional arms control agreement. like the new start treaty i negotiated with the russians in 2009. can we get enough members of the congress and 34 democrats to

understand that if you don't do this, there is nothing to replace it? while we are in a position of negotiating with a country with whom we have very little in common and with whom we have tremendous national security issues, human rights issues -- you can read the litany of problems we have with iran. in the absence of this deal, there is nothing that will stop them from getting and sprinting to a bomb in weeks and months. it is an important deal and one some should be serious about -- i hope chuck schumer is reading the entire accorded to make sure he understands it. -- one people should be serious about. i'm hoping that we will get enough democratic votes if we need to sustain a present chill

-- presidential veto. host: it's only a 15 year restriction, saying iran could play a long game on this one as far as waiting before developing some type of weapon. what do you think about that time frame? is that a legitimate concern? guest: considering we have nothing now, 15 years looks pretty dam good to me. why wouldn't we be concerned? in the backdrop of all of this, this is also about the actuarial -- hoping you will get a much more moderate, much more reasonable iranian government, one that is more representative of working in the neighborhood with people, not funding hezbollah, not funding isis and hamas. not causing all the problems they do. it is a waiting game. this was a tough negotiation

because we are dealing with someone with whom we do not have a relationship and who we are at odds about virtually everything. they have to have some things, we had to have some things. john kerry and our team of the 600 people who used to work with me in the state department that are world experts on nuclear weapons, all of those people did the best they could with the europeans and the p5 world powers. 15 years looks ok to me. to try to get change in the regime, to try to keep them in the box. we all have to be serious and sober about the fact that we don't trust the iranians. they are cheaters. they are funding terrorism. we are at odds with them in this is about getting as good a deal we could get, one that is not in place now that's right now, we have nothing.

making sure that we are able to have these discussions and try to move toward a way that is responsible. host: our guest joining us to talk about this week's announcement of a guild with iran. speaking from your former position, talk to us about inspections. the ability for the united states to have those free and open abilities to inspect, resistance iran might give. talk about the reality. guest: there is a lot of blending the facts and confusing the facts. there are two different types of sites that the world powers and the united states through the ia ea want to have access to. it's clear about the nuclear sites. there is unfettered access and

the ability for us to go into the declared sites. the iranians will have the responsibility in the short term to put an inventory together and we will have to check their homework and make sure they are telling the truth. if they lie on these things, snap backs for sanctions. the second basket of arginine opportunity -- let's anticipate the cheaters will cheat -- they said look, we don't want to split -- our concern is that you are actually cheating and not just using nuclear test anything nuclear for simple uses, but you have a military component to what you are doing. we would like some access and we demand access to some of your

military sites. that is where there is a little bit of a sense of the iranians giving in, not totally about but more than they would like to spend more than we have had today. when people say you cannot go say anything you want to -- see anything you want to see, that's right, but you can see more than you ever have been able to see. this is about understanding exactly what they've got, making sure they disclose everything we need to see, being able to see those nuclear sites the way we want to and taking a look at some of these military sites which we have never had access to. can you imagine the united states saying go to camp lejeune ? we would never allow that. the iranians -- this is about having notification and time. that's where people are talking about this the 24 days and

things like that. there is a lot of convergence -- a lot of blurring of lines about things in this agreement. people have to be careful to be listening and understanding that in many cases and most cases this agreement represents access that we have never had before. it's going to be all about the verification, which is what this agreement is about. host: our first call is from robert in massachusetts. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think congress should tell the president and iran no deal until the americans are released. guest: i'm disappointed that the four hostages have not been released. there is a separate diplomatic state department team that is

working on the negotiations to get those people released. this is why we don't agree with the iranians. at the same time, we have to understand that if we can just focus on one thing at a time it's important to try to get this deal done because iran with a nuclear weapon is a whole lot worse than the iran we are dealing with today. as unsavory acid is an disappointing as it is, the decision was made because this was a multilateral deal that none of the parties were going to have their own issues brought forward and this was specifically going to be about a negotiation about these issues. we should get them home as fast as we can and every effort should be made to do that. luke in louisiana. you are on. go ahead. caller: god bless america. i just wanted to comment that no

way we can trust these people. no way we can never trust these people. if we think they are going to abide by this, what are we going to do when they don't? guest: we said what we are going to do. diplomacy is anything you exhaust before you go to war. i think it wasn't smart and it was the right thing to do for us to use diplomacy to get as far as we can. we do not trust the iranians. they have cheated and we caught them cheating many times. do we expect they might you to get? -- might cheat again? probably. this is about the verification of what they say they're going to do and our ability to look at what they are doing and eestnet back provision saying you are going to be in a world of hurt with sanctions and other punitive things it we find out your cheating.

-- snapback provisions. failure of diplomacy -- it's important for us to take every opportunity we can to avoid war. not suggesting this will not turn out badly, but at the same time, this is about a verification regime to hold the iranians accountable and know as much as we can about what they are doing. if they are found to be cheating , the snapback to a position where they are once again in economic peril. host: are the sanctions more punitive toward the leadership or the people of iran? guest: it pretty much looks to me like it's always been across the board. the regime is really pinched. the iranian secret police and the group that really is funding hamas, hezbollah and isis, they are the ones that were really

pinched with the economic sanctions and the inability to move money around. this is everybody getting hurt. we feel badly for the iranian people. at the same time, it is their regime. they will have to be part of the effort to change the regime in iran when it's appropriate, when they can. it's important for us to realize that they cannot be put aside. you have to put everything against the regime. it does hurt the iranian people but they have to make a decision about whether these are the people who are going to run their country or not. or they are going to do something much more acceptable to the world community. host: both decisions come from the supreme leader. guest: they do.

the supreme leader's up there in age. it's important for us to do everything we can to run the clock out and stretch the clock out to get an opportunity for a natural act to take regime change to the ultimate end. we will have to see what happens over the short term. the reigning people, when they rose up in 2009, they were put down quickly by the secret police inside of iran. -- the iranian people were killed by their own military. in the end, the iranian people have to speak, they have to decide to join the world community, they have to decide to legitimize their government by making change. that's a decision they have to make. the world powers have figured out how to put iran in a position where there is a

verification regime on them that is pretty transparent, pretty accountable and where lots of people have a big view of what they are doing. if they are found to cheat, they go right back into these punishing economic sanctions which put their economy in tatters. we will see what happens over the short term. i'm hoping the congress will be serious and sober about considering this. i would vote for it. host: are you speaking with current members of congress about it? guest: all the time. host: specifically hwhom? guest: i'm obviously a democrat and talking to my colleagues. some people are reaching out to me. i was in the house for seven terms. i was confirmed by the senate. i know a lot of people, i had the new start treaty ratified.

people are calling me in the reaching out to my colleagues. what i'm saying to them is what i just said to you. read the agreement, listen to what people are saying, don't rush to judgment and try to the escalate the political side of everything. -- deescalate the political side of everything. host: has the obama administration reached out to? guest: yes. host: richard from massachusetts. independent line. caller: good morning. either make a deal or make war. when they called iran a terrorist and they support all these people, the real terrorist is america if you look in the mirror. we trained isil, gave them weapons to overthrow assad. that is the truth. why don't you go out and told the truth?

assad found out they were sneaking weapons up there -- america never tells the truth. we are the cutthroats of the world. we stab our friends in the back. from saddam hussein to bin laden -- why don't you tell the truth lady? instead of saying i've been in congress. you know a lot of the wrong people. america has to wake up. guest: i'm sorry that you are so unpatriotic and i'm sorry that you are so disrespectful. i think you are wrong. host: iran is still sponsors of terrorism. guest: that's correct. host: janice in detroit, michigan. caller: i think alan is right.

-- ellen's we should start trying some diplomacy. sit back and see how it plays out. -- ellen is right. time for us to stop bullying. let this ride out. guest: these conversations began under george w. bush. it is disappointing when people hear about the deal -- john kerry announces it in vienna and president obama goes on tv at 7:00 in the morning and at 7:01 people who have not even gotten the hard copy of the agreement are out there lambasting it. you need to be serious and sober about these things and this is deadly serious.

i'm not suggesting this is a great deal and i'm not suggesting this is an easy deal. that's what diplomacy is. diplomacy can make you gag because you are sitting across the table from people with whom you do not have anything in common, that you don't trust who you think of american blood on their hands. at the same time, it's the thing between you and a shooting war. we cannot have another middle east war we cannot overuse our troops. iran is a much different country than iraq, it's much bigger and it has a lot of firepower. diplomacy is not the easiest thing in the world, but it's the thing between us and the shooting war and i'm proud to say that i think john kerry and the team did a great job of holding people together. even the russian foreign minister gave credit to the united states to make clear that

we were determined as best we could to hold everybody together. to try to get to give diplomacy a chance and make sure we were doing everything we can. host: what is the difference between a deal and a treaty and should this approach have been a treaty rather than a deal? guest: that is a very good question. right now, this is executive authority of the president. it is not an arms control treaty, which requires senate advice and consent, a two thirds vote. like the new start treaty we did in 2009 with the russians. this is a different approach because it's coming through the un security council and has a multiparty context to it. it was necessary to do that. this is a very politically

driven deal. these sanctions are political agreements between the different countries. people saying just more sanctions -- we had gone to 110% on sanctions and we were not going to be able to hold the key players that were necessary to put the iranian economy at risk -- we were not going to keep them very much longer. those were our european allies like the germans. we had already sanctioned iran. we had already cut off relations for 35 years. we were at 110% ourselves and it had no effect. it caused us to be really -- it caused all the iranian situation to be opaque to us and we were very reliant on other people being able to tell us what's going on. when the bush administration and obama administration began these sanctions 12 years ago, this was

really about exerting more pressure than we could ourselves. that's why it was important to have the eu the five permanent members of the security council the u.k., russia china and france and to work this through the u.n. this is an executive agreement. it is not a treaty because it is not between the united states and another country. it does not require a senate ratification. host: texas your next up your good morning. -- you are next up. good morning. caller: let me begin by saying the deal that we -- i'm assuming she means the americans -- will be able to surveillance the iranians, we the americans are

not even allowed to enter the country to inspect. we have to rely on the other member nations that have a relationship with iran to do the inspection. guest: that is actually not true. we are going to rely on the international atomic energy agency, an arm of the u.n. there will be american inspectors on those teams. caller: being thrown out of facilities -- let me continue. there is a provision in section 10 of the agreement that says we the western nations are responsible for ensuring the security of their nuclear program to prevent sabotage. we are going to be there security guarir security guard.

you said the sanctions were not working. they come to the table because of the sanctions. guest: i said the united states sanctions alone did not work. we have 35 years of history to prove that. it was not until about 12 years ago the bush administration called on the obama administration to put a bigger package of sanctions together using the eu and the rest of the big world powers that are part of the p5, france, china, russia and the u.k. that is where we got the sanctions to begin to destabilize the iranian economy and cause them to come to the table. our own sanctions did not work. it was when we put a bigger package of sanctions together and that's why this political deal being done was effective but it was not going to remain effective for ever because, over time, it was very clear that not

everybody wanted to keep these sanctions on and we had to come to a political agreement through this according to begin to have a verification regime so we can understand what the iranians are doing -- to keep the material out of the hands of the people who could use it to make a bomb to take down as ms. centrifuges as possible, we will go from 19,000 to 5000. -- take down as many centrifuges as possible. there is enough in this agreement that really puts time and distance away from the iranians's ability to make a bomb in the weeks and months -- it is not a perfect agreement. they were not going to agree to everything, but this is the best we can get and we have to give diplomacy a chance. host: resistance from iran, is

it likely that russia and china could give iran support? guest: we will see. inside the p5, there is always a lot of bank shot where people are trained to advance their own agenda by supporting someone who is not necessarily a likely partner, but someone with whom a party sitting next to them has a disagreement. we will see. what is really important is that the russians were fundamentally important to getting this agreement done. so were the chinese and the brits and the french. that combination is what it took, both on making the sanctions much more punishing for the iranians, for the economy and the regime, but also in the sense that you have a big group of people looking at this agreement that will hold the

iranians responsible for the verification of it. host: from colorado, here is george. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm just really disappointed in this whole thing. obama and kerry and the whole team that makede this stupid deal, these people are traitors against america. guest: really, george? what is your alternative to this? host: george dropped off. guest: i'm sure he did. host: paul from arizona. democrats line. caller: good morning. just three short thanks. it seems like we have such a lack of patience in this

country. i just watched a show last night about getting this thing to pluto, it took 9.5 years. they hope the spacecraft is turned in the right direction so they can get the right pictures. yet, we don't have time to talk? we want to bomb somebody? 50 years with russia, thousands of nuclear bombs pointed at us. we managed to struggle through that without getting annihilated . yet come iran doesn't even have a bomb -- we have thousands of them yet one faction in this country seems to think the iranians are so stupid that they would let off one bomb against israel, the great fear, there would be nothing left of iran.

they are not stupid people. we need to have patience in this country and get away from this feeling -- i don't know when the united states became the warmonger of the world. some faction wants us to be that. host: i apologize. go ahead. guest: i think there is a lot of tough talking people in the country these days. people are impatient and also talking tough. the truth of the matter is, i know what it's like, i was in the congress on 9/11, i know what it's like to go to war. i was on the armed services committee for seven terms, i chaired the strategic forces committee -- i was in iraq and afghanistan five times each. i know what it's like to put our precious men and women at risk. that's why i firmly believe that

while we will never take a military action off the table it may be predestined that this is where this goes, god for bid come in the future, i'm willing to do almost anything to exhaust diplomacy before i ever put another american man or woman at risk in the middle east. that's where everybody should be. the caller is right, there is a tremendous amount of impatience and a lot of -- there is no anecdote. the talks about we should go bomb them and do this and do that, it's an unworkable theory and something that frankly is foolhardy and which do everything we can to give diplomacy a chance. host: the president talked with the saudi foreign minister on friday. talking about the concerns.

guest: of course they are legitimate. the saudi's are great allies of hours. the foreign minister who had previously been the saudi ambassador to the united states is a terrific, young, vital person. he maintains a close relationship with the united states. in the end, there are lots of theories out there that the moment the iranians get a bomb, the saudi's -- this tripwire happens, this cap skate happens -- cascade happens. we have to do everything we can to prevent that. we have to do everything we can to have serious and sober conversations with their allies to do everything we can for people to understand our motivations to attempt to get a negotiated settlement with the

iranians on this question of whether they are going to have a nuclear weapon or not. that is what this very narrow piece of diplomacy is about. i wish it had been broadened out. i wish we could bring the poor americans home, i wish there were other things we could do, stop the funding of hezbollah. i wish the sunnis and the shia could find a way to a comedy living in a very tight, very small area. this-- find a way to accommodate living in a very tight, personal area. we need to give this deal a chance. if the iranians cheat and lie -- we don't trust them. that's why we have to negotiate a settlement with them. if this fails, there are no other options than to use force. that is something we should try to avoid at all costs. it doesn't mean that we are

weak, that we are willing to give them nuclear weapon, we are not. at the same time, we have to be serious and sober about the fact that these are the realities we have. they get a vote, they get to decide what they are going to do. hopefully in time, their regime will change, we will have someone who will be a better player in the neighborhood and a potential partner to the world community, which they are not right now. host: girl in north carolina. hello. -- earl in north carolina. caller: if the iranians don't go through with the deal, the process of snapback would be in place. how quickly will it take for this to happen? secondly, do all the members of the p5 have to agree to the snapback? how sure are you that they all

will agree with that? agree with snapping back -- guest: that is the great question. this is not just the iranians agreeing, this is all of the parties agreeing. everyone is agreeing to the same set of circumstances and that is very important. there was a lot of concerned that the extra sanctions, the 110% that caused the iranian economy to collapse and caused the regime to say we better try to negotiate a settlement because they are hurting us, we were concerned that germany and some others for their own energy needs, for their own multilateral needs might not maintain the sanctions. that's why this is vitally important. the world powers are held to this agreement.

there will be a resolution at the u.n. where everybody will vote to say i will keep up my side of the deal. the iranians had to keep up their side of the deal, but so do the world powers. that is vitally important because that is the other side of the verification regime. the iranians will be held at risk to do what they promised to do. they cannot lie and cheat and so on and so on and so forth. they have to take the centrifuges down. we have to agree to the snapback provisions. the moment they are found to cheat, everybody has to go back into the mode of sanctions and that is why it's important to have all of the parties bound together and that is why i'm confident that we won't have a degradation of that part of the agreement because that is what is going to hold the iranians at risk in the future. host: stewart from washington to go ahead.

-- stuart from washington. go ahead. caller: i was going to ask about -- if you have confidence in the russians as far as no feeding of nuclear related supplies to that country. do any of our partners have any snapback's as well? before you came on the air, we were dazzled by mr. walker, who promises us that on day one, if elected, he will reverse this entire agreement. how can he do that? guest: i think i can confidently say i don't believe he will be president in 2016. that is the good news. let me go back to the first part of it.

that is why this is a very good agreement for both parties. it not only holds the iranians at risk it also holds the world powers it are found to be lying and cheating we will go back into the sanctions regime and everybody has to commence. that is why this is a complicated deal and a political deal. that is the magic of this and that is why we have to give diplomacy a chance. on the other issue, if you listen to my -- the republicans, the 15 or so running for president, they believe very busy in the first month or two reversing this and reversing that. what i would be interested in finding out, while they are doing the reversing what will they do to replace the health care bill, the affordable care act. what will they do to -- replace

this deal which will be over a year old and hopefully we will have seen the iranians are living up to it and we have the confidence because we verification that they are doing that. and that it has prevented other countries from getting their own weapons. host: anthony in north carolina. caller: i have two points -- or two questions. if the deal is so bad, why are china, russia, france, germany and eu and our oldest ally, we have been side-by-side with, great britain for it. ? the bottom line on netanyahu he will not be happy with any deal. he wants america's sons and daughters on the battlefield in iran. if they think that is going to be easy it will make iraq look like a picnic. guest: i think you are a

diplomat and smart and paying attention. you are somebody -- you could have lived in my congressional district because you are reasonable. the sad truth about this is this is a tough deal because we do not have anything in common with the iranians and frankly a lot of things they do we think are immoral and we are worried about what they do and why they do it. that's why this had to be in the goshen settlement and why we needed the world powers together. this should not be america doing this. the reason this ended up being successful is because it was not head-to-head between the iranians and the united states, because we could not do it. we had to talk to the table with enough -- populate the table with enough significant players so we could exert economic pressure on the iranians which was material and punishing and we had partners that, on the

other side of it, if they were found to be cheating, could put those punishing sanctions into place, because the sanctions in the united states that are 110% did not work over 35 years, not enough to influence. the iranians have learned to live without the i get -- without the united states. if they have -- if you have no influence. i think you are right. the world powers are here. it will be adjusting to watch the debate in the human and see how bp five and eu work. these are hundreds of millions of people around the world's countries will be in new york, basically saying, we have found a way through diplomacy to hold the iran regime at best to not have a nuclear weapon. we have a tough verification regime. we will try this and put our efforts on it.

we do not trust them, that is why this is a tough verification regime. at the same time, at the absence of doing this, what are we going to do? ellen tauscher served many terms in the house of representatives thank you for your time. guest: my pleasure, thank you. host: after nine and adheres and $700 million, nasa has a brand-new picture about pluto. we want to get your sense about the money spent on space exploration products and if you think it is worth the cost. we would like to get your thoughts --202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independence. we will pick up that discussion would "washington journal"

continues. >> this weekend on the c-span networks politics, books, and american history. on c-span twos tv, this morning i getting at 11:00 a.m. eastern, live from new york city for the harlem book fair with author talks, and panels on economics american identity come a race, politics. sunday night at 10:00, political commentator and colder says the greatest issue facing the u.s. is immigration. on american history tv on c-span3, 1:00 eastern, the warren g. harding symposium on modern first lady from mrs. harding to michelle obama. the executive director of the national first ladies library and a little after 9:00, jake ursuline of the national archives in kansas city shows us how the u.s. government used propaganda during world war ii

to persuade citizens to join the military, buy war bonds, and keep national secrets. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. this sunday on q&a, artist and journalist molly crabapple on her use of drawings to tell stories from around the world. >> reading a book by a black panther, drawing aspect patterns or having a tattoo. the pelican bay is not alone, you can land in solitary for your art, believe, gender status, sexual orientation or friends. >> when i draw, a lot of times is not to show the finished drawing but to build rapport with people. when you have a big camera, it put a distance between you and the person. you are taking these images, they cannot see what you are taking. even though you are producing beautiful things later.

whereas, when you draw, it is a vulnerable thing. they can see exactly what you are doing. it is more of an interchange most people have not been drawn. most people are delighted to be drawn. a lot of times i draw people because i like to and i like talking to them. >> on c-span tonight -- two and q&a. host: the new horizons spacecraft, showing new pictures and information about pluto. shown on nasa, would you probably saw on tv. we want to get your thoughts on projects like these to explore space and if you think it is worth the cost. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independence. joining us to talk about it is miles o'brien.

what do we learn -- what did we discover we did not know before. guest: lots -- we did not know much. the bar was low. we had a blob until recently. new horizons honed in fast traveling 30 times faster than a speeding bullet, gathering pictures. one thing we know that a lot of us might have assumed otherwise, is that pluto has a lot more going on here is not just a rosen ice ball -- frozen ice ball. it has a multicore,, frozen ice but it was somewhere under there, liquid water. we know everywhere we look on our planet and find liquid water we find life. those are provocative findings. host: about 9.5 years, and one

thing we talk about is the cost, $700 million spent, how does this compare to other types of projects to explore space when he comes to cost? guest: chump change am the nothing, a tiny little spacecraft that did and well an-- and will. i think the american public would agree we should fund an extended mission for new verizon so it could make other encounters with more distant objects. it is difficult, when you ask people, what is the value of this, it is hard to pin it down, but to the extent it has inspired us, particularly young people to think about careers perhaps in science, mathematics and engineering. these missions are of great value and for people like me who have already set our careers, it

feels you with wonder. it is a lot about why we are human and what it is to be human to explore and to fill our minds with wonder. that's what this week has done for us. host: give us a sense of where we go and what other spacex oration projects is nasa involved with? guest: nasa has a lot on his plate. the goal ideally, a couple of decades out is to put human footprints on mars and explore mars and stay in some fashion. that is a big-ticket item compare to the $700 million we just mentioned. i think to the extent that all of these missions of exploration remind people of the value of going there and of seeing what is over the horizon. i think that people may come around to say it is worth it.

in the grand scheme of things, nasa's budget is $18 billion per year, when you compare that to a lot of other expenditures, there are weapons systems bigger than that and the pentagon is much bigger. that $18 billion is about what we spend on coffee as individuals in this country. i think a few bucks for nasa is as good as what we give for starbucks. host: you know, and people follow this know that years ago nasa was designated as a dwarf planet. might this reopen the argument about whether pluto gets classified as a full-fledged planet? guest: i think science -- i just are stuck in their weight and i think it will stick with that definition. i think the things that got a lot of people like me and schoolkids upset is that they said pluto is no longer part of

our solar system. i say call it a poor planet, that is fine -- drawarf planet but i say it should still be part of our solar system, why not be grandfathered in. it is still the last object we care about in our neighborhood. we care about pluto. it is the last, least, small and a lot more interesting, and exciting than we thought, it has a lot going on. it invites a lot more investigation i think. it takes a long time to get there but it will be nice to have an orbiter. host: miles o'brien joining us to talk about the new horizon project. reaching pluto. thank you for your time. guest: it was a pleasure. host: your thoughts on space expiration, whether pluto or

other modes of space exploration, do you think it is worth the cost? 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independence. vivian in tennessee, democrat line. caller: i do not think it is worth it, that money they are spending should be used on earth. there are people starving. people do not have health care. there are older people living just like the third world. health insurance. unemployment. that money can be used here on earth. that meant who got through talking, he is looking out for his job. we need that money here to help our people. thank you, very much. host: tony from pennsylvania. caller: good morning.

pedro, earlier in the week when the agreement came down with iran, they called all the newspapers and it was interesting, on the front page, every article on the left had the agreement and on the right had a picture of the planet pluto with the new horizons. all these genius scientists, and they are smart men, but for years they said it was a planet then they said it was an asteroid, then an ice ball, now they are saying it is a dwarf planet. i think there are signs in the sky, and those two articles being next to each other, how do we trust politicians? if the scientist cannot agree what some object in the spaces after all these years, we are supposed to trust politicians to tell us how iran is? there is something between those

two articles being together that means something. host: columbia, maryland, jim good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. in response to the first color from tennessee that does a good job of identifying the lack of education and the ignorance in the world today with people who are narrowminded and say we humans were created for this planet and we are the high and the mighty. we are just one small step in the grand scheme of the universe. the lack of interest or sense of purpose that we cannot be able to identify ourselves with because of no exploration and such a small budget for nasa, which as your -- the original guest you had on said, nasa's budget is tiny, not representative of the full budget we spent on the pentagon and on the military, in which case we have fake enemies out

there that people like to fear monger and perpetuate greater danger than there may actually be. the real danger is the lack of space on our planet, lack of food overpopulation all of these things with further money and expiration in space we could start finding solutions and alternatives to where we are right now in the world and the universe. host: for the last part of our show, we are asking your thoughts on expiration, if you think it is worth the cost. spurred by the new horizons spacecraft which reach pluto. a $700 million for this mission alone. is the money spent on display's -- is the money spent on space expiration worth it? 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. a u.s. navy sailor that was

wounded in the shooting in tennessee died early today according to the navy, the fifth u.s. servicemembers killed in the attack. the navy did not release his name, however a relative identified a sailor injured as randall smith a logistics specialist, was shot in the liver,:, and stomach, according to his grandmother. if you go to the pages of the new york section of the "new york times" michael grimm, i representative now heading to jail says that his remorse for breaking the law and the humiliation suffered, then the former congressman asked for mercy, leniency did not come easy. the judge said your moral compass needs some reorientation. it originally focused on his campaign fundraising turned into iniquity count -- 20 count and diamond.

he underreported wages and revenue to the government and filed false tax documents come as a result pleading guilty in december to one count of tax fraud, a felony. to your thoughts on space expiration, is it worth it? caller: this is god, the human, a regular caller on c-span. -- scott, the human, a writer caller on space and -- c-span. we are all human. let's get to the money we are spending going to space. we can fly to mars, come back to earth and guess what some of we are no closer to having -- before we spent the millions and billions of dollars. got spent -- put us on this earth for one reason, to prove all humans can get along with each other on this little planet so that when we pass away, can take that alternate trip to

heaven, not to pluto, not to mars, not to the moon, but to heaven which every human being from birth to death locks to be at -- longs to be at the you cannot get to heaven on a space craft. your show and dinner was educational about the marijuana and how much money lender and colorado is making. guess what, the problems out there with people getting in trouble are going down, not up. host: amanda, maine, republican line. what do you think about space exploration? caller: there is so much going on down here -- why do we need to go into outer space to see what is going on out there? i do not see what the point is.

we should be focused on what is going on down here, not in other countries, on our own people. there are people getting back from the service that need help finding jobs. people need help with college tuition. people that are homeless out there. a lot more things we could be spending the money on. host: announcements that were in the papers today say that, monday, cuba is set to open its embassy in washington, d.c. a ceremony marking the end of 64 years of hostility, cuba will race at slack on monday and reopen the embassy. u.s. lawmakers, diplomats and others are expected to join, visiting cuban foreign minister who will lead a delegation of about 30 officials from havana on the normalization of diplomatic ties. the u.s. has not announced a date for a formal ceremony for the there embassy in havana.

the u.s. will wait to raise the american flag until john kerry travels there later this summer. mr. kerry will meet mr. rodriguez at the state department on monday. anderson from brooklyn, new york brooklyn nine. caller: my thoughts and prayers go out to the military service member that lost their lives. i sympathize with their family. the budget for nasa, i believe is efficient, i believe we should allocate more funds towards space expiration. i believe it is the future of the world. i totally disagree with folks who say we are spending money on exploration that is not warranted. i think that the future of this planet is given that we travel in outer space to know what is out there and the technology is

going to advance this world. i disagree with folks who say that we do not need this state, much less travel around the world. i am in favor of much more money being allocated to space expiration. have a great day. host: mike, des moines, iowa, good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. the problem i had is space expiration basic research, the question is not thumbs-up or thumbs down, obviously any short-term the dollars -- it appears it is wasteful -- but something like space expiration -- we need to look at it with a long-term view and all the long-term applications and innovation that it drives. it is not a magic -- a matter of us going to mars or the other

planets but in trying to do that, all the innovation it drives in technology. in the end come of the commercial applications it drives ends up making life better for us on earth. not to mention the other aspects of space exploration. in terms of investment, you have to come to the short-term -- both a short-term view at a long-term view, and a long-term view, what are the applications it drives? host: john from utah, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. i do not understand people space exploration has given us everything, all the technology we have. hopes and dreams of scientist young kids to aspire. we have been looking at the star

since the beginning of time. for people to say we spend too much on space exploration when we spend $19 billion and we spend $1.5 trillion making a jet plane for war we will never use. it is ridiculous, we should spend as much money we possibly can on the technology on the dreams of going into space, the technology of it. humankind is not supposed to stay on this planet, that is why we have looked at the star since the beginning of time. everything we have, from sci-fi movies, to phones, to everything is so we can go into outer space -- computers -- people need to remember this when they whine about $19 billion when it is not even a drop in the bucket of the u.s. budget. people need to remember that and

get educated on what we spent stuck on before they whine about how much money we spent on space exploration and kudos to nasa for a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to film pluto because we will not see it for another 250 years. host: another shot of the images taken from pluto. lexington, kentucky is the focus of programming on american history tv and book tv. a look at the literary and historical aspects of the city one interview is with tracy campbell about his book. he was once considered a promising national political figure, and here is the author to tell us about the book. >> the title of the book is short of the glory and the fall of redemption. if you would ask who is a bright star in american politics, on a

national scale, someone who will be governor, a senator perhaps president, a lot of people would have said ed prichard of kentucky. one of the people who work in the white house in his early-20's, seemed destined for great things and then came back to kentucky in the 1940's was indicted for stuffing a ballot box and went to prison. that incredible promise just flamed out and he spent the rest of his life trying to rebuild out of the shadows and out of the tragedy of that scandal. host: just a sampling of stuff you will see on american history tv and book tv a focus on lexington, kentucky. go to our website for more information. largo, florida, julie, good morning. caller: good morning. my dad was involved in the jiminy program and i began --

became a critical care nurse and cardiology and people in the 1970's were saying why are we spending all this money on space? a lot of the equipment we used and cardiology, your ekg patches, all those things actually were development from the space program. we have benefits long-term from the space exploration deals. this one in particular we may very well find the building blocks of our proteins that make up our human genome. i think it is worth the money in the long run. host: one story out of the iran deal, this is a group that is opposing it, a group that is based off of a pack -- aipac. a vocal critic of the president's policy towards

israel. the new group was formed with the sole mission of educating the public about the dangers of the proposed iran deal. a spokesman said the group plans to spend $20 million on this effort and another person from other with the campaign says advertising was planned and 30 240 states. -- 30 to 40 states. a group allied with the democrat party who is supporting the deal has announced a plan for a multimillion dollar campaign in support of it but that effort appears to be much more limited. on a program on monday, a look at the various groups that are coming up in support and opposition of the iran deal and analysis of what kind of lobbying they are doing any money they are spending, on mondays program. david from indiana, you are next. caller: hi, pedro.

i fully support the space program, i think the caller was making an analogy about how god wanted us to stay on this planet, i think about, i'm sure the europeans were saying, when we were sending explorers to the americas that god it just wanted us to stay on this continent and why are we going to different continents. it is small thinking. on the iran deal, i fully support it, and i think your earlier presenter was saying that iran funds isis. they are actually fighting isis in iraq. i think it is important to say that isis is made up of mostly sunni arabs iranians are persian and shia. they are two different groups. host: chase from washington d.c., democrat line, you are the last call. go ahead. caller: i wanted to say that on

average the return on investment for every one dollar spent on nasa yields $14 for the u.s. economy. we can thank nasa for life and meeting devices, artificial limbs, hearts, and a lot of other things. solar powers, also pollution reduction strategies. i would like to thank nasa and say we should spend more money. host: that is chased from washington, d.c. tomorrow, in light of those shootings in a tennessee, we will have a congressional reporter and will talk about security at military facilities what is being proposed by members of congress in light of that shooting. a roundtable discussion taking a look at the ends -- the process -- two former members of the iaea we will