making sure that we seize it. my presidency is entering the fourth quarter. interesting stuff happens in the fourth quarter. and i'm looking forward to it. but going into the fourth quarter you usually get a time-out. i'm looking forward toy a quiet time-out, christmas with my family. so i want to wish everyone a merry christmas, happy han kashgs happy new year. i hope you get a chance to spend time with your families as well because one thing we share, we're away from them too much. now, josh has given me the who's been naughty and who's been nice list. i'm going to use it to take some questions. we're going to start with kerry brown of politico. >> reporter: thank you,

mr. president. let's start with north korea because that seems to be the biggest topic today. what does a proportional response look like to the sony hack? and did sony make the right decision in pulling the movie or does that set a dangerous precedent for this kind of situation? >> let me address the second question first. sony is a corporation. it suffered significant damage. there were threats against its employees. i am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced. having said all that, yes, i think they made a mistake. in this interconnected digital world, there are going to be opportunities for hackers to engage in cyber assaults, both

in the private sector and in the public sector. now, our first order of business is making sure that we do everything to harden sites and prevent those kinds of attacks from taking place. when i came into office i stood up a cyber security inner agency team to look at everything we could do at the government level to prevent these kinds of attacks. we've been coordinating with the private sector, but a lot more needs to be done. we're not even close to where we need to be. and one of the things in the new year that i hope congress is tolg work with us on is cyber security laws that will allow for information sharing across private sector platforms as well as the public sector so that we are incorporating best practices and preventing these attacks from happening in the first place. but even as we get better, the

hackers are are going to get better, too. some are going to be state actors, nonstate actors. all of them will be sophisticated and many of them can do damage. we cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censureship here in the united states. because if somebody is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary they don't like or news reports that they don't like. or even worse, imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in

self-censorship because they don't want to offend the sensibilities of somebody whose sensibilities probably need to be offended. you know, that's not who we are. that's not what america's about. again, i'm sympathetic that sony as a private company was worried about liabilities and this, that and the other. i wish they would have spoken with me first. i would have told them, do not get into a pattern in which you're intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks. imagine if instead of it being a cyber threat, somebody had broken into their offices and had destroyed a bunch of computers and stolen disks

and -- is that what it takes for suddenly you to pull the plug on something? so, you know, we'll engage with not just the film industry but news industry and the private sector around these issues. we already have. we will continue to do so. but i think all of us have to anticipate occasionally there are going to be breaches like this. they're going to be costly. they're going to be serious. we take them with the utmost seriousness. but we can't start changing our patterns and behavior any more than we stop going to a football game because there might be the possibility of a terrorist attack. any more than boston didn't run its marathon this year because of the possibility that somebody might try to cause harm. so, let's not get into that way

of doing business. >> reporter: in response -- would you consider taking a symbolic step like watching the movie yourself or screening it -- >> i have a long list of movies i'm going to be watching. >> reporter: will this be one? >> i never release my full movie list. but let's talk of the specifics of what we now know. the fish announced today and we can confirm that north korea engaged in this attack. i think it says something interesting about north korea that they decided to had the state mount an all-out assault on a movie studio because of a satirical movie starring seth rogen and james flacco. i love seth and i -- and i love

james. but the notion that that was a threat to them, i think, gives some sense of the kind of regime we're talking about here. they caused a lot of damage. and we will respond. we will respond proportionally and we'll respond in a place and time and manner that we choose. it's not something that i will announce here today at a press conference. more broadly, though, this points to the need for us to work with the international community to start setting up some very cool rules of the road about how cyber operates. right now it's sort of the wild west. part of the problem is you have weak states that can engage in these kinds of attacks. you've got nonstate actors that can do enormous damage.

that's part of what makes this issue of cyber security so urgent. again, this is a part of the reason why it's going to be so important for congress to work with us and get a bill passed that allows for the information sharing we need because, you know, if we don't put in place the kind of architecture that can prevent these attacks from taking place, this is not just going to be affecting movies. this is going to be affecting our entire economy in ways that are ordinarily significant. by the way, i hear you're moving to europe. where you going to be? >> reporter: brussels. i'll be at politico start a new publication. >> qwell, congratulations. >> reporter: it's been a long road. >> no doubt what belgium needs is a version of politico.

yeah, the waffles there are delicious, by the way. sheryl, you've been naughty. sheryl, go ahead. >> reporter: thank you, mr. president. head to your work with congress next year, you've mentioned as an area of possible compromise tax reform. and so i am wondering, do you see a republican congress as presenting a better opportunity for actually getting tax reform next year? will you be putting out a new proposal? are you willing to consider both individual and corporate side of the tax ledger there? and also, are you still concerned about corporate inversions? >> i think an all-democratic congress would have provided an even better opportunity for tax reform, but -- but i think

talking to speaker boehner and leader mcconnell that they are serious about wanting to get some things done. the tax area is one area where we can get things done. and i think in the coming weeks leading up to the state of the union, there will be some conversations that the staff levels about what principles each side are looking at companies with paying full freight about 35% higher than any other company f you're paying 35%. and other companies are paying zero because they have better accountants or lawyers. that's not fair. there are companies parking

money outside the country. we think it's important everybody pay something if, in fact, they are effectively headquartered in the united states. in terms of corporate inversions, those are situations where they are really head quarteder here but on paper they change their papers to avoid paying they're fair share. that neets fixed. that's going to be very important. some of those principles, i've heard republicans say they share. how we do that, you know, the devil's in the details. and i'll be interested in seeing what they want to move guard. i'm going to make sure we put forward some pretty specific proposals, building on what we've already put forward.

one other element of this i think is important is -- and i've been on this hobby horse now for six years. bless you. we've got a lot of instra structure in this country we need to rebuilt if we're going to be competitive. roads, bridges, water systems, sewage systems. we're way behind. early on we indicated that there is a way of us potentially doing corporate tax reform, lowering rates, eliminating loopholes so everybody's paying their fair share. and during that transition, also providing a mechanism where we can get some infrastructure built. i'd like to see us work on that issue as well. historically, obviously, infrastructure has not been a democratic or republican issue. and i'd like to see if we can return to that tradition.

julie pace. >> reporter: thank you, mr. president. i want to ask you about cuba. what would you say to dissidents or democracy advocates inside cuba who worry that can give the castro regime -- when your administration was lifting sanctions on myanmar, why not do the same with cuba? to follow up on north korea, did you have any indication north korea was acting in conjunction with another country, perhaps, china? >> we have no indication that north korea was acting in conjunction with another country. with respect to cuba, we are glad that the cuban government has released slightly over 50 dissiden dissidents. they're going to be allowing the national red cross and united nations human rights agencies to operate more freely inside cuba and monitor what is taking place.

the share the concern of dissidents there and human rights activists, that, you know, this is still a regime that represses its people. and as i said when i made the announcement, i don't anticipate overnight changes, but what i know deep in my bones is that if you've done the same thing for 50 years and nothing's changed, you should try something different if you want a different outcome. this gives us an opportunity for a different outcome. because sidly cuba is open to the world in ways it has not been before. it's open to americans traveling there in ways that it hasn't been before. it's open to church groups visiting, you know, their fellow

believers inside cuba in ways they haven't been before. it offers telecommunications and the internet being widely available in cuba in ways it hasn't been before. and over time, that chips away at this hermetically sealed society and ofrsz the best prospect, then, of leading to greater determination on the part of the cuban people. i think it will happen in fits and starts. but through engagement we have a better chance of bringing about change than we otherwise would have. >> do you have a goal of where you want to see cuba at the end of your presidency. >> i think it would be unrealistic for me to map out exactly where cuba will be.

but change is going to come to cuba. it has to. they've got an economy that doesn't work. they've been reliant for years, first on subsidies from the soviet union, then on subsidies from venezuela. those can't be sustained. the more the cuban people see what's possible, the more interested they are going to be in change. but how societies change, it's country specific, it's culturally specific. it could happen fast. it could happen slower than i'd like but i think it's going to happen. i think this change in policy will advance that. leslie clark. >> reporter: thank you. i had a number of questions on cuba as well. i appreciate that. >> do i have to write all these down? how many? the number sounded intimidating. >> reporter: i wanted to see you if got any assurances from the

cuban government it would not have the -- sabotage the deal like it has in the past when the president has made similar overtures to the government? >> meaning -- be specific. what do you mean? >> reporter: when the clinton administration made some overture, they shot down planes. they sort of have a pattern of doing provocative -- >> okay. just general provocative activities. >> reporter: any time you sort of reached out a hand. i wanted to see what is your knowledge of whether fidel castro, did he have any roles in the talks? when you talked to raul castro, did fidel castro's name come up? >> uh-huh. >> reporter: did you ask about him? people haven't seen him in a while. given deep opposition from republicans in congress to lifting the embargo to the embassy to any of the changes you're doing, are you going to personally get involved in terms of talking to them about efforts

they want to block money a new embassy? >> i'm going to cut you off there. . this is taking up a lot of time. >> as far as as the history of sabotage, the plane being shot down. it wasn't the cuban government, it was a tragic circumstance that ended up collapsing talks that had begun to take place. i haven't seen an historical record that suggests they shot the plane down specifically to undermine overtures by the clinton government. i think it is not precedented for the president of the united states and the president of cuba

to make an announcement at the same time that they are moving towards normalizing relations. so, there hasn't been anything like this in the past. that doesn't mean that over the next two years we can anticipate them taking certain actions we may find deeply troubling. either inside of cuba or with respect to their foreign policy. and that could put significant strains on the relationship. but that's true of a lot of countries out there where we have an embassy. and the whole point of normalizing relations is that it gives us a greater opportunity to have influence with that government than not.

so, i would be surprised if the cuban government purposely tries to undermine what is now effectively its own policy. i wouldn't be surprised if they take at any given time actions that we think are a problem. and we will be in a position to respond to whatever actions they take the same way we do with a whole range of countries around the world when they do things we think are wrong. but the point is, is that we will be in a better position, i think, to actually have some influence. and there may be carrots as well as sticks that we can then apply. the only -- the only way that fidel's name came up, i think i may have mentioned this in the david muir article -- interview that i did, was that i delivered a fairly lengthy statement at the front end about how we're

looking forward to a new future in the relationship between our two countries but that we are going to continue to press on issues of democracy and human rights, which we think are important. my opening remarks took about 15 minutes, which on the phone is a pretty long time. and at the end of that, he said, mr. president, you're still a young man. perhaps you have the -- at the end of my remarks i apologized for taking, you know, such a long time, but i wanted to make sure that before we engaged in the conversation that we -- he was very clear about where i stood. he said, oh, don't worry about it, mr. president. you're still a young man and you have still the chance to break fidel's record. he once spoke seven hours straight. and then president castro

proceeded to deliver his own preliminary remarks that lasted at least twice as long as mine. and then i was able to say, obviously it runs in the family. but that was the only discussion of fidel castro that we had. i sort of forgot all the other questions. >> reporter: how personally involved are you -- >> with respect to congress, we cannot unilaterally bring down the embargo. that's codified in the libertide act. what i do think is going to happen, there's going to be a process where congress digests it. there are bipartisan supporters of our new approach. there are bipartisan detractors of this new approach. people will see how the actions we take unfold. and i think there's going to be a healthy debate inside of

congress. and i will certainly weigh in. i think that ultimately we need to go ahead and pull down the embargo, which i think has been self-defeating in advancing the ames that we're interested in. but i don't anticipate that that happens right away. i think people are going to want to see, how does this move forward before there's any serious debate about whether or not we would make major shifts in the embargo. all right. hilary. >> reporter: i want to follow and ask under what conditions would you meet with president castro in havana? and do you have certain preconditions you would want to see met before you do that? and on the hack, i know you said that you're not going to announce your response, but are you -- can you say whether you're considering additional financial sanctions on north korea? can you rule out the use of

military force or can you rule out a cyber attack of your own? >> i'm going to leave it where i left it. we just confirmed it was north korea. we had been working up a range of options. they will be presented to me. i will make a decision on those based on what i believe is proportional. and appropriate to the nature of this crime. with respect to cuba, we're not at a stage here where me visiting cuba or president castro coming to the united states is in the cards. i don't know how this relationship will develop over the next several years. i'm a fairly young man, so i imagine that at some point in my life, i will have the opportunity to visit cuba and enjoy interacting with the cuban

people, but there's nothing specific where we're trying to target some sort of visit on my part. colleen mckay nelson. >> reporter: you spoke about 2014 being a breakthrough year and you ended the year with executive actions on cuba and climate change but you didn't make much on your legislative agenda and some republican lawmakers say they're less inclined to work with you if you pursue executive action so aggressively. are you going to continue to pursue executive actions if that creates more roadblocks for your legislative agenda, or have you concluded it's not possible to break the fever in washington and the partisan gridlock here? >> i think there are real opportunities to get things done in congress. as i said before, i take speaker boehner and mitch mcconnell at their words that they want to get things done. i think the american people would like to see us get some things done.

the question's going to be, are we able to separate out those areas where we disagree and those areas where we agree. i think there are going to be some tough fights on the areas where we disagree. if republicans seek to take health care away from people who just got it, they will meet stiff resistance from me. if they try to water down consumer protections that we put in place in the aftermath of the financial crisis, i will say no. and i'm confident that i'll be able to uphold vetoes of those types of provisions. but on increasing american exports, on simplifying our tax system, on rebuilding our infrastructure, my hope is that we can get some things done. i've never been persuaded by

this argument that if it weren't for the executive actions, they would have been more productive. there's no evidence of that. so i intend to continue to do what i've been doing, which is where i see a big problem and the opportunity to help the american people, and it is within my lawful authority to do it. and i will side by side reach out to members of congress, reach out to republicans and say, let's work together. i'd rather do it with you. immigration's the classic example. i was really happy when the senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill. and i did everything i could for a year and a half to provide republicans the space to act. and showed not only great patience but flexibility. saying to them, look, if there

are specific changes you'd like to see, we're willing to compromise. we're willing to be patient. we're willing to work with you. ultimately, it wasn't forthcoming. and so, you know, the question's going to be, i think, if executive actions on areas like minimum wage or equal pay or having a more sensible immigration system are important to republicans, if they care about those issues and the executive actions are bothering them, there's a very simple solution and that is, pass bills. and work with me to make sure i'm willing to sign those bills. because both sides are going to have to compromise. on most issues, in order for their initiatives to become law, i'm going to have to sign off. and that means, they have to take into account the issues that i care about just as i'm

going to have to take into account the issues they care about. all right. i think this is going to be our last question. juliette. there you go. >> reporter: thanks so much. so, one of the first bills that mitch mcconnell said he will send to you is one that would authorize the keystone xl pipeline. you've highlighted the risks associated with those. also, what do you see as the benefits and given the precipitous prop in oil prices sdshgs that change the calculus in terms of how it contributes to climate change and whether you think it makes sense to go ahead with that project. >> i don't think i've minimized the benefits. i think i've described the benefits. at issue in keystone is not

american oil. it is canadian oil. that is drawn out of tar sands in canada. that oil currently is being shipped out through rail or trucks. and it would save canadian oil companies and the canadian oil industry an enormous amount of money if they could simply pipe it all the way through the united states down to the gulf. once that oil gets to the gulf, it is then entering into the world market and it would be sold all around the world. so, there's no -- i won't say no.

there's very -- i'll say nominal impact on u.s. gas prices what the average american consumer cares about by having this pipeline come through. and sometimes the way this gets sold is, we're going to get this oil and it's going to come here and that's the implication that's going to lower gas prices here in the united states. it's not. there's a global oil market. it's very good for canadian oil companies. and it's good for the canadian oil industry but it's not going to be a huge benefit to u.s. consumers. it's not going to be a nominal benefit to u.s. consumers. now, the construction of the pipeline itself will create probably a couple thousand jobs. those are temporary jobs until the construction actually happens. there's probably some additional jobs that can be created in the

refining process down in the gulf. those aren't completely insignificant. you know, it's just like any other project. but when you consider what we could be doing, if we are rebuilding our roads and bridges around the country, something that congress could authorize, we could probably create hundreds of thousands of jobs or a million jobs. so, if that's the argument, there are a lot more direct ways to create well-paying american construction jobs. and then respect to the costs, all i've said is that i want to make sure that if, in fact, this project goes forward, that it's not adding to the problem of climate change, which i think is very serious and does impose serious costs on the american people.

some of them long term but significant nonetheless. if we have more wildfires, more drought, there are direct economic impacts on that. as we're now rebuilding after sandy, for example, we're having to consider, how do we increase preparedness and how we structure, you know, infrastructure and housing and so forth along the jersey shore. that's an example of the kind of costs that are imposed. and you can put a dollar figure on it. so, in terms of process, you've got a nebraska judge that's still determining whether or not the new path for this pipeline is appropriate. once that is resolved, then the state department will have all the information it needs to make its decision. but i've just tried to give this perspective because i think that there's been this tendency to

really hype this thing as some magic formula and to what ails the u.s. economy. it's hard to see on paper where exactly they're getting that information from. in terms of oil prices and how it impacts the decision, i think that it won't have a significant impact, except perhaps in the minds of folks when gas prices are lower, maybe they're less susceptible to the argument this is the answer to lowering gas prices. but it was never going to be the answer to lowering gas prices because the oil that would be piped through the keystone pipeline would go into the world market and that's what determines oil prices. >> reporter: in terms of congress forcing your hand s this something where you clearly say you're not going to let congress force your hand on whether to approve this bill? >> i'll see what they say. we'll take that up in the new

year. >> any new year's resolutions? >> i'll ask -- april, go ahead. >> reporter: thank you, mr. president. last question, i guess. mr. president, six years ago this month i asked you what was the state of black america in the oval office. and you said it was the best of times and the worst of times. you said it was the best of times in a sense that there was -- there has never been more opportunity for africa americans to receive a good education and the worst of times because of lack of employment. well, ending 2014, what is the state of black america as we talk about those issues as well as race relations in this country? >> like the rest of america, black ameriggregate is better o now than when i came into office. the jobs that have been created, the people who have gotten health insurance, the housing

equity that's been recovered, the 401 pensions that have been recovered. a lot of those folks are african-americans. they're better off than they were. the gap between income and wealth of white and black america persists. and we've got more work to do on that front. i've been consistent in saying that, you know, this is a legacy of a troubled racial past, of jim crow and slavery. that's not an excuse. for black folks. and i think the overall majority of black people understand it's not an excuse. they're working hard. they're out there hustling and trying to get an education, trying to send their kids to college. but they're starting behind oftentimes in the race. and what's true for all americans is we should be willing to provide people a hand

up, not a handout, but help folks get that good, early childhood education. help them graduate from high school. help them afford college. if they do, they'll be able to succeed and that's going to be good for all of us. we've seen some progress. the education reforms we initiated are showing measurable results. we have the highest high school graduation that we've seen in a very long time. we are seeing record numbers of young people attending college. you know, many states that have initiated reforms, you're seeing progress in math scores and reading scores for african-american and latino students as well as the broader population. but we've still got more work to go. now, obviously, how we're thinking about race relations right now has been colored by ferguson, the garner case in new

york, a growing awareness in the broader population of what many communities of color have understood for some time. and that is that, there are specific instances at least where -- where law enforcement doesn't feel as if it's being applied in a colorblind fashion. the task force that i formed is supposed to report back to me in 90 days. not with a bunch of abstract mous musings about race relations but concrete, practical things that police departments and law enforcement agencies can begin implementing right now to rebuild trust between communities of color and the police department.

and my intention is to, as soon as i get those recommendations, to start implementing them. some i will do through executive action, some will require congressional action, some will require action on the part of states in local jurisdictions. but i actually think it's been a healthy conversation that we've had. these are not new phenomenon. the fact they're not surfacing, in part, because people are able to film what have just been in the past stories passed on around the kitchen table, allows people to, you know, make their own assessments and evaluations. you're not going to solve a problem if it's not being talked about. in the meantime, we've been moving forward on criminal justice reform issues more broadly. one of the things i didn't talk about in my opening statement is the fact that last year was the first time in 40 years where we had the federal prison population go down and the crime

rate go down at the same time. which indicates the degree to which it's possible for us to think smarter about who we're incarcerating, how long we're incarcerating, how we're dealing with nonviolent offenders, how we're dealing with drug offenses, diversion programs, drug courts. we can do a better job of -- and save money in the process by initiating some of these reforms. and i've been really pleased to see that we've had republicans and democrats in congress who are interested in these issues as well. the one thing i will say, and this is going to be the last thing i say, is that i -- one of the great things about this job is you get to know the american people. i mean, you meet folks from every walk of life and every region of the country and every

race and every faith. and what i don't think is always captured in our political debates is, the vast majority of people are just trying to do the right thing. and people are basically good and have good intentions. sometimes our institutions and our systems don't work as well as they should. sometimes, you know, you've got a police department that has gotten into bad habits over a period of time and hasn't maybe surfaced some hidden biases that we all carry around. but if you offer practical solutions, i think people want to fix these problems. it's not -- this isn't a situation where people feel good seeing somebody choked and

dying. i think that troubles everybody. so, there's an opportunity of all of us to come together and, you know, take a practical approach to these problems. i guess that's my general theme for the end of the year which is, we've gone through difficult times. it is your job, press corps, to report on all of the mistakes that are made and all the bad things that happen and the crisis that look like they're popping and i understand that. but through persistent effort and faith in the american people, things get better. the economy's gotten better. our ability to generate clean energy's gotten better. we know more about how to educate our kids.

we solved problems. ebola is a real crisis. you get a mistake in the first case because it's not something that's been seen before. we fix it. you have some unaccompanied children who spike at a border and it may not get fixed in the time frame of the news cycle, but it gets fixed. and, you know, part of what i hope, as we reflect on the new year, this should generate some confidence. america knows how to solve problems. and when we work together, we can't be stopped. and now i'm going to go on vacation. maholo. thank you, everybody.

>> well, you're in "the cycle" now on a very busy friday before christmas. and here we are back again. let me get back to -- we have gene robinson here and mary that ressa kumar and joy reid up in new york. the president -- you're a pro at these press conference preparations. they made a mistake, if i ever heard a dictated headline, that was it, on sony's reaction and i would say appeasement of the north koreans. >> i think when he was about ten seconds into that answer we thought, there's not a lot he can make this press conference make this not the story. i think it was clearly far away the headline. i thought it was interesting his analogy was in not showing this movie was in changing our habits after something that happens around a terrorist incident, and i think that was a very telling analogy. and i think this was -- this was

a relaxed, confident president today in a what that we had not seen him at a news conference. >> i agree. let's take a look at that quote because i think it will be the nightly news, certainly on "hardball" and the papers tomorrow. here's the president dictating the headline with this press conference. >> sony's a corporation. it, you know, suffered significant damage. there were threats against its employees. i am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced. having said all that, yes, i think they made a mistake. >> joy, that was a binary answer and he said, they were bad. this is a bad decision by a corporation. by the way, i didn't make it. >> yeah. >> that was the subject. >> exactly. >> don't blame me, you conservatives, i wasn't part of this. we need approach to the bad guys of north korea. >> the word that kept coming to

mind as i listened to him is ridicule. ridicule of the sony situation. ridicule of north korea saying it says something about north korea that they would mount a major attack on a major corporation because of a seth rogen movie, dripping with ridicule, and turn around what had been a right wing that the u.s., quote/unquote, caved to north korea. he's saying, huh-uh, sony caved to north korea. saying they were wrong. i wish they would have called me first. >> so much about the superiority of the private sector. the private sector is always ridiculed by the right. >> i wish they had spoken to me first. you know, it sounded -- obviously, he thought about this first. he thought about what he was going to say. and he had a reason for saying it. and he did go into the fact that this is going to happen, right? we actually -- -- we don't have perfect defenses against these

things. they'll be hacked by north korea and other bad actors and he said, i would have told them, sony, not to get into a pattern where you're intimidated by these criminal attacks. >> we should not have dictators from somewhere censuring what we have here in the united states. another headline. >> but basically what he did is say, sony, what you created now is a slippery loep. when do you stop? this is the basic of our freedom of speech making sure we have creative license and not criticized by those abroad. this is one way for him to say, i too, read the e-mails about what you said about me. this is on you. >> let's bring on chuck todd, moderator of "meet the press." it seems like the president has gotten himself into this conversation. was sony right? the president jumps in and says, no, kids out in hollywood, i'm a grownup. you know what, you made a mistake. you did. you buckled. you appeased. very strong statement. you should have talked to me. >> incredibly strong. i mean, that -- look, that whole

press conference, that was a president who thinks he's earned to have some swagger, the way he answered questions, and dealt with certain issues and not brushing them off in snarky ways, just feeling very confident. but on sony, it is clear, he seems incredibly -- look, there had been some question, did sony consult ask homeland security? was there some reason here that sony decided to pull the release itself and things like that. boy, he wanted to make it unequivocal, they didn't consult the government. and they made a mistake. i mean, there's already a hashtag starting on twitter #sonyweakbostonstrong. when he threw boston on there, talk about a little extra sting in the criticism to sony on this one. >> yeah, you churchill, me

chamberlain. let's go to the long term trajectory here. there was a version, plot in hollywood terms, the way he's behaved these last six weeks. you said swagger. it wasn't that kind of faux swagger you got from w. where you wonder where it came from. this seems to be based on a confidence that's come out of his own -- his own inner, what reaction, defiance, the right word? i haven't come to it yet. i am me. i'm going to be me. how do you see it? >> my sense is he's decided, i'm through with appeasing democrats in washington. because when you think about it, just listen to his answer on keystone. that's a man who gave an answer on keystone, who no longer has to worry about mark begich, mary landrieu, mark pryor. when you look at his answer on dealing with congress and he's sitting there going, you know, the premise of the question, of course, being, do your executive

actions make it harder to work with congress. his mind set is, hey, congress has to decide how they're going to work with me because i'm going to -- you know, i'm confident they're going to be able to -- that his party is going to be able to uphold vetoes. so, i think he looks almost -- i had heard this from others close to him, that there was sort of a sense of relief that he didn't have to make all of these decisions, which if you think about the first ten months of 2014, there wasn't a decision appeasement that harry reid needed. delaying immigration, talks about keystone. that state of the union, which was the sort of emptiest state of the union he had given as far as policies were concerned. they were very light. it was all very light touch. anything that could unite a mark pryor and bernie sanders on the same page. and all of a sudden these last six weeks it's like, i don't have to listen to those guys anymore. harry reid and nancy pelosi are going to complain all they want. i don't have to worry about

them. >> how much is personal defiance at the defiance of chuck schumer and harry reid. i never heard of a staffer attacking her own political party. it's never been done before. chuck schumer coming in there with all his brilliance and savvy saying, this guy blew it on the biggest decision of his administration. the attitude from senate has been, we're not on the same team. >> look, i think, absolutely. i think there's some congressional democrats that will sit there and say, hey, you know what, that president obama, who is willing to go out there and cogently make that message arc ument, perhaps on the economy argument he did at the top, if you were that good and concise at sending messaging when it comes to the economy, then we would have rallied around him. that's what some congressional democrats -- i've already heard from a few strategist types who say, well, if he had been that concise and good before the

election, we might have rallied around him. so, i think there is some of that -- that cuts both ways. >> who are your headliners this week on "meet the press"? >> i think it's been -- i'll tell you, interestingly enough on the sony front. we've had a hard time -- there's a lot of hollywood that doesn't want to speak out. that is afraid to speak out. we had some people that were on the hook and then decided out of safety concerns not to. i wonder if the president's words changes that mind. we'll also have marco rubio to talk cuba as well as some other folks on the other side of that argument. >> and i'll be there, too. thank you very much. >> and you will, too. >> thanks for joining us tonight. i want to start with gene. the president's new new. >> you're right. in terms of this question, why wasn't he like this before? well, he did make this case before. he's got more of a case to make now than he did -- >> what, that he has had cajones for the last month and a half? >> we have better performance by

the economy. >> i see. >> getting better, and better. new numbers on health care, which are really good. and then, of course, the executive actions he hadn't done. arguably he could have done before. he has a lot to talk about now. >> which on selling the economy, you pointed out, rob, it was higher wages, or you did. it wasn't just macro. it was individual working people. >> and also full time, right? this is very first time you hear him talk about job growth as full time making sure people are getting other benefits. what was interesting is he said, look, we're going to disagree with the new congress. i recognize that. but he gave them the idea they can go ahead and work on trade. they can work on simplifying the tax code and also start working on infrastructure. >> joy, i want to ask you to assess or assay the president's closing remarks on race relations in this country. did you think it was on the market or a bit too optimistic? >> that was the one place where he was like old obama. this is definitely obama 2.0 uncon strained.

on race question, which was the only question he had on race, april ryan asked it, i thought he went back into respect act politics mode, talking about education, new incarceration rates. i don't think he offered anything new. i think that's the one jere wr his base party might be -- >> i was wondering how people are reacting to the phrase, basically all people are good. i don't think the people on the streets the last month or two believe there are villains out there that need to be challenged, defeated, if not punished personally. that's my reaction. what's your reaction? >> i agree with up. that's the way people feel. particularly african-americans feel very unhappy with the state of race relations because people don't want to hear about it. i think president obama is a midwestern guy. i think that kansas upbringing is real. don't think he's faking. i think respectability politics is what he thinks and he ends up -- that's the one area where

i think african-americans are not in line with him. >> do you think it's because of his personal experience has been -- >> different. >> -- minimals, fleeting. he's had some kabs he couldn't get, but it never got to his soul, his experience. do you think -- >> i mean, even if you don't live that life. you could be the most midwestern raised in an all-white xhurngts you'll still get it. i have cousins with an upbringing mostly white community. as an african-american, you can't ignore it. this is a midwestern guy, kansas values, he believes things to his core, you needed indication, to reduce incarceration. i think that's the one disconnect he has with the african-american community on the main where people want action and dramatic change. but on sony, obama 2.0 all the way. he was a different guy. >> i'm tempted because of that brilliant setup with you to say, what's the matter with can? thank you. thank you very much. that wraps up this msnbc special

report of pb's year-end news conference. i'll take a hard look at president's press conference tonight, a hard like on "hardball" at 7 p.m. on msnbc. the "the cycle" is up next. they're coming. what do i do? you need to catch the 4:10 huh? the equipment tracking system will get you to the loading dock. ♪ there should be a truck leaving now. i got it. now jump off the bridge. what? in 3...2...1... are you kidding me? go. right on time. right now, over 20,000 trains are running reliably. we call that predictable. thrillingly predictable.

get to the terminal across town. are all the green lights you? no. it's called grid iq. the 4:51 is leaving at 4:51. ♪ they cut the power. it'll fix itself. power's back on. quick thinking traffic lights and self correcting power grids make the world predictable. thrillingly predictable.

i wish... please, please, please, please, please. [ male announcer ] the wish we wish above all...is health. so we quit selling cigarettes in our cvs pharmacies. expanded minuteclinic, for walk-in medical care. and created programs that encourage people to take their medications regularly. introducing cvs health. a new purpose. a new promise... to help all those wishes come true. cvs health. because health is everything. cvs health. because it helps me skip the bad stuff. i'm good. that's what i like to call, the meta effect. 4-in-1 multi-health metamucil now clinically proven to help you feel less hungry between meals.

experience the meta effect with our new multi-health wellness line. i love my meta health bars. because when nutritious tastes this delicious, i don't miss the other stuff. new meta health bars help promote heart health. experience the meta effect with our new multi-health wellness line. ♪ you are in "the cycle" on a very busy from before christmas. i'm krystal ball. as we come on air, the first family is packing their suitcases for hawaii, but in an effort to make sure he wasn't carrying any extra baggage, president obama held his annual year end news conference. it was actually on the shorter side. it lasted only about an hour. the topics ranged from the sony hacking to the deal with cuba to

gas prices. >> as a country, we have a right to be proud of everything we've accomplished. more jobs. more people insured. a growing economy. shinging deficits. bustling industry. booming energy. pick any metrics you want and america's resurgence is real. i've never been persuaded by this argument that if it weren't for the executive actions they would would have been more productive. there's no evidence of that. sony's a corporation. it suffered significant damage. yes, i think they made a mistake. i'm being absolutely sincere when i say, i want to work with this new congress to get things done. there is very little impact, nominal impact, on u.s. gas prices, what t