as you assess the situation, i wonder whether you approach this with a minimum threshold of what you'll accept for reform or at this point have you said i've laid out my plan, take it all or nothing? >> you know, i think that my focus is on some core principles. i have to have a plan that is good for middle class families who we know last year ended up seeing a 5.5% increase in their premiums, even though inflation was negative on everything else, that have seen a doubling of their premiums over the last deca decade, that are less secure in terms of the insurance that they can actually count on, and more of more of them can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions because they changed or lost jobs so it's got to be good for them. now the principles that we've talked about, making sure that there's an insurance exchange that allows people to buy in and get health insurance and negotiate as a big pool to drive down costs, making sure that we

have insurance reforms that make sure you can still get health insurance even if you've got a pre-existing condition, cap out-of-pocket expenses and so forth, those core things that make insurance a better deal for american consumers, making sure that it's deficit neutral, both now and in the future, making sure that it's driving down health care inflation so that we can actually deal with our long-term budget deficits. those are the core principles that are critical to me, and i think we've actually agreed to 80% of that, if you look at all the bills coming through all the committees. the key is now just to narrow those differences and if i don't feel like it is a good deal for the american people, then i won't sign a bill? those narrow differences can also in some cases be also very big differences. as you were president-elect last year you said to the nation in light of the huge challenges that the country faces, you said we're going to have to make hard choices and not all of these choices are going to be popular. what are the hard choices that

you are now asking the american people to make, and who are you going to say no to in order to get health care done? >> well, i've already made some pretty substantial changes in terms of how i was approaching health care. >> like the public option? you effectively said to the left, it's not going to happen. >> no, that's not true. what i've said is that the public option i think should be a part of this, but we shouldn't think that somehow that's the silver bullet that solves health care. what i've said, for example, on what's called an individual mandate, during the campaign i said, look, if health care is affordable, then i think people will buy it so we don't have to say to folks, you know what, have you to buy health care, and when i talked to health care experts on both the left and the right, what they tell me is that even after you make health care affordable, there's still going to be some folks out there who whether out of inertia or they just don't want to spend the

money would rather take their chances. unfortunately, what that means is then you and i and every american out there who has health insurance and are paying their premiums responsibly every month, they have to pick up the cost for emergency room care when one of those people gets sick, so what we've said is as long as we're making this genuinely affordable to families, then you've got an obligation to get health care just like you have an obligation to get auto insurance in every state. >> are these the hard choices? who are you saying no to? >> that's an example of a hard choice because that's not necessarily wildly popular, but it's the right thing to do. you know, i have said that it is very important that we take into account the concerns of doctors and nurses who, by the way, support our efforts, and that's something that doesn't get noticed much. the people who are most involved in the health care system know that it's got to be reformed, but i've said that we've got to take into account their concerns about medical malpractice. now that's not popular in my

party, never has been, but i've tagged to enough doctors to know that even though it's not the end all be all of driving down health care costs, it's very important to providers to make sure is that their costs are going down so i think there are going to be a whole series of republican ideas, ideas from my opponents during the campaign that we have incorporated and adopted, and this is hard. and, you know, one of the things i've always said is if this had been easy it would have been taken care of by teddy roosevelt. >> you're not saying to the left that they have to accept malpractice reform or caps on jury awards. you don't even think that that's contributes to the escalating cost of health care. what are you really doing to say to the left, look, you may not like this, but you've got to get on board and you've got to do this? >> listen, i think i was awfully clear, and i'm surprised, david, maybe you haven't been paying attention to what both the left and the right have been saying about my speech to congress, i laid down some pretty claire parameters, and what i said was

we're going to take ideas from both sides. the bottom line is that the american people can't afford to stay on the current path. we know that, and that both sides are going to have to give some. everybody is going to have to give some in order to get something done. we wouldn't have gotten this far, you know, if we hadn't been pretty insistent including to folks in my own party that we've got to get past some of these ideological arguments to actually make something happen. >> this health care debate as you well know can sometimes be about bigger things and among your harshest critics is the view somehow that government is out of control, and in some cases it's gotten very personal. your election to a lot of people was supposed to mark america somehow moving beyond race. >> right. >> and yet this week you had former president jimmy carter saying most, not just a little, but most of this republican opposition against you is motivated by racism. do you agree with that? >> no. look, i said during the campaign, there are some people

who still think through the prism of race when it comes to evaluating me and my candidacy, absolutely. sometimes they vote for me for that reason. sometimes they vote against me for that reason. i'm sure that was true during the campaign. i'm sure that's true now, but i think you actually put your finger on what this argument is really about, and it's an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic, and that is what's the right role of government, how do we balance freedom with our need to look after one another? i talked about this in the joint session speech. this is not a new argument, and it always invokes passions. it was a passionate argument between jefferson and hamilton about this, you know. andrew jackson built a whole political party around this notion somehow, you know, that there's populist outrage against a federal government that was overintrusive, and so what -- what i think is going on is that

we've got a healthy debate taking place. the vast majority of people are conducting it in a very sensible way. i think that every president who has tried to make significant changes along these lines, whether it was fdr or ronald reagan elicit very strong, passionate responses, but i do think that we all have an obligation to try to conduct this conversation in a civil way and to recognize that each of us are patriots, that each of us are americans and that, by the way, my proposals as much as you may not like them if you're a republican or on the right, recognize that this is well within the mainstream of what americans have been talking about for years in terms of making sure that everybody in this country gets decent health care and that people who have health care are protected. >> just to be clear though. >> yeah. >> it wasn't just president

carter. there are others in the congressional black caucus, other thinkers who have said that they agree that there is racism out there in that opposition to you. i just want to be clear. are you saying to the former president and others who speak this way is counterproduct sniff. >> well, look, david, here is what i'm saying. i'm saying that the media loves to have a conversation about race. i mean, this is catnip to the media because it is a running thread in american history that's very powerful and it evokes some very strong emotions. i'm not saying that race never matters in any of these public debates that we have. what i'm saying is this debate that's taking place is not about race. it's about people being worried about how our government should operate. now, i think a lot of those folks on the other side are wrong. i think that they have entirely mischaracterized the nature of our efforts, and i think it's

important that we stay focused on solving problems as opposed to plucking out a sentence here or a comment there and then the entire debate which should be about how do we make sure middle class families have secure health care doesn't get consumed by other things. >> in that vain, house speaker pelosi worried about the opposition, the tone of it perhaps leading to violence as it did in the '70s. there's more recent examples of anti-government violence occurring even in the mid-'90s. do you worry about that? >> well, look, i think that we have an obligation in washington as leaders to make sure that we are sending a strong message, that we can disagree but the being disagreeable, without, you know, questioning each other's motives. when we start caricaturing the other side, i think that's a problem, and, unfortunately, we've got, as i said before, a

24-hour news cycle where what gets you on the news is controversy. what gets you on the news is the extreme statement. the easiest way to get 15 minutes on the news or your 15 minutes of fame is to be rude, and that's something that i think has to change, and it starts with me, and i've tried to make sure that i've sent a clear signal and i've tried to maintain an approach that says, look, we can have some serious disagreements but at the end of the day i'm assuming you want the best for america just like i do. >> you get a lot of airtime, too, and your views are not rude. >> i do occupy a pretty special seat at the moment, but i do think that -- look, i mean, let's face it, if you look at the news cycle over the last week, you know, it hasn't been the sensible people who, you know, very deliberately talk about the important issues that we face in the country. that's not the folks who are

getting a lot of coverage. >> let me ask you about another important issue facing you and your administration and that is afghanistan. >> yeah. >> we've now been in afghanistan for eight years. the soviets pulled out of afghanistan after ten years. >> right. >> are we committed to this war for an indefinite period of time, or do you think in your mind that there is a deadline for withdrawal? >> i don't have a deadline for withdrawal, but i'm certainly not somebody who believes in indefinite occupations of other countries. keep in mind what happened when i came in. we had been adrift i think when it came to our afghanistan strategy, and what i said was that we are going to do a top-to-bottom review of what's taking place there, not just a one-time review, but we're going to do a review before the election in afghanistan and then we're going to do another review after the election, and we are going to see how this is fitting what i think is our core goal which is to go after the folks who killed 3,000 americans

during 9/11 and who are still plotting to kill us, al qaeda. how do we dismantle them, disrupt them, destroy them? now getting our strategy right in afghanistan and in pakistan are both important elements of that, but that's our goal, and i want to stay focused on that, and so right now what's happened is that we had an election in afghanistan. it did not go as smoothly as i think we would have hoped and that there are some serious issues in terms of how that -- how the election was conducted in some parts of the country, but we've had that election. we now finally have the 21,000 troops in place that i had already ordered to go. >> are you skeptical about more troops, about sending more troops? >> well, can i just say this? i have to exercise skepticism any time i send a single young man or woman in uniform into harm's way because i'm the one who is answerable to their parents if they don't come home, so i have to ask some very hard questions any time i send our troops in.

the question that i'm asking right now is to our military, to general mcchrystal, to general petraeus to all our national security apparatus is whether it's troops who are already there or any troop request in the future, how does this advance america's national security interests? how does it make sure that al qaeda and its extremist allies cannot attack the united states homeland, our allies, our troops who are based in europe? that's the question that i'm constantly asking because that's the primary threat that we went there to deal with, and if -- if supporting the afghan national government and building capacity for their army and securing certain provinces advances that central artery skwi, then we'll move forward, but if it doesn't, then i'm not interested in just being in afghanistan for the sake of being in afghanistan or saving face or in some way, you know, sending a message that

america is here for the duration. i think it's important that we match strategy to resources. what i'm also not going to do is put the resource question before the strategy question. until i'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy, i'm not going to be sending some young man or woman over there beyond what we already have. >> on a lighter note, before i let you go, mr. president, were brazen this summer at the all-star game wearing your chicago white sox jacket out there to throw the first pitch. hate to break it to you, but doesn't look so good for your white sox here so i want to know who is your pick to win the world series? >> you know, i am -- i think mathematically the white sox can still get in the playoffs. >> they can, mathematically. you're an optimist. >> so until they are eliminated, i will make no predictions. >> oh, come on. >> i've got to say though that the cardinals have been coming on strong and pujols sun believable. >> he is. >> but this is tough to say. the yankees are also doing pretty well, and a shout-out to

derek jeter for breaking lou gehrig's. he's a classic >> and now the view from the other side of the aisle. we're joined here in washington by congressman john boehner and senator lindsey graham. welcome, both of you, back to "meet the press." maybe we'll get to baseball if there's time but there's a lot of substantive issues in that interview that i want to go through with both of you. leader boehner, it sounds like the president was trying to cool off this debate over government, over health care. he pointedly disagreed, the former president jimmy carter saying the opposition against him is not about race, but he also issued a challenge to republicans who he said are totally mischaracterizing the nature of our efforts. your response? >> well, he said basically the same thing when he came to capitol hill and gave a speech, took on the right for our descriptions of what they are trying to do, but if you step back and look at the bill that we have in the house, i'll let lindsey talk about the senate, it represents a giant takeover of our health care system. now there is no debate in

washington or around the country about the need for us to fix our health care system. it doesn't work well for everyone, and it -- and it costs too much, but we can fix our current system. we can make it work better. we don't have to throw it away and have this big-government plan that we see moving through the house, and if you look at what the president has been supporting, it's this big-government plan that has some 51 new agencies, boards, commissions, mandates that is going to get in the way of delivering quality care to the american people. >> i want to come back to the specifics about health care, but i want to stay with this tone of the debate right now and whether or not you agree that by some of the things the president said in the course of that interview he is trying to cool off the debate, the tone of the debate. do you see it that way? >> well, i don't know that the tone of the debate has gotten out of control. >> you don't think so? >> it's been spirited because we're talking about an issue that affects every single american, and because it affects every american in a very personal way, more americans

have been engaged in this debate than any issue in decades, and so there's room to work together, but i first believe that we've got to just take this big-government option, this big-government plan and move it to the side. let's talk about what we can do to make our current system work better. then we'll have some grounds on which to build. >> senator graham, this is the cover of the week magazine. it's got a statue of your colleague from south carolina joe wilson and says "mad as hell, what's driving the passionate backlash against obama." do you disagree with your colleague here? has this gotten out of hand? >> well, let me talk about the tone. i wish the president had been the way he was in your interview in the joint session. what joe did was unacceptable and it was not proper and we all said that, including joe, but what the president did today is changed his tone. when he came to the house, he was very combative, i thought. we're not bickering. he accused people of demagoguery who objected to his plan.

he basically accused people of lying about certain aspects of his plan, and he says if you want to bicker, forgets it. if you want to sit down and talk, well, i've always wanted to sit down and talk. the president is selling something that people quite frankly are not buying. he's been on everything but the food channel. last week he was addressing the nation. his problem is when he says the public option won't affect your health care choice, people don't believe that. they think if the government gets involved in private health care, that the health care they got is going to be compromised. when he says it won't add a penny to the deficit, then the next sentence out of his month, if it does, we'll pull a trigger to stop the spending, we've never pulled any frigers in any other bills and when he talks about how you pay for it we're got to get a $300 billion savings from medicare and medicaid, never done that before, so the problem with the president, he's saying things people want to hear, you'll never be asked to give up your own health care, won't add to

the deficit but when you look at the details it doesn't add up and today i thought his tone is better. this is not about tone. this is about policy. it's not about race, it's about the president selling something that people inherently believe sounds too good and doesn't add up. >> and he speaks about the role of government. first leader boehner, do you think what congressman wilson did was inappropriate, and should he have been, you know, had the resolution passed against him essentially punishing him, admonishing him? >> it was inappropriate. that's why congressman wilson called the white house, apologized to the president, and the president was gracious enough to accept his apology. that should have been the end of the story. why house democrats decided to press ahead with this resolution to slap his wrist is beyond me, but it looked to me like nothing more than a partisan political stunt. it didn't need to happen. it was over with. as the president said, it's time to talk about health care, not talk about joe wilson.

>> this question about the role of the government and house speaker nancy pelosi saying this week what she worries about in the tone of debate is that it could lead to violence as it did in the '70s. you know, there was anti-government violence in the '90s in oklahoma city as well. how much of a concern is that? do you share it, or do you think that was an overstatement on her part? >> well, quite frankly, i mean, the whole idea of the role of government needs to be debated. the public option -- she says there will be no bill coming out of the house without a public option. america is saying listen, the government programs we've got like medicare is $34 trillion underfunded. the baucus bill adds 11 million to a medicaid system that the states can't afford so a lot of us are concerned that nancy pelosi and others are pushing government to control prices when it will not work in health care. competition and choice. if you've got only one plan in alabama, let the people in alabama shop around the country for plans, but i'm not so worried about, you know, her criticism about the opponents of the plan don't bother me. the fact that we're -- >> she's talking about violence

though. you don't buy that? >> i don't think -- >> david, i'm not concerned about violence. >> no. >> i'm sure speaker pelosi was sincere in her concern, but let's remember something. the debate that we're in here is not just about health care. it's about the trillion dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to be about jobs and turned into mog than spending and spending and more spending. tess about 'budget with a nearly $2 trillion deficit this year and trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. it's this cap-and-trade system, a big giant tax on the american people that this week we just find out, the treasury department said will cost the average family $1,700 per year. you add to that this whole question of health care and the government option and the government involvement, and americans today are getting more news about what's happening in their government than they have ever gotten before, and americans are generally scared to death, scared to death >> but leader, don't they get even more scared when you've got the head of the republican party

sending out an e-mail to challenge the president and democratic leaders for a socialist power grab? i mean, is that appropriate conversation? you really think the president is a socialist? >> listen, when you begin to look at how much they want to grow government, you can call it whatever you want, but the fact is -- >> well, what do you call it? >> this is unsustainable. >> that's fine. >> do you think the president is a socialist? >> no. >> the head of the republican party is calling him that. >> listen, i didn't call him that and i'm not going to call him that. what's going on here is unsustainable. our nation is broke, and at a time when we've got the serious economic problem and near 10% unemployment, we ought to be looking to create jobs in america, not kill jobs in america. their cap-and-trade proposal, all this spending, all of this debt and now their health care plan will make it more difficult for employers to hire people, more difficult, more expensive to have employees which means we're going to have less jobs in america but americans are scared.

that's why they are speaking up and that's why they are engaging in government. >> let me follow up on this case about health care. you were on the program back in year january and you said we don't want to be the party of no. now the question is what are the costs of inaction? the business roundtable has issued a report, not a left wing organization, i think you probably agree, and the report is titled "perils of inaction. when are the costs of doing nothing?" two key findings i want to highlight. without significant marketplace refarms if current trends continue annual health care costs for employers will rise 166% over the next decade from $10,743 per employee today to over $28,000 by 2019. also if nothing changes by 2019 total health care spending will reach $4.4 trillion consuming more than 20% of the u.s. gross domestic product. the question i asked the president, leader, if you don't want to be the party of no, what are you prepared to do, what hard choice are you prepared to do as a party to put some ideas forward on health care? >> we've outlined a number of ideas to make the current system

better. why not allow small employers to group together through national associations so they can buy health insurance for their employees like big companies and unions can today. why not allow the american people to buy health care plans across state lines? why not get serious about medical malpractice reform and more importantly the defensive medicine that doctors practice because we haven't reformed our tort system? there are ideas. i outlined some of these ideas in a letter to the president back in may, asked to sit down with him and his administration, and we got a nice polite loather back that says thank you for your ideas. we'll see you at the end. i've not been to the white house since late april, early may. there's been no bipartisan conversation on capitol hill about health care. at some point when these big-government plans fail, and they will, the congress will not pass this. it's really time for the president to hit the reset button and stop all of this and let's sit down and start over in a bipartisan way to build a plan

that americans will support. >> so you think the plan is dead? >> i think it is. >> senator graham, the plan that's moving through the senate, the baucus bill and the senate finance committee includes a provision about controlling costs, right, and that's been the big thrust. republicans and democrats and the president as well. ron brownstein writes this about the baucus bill. the congressional budget office concluded that the baucus bill could move close to universal coverage, reaching 94% of eligible americans, with a funding stream that not only met the cost of expanding coverage but also reduced the deficit in that second decade. >> right. isn't that something you could support? >> yes, and i'm on the bennett bill that is deficit neutral but the baucus bill is getting bipartisan criticism. democrats are saying they don't want a 35% tax on so-called cadillac plans that union members are involved in where if you have 21,000 for family and 8,000 for individual, the baucus bill taxes those plans. they are taxing medical services that companies want to provide to their employees and employees

are willing to pay for it to cover the uninsured and puts 11 million people on the medicaid system and reduces medicare by $400 billion to get to deficit neutrality. i don't believe it. we tried to reduce medicare by $33.89 billion and conned get one democrat to vote for it, so i don't believe one minute that you're going to get the congress to reduce medicare by $400 billion to make this thing deficit neutral. it taxes medical device companies. it puts $6 billion of tax on insurance companies that are going to be passed on to individuals so the taxing plan and the spending cuts don't exist. they will never going to happen. let's put a bill on the table that has a chance of getting passed. one plan says i will cover every person in the country as a mandate and widen is saying let's do it through the private sector. >> anything the president can do at this point? >> yeah. meet with the widen/bennett

senators. seven republicans and seven democrats have come up a compromise that requires everybody to be covered but allows you to be covered through the private sector and it's deficit neutral and do something serious about tort reform and we're off to the races. he's changed his rhetoric because the speech was a disast disaster. what he's trying to the american people they don't buy. they don't believe we're going to cut medicare the way they say we are. they don't believe we'll stop spending and pull a trigger to make it more responsible when it gets to a certain level so the president saying things that people want to hear but the details don't add up. he can be on every news show until the end of time. if he doesn't get republicans and democrats in a room and get off tv, we're never going to solve this problem. >> final point on this, and it's a political point. the president has accused republicans of dusting off the old playbook from 5093 and '94, but there are some political professionals who say the democrats could lose a lot of seats next year. do you think a repeat of 1994 is possible if they get health care? >> i don't know whether it's possible with or without health care, but i can tell you right

now is that the american people are more engaged in our government than at any time in our history. the american people are holding their members of congress accountable for what they do and they don't do, and when people get this engaged, votes to raise taxes, votes for cap and trade, votes for a stimulus bill and pailouts are not very popular at home and i'm looking forward to a good year next year. >> let's talk about a couple of other foreign policy issues in our remaining time. senator graham, afghanistan. >> yes, sir. >> the president broke grounds here. he talked about a couple of things, one, he does not believe in indefinite occupations. >> second, that he doesn't have a deadline for withdrawal, but on the question of troops he said, look, i'm always going to be skeptical about sending more troops into harm's way. you said he needs more troops. what struck you about what he said? >> well, the tone from the commitment during the campaign was iraq is the wrong way. afghanistan is the war. i've got statements in 2008 where he says the central front in the battle against terror is

in afghanistan. it's the place we were attacked. it's the place we can never let go bad again. we can never let the taliban and al qaeda come back because it would destabilize pakistan. during the campaign when he was trying to say we need to get out of iraq, he was saying we need to get deeper involved in afghanistan, he is right now. afghanistan is deteriorated. his rhetoric in the campaign is just as true then as it is now. i am convinced that the number of coalition forces with the current state of the afghan army can never regain lost momentum. admiral mullen said we're losing momentum in afghanistan. we need more resources. we have a strategy that started in march. it's the counterinsurgency strategy. it's not properly resourced. i don't believe it's possible to turn around afghanistan without more american combat power somewhere near 40,000 troops. having said that, the key to us leaving with security and honor is to put pressure on the karzai government. i want to help this president do the things we need to do, stand up to skeptical public and i understand why people are

skeptical, but i'll be one republican standing by this president and we will not do to him what they did to bush. this is not obama's war in afghanistan. this is america's war, and there's a way to win it according to our commanders. we're going to need more resources to do it, and i want to help this president because our national security interests are as ever much as stake today as during the election >> david, i said during the year, if the president listened to our commanders on the ground and to our diplomats, that i'd be there by his side, and i supported his strategy in iraq. i've supported his strategy in afghanistan, but it's pretty clear based on what i heard this morning that the president is changing the goals here. all he talked about was going after al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan. what happened to the statement earlier this year when the president said we cannot allow the taliban and al qaeda to have a safe haven from which to train, operate and organize to go after americans?

that is a very big change, and so i'm really concerned. we've been asking for general mcchrystal to come to capitol hill and testify. the request -- we haven't heard anything. there's reports out all last week that the white house has asked general mcchrystal to wait four to six weeks before sending his request in, and so there's something -- there's something amis here, and i am highly skeptical of the debate that we're going to have here over the next couple of months. >> if i may add, admiral mullen said urgency is the key here, a sense of urgency. we've lost momentum and we need to decide quickly, and i've been told general mcchrystal is ready to hit the send button in terms of how many troops he needs, and the longer we wait and the harder it is. you've got 68,000 people, 30,000 of them engaged in combat, that are not being properly protect the. the ones that they are fighting need help and the longer we waited to give them help, the harder it is on them. >> i want you on the record on the missile defense.

>> yes, sir. >> change from the white house. the defense secretary wrote in "the new york times" those who say we're scrapping missile defence in europe is misinformed or misrepresenting what we are doing. they say they have got a better way to do this and to protect against missiles from the likes of iran. >> i would say to my good friend secretary gates that if you are trying to tell me this has nothing to do with the administration trying to get a better relationship with russia i don't believe you. what they did in my view undercut two good ales, the pols and the czech republic, the technological changes they are talking about to me are not the center of this debate. the russians tried to link this missile defense program with a s.t. a r.t. treaty, should never have allowed them to do this. this will be seen as a capitulation to the russians who had no real basis to object to what we were doing and at the end of the day you empowered the russians, made iran happy and made the people in eastern europe wonder who we are as americans. >> back home, can governor sanford still survive politically, do you think? >> i think the ethics reporty will report about his conduct. the answer is yes if he's cleared by the ethics committee

that he did nothing wrong. i think he can make it. >> should he still be governor? >> in my view changing the governor or impeachment has its own problems. i'd like to see mark finish out his term but he's got to prove to me and others he can be effective. that's a story still ongoing. >> still open in your mind? >> i think mark can make it, but the ethics committee outcome will be determinative. >> finally, leader boehner, before you go, if you work hard and you legislate and work with your colleagues, this can all be yours. put it up on the screen. there he is. what are -- your predecessor tom delay "dancing with the stars." i mean, what a second act, huh? >> i'll pass. >> you'll leave the dancing to him? >> it's all his. >> congressman boehner and senator graham, thank you both very much. up next, partisan politics continue. what are the risks to both side, and is race a factor in some of the heated debate? ugene robinson and roger simon weigh in after this brief commercial break only on "meet the press." this brief commercial break only on "meet the press."

pure cane sugar and the stevia plant. two of nature's sweetest wonders growing together under the same sun. and now for the first time, in new sun crystals ® . the only 100% natural sweetener made with pure cane sugar and stevia. finally, all the sweetness of nature and just 5 calories a packet. nature gave us the recipe; we just gave it a name. new sun crystals ® all natural sweetener. two natural wonders. one sweet taste™. body wash from olay. tone enriching ribbons. two separate ribbons. the white cleanses. the gold moisturizes and has a touch of mineral shimmer to enhance skin's tone. olay tone enriching body wash. for skin that shimmers.

imagine... one scooter or power chair that could improve your mobility and your life. one medicare benefit that, with private insurance, may entitle you to pay little to nothing to own it. one company that can make it all happen... your power chair will be paid in full. the scooter store. hi i'm dan weston. we're experts at getting you the scooter or power chair you need. in fact, if we pre-qualify you for medicare reimbursement and medicare denies your claim, we'll give you your new power chair or scooter free. i didn't pay a penny out of pocket for my power chair. with help from the scooter store, medicare and my insurance covered it all. call the scooter store for free information today. call the number on your screen for free information. (announcer) what are you going to miss when you have an allergy attack?

achoo! (announcer) benadryl is more effective than claritin at relieving your worst mptoms.

♪ without my makeup. now, it's no problem. (announcer) neutrogena tone correcting night serum with high performance soy to even skin tone and active retinol to speed cell turn over. clinically shown to visibly fade brown spots in 14 nights. i even out my skin at night so it looks younger, flawless in the morning. (announcer) neutrogena tone correcting now you can fade and prevent discolorations all day. new tone correcting spf 30.

we are back now joined by eugene robinson of the washington post and roger simon from politico. gene, the president disagreed with jimmy carter on the question of race. it is clear the white house doesn't want to have that conversation about race, but you would like to and you wrote about it this week. the title of the column is "jimmy carter did us all a favor." it seems clear to me that some but not an overwhelming portion as jimmy carter claimed of the intensely demonstrated animosity. but there's a particularly nasty edge to the voes vitriolic attacks, a jex not of to bah ma's programs but of his legit macy as president. i'm talking about the crazy birthers. idiots who toss around worlds like socialism to make obama

seem alien and more dangerous. i look forward to the day when we can look past race, but before we do so, we need to look at race and see it clearly. jimmy carter did us a favor. and yet the president says this topic of race is like catnip for those of us in the media. >> yeah, well, what newspaper or website does jimmy carter report for? i mean, he is not the media, he brought this up and i'm glad he did because i do think there's an edge to the criticism. that is related to race, and i don't think it is the totality of the attacks on obama. the country is concerned about the economy, about all the government spending, legitimately concerned about a lot of things, but the question of legit macy, the question that he doesn't somehow deserve to be there, it is -- we have this continuerful kind of the warm national feeling in january

during the inauguration, and i think there is a core, a nut, a group on the far right, but wherever you want to put them on the spectrum that has difficulty accepting him as president. >> but bush faced questions of legit macy, clinton faced questions of legit macy as well. >> but it was a little different for those on the left -- once we got past the question of bush and gore in the supreme court. >> there are a lot of people who didn't get past it. >> some people didn't, but relatively few. for the majority on the left, it became more of, i can't believe people voted for this guy. and i can't believe they voted for him again rather than this guy does not have the right to occupy the oval office because there's something illegitimate about him as president. >> roger, you wrote in the column on friday, extreme feelings can be based on other things than race. people can act rudely and not be

racist. >> yes, one of the things i disagree with gene. i think it is important to talk about race and there's race schism out there. jimmy carter did it in the wrong way. i think it was not a teachable moment. it was an in your face bhomt. jimmy carter apparently believes if something is worth stating is it is worth overstating. when barack obama campaigned for president, he talked about his days of campaigning for the senate in illinois. he would go down to southern illinois white conservatives, sometimes hostile. he didn't begin his speeches by saying, the overwhelming majority of you are racist, but here are my plans for education, health care and the environment. he would say, look, here's who i am. here's my plans for health care and education and the environment. together you and i can build a better future for ourselves and our children. and some people went away from the speeches thinking, well, this guy isn't a bad guy. maybe i should go for this guy. that's a teachable moment. you can win people over. some people you can't win over. maybe the birthers you can never win over. some of the crazies with disgusting signs, you can't win over. but to simply despise people and

to dismiss them as all a bunch of racists does not create a helpful atmosphere in this country or one we genuinely can heal wounds, which is what i think we are talking about. >> final snaugt. >> my thought is we are not that far apart and i don't believe all the critics are racist. i do believe, however, it is in the interest of people of the legitimate and honorable critics of the president to distance themselves from those who are not. it may be a small group, i hope it is a tiny, vanishly small group, but it is there. and i think we do ourselves a disservice and the country a disservice if we ignore it. >> another portion of thor into uh has to do with the role of government as fuel for the opposition. i want to play that portion from the president again because i think it is important. watch this. >> i think you actually put your finger on what this argument is really about, and it is an argument that's gone on for the

history of this republic, and that is what's the right role of government, how do we balance freedom with our needs to look after one another. >> and roger, it seems that the president is in a position where he has to own the argument on government being the solution. the s he doing a good enough job of selling government as the solution at a time -- you think back to the bush administration, competence, effectiveness in government was huge. >> yeah, i think what the president is addressing is that he is a theme, a movement that started or was cabslated by ronald reagan that taught us big government is bad. it is necessarily bad, the most dangerous words of the english language is i'm from the government and here to help you. that's the opposite of what barack obama believes. he believes that big problems require big government solutions, that government can be a positive force, a force for good. that is who he is. and if he can't sell that, then he cannot sell his presidency.

>> i agree. and i think that -- what i think the white house has not done a good enough job at is pointing out is that the government already is a solution to a lot of big problems, and so when people show up at town halls with medicare cards in their pocket and say i don't want any sort of government health care plan, there's a contradiction there. and i think there should have been a way or should be a way for the white house to point out the ways in which government is involved in people's lives and to their benefit. >> the question of the media blitz and overexposure, full disco disclosure here since i got the request to talk to the president. what can he achieve? >> i think the most difficult thing -- when he complains about the media attention to race and to bad things and catnip to the

media. i think the worst thing the need ya media -- we are very bad at averting our eyes and not gawking at the car wreck because funmently revealing things and not concealing things is what we do. and when we largely get in trouble for keeping stories from the public, not presenting them to the public, and i think the white house is okay with catnip as long as they are feeding the cat. you know, as long as the cat is purring and rubbing up against them, speaking metaphorically here, the white house is only too happy to have it. in terms of the media blitz, you know, if this guy can't handle five 15-minute interviews, he ought not to be president. i think he does fine on media blitzes. >> he is out there every day. he is out there every day on five shows this morning. he is everywhere. and though to then turn around and say, well, you know, the media is somehow paying too much

attention to anything, i think, is there's a disconnect there. >> a couple of political notes i want to get to. the front page of the new york times, roger, saying the white house is trying to get involved in the new york governor race. the president himself approved a decision to try to get governor paterson not to run again. >> this is a bit shocking on two fronts. one that is it is so negatively political. that the president is involving himself in the politics of another state that is perfectly right to do so. he's the leader of the democratic party, but he hasn't done that a lot. he hasn't acted as party leader, he's acted as president. secondly, there are only two black governors in the country. paterson is one of them. i think there have been three in the history of the united states, and barack obama is asking him to stand down, apparently in the favor of a white candidate, andrew cumo. there could be backlash on that. >> 30 seconds left, gene.

mike huckabee, wins the straw poll for the 2020 value summit. do you see poise for a comeback here? >> well, among the social conservatives, the values, the voters, pro-life, huckabee is their guy. i think he gave a great presentation to him and they like him. i think these are early days and we haven't heard the last from mitt romney. >> were you struck by paterson? >> the paterson thing does strike me, yes. it is quite interesting. this is a political president. he campaigned for our arlen specter, if you recall, last week against his primary opponent in pennsylvania, so he wants to be the leader of the party. >> we'll leave it there. thank you both, very much. before we take a break, i want to let you know about the new he reze zioned interactive website. you can find more show video, transcripts, information on upcoming guess guests plus a does your mouthwash work in six different ways? introducing listerine total care. everything you need... to strengthen teeth, help prevent cavities, and kill germs.

introducing 6 in 1 listerine total care. the most complete mouthwash. body wash from olay. tone enriching ribbons. two separate ribbons. the white cleanses. the gold moisturizes and has a touch of mineral shimmer to enhance skin's tone. olay tone enriching body wash. for skin that shimmers.

your hair mixes with pollen and dust. i get congested. but now with zyrtec-d®, i have the proven allergy relief of zyrtec®, plus a powerful decongestant.

zyrtec-d® lets me breathe freer, so i can love the air™.

a programming note before we leave this morning. tune in this evening for "about our children" an msnbc live event featuring panelist bill cosby and pure cane sugar and the stevia plant. two of nature's sweetest wonders growing together under the same sun. and now for the first time, in new sun crystals ® . the only 100% natural sweetener made with pure cane sugar and stevia. finally, all the sweetness of nature

and just 5 calories a packet. nature gave us the recipe; we just gave it a name. new sun crystals ® all natural sweetener. two natural wonders. one sweet taste™. new anti-aging eye roller. reduces puffiness immediately -- and also helps with lines and wrinkles. not surgery. this is our way to do your eyes. new regenerist anti-aging eye roller. imagine... one scooter or power chair that could improve your mobility and your life. one medicare benefit that, with private insurance, may entitle you to pay little to nothing to own it. one company that can make it all happen... your power chair will be paid in full. the scooter store. hi i'm dan weston. we're experts at getting you the scooter or power chair you need.

in fact, if we pre-qualify you for medicare reimbursement and medicare denies your claim, we'll give you your new power chair or scooter free. i didn't pay a penny out of pocket for my power chair. with help from the scooter store, medicare and my insurance covered it all. call the scooter store for free information today. call the number on your screen for free information. (announcer) what are you going to miss when you have an allergy attack? achoo! (announcer) benadryl is more effective than claritin at relieving

-- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com your worst mptoms.