>> rose: welcome to the broadcast. tonight on this first program of a new fall season, we take a look at president obama, a speech on education, and a more important speech tomorrow night on health care. we talk to jake tapper of abc news and former chief of staff for president clinton and co-chairman of the obama transition john podesta. >> this is the biggest presidential megaphone there is. i mean, the president could be holding a press conference tomorrow night. he's not. he could be giving an address from the oval office, he's not. he is pulling out all the stops. he's using the one ticket he's got in his pocket. the ace up his sleeve which is the address to a joint session

of congress. >> we're very close to finally doing for what for 60 years presidents and congresss have been trying to do, which is to produce quality, affordable health coverage for every american. keep talking and see if we can get there. >> rose: the challenges ahead for president obama next.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with the president. he addressed the nation's students today. his speech became a point of contention when some conservatives claimed the president was mixing politics in his message to the children. instead of politics, the president talked about personal responsibility. he urged students to overcome obstacles before them as he once did in his own lifetime. >> i know it's not always easy to do well in school. i know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your school work. i get it. i know what it's like. my father left my family when i was two years old and i was raised by a single mom who had to work and who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn't always able to give us the things that other kids had. there were times when i missed

having a father in my life. there were times when i was lonely and i felt like i didn't fit in. so i wasn't always as focused as i should have been on school and i did some things that i'm not proud of and i got in more trouble than i should have. and my life could have easily taken a turnre worse. but i was lucky. i got a lot of second chances and i had the opportunity to go to college and law school and follow my dreams. >> rose: to talk about the president, joining me from washington, jake tapper. he is abc news's senior white house correspondent. i'm pleased to have him back on this initial program after labor day to talk about not only the education speech but also tomorrow night's health care speech as well as the looming question of what the president might do about afghanistan. welcome. >> thanks, charlie. it's great to be here. >> rose: what does this speech and the little controversy that developed say about pockets of resistance to the president? >> well, it says that there are still some very, very strong

pockets of resistance to this president and they are able to get their voices heard through some of the conservative media out there. there was not a story that was getting much attention in the so-called mainstream media. it was one that was being voiced among conservatives and really a lot of it was based on, a, this fear that president obama is trying to create a partisan army and is doing things unscrupulously and unprecedentedly to reach out and draft individuals to join this partisan army. there's not any evidence of this of course, but this is out there in the netherland of the united states. and then there's also the fact that there is this very clumsily inartfully written preparatory material for teachers saying that they need to ask students to ask themselves how can i help the president, how can i help

the president. that's something they revised after complaints came forward. what the white house says they meant to say is how can i help the president achieve his goal in reducing the dropout rate? but obviously it was not written in the way they wanted to. and this all kind of converged in ant period where there was not a lot of actual news on the domestic front and it became something of a kerfuffle for the administration to deal with. >> rose: is it all over now? >> i think it likely is. but it is something that still exists out there and it's... i think what was most remarkable about this is that what it says about the white house's inability to deal with controversy such as these. as adept as they've been in the past of using the internet and other forms of media to get their message out, there is now this other world of media that has nothing to do with with reporters and mainstream news organizations, some of this is positive, some of this is not

positive in which individuals are able to get the)r messages out through other means without having to deal with reporters or editors or mainstream organizations and that has happened in this case and instead of adapting, the administration was caught a little flat footed. again, there's no evidence that as the chairman of the florida republican party alleged president barack obama was seeking to indoctrinate school children with socialist ideology. i mean, this is just something that plit fact, the fact checking organization called a pants on fire untruth. and yet there it was out there, there it was being spread on the airwaves, there it was being spread on cable and other ways, on the internet certainly. and the administration had to deal with it when school districts around the country were getting calls from angry and upset parents who didn't want their school kids to be indoctrinated. even though past socialists such as prargen and george h.w. bush reached out to school kids with

their similar stay in school messages as president obama did today with what was a very benign speech that the chairman of the florida republican party had to say after he read it yesterday-- because the white house had to release it a day early to calm people down-- that it was a fine speech that every kid should hear. >> rose: and it also echoed one of his favorite themes, whichs personal responsibility. >> it is. it was... you know, in a way it's a shame that it was covered up by this message because i think that the first african american president has a very cogent message to send to african american school kids who as you know, have a disproportionately high rate of dropping out of high school and i think as somebody regardless of race who came from modest means as have previous presidents like richard nixon and others but a lot of them have come from more privileged backgrounds that he was able to talk about being the child of a single mother raised without a father and yet he made mistakes in high school and yet he was

able to persevere by working hard. this is a message that's good for america's school kids. now, you have people talking again on conservative talk radio and other places saying that they changed the speech because of this uproar. i have no evidence that that's true. we were told from the very beginning that this was the message of the speech, he wasn't planning on talking about why the obama administration bought shares of general motors or why $700 billion went to wall street. that was never part of the agenda. >> rose: all right. let me move to health care. what does the president... how does he see this speech to congress tomorrow night? >> well, i don't think he sees hit in the same way we do in the media which is this is an incredibly crucial make-or-break moment where he needs to turn things around. but i do think the administration knows that the media loves the narrative and the media could be writing the comeback narrative for president obama after what a lot of people feel was a very difficult august

with town hall meetings and other controversies, death panels and such. but i think what he wants to lay out for the american people is where we go from here in this debate, what he wants in the bill, why he wants that, and what it means... this is the most important part-- what it means for americans. if they have,at will it mean? will the public option mean that all of a sudden they've been switched to a government-run health care plan against their wishes? if they don't have insurance, what will it mean? what will it mean to the people who are on medicare? what will it mean to the people who get health care through the v.a. system. these are the questions that he has to answer that a lot of people are still waiting for answers. >> rose: there is no obama plan, is there? >> well, that's the point. there are obama principles and there are four plans in congress right now. there might be a fifth any minute now, the senate finance committee... max baucus has given an outline to the other members of the so-called gang of six, the bipartisan group of senators basically telling the republicans, you know, if you

don't like this, then come up with your plans and enough deadline on wednesday and... but you're right, there is no actual obama plan. he needs to create one by, as the administration says, tying up all these loose strings and talking about what he wants in one bill. but that's been one of the problems and that's one of the reasons why the white house and president barack obama made it clear that they want the house and senate to have passed something before the august recess in the absence of one concrete bill or two concrete bills there was this vacuum where opponents could talk about what was in this bill, what was in that bill and there was no bill per se, no obama bill for him to defend. >> rose: okay. but bill clinton and lots of other people have been saying to him "you have to have a bill." bill clinton's also been saying that to other democrats on the left and in the center and on the right. you've got to have a bill. if you don't pass a bill... if you don't have health care reform of some kind, it will boomerang against the entire presidential agenda.

>> and i think they agree with that. i think they agree with the notion that they need to have something, even if it's small, even if it's much more modest, even if it doesn't have a public option, they need to have something because it's important to have an achievement as opposed to a failure. and you're going to see, i think something come through the house so if it has been winnowed down. you already have the house majority whip, congressman jim clyburn of south carolina talking about how he supports the idea of a trigger mechanism for the public option. that is if the savings from health care insurance companies are not realized, then the public option comes into effect. that would be a huge compromise for democrats. although a lot of republicans say that's not a compromise at all, it's still a government-run plan, it just means eventually, not immediately. either way they are now talking to language of compromise, talking the language of-- in the views of many progressive lawmakers-- the language of surrender.

in the views of many conservatives, the language of manipulation. but they are talking about trying to find some way to get this through in the house and senate. >> rose: well nancy pelosi was there today. >> nancy pelosi was there. she and harry reid, the senate majority leader, they're talking about how they think that there is going to be something that's happened... that happens. they are at about 9 20% there and they just need to force their... the rest of this done. and i think the president intends to turn around lawmakers such as ben nelson of nebraska, some of the blue dogs in the house, get them to come on board with more modest efforts. i think that's got to be the ultimate goal here with the promise of more reform to come. >> rose: is the administration and is the president trying to lower expectations from this speech? i mean, for all those people who read a lot into it and say this is the presidential moment, is the white house saying, wait a minute, it's not that momentous, this speech? >> no, they're not, which is interesting, because usually

they talk down moments like this but, look, this is the biggest presidential megaphone there is. the president could be holding a press conference tomorrow night, he's not. he could giving an address from the oval office. he's not. he's pulling out all the stops. he's using the one ticket he's got in his pocket, the ace up his sleeve which is the address to a joint sessionfgress. these are not... they used to be very popular to do, but george w. bush, not including states of the union address, george w. bush only did it twice, bill clinton only did it twice. this will be barack obama's second one. so this is playing a big card earlier in the year in february he did one having to do with the recession and financial recovery. so that's how important this is. that's how momentous it is. so you don't have the white house officials talking about how isn't important. they're not talking it down at all. i that understand this is a significant speech. >> is there any intro special election at the white house as to what mistakes they have made... they may have made in losing control what somewhat of

the health care reform debate? >> there is. they don't talk much about it on the record but i think it's fair to say that they know that house democrats voting for energy bill might have been some misplaced energy because a lot of... although ironically some of the house democrats who voted against that energy bill, the climate change bill said "i can't be with you on this, but i will be with you on health care." then, of course, the town hall meetings and other concerns came and their support is unclear and less assured. but i think that's one thing. i think that they know that they mishandled or the democratic party in general mishandled the town hall meeting protests. you might recall initially the response of the white house was to discount them as astroturf, as entirely by the health insurance industry. and ithink that rubbed a lot of commentators and a lot of american it is wrong way because it was perceived that the white house was dismissing what are legitimate concerns that many americans have, even if those

town hall protestors who were the loudest and most vociferous wherever they came from and whether or not their sentiments reflected the sentiments of the american people, there are concerns that you see in the polls of individuals worried about how much this is going to cost. worried about how this is going to affect their health care plan.r not it will bring down costs. the congressional budget office has scored a number of these bills and said that it won't bring down costs. so there are legitimate concerns. and by dismissing the town hall protestors, it appeared to a lot of people that they were dismissing legitimate concerns which i think hurt them ultimately and you've seen that reflected in the polls. >> rose: the white house feels like it has essentially turned the economic question around. i mean, they are going around the country saying, look, we stopped the slide, this is a victory for us. >> they think that the slide is stopped, that's right. they think they have backed away from precipice. but you don't see a "mission accomplished" banner behind

them. they know there's a lot of job loss that continues, that unemployment is the lagging economic indicator, that it's the last thing that is going to change even after the stock market has rebounded significantly, assuming that it does. job loss will continue. they do expect unemployment will hit 10%. so there's no brag dorchester owe about this. they're not... but they feel like they at least have the tools in place that some of the signs are there in terms of the credit markets, in terms of manufacturing, in terms of housing sales, new housing sales and consumers confidence. they do think that things are on the mend and will continue to improve. but slowly. and their message there is very cautious but optimistic. >> rose: what do they think of their fall in numbers, their own... the president's approval prooufl rating. >> i think ultimately they knew that the president's approval rating was not going to stay at 7 20%. and i think that they see that this is a country that is divided.

that is... and even if you have a transformative politician as they see president obama as it is going to remain a country that is divided. you know, president obama's victory over john mccain was substantial when it came to the electoral college and substantial when it comes to the standards of modern presidencies but it was 53%, 54% of the vote. it was not a clobbering 60/40 landslide like ronald reagan had. the nation is essentially, they say, a 45/45 nation with 10% in between and things are going to stay that way for a while. i think that they do take comfort in the fact that they have had bad days before, whether it's the reverend wright episode or when they were losing to john mccain after... or it appeared like they could lose to john mccain. whether it was two years before where we are now, where it looked like everybody was saying you know, barack obama, that was all hype, he certainly hasn't come alive on the campaign trail, he's in third place in iowa. they look back at dog days sand

say "we've been here before, we can turn this around." now, of course, turning things around as a candidate to win 100,000 votes in iowa is... compared to the task at hand small because, of course, now they're trying to remake one-sixth of the economy in a way by revamping and reforming the nation's health care system. but i think they do feel confident ultimately. >> rose: one last question and we'll address it at a later time too. for now, general mcchrystal's recommendations, his analysis, his ascertainment of what's going on in afghanistan is in washington. when with the white house act on that recommendation? >> well, they say they slnt gotten any firm requests for new resources from general mcchrystal yet in terms of troops, in terms of resources, money, civilian numbers, civilian individuals. i think they're putting this off as long as possible, quite frankly. and i don't... i've heard from democrats on capitol hill who are concerned about this because they say they need to have some

sort of talking points, a support for the war in afghanistan. it's eroding. and there needs to be some sort of message from the obama administration, state department democrats on capitol hill, talking about why the war in afghanistan needs to be fought, what the interests are there, why the u.s. continues to need to go after the taliban and al qaeda there. and they're not getting that from this white house. president obama is hearing from a lot of different point of views on this. he is putting off this decision until he is thoroughly vetted all the arguments. but there are... i mean, the people are very divided even within this administration. some people say no, we don't want to send any more troops there, that's enough, we are not going to get bogged down in iraq too. and others are saying, look, we need to create the situation as we did in iraq where a surge creates the political environment that there can be some sort of reconciliation. but i'll tell you, charlie, what's going on right now with the election, with president karzai and questions of the legitimacy of that past

election, that's not giving anybody any reason to be confident that this political reconciliation is going to come any time soon. >> rose: jake, we'll come to that at another time. thank you so much. as we begin our fall program, it's nice to have you here. >> thanks, charlie, hope to see you soon. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. >> rose: president obama will address a joint session of congress and the country tomorrow night in an attempt to revive support for health care reform. after weeks of growing opposition to democratic proposals in congress, the president is expected to outline his own plan and try to regain momentum for his top domestic priority. the speech, some say, will be a key test to his presidency. joining me now from washington to preview what faces the president is john podesta, he's served as chief of staff to president clinton and was co-chairman of the transition team for president obama. he now runs the center for american progress in washington. i am pleased to have him back on

this program. welcome. >> good to see you, charlie. >> rose: you have said to peter baker the following: "it goes without saying that a lot is riding now on the president's ability to reenergize the health care debate and bring it home to a successful conclusion. nothing will influence the perception of the presidency more than whether he can be successful in getting a health care bill through the congress." >> well, i think... look, i think the stakes are huge, charlie. i think this is his top domestic priority. i think that we've gone through a period now, particularly towards the end of a a congressional session in july and the first week of august and through the august recess in which things stalled out. i think the president's already accomplished some of what he wanted by just reenergizing the debate. you saw today that senator baucus put a plan on the table. that's been long in coming but now it's out there for people to see.

so... but the stakes are huge for the president. >> rose: so what does he have to do? >> you know, i think he needs to do two things, really, he has to reenergize the debate with the american public. i think he has to remind people about what's in it for them. that health care reform passed by congress will add security to their lives, produce a system where they know that they have access to affordable quality health coverage that they can't lose it at the whim of an insurance company, they can't be discriminated against if they have a pre-existing condition. but he needs the also be specific with the congress. he's really probably speaking to two audiences, one for the general public but also he's speaking to those members themselves and he has to tell them "which is what i want to see in the bill." >> rose: that's been missing. is it... should he have done that earlier? >> well, you know, i think that he's been operating at a level of principle and he's... you know, he's indicated what he prefers, but i think he learned,

i think, a lesson from president clinton and our unsuccessful efforts to pass comprehensive health care reform that if you start with a very detailed bill at the beginning, sometimes it's harder to get congress to move. but there comes a point where congress needs the leadership of the president and i think that's what he's got to provide tomorrow night when he goes before. so i think it's... you know, you can look at it from one perspective or the other, but i think congress has had the opportunity to find their own way towards a bill. they haven't been able to do it. it's going to really take the president's leadership now to say "this is what i want to see to get the job done moving forward." >> rose: that's what you expect to hear him say tomorrow night? this is what i want to move health care reform to conclusion and to a legislative success? >> you know, i think he's going to be specific tomorrow night. again, he's going to lay out the stakes. i think he's going to lay out, i'm sure, the problems with the

current system. why we need it to ensure the success of american families and the success of american businesses. but i think he's going to say "and this is what needs to be in the bill" and i think he'll do it with some specificity. >> rose: what fear do you think has crept into this debate? >> well, kind of the fear of the unknown in the end of the day. i think that, you know, there's been a lot of misinformation. the's been a lot of down right outright lies about what was in the legislation. but i think that the... you know the public wasn't certain. you know, there were five different bills or there were four bills that had moved through committees and one discussion dialogue that was still going on in the senate finance committee. and they weren't sure what they could believe about what would be in the final product and, of course, when people might sometimes be willing to cling do something they really know needs to be changed when they're uncertain about what the future will hold for them.

but i think the president can reassure them that what health care reform will do will be not only to expand coverage for the millions of people who are uninsured, the 14,000 people a day who are losing their health insurance in this country, but it will provide stability and security for people who have health insurance that it will be affordable and, like i said, it will be there when theyd it. we won't have this situation where insurance companies when you get sick rescind your insurance and suddenly you're left out in the cold. >> rose: because somehow... i'm asking, i'm not telling. somehow it seems that this idea that my insurance... my health care will be less good if what the president wants passes. and not even knowing what the president wants. but that's the idea. that somehow what i have is better than what they might change. >> well, again, i think there's

been a lot of misinformation out there. we've had this death panel charge, which isn't in any of these bills, etc. and so i think people did get concerned. i think that while you still see majorities of the american people who know we need reform and want reform and there are still majorities for the major elements of the reform packages that are before congress, i think the public reaction has been to slip back, to be uncertain, to not know what they might have to pay for or what cost it will be to them. and i think the president could go a long way to reassuring them that if they have coverage they like, they'll be able to keep it but they'll... there will be affordable options for people who don't have them today. and most importantly, there are gong to be the security of know that when you move jobs, if you lose a job, if... you know, you're out of work for some period of time or if you're working as a low-wage worker in

an industry that's not providing health coverage, that you'll be able to access a quality plan. and most importantly at an affordable price. >> rose: okay. let me ask you directly. where should the president be specific? on what points? >> well, i think he's got to be specific on these insurance reform points that i think actually there may there may be moress on that than on some of the other issues. for example that you can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. there that should be annual caps on what insurance companies will pay out or lifetime caps so that when you get really sick you're screwed, you're out of luck. i think he wants to insist that there's no discrimination against women as there is in the current system, particularly in the individual market. but beyond that, think he wants to be specific about how this exchange will operate. i think he'll name case for a public option.

the white house has indicated that they will make that case, i think, hoping to convince congress that that is a good option that should be in the exchange. but i think that the very specific details of that he'll probably still leave to some me glosh united nations on capitol hill. the house has its version. the senate health committee has its version. the finance committee wants to do it as a so-called trigger as we've heard about in recent days. so i think he'll leave some room for that to be me gauche@ed. but i think he'll make the case that having a safety net option that's national is a good idea. it only provides more choice for the public and the public already knows that public plans like medicare or like what veterans have in the v.a. can be not only workable but very high quality options at very reasonable prices. so he'll make the case for that. but i think, again, he'll leave

a little of that detail for further me gauche united nations in congress, which... where this has become a point of contention and one where i think he'll try to see where are the votes. particularly in the senate. can he get some republican votes or can he at least reassure the moderate democrats in the senate that we're moving forward for a way that will ensuret the current system is built upon rather than replaced wholesale. >> rose: do you believe, as some other people in the house have said, anthony weiner and others, that if there's no public option that there's no vote for them? >> well, you know, i... first of all, i favor the public option. >> rose: but that's not the question. if there's no public option... i know you favor it, i know the president favors it. >> i understand. i'm going to answer the question. >> rose: go ahead. >> i remember and in retrospect think it was a mistake when president clinton in the state of the union address in 1994 held up the veto pen and said "if i don't get it exactly the

way i want it, i'm going to veto the bill." i think that was a mistake. certainly in retrospect that was a mistake. and in... you know, you told me that you're going to be able to cover 30 or 40 million people with health insurance that don't have it today, you're going to be able to reassure people that they'll only pay a certain percentage of their income for health insurance and only a certain percentage of their income for overall health care in this country and will do it by a state-based public plan or a full-blown public plan or a triggered-in public plan. i would say to my friends on capitol hill "don't draw the line in the sand yet. let's see how far we can get. let's see what the final product looks like." >> rose: does it ring true for you to stand up there and address the congress and the american people and say "i'm for the public option, however i understand that there's some opposition to it so whatever the congress does is okay with me." >> no, i don't think that's good enough.

>> i think that's maybe where things have been. i think he needs to make the case for it and i think he needs to kind of settle on a range of what's acceptable. >> rose: ah! so he has to say what's acceptable to him about the public option tomorrow night. the time has come. >> rose: i think the time has come. you know, again, there's discussion, i'm sure it's going on even today with the so-called gang of sixh senator snowe in particular who's been, i think, very forthcoming in trying to get a reasonable package put together that the white house can support. so, you know, will there be some room for me me gauche united nations off the speech tomorrow night? i think there almost certainly has to be. but does he certainly need to lay out some strong prarpler thes, some guideposts, some... if you will channel the discussion so that congress knows what what the range of acceptable is. and then i think the individual members of the house and senate could see if they can get there. >> rose: what's the leverage the

president has? >> well, he sternly has... well, we've seen some lev recommend already, right, charlie? i think that two weeks ago the negotiators in the finance committee under senator baucus' leadership were saying "well, we'll take as long as we need." all of a sudden today there's a plan on the table. >> rose: (laughs) so what does that say to you. >> suddenly senator baucus is saying "we're going to mark up next week." >> rose: (laughs) that's true. >> so he has a lot of cloud, he showed some passion yesterday in his labor day speech. he's got to get that passion back in front of the american public, i think. >> rose: and what's the most important lesson from the clinton effort? >> you know, i think that... i would say two things. one is that it... and this is my own reflection, i'm sure if you asked president clinton or secretary clinton they'd have a different view. but i think we took too long in

developing what might be viewed or what i think people might have then viewed as the perfect plan and we... so the president laid that out and i think the process then was allowed to go on for a while without any certainty about what was acceptable as a compromise. we've already come a lot further in this debate than i think that the debate got in '94. for example, four committees have already reported legislation. so that... we're still well ahead of the game. we've got, i think, the... if you will, the... a lot of stakeholders who were in strong opposition to the... what president clinton was trying to do saying "look, we know we have to have reform and we're willing to participate in it." so you've got the doctors. not just the a.m.a. but a broad

spectrum of doctors saying "yes, we've got to have reform." we've got the pharmaceutical industry who said "we'll ante up our contribution and hopefully pay for the so-called closing of the doughnut hole or subsidizing senior citizens to be able to access drugs in the process." we've seen hospitals come to the table and say "we know there's got to be delivery reform so we're taking care of people not just doing what i call piece work medicine, fee for service medicine that's just providing a lot of prescriptions for procedures that we know have no medical value. $700 billion a year is wasted in this country providing procedures that have no known medical value. so we know we've got to change the way we're doing business. what we still haven't seen completely forthcoming is whether the insurance industry will understand that now they have an obligation to provide products that are going to not just cherry pick sick... healthy

people and leave sick people to the side but are going to provide products that are going to be both cost effective and do the trick for the american people. >> rose: don't you think in the end they'll end up with some kind of trigger mechanism for public option? >> well, you know, i don't know that. i think it will depend a little bit on whether that... by going in that direction it will actually produce some republican votes. but i think that... you know, i think there have been other ideas out there. for example, bipartisan ideas. i work with senator daschle at the center for american progress. >> rose: right. >> he got together with former senator dole and former senator howard baker. what they proposed was leave it to the states. let governors trigger in a state-based public option. you know, so i'm not sure exactly where that compromise lies. but i know that in order to get health reform passed, we have to have at least a majority and probably 60 votes in the senate to get legislation passed.

so i think there's going to be... again, i think the president has a role to play here and to say here's the bounds of the debate, here's what i want to see in this bill and then let's see where at least we get a majority and hopefully 60 votes and with some republican support. and i think the reason i think this trigger option has become so critical is because it's been put forward by senator snowe who is a republican, people do respect her. i think they think she wants to get to yes. i don't think she thinks... you know, some of the other moves and... by members on the republican caw kux, putting forward amendments that even after they were accepted didn't she any sign of movement, the health committee in the senate had 160 republican amendments but got no republican votes. i think senator snowe is in a different category. people know she's been at this

for a long time. she wants to get the job done, her heart is in the right place and i think people want to take what she has to say seriously. >> rose: so tell me what happens if there's this conversation. let's assume that rahm emanuel is the jepd of his time, all right? and he has a conversation with senator snowe and he says "we need you. health care reform is too important not to pass. we need you." what do you need? >> well, i have the feeling probably those conversations have caught on and maybe not just with the chief of staff. >> rose: (laughs) but maybe at the presidential level. >> rose: i do, too. what do you think the dialogue was? you've been there. she's been saying so far, both in the conversation i think with the white house but i think also amongst her senate colleagues, i

think what she's saying to senator baucus, for example, is that we need to ensure that the subsidies for working poor people have to be sufficient so if we're going to say they need to have health insurance that they can actually afford health insurance. so she's been actually pushing the process, is i would say, in a progressive direction, from my perspective, on that issue. but i think she's been a strong... and been for several months on saying let's see whether the private sector, the private insurance market can actually deliver products that provided a "coverage before we trigger the national public option. and if they don't, then let's make in those areas a public option available. so that is... she's been clear about that. and i think that people are going to take... have to take into consideration does that produce not only her vote but some republican votes. does it satisfy the moderate democrats in the senate? can you forge a compromise with

her in the... with members of the house of representatives to find a responsible action? maybe you can combine the idea i just put forward on where states where a governor wants to trigger a public plan in that state combined with a national plan. i don't know exactly where the final product's going to lie. it's going to take further me gauche united nations between the white house, the house, and the senate. but i do believe she's operating if the n good faith and people needs to take her seriously. >> rose: so what happens to nancy pelosi, the speaker of the house, who said unless there's public option, this bill will not pass in the house? >> well, i'm fairly certain there will be a strong public option that does emerge and passes the house. but then they need to go to conference and work out their differences. so if the answer is that that's the only bill that could finally pass as a conference position,

you know, i think that we'll have to wait and see but then you've got to have enough votes in the senate to be able to pass that same bill through the senate. so, again, i think we're very close to finally doing what for 60 years presidents and congresses have been trying to do, which iss to produce quality affordable health coverage for every american. and i think we need to keep calm keep talking, and see if we can get there. >> rose: are those the benchmarks of this president? keep calm, keep talking, make a deal? what? >> well, i think that, you know, i think president obama is noted for his cool. he's noted for his ability to listen to his critics. and i think he's trying to borrow the best ideas from all sides but in the end of the day he also has the steel that it

takes, i think, to say "we're going to finish this job, we're going to do it this fall, i ran on this, i promised the american public. so did you, by the way, my colleagues, particularly in the democratic party. so let's go down with this job and get it done. we'll do it, we'll be practical about it, we'll do in the a way that produces deliveryf, that will... so-called bend the curve as people talked about for the last several months to reduce the overall strain that health care is placing on our economy, on american business, and on the federal budget and state budgets. but let's stay at the table until we finish the job." >> rose: could public option have been sold more effectively? >> well, you know, as i said charlie, i think that for people who currently have the public option, people on medicare....

>> rose: right. >> people who have v.a., they like it a lot. the quality or the... if you ask the public whether they... how they feel about their own coverage, you look at medicare, you look at the v.a., it has higher percentage of approval than people in private sector insurance. so, you know, it seems to me that rather having gone off on this... maybe the esoteric of what the public plan.... >> rose: but does your rational and practical and political mind tell you that it could have been sold? because you have that evidence and those exhibits on your side. >> well, you know, i... with 0/20 hindsight probably we could have all done a little bit better job of both selling what i think ought to be in the final package and i think perhaps as importantly pushing back the lies and the distortions that came from the people who i guess are committed to the status quo.

i could draw no other conclusion than they think what that what's going on in the country is hukky dory. but i think if you ask business c.e.o.s, if you ask small businessmen and women, if you ask families who are under tremendous burden from the doubling of health insurance premiums that's gone on over the last eight years, they'll say the status quo is not acceptable it's not fine, we'veto change the system and we ought to do in the a sensible way. so, look, i think if we... if there was... if you're chocking up mistakes that were made over the course of the summer, i would say not pushing back ferociously and hard against the lies and distortions that really sprang up in july and early august was one that i think that we could all have done a better job of going back after. >> rose: i'm surprised you didn't know that lesson. >> well, i think we knew it. i think that the... there was a

lot of grass-roots activity, the president was out there speaking about it. the... but clearly the intensity of the people on the other side did sort of catch fire. i think it was fed by special interests here and by other people in washington. but they fed it with distortion and there's a group of people, i don't know what it is, you could make your own judgment, 20%, 25% of the country that think that that is somehow going to lead the country down some trail that they can't imagine and they're intense about it. but i think that our side was sort of discussing with the rationality which maybe sometimes we... i usually tried never to be that rational. >> rose: (laughs) >> in my own life and try to meet it with as much emotion and intensity as i'm accused of by

the right. but, you know, i think that the president was trying to have a conversation with members and held out the hope of trying to... to try to find common ground with some republicans and maybe the intensity of the right sort of overwhelmed things for a while. but i think that's been righted and i think that if you look at what happened towards the end of august and right now, he is resetting, he is redefining, he is going to speak directly to the american people. and i still think they want to hear from him, they want to listen, they want reform and majority still exists for that. >> rose: the deficit as an issue that somehow entwined in health care, that somehow because of what's happened in the battle to deal with an economic crisis, the notion of too much debt has sunk in to the body plic of

america and plays a larger role than it has and somehow the notion of having to deal with the economic crisis has put a bit of fear in a lot of very rational people. >> well, i think there's no question that the agenda in part by just what he inherited, what president obama inherited, is huge. and i think he came into office passing the recovery bill which was a big bill to try to stabilize the economy, there's been intervention in the economy so that... i'm sure that plays into it. but if you look at it just from the deficit perspective, i'd say two things. one is the president's been clear from the outset and i think leaders on both sides of capitol hill have been clear that whatever we do, it has to be paid for, it cannot add to the deficit first off. second of all, that if we do nothing the biggest problem going forward in the years and really the generation that we

face is the explosive costs of health care in our economy. so if we don't... that's why there's all this talk about quote/unquote bending the curve. if we can't create a delivery system which is producing better value across the economy, then that will overwhelm the federal budget, state budget, business budgets, and family budgets. and, you know, we're spending twice as much as our other developed economies in the o.e.c.d. on health care. and while we have some of the best health care in the world as a society, we're not getting better benefits that many other countries that are spending far less. so i think that this idea that we need delivery reform, we need everybody in the system, we need a higher dose of wellness, we need to... we need a system that's geared towards the best outcome for individual patients rather than just running up the number of procedures to maximize

profits in the system. all those things are agreed to and i think ultimately they will pay tremendous dividends both on the federal budget side of the world but also just in terms of the strength of the american economy going forward. we need to do this. you talk to c.e.o.s, you talk to small business people, they know we need to do this, that this is... we're on an unsustainable path. >> rose: then where are they? >> it's another reason i think we'll still go ahead and actually be successful this fall. >> rose: and i assume you're opposed to going through the reconciliation process? this that you want a full vote? >> well, you know, i want a substantive outcome. so i think it would be better if we... it would be better if there's... you know there if there's a vote and there's some republican support for this bill. but i think ultimately the reason that the... if there was

complete recalcitrance on the republican side, if there was this idea that we would dig in our heels and try to stop anything, that this option was available. and i would note welfare reform passed in reconciliation, children's health insurance passed in budget reconciliation, nursing home reform passed in budget reconciliation. so this idea that this has never beenres just wrong. obviously bush tax cuts passed in budget reconciliation. the republican senators at this time didn't seem to have any problem with that. now they want kind of the full blown rights to filibuster. well, you know, i think it would be better to do in the regular order, to try to get some republican support, but i think preserving the option of doing this in budget reconciliation was smart in the spring and it may be necessary in the fall. >> rose: getting a bill is more important than any criticism that might come?

>> i think getting the bill is critical to america, to the american people, to the strength of the american economy. you know, i hope we don't go that way but i couldn't take it off the table for sure. >> rose: turning to another subject, you went with former president clinton to north korea. what was it like? >> well, it was my first visit to pyongyang. we went on a humanitarian mission to get the two american reporters out of north korea. we were successful in that. we were very happy about that. it was a thrilling moment to be able to bring laura ling and euna lee back to their families in america. we had an extensive meet with kim jong il and we had dinner with kim jong il. >> rose: what did you learn from that? >> we were there as private citizens. i would say a couple things. one is that he conducted those

meetings in a very straightforward manner. he was clearly... i think he's shown the effects of having had a stroke. i'm not a doctor, but from what i could tell he's having had a stroke. he's still in charge, in command and he was straightforward in those discussions. and... but we were there as private citizens. we briefed the white house...-es actually... was, again, traveling, so i wasn't with the president when he talked to president obama but i've had a chance to ef broofly talk to the president about it and i've talked to the people in the administration and in the white house about my observations and i think the president has shared his insights with him. and, you know, beyond that i think it's up to the government to take the next steps and ambassador bosworth is over in japan and the republic of korea and in china coordinating with

our allies in the six party talks. we clearly surged the north koreans and chairman kim to get back to the six party talks. they want a bilateral relationship with the united states and i think that while there's room for bilateral discussions with the north koreans, clearly we ought to be doing this in the context in which our key allies in the region are participating. but i think the thing we tried to emphasize the most was that the north koreans have made a commitment to a denuclearized korean peninsula. they did that in the context of the six party talks in 2005. we had the framework agreement during the clinton administration. we need to get back to that. we need a denuclearized korean peninsula. and hopefully through these diplomatic channels, through the sanctions that security council put on north korea through the

hard work of our allies in china and russia and our allies in japan and republic of korea and our... the people who are participating in those talks will convince north koreans that their future lies going down the path of denuclearization. but clearly things had gotten to a bad place and hopefully now there have been some signs that they're willing to reengage and. one of the other things we had made the request of was that they released the south korean businessman who they had taken also captive into the south korean fisherman who had wandered into north korean waters. they have subsequently done that and i know that... i'm just back from beijing and chief negotiator for the koreans whose name is also kim was in beijing for high-level discussions with the chinese as part of the 60th

anniversary of the p.r.c. but obviously they were talking about a path moving forward. but, you know, again, i'm a private citizen, i was glad to be able to do my part to accompany president clinton to bring those women home but now it's up to the administration to decide how they're going to proceed. >> rose: do you believe... this is my last question. do you believe that somehow in those meetings that there was the possibility of opening the door and achieving a kind of denuclearized north korea? >> i believe that the direct application of both pressure and sanctions and diplomacy can result in a denuclearized korean peninsula. so i think that... i think... i didn't hear anything that led me to believe otherwise. i think we need to stay with it and keep the diplomatic pressure on north korea remain open to diplomacy, dialogue, and

discussion and i think that we can achieve that result. >> rose: john, thank you so much. we've kept you longer than you imagined you'd be here and i appreciate it. >> thanks for having me on, charlie. >> rose: john podesta, thank you for joining us. we'll see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org