>> drilling for energy and for support on health care. shaking hands with the troops on a surprise trip overseas, and uncovering a possible threat to domestic security. tonight on "washington week." >> the president rallies for support of the health care law as new poll numbers show low marks for him in congress. the president says giving it a chance. >> polls haven't changed yet. well, yeah, it just happened last week. >> looking to expand energy sources, the administration takes the first steps in allowing more oil and gas drilling offshore. >> this is a good balance between conservation and development that gives us the energies that we need. >> but how much energy would it actually produce and how much risk to the environment? half a world away, a reminder

of the struggles in afghanistan and iraq, as the president visits american troops. >> we did not choose this war. this was not an act of america wanting to expand its influence. >> but did he make any headway with the government in afghanistan plagued by corruption? and the f.b.i. rounds up nine members of a militia-style group in michigan charged with plotting violence against police. >> they could kill a lot of people just by themselves. >> what does it tell us about the threat of domestic terrorism? those stories this week from the reporters who cover them. dan balz of "the washington post," john harwood of cnbc and "the new york times," martha rad ditz of nbc news and michael duffy of time magazine. >> award-winning reporting and analysis, covering history as it happens. live from our nation's capital, this is "washington week" with

gwen ifill. produced in association with "national journal." corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> i've been growing algae for 35 years. most people try and get rid of algae. we're trying to grow it. the algae are very beautiful. they come in blue or red, golden, green. it can be converted into biofuels that we could someday run our cars on. using energy with biofuels are not competing with the food supply, and they help solve the greenhouse problem as well. >> we're making a big commitment to finding out just how much algae can help to meet the fuel demands of the world. >> additional funding for "washington week" is provided by boeing, pepsi, the annenberg foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. here again, live from

washington, substituting for gwen ifill, pete williams of nbc news. >> good evening. president obama was a man in motion this week, free from having to pace like an expectant father in the waiting room, while congress gave birth to the health care law. he made a surprise trip to afghanistan, inspected flooding in the northeast and worked hard to turn the focus to the economy. but new polls out this week suggest that public concern over the health care law and the overall direction of the administration may be draining his political batteries, not recharging them. a new glop poll showed 50% of respondents think he does not deserve re-election. by that same split, a "washington post" poll also found about the same number opposed the new changes in the health care law more than support them. but the president said it's too soon to be asking these questions. >> can you imagine if some of these workers were working on a

farm, planted some seeds, and they came out next day and they looked, and nothing's happened? it's been a week, folks. [laughter] so before we find out if people like health care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place. pete: so how about that, dan? does the president have a point? >> well, yeah. we are an impatient lot and we like to see instant results. i think the reality is that this white house watches polls as closely as anybody else, and if there were any sign of movement, they would be trumpeting it, and so far there isn't. public opinion on health care right now reminds me of what it was on iraq in 2006 and 2007 and a good part of 2008, which is to say frozen and divided. and it's going to take some external events and time for that to change, and i think the real issue is how much can president obama hasten that change in public opinion? he knows he's got a sales job

to do. he's been out selling it since it passed. there are a lot of people, a, who don't like it, and a lot more people, i think, who don't really understand it. so he's got to do that, but he's also got to focus on the economy, where he got a little good news this week, but not out of the woods, and he wants to score other legislative victories. and whether he can do that or not, that's another question. pete: we heard from republicans, dan, almost a chorus of repeal and replace. that seems to have abated. is that good news for the president, or is that just a short-term quiet? >> well, i think it's some good news. i mean, i think it's a recognition that while that was a very catchy slogan, nice and succinct and something people can remember, a, it's impractical. there's no way this bill will get into law and not get repealed as long as president obama in his the white house. and there are clearly things in this new law are going to like and will like more as they

learn more bit. so you can almost write the ads that the democrats will run against republicans who say they're going to repeal it. we've seen squishiness on the side of the republicans the last few days and i suspect we'll see more. >> let me ask you to play the role of a wise farmer thinking about his crop, not a mindless pundit, and think about these seeds the president has planted. so you've got two things that you mentioned. one is explaining the law, letting people comprehend what's been done, and the second thing is going out on the road and trumpeting specific provisions. what's going on with pre-existing conditions, letting kids stay on their parents' health care plan until they're 26 years old, closing the doughnut hole. how effective can a presidential bully pulpit in a bad economy like we're experiencing be in breaking through? >> my sense is that it's going to be very difficult. and that's based in part on the evidence of the last year. i mean, they have been talking about these provisions for the better part of a year, and it

has not had much effect on the way the public generally sees the law. >> is that because they've been talking about it badly or because in the media culture we're in right now, it's hard for anybody to break through, even if you're doing it right? >> part of it is it's hard to break through and if you're on the campaign trail, you can deliver the same message every day, but part of the opposition has less to do with specific provisions in the sense that this bill is too big, too costly, too much government. and individual provisions won't necessarily erase those perceptions. >> dan, obviously, there are other issues here and there were other issues in the poll that were covered. is there anything in your polling that is encouraging that the president can look forward to? >> yes. the most encouraging thing we saw in the poll -- and it's a small thing but could be significant -- and that is there seems to be more enthusiasm among democrats about this bill.

56% of democrats said they are now -- they strongly favor what's in this bill. a month ago that was 41%. now, that's important because of this enthusiasm gap that we've seen for the last six or eight months. republicans are more energized, they're more motivated to go out and vote. this passage of this bill was crucial, i think, to the white house and to the democratic party's hopes of revving up their base. >> how survivable is this for some of the marginal democrats? you were out in colorado this week visiting one of them. >> i was in the fourth district in colorado in a republican district. she was in trouble before. she switched her vote from no to yes. she's going to have not just a strong republican team running against her, but also, outside groups. she knows she's on the defensive. she thinks she can weather it. >> dan, thank you. back on the state of the union message, president said he would open new areas off the uggs coast for oil and gas drilling, and this week he

followed through, taking the first step toward allowing it along much of the east coast in the gulf of mexico and along parts of the coast of alaska. and he said this week that he hoped the response would not follow familiar battle lines. >> ultimately we need to move beyond the tired debates of the left and the right between business leaders and environmentalists, between those who would claim drilling is a cure-all and those who would claim it has no place. >> so, john, you followed the announcement and the response. did the president get his wish? >> he did. one of the things he hope for with an announcement like that is you tick off people on both sides, and that says to the voters you're splitting the difference. he got criticism and a cool statement from speaker pelosi who said anything he does on this has to be done in an environmentally responsible way. although her home state and barbara boxer, california, was spared. of course, criticism from republicans that he hadn't opened up enough lands.

he's trying to get his comprehensive energy bill going, and you can see in this announcement why this is not like health care, where they didn't need any republican votes and moved forward without it. and not even like financial reform, where they doneed a couple of republican votes, but they think they can compel that support because wall street is so unpopular. this is an issue that fractures democrats. they're going to lose some democrats, especially those from energy states and more conservative states. they've got to pick up some republicans, and putting these 40 million acres up for potential drilling is one way to try to do that. >> i want to also ask you about the economy today, because the president talked about the new job numbers today while he was in north carolina. >> today is an encouraging day. we learned that the economy actually produced a substantial number of jobs instead of losing a substantial number of jobs. [applause] we are beginning to turn the corner. >> but the treasury secretary also said this week that the

unemployment grate will probably remain the same, 9.7% for sometime to come. what has to happen to get the rate down? >> they need to add more jobs than they're doing right now. this was the month that administration has been waiting for. positive job growth, more than 120,000 new jobs in the private sector. and with the revisions they made to the estimates for january and february, that added another 60,000 or so jobs to the total. what that is is evidence that the economy is beginning to turn around, but, of course, as that happens, more people enter the labor force, look for work. that keeps the rate high, and it's likely to stay in the 10% range through november. that's very politically difficult territory for democrats. but what the president wants is, along with g.d.p. growth, along with the solid performance of the stock market, some evidence that his policies are beginning to take root, beginning to turn around. and some economists think if you look at what's likely to happen the rest of the year,

they may ends up adding a million or so jobs almost by election day. if that happens, that gives a way to try to mitigate some of the bad public mood they're experiencing. >> john, talk further about the political impact of this with jobs and the oil. what does that mean for obama? >> well, energy is less salient, because right now we're in a bad economy. that is an issue. it's a very tough uphill push for the president to get that through. a lot of people, even inside the white house, have been skeptical from the beginning. >> we don't know whether that will happen? >> right. and it goes to the point that pete was mentioning at the top of the show, which is are the president's batteries really drained, or does he get extra juice from the passage of health care reform? the jobs number is really the more important issue for the electoral prospects for democrats, and the key thing is to get something positive for a series of months, over six months or so, so the democrats can begin to say, yes, 10% unemployment is bad and it's going to be difficult job market for sometime, but we're

moving in the right direction. that's the argument they've got to be able to sell. >> the drilling piece that he put on the table this week, can you talk a little bit about how that represents a change in scope or scale from what the president was talking about during the campaign, a big cap and trade, much broader piece of comprehensive legislation, even if stars align or something? there has been a shift in scope over the last -- this could be a much smaller undertaking by the time they're done, even if things go well, correct? >> possible. although even a smaller bill, kinds of like with a smaller health care bill, which was talked about after the massachusetts senate race, it's sometimes hard to make that work, because one of the things the cap and trade system gives you is revenue to pay for other things that you want to do. the president is still for cap and carbon emissions, putting a price on it, but the president, of course, did not emphasize while he was running for the nomination oil drilling. he didn't rule it out all

together, but that wasn't his emphasis. as he's gotten closer to the election and the legislation since being president, he's indicated, as pete said, in the state of the union and other places that he's willing to make compromises. and he picked this open tune moment after health care passed with no republicans to say here's some evidence that i want to work with you. take me up on it. >> this week actually began with a surprise, when we woke up to the news that mr. obama was in afghanistan, his first visit there as president. he met with hamid karzai, and he also spoke to american troops, saying that the u.s. would stay until the job was done. >> we did not choose this war. this was not an act of america wanting to expand its influence, of us wanting to meddle in somebody else's business. we were attacked viciously on 9/11. >> so, martha, you were along on this trip, the big surprise. you knew it was coming. what did the president get out

of it? does he get more ownership of the war there? >> well, he owns this war, and he's owned this war for a long time. but i think going there, he had to go there. he had to go there at some point. he's wanted to go there since the beginning of his presidency. i think they've had some trips planned up until now and they just couldn't do it because of logistics and timing. and they even said because of the weather they couldn't get over there. but i think getting there on the ground and talking to karzai and not having such a successful trip with karzai, if you all notice this week, he left. he pushed him a little bit on corruption, and then karzai comes out and says a few days later, today i have come here to tell you that there was widespread fraud and rigging in the presidential and provincial council's elections and he blamed the u.n. he didn't specifically say the u.s., but he said elm bases in kabul. today there was a quick turnaround. secretary clinton released a statement saying afghan president karzai called secretary clinton to clarify

his statement from yesterday. in other words, what he meant to say was not actually what he said, and they pledged to continue working together in the spirit of partnership. but what happened and immediately that karzai turns around and says things like that right after president obama had left does not bode well. >> a warm thank you note. >> it might not even make it better. >> what is happening militarily at this point and what is coming? >> good question. one of the things the president said is the real reason he went over there was to see u.s. troops and to talk to u.s. troops. we've had this operation which has been largely successful so far, but i think that was just a little pre-kandahar operation. marja, they got the bad guys out of town largely. everybody was surprised that they basically announced when they'd be going in to marja. in some ways it lets people know how well they've done there, because they didn't have

so many enemies facing them. but kandahar is the key here. kandahar is the heart of taliban country. you're not going to see all the taliban leaving that area. that will be a big fight. it will probably start in a couple of months and stan mcchrystal, who the president met with, all the forces there said we have to be successful in kandahar or there won't be success. >> and there have been surprise trips to war zones by presidents, and they've become almost s.o.p., standard procedure. >> and i'm always the one who's surprised. >> and the one who goes. >> there i am on air force one, yeah. >> the question is, after so many of them, do they still have the same political impact, or are they intended to have any political impact back here at home? >> well, i think just to wave the flag and certainly to go see the u.s. troops. i have to say that -- first of all, it's at night. so it's very odd that you're standing there standing in the courtyard with hamid karzai in the middle of the night.

they plan these last minutes. >> they do that for security. >> they do that for security reasons, yes, indeed. but then it does become strange, because he didn't have that many activities. the u.s. troops had waited, some of them told me, four hours in a hangar, 2,000 troops, and i thought the cheering was not very sustained. i'm not sure that was any sort of political statement. but you've got a bunch of tired, tired, tired forces over there. >> a related question to what michael asked you -- how much impact does it have on the troops? democrats have labored on to the perception in recent years that they're not so keen on the military, that they're not so tough on national security. does this make an impression? >> honestly, i think they were thrilled to see the president. cameras were flying. but then they just go right back to work. i think it's thank you, the president was here, this is great. it doesn't have an enormous impact. but he absolutely had to do it. >> i was struck by something you said in one of your web reports. you quoted the national security advisor, general jones, as calling hamid karzai "an adequate strategic

partner." >> boy, that is a ringing endorsements, isn't it? yes, national security advisor, jim jones and others, took us in a conference room in air force one on the way over there to talk about what they would be saying to hamid karzai, and they did this fine-line balancing act. at one point i pushed him, jones, and said, has he been adequate? he said, no, he's been adequate. is he falling short? no, i wouldn't exactly say he's been falling short. so everybody has their domestic politics to think about as well. >> that's a very adequate answer. [laughter] >> martha, thank you. this week also brought back a word that we haven't heard much about for a decade or so -- militia. the f.b.i. revealed that it had infiltrated and then arrested members of a group in michigan. nine people accused of plotting to attack police there in hopes of touching off some kind of anti-government violence. word of this came at about the same time that we were learning about threats against members of congress for the passage of the health care bill. but, michael, was this part of that, or was it something separate? >> something separate and something in the works a long

time ago. government agents got wind of this group called hi tarry two years ago. they infiltrated the group. they learned of a plot to attack a local police station, and then arrested everyone last weekend when the group was planning a dry run that could have turned violent, the government said. and today in michigan they were all held without bond indefinitely facing charges of sedition. there's been a huge jump in activities by anti-government groups, much as there was in the early 1990's, in the first days of the clinton era. most of these activities are still largely rhetorical, words, not deeds. on the other hands, we have seen in the last couple of months a man attack the pentagon and wound two guards, a man fly a plane into an i.r.s. headquarters in austin, texas, and, of course, there was a letter that was released, i guess, and discovered on monday by a group which asked all 50 governors to resign or face forcible removal.

an analyst inside the government and outside kind of agree on why this is happening. it's a combination of factors -- rapid change, globalized economy, unemployment over 10%, a country that is much more multi-cultural, multi-racial than it was a generation ago, even than it was 10 years ago. and, of course, you can't ignore the fact that we have the first non-white president in the history of the country. but it's also true, that's kind of at the 10,000-foot level i'm also true that we've been through a year -- a long debate about health care, and this is where it is kinds of related, in which many of the criticisms would result in a great leap forward into socialism. in fact, a great leap into your private life. whether those are true or not, there is no question that the distribution and the display of those criticisms has gone around much faster than it would a decade ago. >> michael, you make it sounds like there is some sort of connection between all these groups. is there? is that what they're finding, or are they just all splintered? do they agree on things other than the sort of

anti-government thing that you outlined, or -- >> they come in all flavors. there are groups that are worried about their gun rights. there are groups that are worried about taxes. there are groups that are worried about basic liberties. the group that sent a letter put out a release, they all have websites that say we don't like drivers licenses and marriage licenses. if you got them all in a room, it might look like an anarchists convention. it doesn't mean that they're dangerous, but i think what the government has learned over the last couple of years is that they come in all shapes. they all have to be monitored. but they spend a lot of time looking at foreign threats, and i think -- >> like the pentagon shooter was acting alone, and the man who flew the plane into the i.r.s. acting alone, not really connected to groups, right? >> this is what they learned about timothy mcveigh in new york city. you can be part of a group and the group doesn't take action, but there can be guys who say you aren't extreme enough for me and they take matters into their own hands. >> how good is the government at knowing who these people

are, tracking them, understanding the differences? are we more sophisticated about this than we used to be? >> we seem to be, and this is an example where they were ahead of it and acted pre-ementtively. but you can't assume that it will always be that way. the f.b.i. learned through the events that culminated in the oklahoma city bombing, which killed 185 people, that you have to pay attention not only to groups, but to individuals, that you have to infiltrate early. they also have said in a bulletin as recently as six months ago that as good as they are at getting into these groups through electronic means, the groups have gotten better at encrypting their communications and making it harder for the government to track. the government has new weapons as well, thanks to the war on terror. >> michael, there are some people who felt that at some psychological level, the aftermath of the oklahoma city bombing was where bill clinton found his footing, his comeback, in the struggle he was undergoing with republicans about the size and role of government, whether that was

fair to republicans or not. do you see any evidence that this movement, in the absence of anything approaching what's happened in oklahoma city, will have a political impact, anything that democrats want to try to use or that republicans fear in terms of being associated somehow with people who dislike the government intensely? >> when the president was in portland a day or two ago, he talked about driving down the road and seeing people going like this. and he said that's what's great about this country, you can say whatever you want. so you can hear anticipation of this criticism. because in a lot of places it's increased dramatically, and it can get ugly. president clinton will say to this day that the reason he lost his majority in 1994 was because of a gun deal that he forced through -- helped force through the congress that year. and even the government's bulletins about the right wing groups, that was a pivotal moment for them, and if that happens again, you can expect

the same kinds of behavior. >> thank you, michael. thank you all very much. everyone here around the table, all of those of you at home. gwen will be back next week. until then, happy easter, i'm pete williams. good night. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> we know why we're here. to connect our forces to what they need, when they need it. >> help troops see danger before it sees them. >> to answer the call of the brave and bring them safely home. >> around the globe, the people of boeing are working together to support and protect all who serve. that's why we're here.

>> one tribe, y'all, one tribe, y'all, one tribe y'all, we are one people. let's forget about all that evil. >> what do you care about? introducing the refresh project. we're giving away millions for ideas to move the world forward. every pepsi refreshes the world. >> funding for "washington week" is also provided by exxonmobil, the an enburg foundation, the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions through your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.