tavis: good evening from los angeles. i'm tavis smiley. president obama was back along the gulf coast today assessing the damage from the biggest environmental disaster in all of u.s. history. tomorrow night he will of course deliver a primetime address about the spill as polls show americans are frustrated about the niblet fix this leak. a look at the development in the gulf with john hofmeister, the former president of shell oil and author of the new book, "why we hate oil companies." also tonight oscar-winning actress tilda swinton is here. her latest project is the new film "i am love." the movie opens in 10 cities around the nation this weekend. we're glad you have joined us. john hofmeister and actress tilda swinton coming up right now. >> all i know is his name is james. he needs extra help with his reading. >> i'm james.

>> yes. >> to everyone making a difference. >> thank you. >> you help us all live better. >> nationwide insurance proudly supports tavis smiley. tavis and nationwide insurance working to improve financial literacy and the economic empowerment that comes with it. >>♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning made possible by kcet public television] tavis: john hofmeister, the former president of shell oil now heads the group citizens for affordable energy. his timely new book is called "why we hate oil companies," straight talk from an energy

insider. he joins us tonight from houston. good to have you on the program, sir. >> thank you, tavis. good to be here. tavis: let me start by asking what you think how b.p. has handled o or mishandled this crisis as a company? >> i think you to break it into pieces. i think in terms of dealing with the flow at the bottom of the sea, they have done about as well as any company could. this is a really devastating situation where the engineering, the science, the difficult conditions, nobody has a cookbook to know how the work this at that level of the ocean. i think what led up to the disaster has to be looked at very hard, honestly, truthfully, to find out what actually went wrong. we don't know how they are going to handle that yet. if it turns out that somebody was incompetent or made bad decision and jeopardized all of these lives and the rig and this environment disaster, they are

in big trouble. i think with respect to the cleanup it has been poorly handled by b.p. and the u.s. government. i don't think they have gone to scale the way they needed to go to scale. in other words, the volume of oil. i think they are still holding back, for whatever reason, from using super tankers to bargers, i think from the public relations respect they should have let their c.e.o.s stay in london. what americans don't want to see in a crisis somebody from another country who thinks and talks differently, who may not have the e think and understanding and i think they are suffering badly from that. tavis: what might have hap if the c.e.o. had not stepped in. it is one thing to look at the things mr. hayward has done and the mistakes he has made and the way he has said things but what if the head of the company had not made a advise it might we be criticizing him for not showing

up? >> we had two places he could have visited. one is the white house. unfortunately the white house didn't choose to speak to him for two months. i think he should have showed up in congress a lot sooner and between two, dealing with the political side of this, while there are executives on the beach and in the gulf and they have very competent executives and know several of them personally who could have handled all of the issues in the gulf of mexico. tavis: when you suggested earlier, that the science, no individual, no company has, and i'm paraphrasing what you said, that is wherewithal to deal with this kind crisis at that depth of sea level, it raises the obvious question for me. if we couldn't handle a disaster of this kind, why are we drilling that deep in the first place? >> you raised two very good points. one, why are we in such deep water in the first place. i agree, this is a seriously

risky business, made more risky by the depth of the water and the reason is because the u.s. government opened up those deep waters because they wouldn't open upshallo water. shallow water in 85% of the coastlines is off limits. so they allowed them to go the risky deep water. the second bit is the contingency plan that every company was using was the blowout protector. now what happened in this well after drilling 35,000 wells over 40 years, some 2200 wells in the deep water alone, what happened to this particular blowout protector that it didn't work? we really have to find answer to that. because whatever additional regulations, whatever additional redundancey might be tacked on to this, if it turns out that this blowout protector has been compromised or damaged and that was the problem and why it

didn't work, well, then i think it helps explain that it is a robust, multiredundant system but not if somebody breaks it and doesn't fix t . tavis: they went into deep water because shallow water was off limits to them. why will the government not allow them to go into shallow water and force them into deep water. >> there is an simple explanation and it is embarrassing to the nation as it relates to the rest of the world. people that live near beaches don't want to see drilling wells off their beaches. that is alaska, the gulf of mexico, ever since the santa barbara blowout in 1969 there has been an aversion to near-shore drilling and the consequence of that aversion means that the shallow waters of the gulf of mexico, western gulf

of mexico, have been drilled over 35,000 times. but there is still oil out there deeper in the gulf of mexico, so that is where the government allowed the companies to pursue more oil drilling. tavis: it sounds like there is some kulpa built on the bart of our government as well. >> that is in my book. it has driven us to a reprecarious state in terms of risk and cost. what about the future. what would the future hold now that we've had this horrific environmental disaster. does it mean we stop drilling? tomorrow morning, america needs 20 million of oil to get through the day. every day from the november elections we're still going to need 20 million barrels a day. if we're afraid to go drill or not allowed to go drill, then america is going to pay a huge, huge price for his energy?

tavis: how does president obama, of course we know he is in the gulf region today. we expect his primetime speech tomorrow night for the nation, about what he intends to do in the coming days and weeks and month, but how does the president, to your earlier point, navigate the politics of this, if you're suggesting to me that we have to drill for oil because of the need that we have, and the president is getting more and more pressure every day to shut down deep water offshore oil drilling, how does he navigate the politics of this? >> he has to use the words both/and. this needs a both/and solution. we need to both produce more domestic energy and we need to do so with safety and reliability in that safety. we've had reliability in the safety. let's find out what exactly happened in this case. this could have been an accident no different than an airplane that flies into the ground, when a pilot misjudges his altitude and doesn't rely on the

close-to-terrain indicator. and we don't shut down entire airlines and stop people from flying because of an airline accident, despite the tragedy. this is a tragedy. this is an environmental disaster. but to shut down the entire industry as if they are all guilty of the same human factor misjudgment that may have led to this particular accident, i think is premature and ill-advised. so we have to have both, more energy to keep our economy going and we need to have safety and reliability and that, frankly should be, in my judgment, the president's key message. tavis: speaking of the president. since he is meeting with these b.p. officials tomorrow and since there are all kinds of suggestions and ideas floatsing now as to what b.p. ought to do publicly to ensure there will be the moneys available. that they won't file for bankruptcy, all of the concerns that are out there, everybody has an idea about how b.p. ought

to ensure the american people that they will have the money to pay all legitimate claims. what ought they be doing publicly to put that issue to bed, at least? >> well, if i was advising their board of directors, i would be advising them to impact the dividend, set money aside so that there is insurance that there is a bank account to meet their responsibilities. this is a company that not only produces a lot of cash and profit because they produce a lot of oil but it is a company that i believe stands by their word. how do i know that? well, i competed with them for a long time. i watched how they responded to previous tragedies in texas city, in alaska, there is no hydrocarbon company that is not at risk of some kirnede tragedy at some -- kind of tronled at some point during their -- tragedy at some point during their existence. they said we will make right by

this. i think for the elected officials in the u.s. to somehow create some kind of a -- you know, extra effort, to force them into a position for their own political gain, when, in fact, they are not gaining anything, because the company has already committed to make this right, i think it is just playing politics with the obvious. tavis: how is it that you think this disaster will or put another way, should imbasket the energy conversation in this country -- impact the energy conversation in this country? >> what we're seeing is the negative effect of politician trying to run -- politics trying to run energy. we're seeing outlandish behavior from elected officials saying no more drilling. they are playing on the political issue on this issue when in fact, we need energy every day. energy, as i describe in my book, is neither republican nor democratic.

we shouldn't be playing politics with it. it is the source of economic well-being. i suggest it be managed by an independent regulatory agency, not congress or the white house. they only know how the politicizette. it has been done since richard nixon declared energy independence. i suggest that an independent regulatory agency is a mechanism by which we can plan our energy future without the day-to-day flavor of the day politics driving it. tavis: isn't that the job of the e.p.a. ultimately? >> well, the e.p.a. looks at the environmental aspect but they are politicized. the previous administration said carbon was not an endangerment. we get a new president and now it is an endangerment to society. is that a political decision or a science decision? that's for, you know, i think they have taken hold of that for political reasons rather than for scientific reasons. tavis: we will see what

president obama has to say to the nation tomorrow night about these and other related issues. we thank john hofmeister, the former president of shell oil company. for joining us tonight. his new text is "why we hate oil companies." mr. hofmeister, thanks for sharing your insight, sir. >> thank you, tavis. tavis: up next, actress tilda swinton. stay with us. an honor the welcome tilda swinton to this program. the os cor-winning actress has starred in numerous films including "michael clayton" which won her an academy award. here now a scene from love lo love. -- "i am love."

tavis: so often when these conversations commence, i don't know where i'm going to start and i'm a bit tripped up with you because there are so many things on talk about with regards to just that one scene that i don't know really where to begin. let me start with this, i think. this i think would qualify as a passion project for an actor. this is for you a passion project. 11 years you have been working on this? why so long? >> the strange thing, tavis, is

so many films i have made have taken 11 years. tavis: 11 years exactly? >> well, or maybe 15. [laughter] and i think so many original films do take that length of time. what would be great is if you were paid all that time. that would be really good if you didn't have to find other ways to eat during that 15 years. it would be great to be kubric. tavis: for you to stay committed and dedicated to this project there must be something about this that you really want us to see. >> well, it is the fruit of a relationship, a very important friendship in my life with the director and it is sort of the way i started working in relationship with filmmakers. i started making films with one director, who i worked with for

nine years on seven different films and when you know someone that well and you're kind of making a film every year or every second year, you know that the conversation is the most important thing. that's the thing. the relationship is the thing. the films are just like symptoms. they are like you go to school every day and then occasional you do a school project. it is like to but the classmates relationship is the really important thing. tavis: i could argue as i will now for the sake of argument. >> go for it. tavis: i can see the upside to working with the same director for nine years and doing seven projects. i can see the upside, you know each other well, etc., etc. i can also see the downside. how do we know we're seeing the full range of your gift, your talent. every director has a different way of bringing something different out of you. >> i suppose if that were the only person you ever worked with you might get into some kind of

rut or -- but and i've only stopped working with him because sadly he kind of left the building in 1994 so he is not around anymore but i have to say the upsides of a long working relationship, i'm all for them. i think that you work out a kind of -- well, you talk about passion and there being a passion project. if the passion is really for this dialogue, for this relationship, for this kind of -- you're like a pair of kids, egging each other on all the time. as we did with this film. it was a good five years of us kind of sitting around a big bottle of wine egging each other on to our fantasies about what kind op film we were going to make and then we got more serious and practical and started thinking of a story and raising money and getting a script but i think that feeling of shorthand and the feeling of a friendship taking you into a

fantasy space is really useful and as i felt in working relationships that have gone from project to project, you just up the ante every time and usually you'll go 180 degrees in the other direction with the next project. it is a nice, rich friendship, you might make some different moves. if it is not, you might sing the same song every time. tavis: you mentioned the word dialogue. to my eye, this particular project, that i love, i don't want to say is less about but certainly is as much about the imagery as it is about the dialogue. i mean, the clip that we showed a moment ago. nothing was really said until the last two seconds there but the imagery. talk to me about this kind of concept. >> it is one of the pleasures i'm having this week in bringing this film to the united states and talking to people about the

release and noticing that almost nobody has talked about the fact that film, which a lot of people are looking forward to seing is in italian and russian. tavis: you're speaking italian with a russian accent and you're in real life scottish. you really are an academy award winner. you are a really good actress. >> i'm a silent film actress. it really is a silent film in a lot of ways. we thought about what hitchcock said about the camera telling story. no one really said anything of much importance in this film. ps not really about what people say. it is about the space they occupy and their behavior. tavis: what is the connection that the audience can make to that in today's movie world? i mean, it is obviously a very different style of film making. how can we relate to this? >> well, i believe that and i

know that luke also said that the greatest use we can make of cinema is to see that it can do this very simple human isk thing, which is to put somebody, any of us in somebody else's shoes. whether it is the person that works the camera or the filmmaker themselves, to put them into the shoes. choosing a frame that you may not choose yourself or thinking about stuff you may not have thought yourself. so that in itself is not culturaly specific. it has nothing to do with language or class or race or anything. the language of cinema is a language of its own and that's particlely why this project took us 11 years. it had this grandiose idea of trying to find a modern film that reminded us of all the great classic films that we love

from hitchcock, from john huston, that touched people on a kind of sensory level far beyond language. far beyond decade. far beyond, you know, where these people come from or what their lives are like. that thing, trying to catch people up in a film. i have these 12-year-old twins, it was a. they are serious cinephiles, i have to say. they are crazy for cinema. i have recently shown them hitchcock. jshesly chosen. tavis: you have to be careful about that. >> my son, very attuned to cinema was talking about a series of films and he kept saying to me, i'm really in this film, mama. i'm in this film. and he's really expressing something that i think hitchcock would be quite correctly proud of. you know, to take a, whatever 10-year-old, 9-year-old, 11-year-old child and put them

in a film that is about grownups is really what we're looking for. tavis: we kind of nibbled around the edges of this cake. let me go right to the center of it. we talked about your processes here. how would you describe what "i am love" is? what is the storyline? >> it is the story of a family in a very particular media. they are very, very rich. bourgeois. milanesp. -- milanese. they live in milan. they are industrial barons. they are a particular kind of rich person. these are people who made their really quite sizable wealth during the fascist era in italy so they have a lot to be discreet about. and these are people who live a very particularly circumscribed kind of life. they live in a sort of code of denial and in into this family,

we go into this family and we find emma, who is a character that i play, the mother of three children, married for the last 25 years, to the patriarch and she is a russian but not only a russian, the film is actually set 10 years ago, so if you predate it, she is someone who came from soviet russia. she comes from one circumscribed environment into another which may be more circumscribed. i think of her as an avatar. she has learned to fake it. to walk the walk and talk the talk and dress correctly and kind of pass as a proper lady. but she is something else. she's a foreigner and she comes to that point and that lots of women do from all walks of life who have children at that age, young, that, you know, their children start to leave home and she started to kind of look at

her own life and make friends with herself again and believe it or not, you know, there is a sort of revolution of love that occurs in her life and there is something in the family that can't take it. but i won't spoil the story. tavis: i was going to say stop! don't give it away. before i let you go, though, i have watched your work over the years. you seem to balance between these art house projects and these blockbusters and i assume you're comfortable in that space, that back and forth. >> it is -- it is, you know, i thought for a second you were going to give me a clue, some method in the madness. i don't know what it is. tavis: i don't know anything. >> there is really no design. the truth is i'm a european. i live in europe. i spend most of my life as a filmmaker growing projects like these which are seeds in the ground for a long, long time. meanwhile, they are growing and i get invited to be in a film

with george clooney or get invited by the cohen brothers to come and play with them and i'm happy to do that. but i live in europe. these european films take a long time to go and i'm a farmer there. tavis: the project is called "i am love." great name for a film starring one tilda swinton, an academy award winner. tilda, great to have you on the program. that's our show for tonight. until tomorrow night, keep the faith. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. tavis: hi, i'm tavis smiley. join me next time for a conversation with rock 'n' roll hall of famer tom petty on the release of his new c.d. "mojo." that's next time. we'll see you then. >> his name is james and he needs extra help with his reading. >> i'm james. >> yes. >> to everyone making a

difference. >> thank you. >> you help us all live better. >> nationwide insurance proudly supports tavis smiley. tavis and nationwide insurance working to improve financial literacy and the economic empowerment that comes with it. >>♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> be more. pbs.

>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with president obama making his fourth trip to the gulf of mexico region. tomorrow night, he makes a nationally televised speech and on wednesday he meets with b.p. executives. al hunt of bloomberg news and jake tapper of abc news have analysis and context. >> this was unexpected. it was an impediment to that last goal. i don't think they were insensitive. i don't think it was they didn't care. but this wasn't part of their game plan and they, frankly, did not adjust. >> all of it is intended to project leadership after what a lot of locals down here describe as 56 days of confusion. not knowing who's in charge, not knowing why certain steps are not being taken, even some of the president's closest allies concede the communication has not been what it should be.

>> rose: and we look at turkey and its role in the middle east with ibrahim kalin, chief advisor to the prime minister. >> we have always had this very unique relationship with the west on the one hand, with europe, and, of course, after the second world war with the united states. but also with the middle east, the caucuses, north africa. therefore, it's difficult to define turkey on the basis of just one location or one strategic priority. one has to see turkey in this kind of multidimensional way. >> rose: we conclude this evening with mario batali, one of new york's best-known chefs. not on cooking but eating. >> it's about how italians eat on a daily basis. not that kind of fancy italian food that i've always professorred about before which is kind of special occasion or maybe sunday males. this is about how italians use dry pasta or pizza or vegetables when they only have a half hour or hour to make dinner and it's

delicious and healthy. >> rose: president obama on the eve of a crucial speech, the chief advisor to the prime minister of turkey, and mario batali when we continue. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin tonight with the oil spill off the gulf of mexico which has been called the worst environmental disaster in american history. earlier today, president obama made his fourth trip to the coast since the leak began on april 20. speaking before a crowd in theodore, alabama, he said that

officials are gathering up facts to ensuring those affected are compensated fairly and quickly. >> in some ways, what we're dealing with here is unique because it's not simply one catastrophic event. it's an ongoing assault whose movements are constantly changing. that's what makes this crisis so challenging. it means it has to be constantly watched, it has to be tracked. we're constantly having to redeploy resources to make sure they're having maximum impact. and we also need to make sure that we are constantly helping folks who have been hurt by it even adds we're stopping the oil from spreading into more and more areas. >> rose: the trip to alabama was part of two-day tour of three states, including mississippi and florida. president obama will deliver a nationally televised speech from the oval office tomorrow night. on wednesday he will meet for the first time with the chairman and c.e.o. of b.p. the moves come as the administration is stepping up

its efforts to control the political fallout from the disaster. it has faced mounting criticism for not communicating and asking tough questions of b.p. early enough. joining me now from theodore, alabama, jake tapper, senior white house correspondent for abc news. from washington, al hunt, executive editor of bloomberg news. i'm pleased to have them here on the eve of the big speech by the president. what's the intent of the speech? >> well, i think all of it is intended to project leadership after what a lot of locals down here describe as 56 days of confusion. not knowing who's in charge. not knowing why certain steps are not being taken. even some of the president's closest allies concede that the communication has not been what it should be. and so the president is trying to with the added information that he has now about how bad the spill is, 5,000 feet underwater and what they actually can do about it, he's trying to provide more information and, you know, his

approval ratings, according to the gallup daily and weekly tracking polls has been the lowest of his presidency, 46% approval. and he's trying to turn that around. he still has two and a half years to go in his first term and he wants to get things done and this oil slick really that has potential of hobbling him quite significantly. >> rose: the first question... the most important question of which there are two is why is this... why has this happened. why have these masters of communication and understanding failed to appreciate where the american public was and what they wanted to feel and know? >> i think there are a lot of reasons. one, it's quite different to be running a campaign. they ran, obviously, with the goal standard of campaigns and it's quite different to be running a well-organized very disciplined campaign than it is to be running a sprawling bureaucracy. and they have not always known what's going on. sometimes parts of the government have contradicted

other parts of the government. sometimes we've had contradictory messages from the white house itself. one quick example is a couple weeks ago we were told it was not important for president obama to talk to any of the executives from b.p. because they would just tell him what he wanted to hear and on wednesday he's going to be meeting with top executives of b.p., the chairman and the c.e.o., tony hayward. so they've really never dealt with anything like this before in terms of a crisis that happened in entirely on his watch. one that is unprecedented, in a lot of ways. i mean, not to be apologizing for him, but obviously this has never happened before, anything like this, in terms of the size and scope of this disaster. >> rose: what does he have to do and how will he do in the the speech he gives on tuesday? >> well, i think he needs to provide some answers for the american people. when they expect this problem to be solved, how much oil they expect to be capped within the next few weeks, when they think

that it's going to stop leaking and what's going to happen to the people in the gulf who are suffering a tremendous economic catastrophe and then, of course, i think something else he wants to do that a lot of members his liberal base wanted to do, which is use this crisis to talk about how the u.s. needs to wean itself off of oil and pursue a clean energy, a renewable energy future. i'm not sure that everybody in the public wants to hear that message, but that will be part of it. and then also what he's going to do to make sure this doesn't happen in the future-- and then you'll hear more about the reorganization of the now-notorious minerals management service, the federal regulator that was in charge of regulating offshore drilling and not doing a particularly good job-- he'll talk about that in reorganization as well. >> rose: do you expect him both in the meeting and what he says to come out even harder against b.p.? >> well, he's walking a fine line there, right? because obviously there are a lot of stockholders who are not big wall street fat cats who rely on that money, whether

they're pensioners in the u.k. or here in this country. so he needs to be tough on b.p. without being seen as pushing the stock price down so significantly. i think that he has tried to walk that line. it's difficult. i think that there's going to be... look, lots of information coming out in the next few weeks, congressional investigators today were talking about how their preliminary conclusion is that b.p. took many cost-cutting steps, many steps and decisions for economic reasons that put the likelihood of a well failure at greater risk. one b.p. engineer describing it as a "nightmare well" five days before the explosion that took the lives of those 11 workers and set off this whole catastrophe. so it's going to be tough for him to contain his anger because there's going to be a lot more horrible, incriminating information about the people responsible for this disaster. >> rose: jake, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: david axelrod said on "meet the press" that this was

an inflection point in this saga what's the most that you see for this president? >> well, its inflection point for barack obama, i agree with what jake said a moment ago. this administration has handled this crisis poorly. this is the opportunity now to recoup. i think the president tomorrow night has two challenging objectives. one is to convince people that he does-- if belatedly-- have a forceful and a coherent policy to deal with this issue. i think he's going to get very tough with b.p. charlie, tomorrow they're going to be five oil executives, big oil executives testifying before the ed markey commission. a number of them are going to say b.p. is the outliar. this was a preventable crisis. the president does not want to be to the right of big oil on this issue. so i think he's going to be very critical of b.p. much of it justified. his second objective tomorrow-- which jake alluded to which will be much more daunting-- is to

convince people we need a new energy policy. he had hoped to get a climate bill through prior to april 20. he now would love to combine an energy bill that dick lugar and lindsey graham introduced that provide incentives to industry with a climate bill. that's very hardtor do in light of this oil spill, though, charlie. >> rose: you said in in a column that you wrote "why does a white house that includes emanuel, the chief of staff, unsurpassed in appreciation of the neck nexus of policy and politics in washington and david axelrod, one of the best political strategists in the united states respond so slowly and inadequately to such a major catastrophe?" -frlgts charlie, it's an issue i think is going to intrigue historians. i tell you what my theory is. on april 20, i think this white house saw the prospects for the most remarkable legislative achievements since at least lyndon johnson if not franklin roosevelt. a stimulus package, health care reform, rewriting the rules for wall street and financial regulation and a real prospect

for a climate change bill. this was unexpected. it was an impediment to that last goal. i don't think they were insensitive. i don't think it was they didn't care. but this wasn't part of their game plan and they frankly did not adjust. it's a bit different than bush and katrina because this president was briefed, he was informed. but i think the political instincts of these very, very smart people at the white house failed them on this occasion. they underestimated this terribly. >> rose: and if they fail tomorrow night in the speech, what are the repercussions of that? to somehow convince americans that they are on top of the problem and, b, that they hear what america's saying to them about the inability to get their hands around it. >> oh, i think they can ill afford to fail tomorrow night. otherwise i think his administration takes on the same rap or reputation that george w. bush took on after katrina. namely, inept, a gang that can't shoot straight.

i suspect the president won't fail tomorrow. i think he is recouping now. as jake said earlier, they've changed their position on a number of things but i think they now are going to get it. they're going to name a new head to this discredited minerals mining service. they may name someone to be in charge down there. that's been a terrible problem. who do local governments go to? who do businesses go to? those businesses should have to deal with b.p. so they may do a much better job there. they're going to be more forceful with b.p. and i think the president will be persuasive on that count. on a new energy policy, i think that is, as i said earlier, a much more uphill task. >> rose: this is what mat bye said. the chaos is around us and what we ask of a president increasingly is to use the instruments of government to rein it in. mr. obama seems it particularly hard to adjust to this role, perhaps he has always defined himself as an outsider to washington and his tkpwo *fping apparatus, someone who would reform government but not necessarily master its inner workings. this after all was the subtension of his entire debate

with hillary clinton in the primaries in 2008. she was the insider who could completely work all the pulleys and levers of government and he was the outsider looking to cast aside what he later called "the childish things that dominated debate in washington." the problem here for mr. obama is that almost 18 months after assuming office, he still seems to regard himself as something of an intellectual critic of government when, in fact, what americans expect from him is now markedly different. does matt bayh have an an appoint? >> there's an aloofness to this man and there's always those strains but as much as i thought... i was intrigued by that piece, but i don't think you could get health care through, i don't think you could get financial regulation through-- which they're on the verge of doing-- and some of the other achievements without being, if you will, of government. without being able to play that inside game. sometimes, you know, it's curious. sometimes they play the inside game too much. for a while on health care, that was the fault, i think. but, you know, by and large over

the year and a half, they walked that line fairly artfully. it failed them the first month of this crisis. >> rose: last week i talked to john kerry in the energy bill that's now in the senate, it's his bill, without lindsey graham's support. but do you think that it's possible that they can use this oil spill to get energy legislation? >> i heard that interview. i think that senator john kerry's going to make a major effort. as i said earlier, what they'd like to do do is get that climate bill and combine it with the bill dick lugar and a few republicans have talked about earlier. the tradeoff here is difficult. one of the things that obama did was he was actually... he moved toward the republicans on offshore drilling in order to get a climate bill through. i'll give you that, i'll give you nuclear and you give me some of the very important green stuff and some of the transformative measures we hope to do. now every time he talks about giving them more, he loses the democrats. so i wouldn't rule it out.

but i think it's very uphill. >> rose: can he get part of it? >> yeah, they probably can get the energy incentives through. but i think, again, i'm agreeing with what jake said earlier, i think it's going to be tough. any really tough conservation stuff is going to be difficult. >> rose: i haven't had a chance to talk to you about the elections. what's your take on the election wes saw in the primary elections last week? >> well, i think it was fascinating. i think there really is a civil war going on within the republican party as they're on the verge of having a tremendous year this year. but between the tea party candidates winning in half the contests and the others in others, there's really a great strain going on here. and the democrats, at least, don't feel... they're still verier nervous about this direction-- as they should be-- but they were quite pleased with some of the outcomes in places like nevada and earlier in kentucky and the anticipation that maybe they there will be a tea party candidate in colorado who they

at least think will be easier to run against. that remains to be seen. i must say, every time i hear democrats say that, charlie, i'm old enough to remember 40 years ago when the democrats very carefully and calibrated the primary in california so they could run against the weaker candidate, a man named ronald wilson reagan. >> rose: (laughs) ronald wilson reagan used to say "one of the great advantages i have in politics is that i'm always... they always expect too little of me." what was it he said? he said "the best thing you can have going for you and s your opponent doesn't expect much of you." >> to be underestimated... >> rose: underestimated is the word i was looking for. right. >> unlike the senatorial candidate in nevada of all place, ronald wilson reagan never suggested maybe we ban alcohol. so some of the problems that these candidates have, i think, are much more real. reagan's were only perceived and they were exaggerated. >> rose: is it more likely now harry reid will win the general

election because of what happened in the primary on the republican side? >> my guess is that harry reid is gone from a decided underdog to at least even money right now. that's the position that few thought he would be in just a couple months ago. as a matter of fact, charlie cook, who's been quite a pessimist about democrats now tilt it is scale in harry reid's favor. >> rose: obviously the entire obama administration is focused on this oil spill because of all the reasons that you have suggested. what do they hope to achieve now? because some believe that this is an essentially... other than energy, eliminated any other major legislative achievements for this term. >> well, i think that's right, charlie. but i think those were probably eliminated even before this. i think immigration was not going to happen this time and we talked earlier about the climate energy possibility. for the rest of this term, there's such little time left, the senate's going to do the supreme court no, ma'am nigh, they'll have to do the war

funding which will be a huge fight in the house of representatives in particular. and they'll do some of the appropriations bill. there will still be a fight over how much of a jobs bill or how much aid to give the state and local governments but any other major initiatives i think were probably gone anyway. this has been a pretty exhausting congress. they've done an awful lot. and some of it controversial. so i don't think that was there to begin with. i think the difficulty for the administration with the b.p. crisis is it's diverting so much of their energy and their time and their resource from all sorts of other things, including budgetary matters and planning for next year. >> rose: when you look at this administration today, was there anything that they could have done to have got than well... that spill contained? was it anything that they could have forced b.p. to do? or did b.p. do everything it could after the spill occurred?

>> i don't pretend to have expertise in that. but the answer is i don't think so. i think there was a lot that could have been done. a lot tougher regulation of b.p. and deep water drilling before the spill occurred. but after april 20, i don't think anybody really suggest there had's a lot that could have been done. i'm not sure we were leveled with on a lot of things that were happening and i'm still not sure if that's the case today. so i don't think there's anything that president obama could have done then. however, i do think he could have been much more involved in the gulf. he could have had someone down there. he could have had someone riding on b.p. far earlier than he did. the first five weeks, charlie, he went to the gulf once. he now goes there every week. it took him a month to name that commission. so i think they were just very slow. and i think that's what they paid a price for. i don't think, however, that he could have done anything to make this a less severe problem than it is today? >> rose: al hunt, as always, thank you my friend. >> thank you, charlie.

>> rose: good to have you here. take care of my studio dun there, will you? >> this is your... the rose studio. and we treat it accordingly. >> rose: (laughs) we'll be right back. stay with us. >> rose: international pressure on israel to lift its gaza blockade continued today. in brussels, european leaders called for an impartial inquiry to israel's raid on a gaza-bound flotilla last month. tony blair said prime minister netanyahu was ready to make significant change to the blockade. also today, the israeli cabinet approved a commission to investigate the attack that killed nine turkish activists. israel says its commandos were acting in self-defense. the panel will be led by retired supreme court judge and will include two foreign observers. joining me now is rain him kalin, he is a chief advisor to the turkish prime minister. i am pleased to have him here. he's on his way to washington for meetings with members of congress and administration

officials. i'm also pleased to have him at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thank you. pleased to be here. >> rose: where is turkey in its own head in terms of the middle east and the role it can play? >> turkey is in the strategic location in our part of the world between east and west, in a sense. between south the and a north in the sense. between europe and the middle east. this is something our geography gives us. we've been in that geography for a long time, a modern republic was founded in 1923 but our history goes much further. for about five centuries or so. and we have always had this very unique relationship with the west on the one hand, with europe and, of course, after the second world war with the united states, but also with the middle east, the caucuses, north africa. therefore, it's difficult to define turkey on the basis of one location or one strategic priority. one these see turkey in this multidimensional way. many n many ways tush irk foreign policy is moving in this

multidirectional way. it's not just one set of issues. it's not one direction, one geography. but it's really aa cross road of all these issues. for example, we have to deal with issues in iraq. and we work very closely with the americans there. we work in afghanistan as part of our nato mission. we work closely with pakistan. in fact, we bring pakistanis and afghanis together almost on a monthly basis now. the pakistani and afghani presidents have met through this troika several times over the last six months or so. we work, of course, in the caucuses to bring stability to that part of the world. in lebanon, in palestine, the middle east region, the middle east peace process. you go down the list, there is a long list of issues we have to pay attention to because in that part of the world, we can not remain indifferent to what's happening to our east. but at the same time, you are the ski a negotiating country for full membership in the european union. a goal that the united states

also supports. >> rose: and that has not changed. your passion to be a member of the european union has not changed. >> has not changed at all. >> rose: has not in any way lessoned your desire to join? >> no, we acknowledge half of europe a supports turkey's e.u. membership. half of europe is confused, u.k., spain, italy and others for example support turkey's full membership. no privilege partnership, no exception of the rules, nothing. other half, a few important countries, the founding members of the european union, oppose turkey's e.u. membership on a number of grounds. they say political, economic, sometimes cultural even religious, et cetera. but we have not given up on our goal for full membership. what we oppose is anything less than full membership. such as privileged partnership or leadership in the european or mediterranean union. >> rose: so you'll accept nothing but full membership. >> full membership. >> rose: you'll accept nothing

but full membership? >> exactly. and the reason is that we share the founding values of the european union: democracy, liberal economy, free market economy, human rights, civil liberties, rule of law, transparencies. all these values which have become universal values. they're no longer european or western values. they're shared by the vast majority of the people in the world. in fact, i will say in the vast majority of the muslim world also. the fact that you have regimes that are not democratic does not mean that a people in those countries do not share those values. >> rose: is a secular state a value? >> certainly. >> rose: so you share the value of a secular state? >> that's what makes turkey also unique in all of the muslim countries, in the sense that we've been able to combine a secular state system with our own traditional values, muslim identity. in fact, this issue was revolved almost a century ago. at the end of the ottoman empire, if you look at 19th century ottoman intellectuals, they discuss all of these

issues. constitution, the parliament, democracy, all those things and they resolved that issue in principle. the question is how to implement it now. as far as the values of democracy, human rights, and transparency are concerned, there is no disagreement on that. the problem is there is an opposition to that that is a full consolidation of d.e.m. stph *eu turkey because of a fer that globalization has weakened the nation's state. therefore, supreme to react to this onslaught of globalization which brings not only international relations or connections but also foreign influences. cultural influences, etc. so some people react to that and oppose democracy or full democratization in turkey in subtle ways. we call it neonationallism. >> rose: that does not include you or the prime minister? >> not at all. in fact, the government is also fighting against this kind of mentality in turkey. sometime wes read in american newspapers that anti-americanism is very high in turkey and the

government is somehow behind that. >> rose: here is what secretary gates-- american secretary of defense-- which i know you know this quote. "i personally think that if there's anything to the notion that turkey is, if you will, moving eastward, as i said, it is in my view in no small part because it was pushed and pushed by some in europe refusing to give turkey the kind ofar tkpwapb i can link to the west turkey sought. we have to think long and hard about why these developments in turkey are occurring and what we may be able to count of them and make stronger linkages with the west." >> it's a very fine statement. i disagree with the nap sis or the diagnosis there in the sense that turkey is not moving any further east than it is moving in other directions. but i think secretary gates is right in the sense that european s sometimes contribute to the sense of despair and frustration in turkey about e.u. we applied to the european union

back in 1959. and this process has been going on for almost 60 years now. i mean, no membership can lost... membership negotiation can last that long. of course, there were times when we lost our interest, i have to admit. >> rose: but that's not a time now, as you just said. >> that's not a time now. we are fully committed to that goal and we hope the europeans will make up their minds soon. >> rose: what damage has been done to the turkish/israeli relationship because of what happened when the flotilla was boarded by israeli commandos? >> well, to answer that question... >> rose: and turkish citizens lost their lives. >> nine of them. and one of them was also a u.s./turkish citizen, a 19-year-old was killed. to answer that, we have to look at turkish/israeli relations in a broader context. turkey was the first muslim country to recognize israel only a few months after its founding in 1949. and we have always kept good relations with israel. but there were times when

relations were tense because of the policies of occupation in palestine. for example, in 1969 when there was that fire in the dome of iraq, turkey withdrew its ambassador at that time. and there were times again when governments of different political leanings-- right, left-- in fact, reacted in different ways to israeli policies. now, if you look at over the last couple of years, it was this government that facilitated talks between syria and israel. >> rose: absolutely. >> you know that very well. for about a year and a half, the prime minister himself was personally involved in that negotiation and this was a major breakthrough, obviously, in the recent history of the middle east. >> rose: how close do you think they were to some kind of agreement between the two of them? >> they were very close. i mean, they were down to one or two sentences in the final kind of deal that they were putting together there. >> rose: and then game the gaza invasion? >> then came the gaza invasion in a way that really created a

sense of mistrust between turkey and israel. because prime minister ehud oe merit at that time spent six nourse the prime minister's house in ankara working on the details of the final deal and he said, all right, now, i think it looks like 99% we are done with this. let me george kottaras go back to israel, finalize the deal, and i'll give you a call in a few days. the call unfortunately was the gaza war. and after that we tried, we tried our best, but unfortunate ly the gaza war created this environment where it became impossible to talk about peace or normalization between syria and israel. you know, we also facilitated talks between israel and pakistan. some if there was any sense of anti-israeli position on the part of this government, we would haven't done any of this. even before that, president shimon peres and mahmoud abbas before they went to the last round of talks here... was that in mas in