kathleen parker, former enten congressman, harold ford, former new hampshire senator and "boston globe" contributor john sununu who this week wrote a piece entitled "obama care misses the target." also former aol steve case. he's an entrepreneur with a unique perspective on both the business and tech worlds. we're glad to have you with views on the political week that it was. here's the cover of the week magazine that got my attention. alive and kicking, president obama may be a little nicked up after this health care fight, but he seems like he had a fairly good week on this. senator, do you not think so, hitting 7 million the enrollment figures? you still think it hasn't made the mark. >> no, it's not about the figures. it's about reducing the number of uninsured in this country. we have 50 million uninsured. if you only look at the enrollment figure, you miss the question of how many of them were previously uninsured. so you have to multiapply the by about 80% probably will be the number that be actually pay. get you down to 5.6 and how many who were previously uninsured, 25% previo

likely, ruth, to support a candidate who supports raising the minimum wage, but your colleague, kathleen parker, writes today that democrats are acting desperately, "this is not exactly a paradigm shifting strategy, minimum wage debates are like funeral suits, you keep them handy for glum times when respect for dying ideas must be paid." to that point, are the democrats putting too much emphasis on that? >> too much emphasis compared to what? let's go back to health care for a second, 7.1 is a heck of a lot better than 6.1 or whatever, but i think that the notion that candidates are going to start running towards obamacare instead of away from it, especially those in danger, senate democrats in reddish states, that might be a little overoptimistic from the democratic point of view, so then the question is, if obamacare is still going to be something of a drag, which i'm afraid it's going to be in certain states, what is the kind of thing that can help democrats get their voters motivated, help get them to the polls, minimum wage is, raising the minimum wage is substantively a good idea and poli

kathleen parker called, for instance, the bill that your group is championing a desperate move for democrats, saying it has no chance of passing the house. do you think this is more a symbolic statement? is this a statement of hey, we tried? >> not at all. we have to pay workers for the work that they do. it's an economic fairness issue. secondly, it makes good common sense economics. one, the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation. nor has it kept pace with worker productivity. and if it kept pace with worker productivity, we might have a minimum wage at $20 an hour. so raising it to $10.10 is not a radical idea. and thirdly, those 30 million americans who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage would in fact spend that money as consumers and increase consumer demand on the necessities of life. so there is simply no real meaningful substantial evidence looking all the way back to 1938 that minimum wage increases have had a detrimental effect on the american economy, the converse is true. >> and there are a lot of economists who are in exactly that camp. i think this is a s

kathleen parker has a great column out today on what she calls the sobering message from the recent sterling fallout. she writes, "if you don't want your words broadcast in the public square, don't say them. such potential exposure forces us to carefully select our words and edit our thoughts. speaking one's mind isn't really all that it's cracked up to be." i love that line, i am what i am. >> you love that line? i don't know. >> it's a great line, because it's actually -- i was thinking back, talking about the 47% line. >> yeah, right. >> your paper is most famous for what? richard nixon's tape recordings. the days of the private cone of silence with your girlfriend are gone. >> no, there ain't no code of silence. >> let's talk about what we're really focusing and not little he said/she said. racially antagonistic, hostile language, is there a new zero tolerance in the way we're going to cover these stories and the way the public's going to react to them? >> you know, way back in the past, there was a whole lot of tolerance, right, stuff was said in the open. for a while now, it has been s

here is a column by kathleen parker. she writes the past few days have provided a cornucopia of reprehensible statements -- she goes on in that column that you can read in today's "washington post." but we're here to back forum for this debate here in the "washington journal" this morning for about the next half hour or so. randall's next in washington, d.c. randall, good morning. caller: well, i think actually -- i know this is a short segment. part of the problem is is with poor whites who actually have a lot in common with blacks. but because of hate and -- host: randall, are you still there? caller: yes. can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: because of hate and racism, blacks and whites aren't getting together. and that's because you know, the laws change. the sentiment is still there, which is what the laws were based on. additionally, the structural racism is not addressed and for some reason, we see signs of the racial problems, the message offense slavery, why black people are behind and we see stuff with tavo