. >> through all these things, there is a certain quality of perils of pauline. the ominous music playing in the background and finally a happy ending. we will get to a happy ending on health care and energy. regulatory reform also will come out good. these are problems the country needs to address. we need to solve them. these are not optional exercises. these are not things we're tackling just because they are good sport or good fun. that necessity of addressing them is going to compel action. >> back to the cards. how can progressive activists who are lobbyists for workers' rights and health care and the like, persuade the administration to treat lobbyists no differently than other representatives and leaders of their organization when it comes to government employment and policy engagement? can we make it distinction between lobbyists for nonprofits and lobbyists for commercial interests? do you want to go after that one, spencer? >> i worked on these2rr@ $airr understand and appreciate, can i come back to acs -- the message to the american public that we are

but for years gm has been buried under an unsustainable mountain of debts and pauline more debt on top of the new gm would it mean repeating the mistakes of the past. we are acting as a reluctant shareholders as a result because that is the only way to help gm succeed. what we're not doing, what i have no interest in doing is running gm. gm will be run by a private board of directors and management team with a track record in american manufacturing the reflects a commitment to innovation and quality. there will call the shots about how to turn around the company. the government will refrain from decisions and all but the most fundamental of corporate decisions. when a difficult decision must be made on where to open a new plan or what type of car to make the new gm, not the government, will make that decision. our goal is to get gm back on its feet, take a hands-off the purchase, and get out quickly. exiting requires not only new investment by giving gm a chance to start by clearing away the massive past debts weighing down the company. that is why earlier today gm did what chrysler ha

aidid no longer the big screen networks carving the pauline 2/3. what kinds of pressures does that exert on broadcasting? >> well, i think those of us in the mainstream media see our world as being the place where people can come where perhaps they have one point of view or another point of view but we are the place we hope where people can agree on the facts. and accurate summation of what the news actually is and from that, all of the analysis, all the commentary grows. i thought one of the students had on a very good point. there are so many of points of you out there on radio, on television, on the internet that the question then every time i have addressed an audience somebody brings up the question, is the media bias? it has almost become an irrelevant question because there are so many points of view out there. we are almost that as it was during the time of lincoln when there was no such thing as subjectivity, when you have liberal papers, republican papers, everybody had a point of view. nobody expected an objective view. the whole idea of

. >> i think all these things have a certain quality of the perils of pauline, you know, sort of the ominous music playing in the background. and then finally ultimately a happy ending. and i think we will get you a happy ending on health care and energy. i think regulatory reform also will come good. but these are problems the country needs to address. these are problems we need to solve. these are not optional exercises. these are not, you know, things we are tackling just because they are good sport or good fun. and i think that necessity of addressing them is going to ultimately compel action. >> getting back to the cards, how can progressive activists who are lobbyist for workers rights, universal health care and the like persuade the administration to treat lobby is no different than other representatives and leaders of the organization when it comes to government employment and policy engagement? can we at least make it a station between lobbyist for nonprofits and lobbyist for commercial? [laughter] >> spencer, do you want to go after that when? >> well, you know, i worked a