president obama spoke with "new york times" columnist tom friedman this weekend. he tried to ease fears and said he would consider it a failure if the country was rendered more vulnerable. the president also called the deal a once in a lifetime opportunity. joining me now from washington peter baker. he's the chief whitehouse correspondent of the "new york times." meter, tell --7"qx peter tell me how you see the president's frame of mind with tom friedman's interview as he strives to bring real probably the most important negotiations of his presidency. >> that's exactly right. we sat down and talked with tom friedman on saturday at the whitehouse to pitch his deal and also to think in larger terms of what it could mean for the region. he clearly has this idea that if they can make this work, if they can finalize the deal in june and get it past obstacles like congress,f0c there's a chance that transforms security in the region and perhaps even begins to change around just a little bit. he's not counting on that. he's realistic to understand that iran's a complica

why did the president speak with tom friedman. what was the significance of that conversation? peter: he wants to hit the influential foreign policy crowd as quickly as he can with this deal and he knows that tom friedman has a large voice on these issues and with his column in "new york times." it was about a 46-minute interview on camera as well and that interview i think will be watched. interesting moments in the discussions about israel and how he was about the safety and security of israel and personal pain he was when somebody in israel question whether he is in solidarity over the security going forward. he's trying to reach a wider audience and make his sales pitch and so far he's done pretty well. he seemed to convince tom friedman and has work to do with congress and israel but he should be feeling pretty good. brendan: tell us about his primary negotiating partner within congress senator bob corker of tennessee. he seems to be making what the president sees as the right noises. do i get that correctly? peter: that's right. president obama could do a lot worse than b

president obama making his case for the agreement to tom friedman from "the new york times." his support for israel and said the deal is the best hope to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. we talked to former cia director michael hayden in a few minutes. oil prices rising sharply this morning. crude sales hiking for a second month pointing to better demand in that region. >>> march jobs number coming in well short of expectations. if you tuned in friday morning, we were here and it was a bad number. u.s. equity futures trading lower. this is the holdover you see here. the dow would open lower by more than 120 points. the nasdaq lower by 30. and the s&p 500 down by 13. steve leisman joins us now. over the weekend i'm going to steal a bit of thunder, the disappointing jobs report and other weak data the past several weeks, jpmorgan slashing the forecast to 0.6% from 1.5% saying, quote, the unexpectedly soft march labor report raises obvious concerns of growth momentum. still, jpmorgan economists continue to maintain the forecast for the current quarter. the governmen

it is a little like what tom friedman says about the israelis and the palestinians.need to want to have the peace process as much as we do. charlie: they didn't want it as much as you did. richard: i think that is right. charlie: was it one or the other? richard: i think the stars finally aligned. sports has always been a vibrant part of the hbo brand. the live boxing, world championship boxing, the one sport we can play in, that we can afford, has always done very well for us. charlie: what is going to happen with the fight? richard: who knows? it is going to be a great fight. charlie: not who is going to win. why did it take so long to get these two guys together? richard: because the principles needed to want to get together more than we wanted them to get together. it is a little like what tom friedman says about the israelis and the palestinians. they need to want to have the peace process as much as we do. charlie: they didn't want it as much as you did. richard: i think that is right. charlie: was it one or the other? richard: i think the stars finally aligned

president obama spoke with "new york times" columnist tom friedman this weekend.ase israeli fears and would consider it a failure if the country was rendered more vulnerable. he called the deal a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

. >> president obama talking to tom friedman on the frame work for a deal.ing away the most dangerous parts of their nuclear program for a lifting of the hard core international sanctions that have hammered them in sanctions and degraded their economy. we knew the deal was very serious when the iranian and american side put their high ranking nuclear physacists at the top. they're both nuclear physicists and they went to m.i.t. together, and having them personally at the table negotiating at the highest levels is maybe why this document was able to be so specific. iran will drop to precisely 6104 centrifuges that will be a model from the 1970. for 15 years they will not enrich above 3.67%. it is 97% less than what they have on hand right now. no, there is not total specificity on when and in what sequence iran will get out of their sanctions, and there is no detailed explanation on how it will work in practice. this is not a done deal yet. joining me is our nation's energy secretary, thank you for joining us tonight. >> so iran has always maintained that the

the president in the interview as you pointed out with tom friedman of "the times" remained very forceful with his contention no matter what is a part of the deal the safety of the israeli people will not change. >> not as if in all these conversations i'm leaving all of my, you know, rifles, you know at the door. we're walking into these negotiations and everybody knows that we've got the most firepower and we're not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies. >> reporter: friedman went on to call it, the obama doctrine which is a sort of idea that you can sort of break free from lond-standing american policies towards former bad actors if you will or former adversaries like burma or cuba or in this case, iran. but there is another question being asked here in washington and that is, what role if any should congress have to play in a particular circumstance like the one involving iran? a lot of people feel like no matter what happens, congress should have a say including tennessee's bob corker. >> making sure that all of the answers, the questions are answered is an app

in an interview published yesterday with tom friedman of "the new york times," the president left open the door to a compromise with senator corker , even though it is not on this legislation. he had kind words for senator corker, saying he is a reasons person, and signaled that there may be some middle ground. host: later in the week the president heads to the meeting of the summit of the americas. where will that be? why is this an important meeting? guest: the president flies out wednesday night, first stop in jamaica. thursday night he heads to panama city for the summit of the americas. it is a big deal because it is the time of year that all of the leaders of the americas get together, and it is especially a big deal this year because it is the first time that a cuban government delegation is represented there, and the first time that president obama and growled castro will have a chance -- and rolfaul castro will be meeting in the same place after the president announced the new relationship with cuba. there has been no announcement yet of a formal lateral meeting but everyone e

and people we can throw at this thing if we need to which is exactly what the president said to tom friedman saturday that we have -- he even made the case that the iranians said about, i think it was 6 billion on defense, 5 billion on defense, we spend 600$600 billion. the example was that either you do what i say, either you get into the 21st century or we can still come after you which i think is a pretty powerful message. >> let me get this straight rich you're compareing president obama's doctrine to president reagan? >> yeah. >> van, do you aigreeagree? >> it's not employed very much. i do. it's so interesting, when this deal first came out, you had the traditional reaction oh, my god, obama is trying to destroy america from the far right. more and more reports are rolling in and across the world say saying this is a really good deal. another doctrine it reminds me of speak softly but carry a big stick. in other words, what obama is saying we're so overwhelmingly powerful military we can start a war with anybody, it's hard to stop a war. why don't we push for peace? one thing amazing a

he talked with "new york times" columnnist tom friedman. >> this is our best bet by fire to make sure iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. >> mr. obama also said the u.s. would stand by israel if its security was threatened. many lawmakers say congress should have a larger say on any final agreement. >> if the president feels like this is something that's good for the nation, surely he can sell this to the united states senate and the house. >> the senate plans it take up a bill next week that would give congress a role. the president says he would veto it, but it's also signaling he is open to finding a way for congress to weigh in. >>> it is 6:09. up next san francisco police officers involved in a texting scandal could be fired this week, but what happens to their cases? that's a lot more complicated. >>> an emergency vote could put the brakes on development in one bay area city. >>> rain, snow, and thunderstorms heading towards the bay area. we will track this storm together. >>> and after some weekend track work, all bart trains this morning are running on time. we will hit the roa

it is a little like what tom friedman says about the israelis and the palestinians.need to want to have the peace process as much as we do. charlie: they didn't want it as much as you did. richard: i think that is right. charlie: was it one or the other? richard: i think the stars finally aligned. i would tip my hat to lester because without his imagination and energy this would have not come together. he called me and said i think we can make this happen. let's do it as partners. i agreed immediately. we will be ready to go on may 2. i don't think it'll only be a great event for boxing, i think it'll be a great event for sports. charlie: will you be there? richard: absolutely. charlie: this is a clip i will show you. this is when the late david carr and other people were on here. you will recognize the subject they are talking about. roll tape. >> i have this feeling about the last 15 years in tv that have to do with -- at the beginning of it, people were defensive at the idea that tv could be good. there was this initial move in talking about television that had to

the president sat down with tom friedman of the "new york times" in the oval office and explained howerica's military muscle provides breathing room for attempts at diplomacy. >> we are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk. >> that's interesting. >> and that's the thing that sometimes, as i hear these debates going on people don't seem to understand. iran's defense budget is $30 billion. our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. iran understands that they cannot fight us. so for us to say let's try understanding that we're preserving all of our options, that we're not naive, but if in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically we are more likely to be safe more likely to be secure in a better position to protect our allies and who knows, iran may change. if it doesn't, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place. >> president obama was not the only one making his case. israel's prime minister benjamin netanyahu appeared on three separate sunday shows where he explained his opposition to the nuclear fr

jenna: interesting you mentioned that because tom friedman in "the new york times," publishing a column day after yours, focused on an identity crisis with the iranians saying that's what this nuclear negotiation is really about and what the way forward in the middle east is, it's about their identity, not ours. what do you think about their argument? >> i think friedman, as usual has it precisely wrong. look there's no question there are vast gaps between the people of iran and this theocratic regime. but from the point of view of the regime, they're winning on all fronts; the nuclear negotiations, they're not making any concessions to us, we're making concessions to them. they've seized capitals in yemenen, in iraq, effectively in syria and in lebanon. they're winning. jenna: i wonder then, if we take a big step away from the states that are acting in the middle east, if the people with the strongest sense of identity and the most action to back it up are really the terrorist groups. what do you think about that? >> well, i mean, look question is, you know which terrorist groups are y

in an interview with the "new york times" tom friedman the president essentially saying you only get one shot at peace and this deal is that once in a lifetime opportunity. but the president's doctrine of engagement and his insistence that he's not being duped by the iranians seems to be doing little to calm what some might say is borderline panic in congress and in israel. today, israel's intelligence chief outlining a list of things the israeli government says need to change in this deal to close dangerous loopholes. i want to get right to our own senior white house correspondent, jim acosta. he is live at the white house. jim, the president said this deal gives up very little lays out a heavy price should tehran break its word and restart a path towards a nuclear weapon but it seems like a lot of people in congress even some key democrats, are not buying it. >> yeah jake the president says this nuclear deal with iran fits right into the obama doctrine but his critics say that is the problem and by the way, there is a key part of this agreement that's in limbo. the full court press

as part of that interview with tom friedman. >> my hope is we can find something that allows congresso express itself but does not encroach on traditional presidential prerogatives and ensures that if in fact we get a good deal we can go ahead and implement it. >> bob menendez was one of the strongest opponents of the deal and are you going to replace him on the corker menendez deal? >> no this is a bill that was drafted by senator corker and senator menendez it's their legislation. i certainly do support a role for congress to play. listening to what the president just said that's our hope, the congress and white house can work together for a stronger america. we know we have to be together on foreign policy. however there are two separate branches of government and we each have separate responsibilities. i think we can try to find ways to strengthen the president's hand but congress exercising its appropriate role. >> now, there are a number of issues that were unresolved in lusanne, and when the iranian foreign minister got back to hay ran tehran, he had a hero's welcome and before

it's no surprise that president obama had an interview with the "new york times" tom friedman an interview two outlets which a lot of democrats and democratic voters are probably listening to and president obama is trying to make his case to the democrats on please don't undermine me on a very big foreign policy goal and potential achievement i might have. >> thank you, mark. i can't let you go because we did talk about this and we teased it, president obama ad lib ing at the easter prayer breakfast. let's quickly play that. >> sure. >> on easter i do reflect on the fact that as a christian i am supposed to love. and i have to say that sometimes when i listen to less than loving expressions by christians, i get concerned. but that's topic for another day. >> reaction to that mark. >> yeah, tamron we really don't know what he's talking about. some people believe it had to do with the whole religious liberty debate and being able for christian businesses to serve gay and lesbians at their weddings. but again, he said that he wants to talk about this another time. and i'm sure all of our ears

. >> president obama speaking with "new york times" columnist tom friedman for the framework on a dealen negotiated with iran to trade away the most dangerous parts of their nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of the long-term hard-core international sanctions that have isolated that country internationally and crippled their economy. we knew the deal was getting serious when they pushed past the first deadline and stayed up all night working, instead of coming home. we knew the deal was really serious when the iranian and -- side put their high-ranking nuclear physicist at the top of the talks. for iran that was -- and for united states that was energy secretary earn nest moniz. whatever decides moniz and salhi they are nuclear physicist and went to m.i.t. together in the '70s and to have them at the table maybe why the framework document released was so more specific, way more than anyone expected. iran to drop to 6,104 centrifuges, all of which will be rather hoopty model from the '70s. iran will not enrich uranium above 6.7%. it will be 300 kilograms, 97% less than what the

so it's a little bit it's a little bit like tom friedman says about the israelis an palestinians, theyas much as we wanted it. >> they didn't want it as much as you did. >> i think that's absolutely right. i think finally. >> was it one or the other or -- >> i think it is just the stars finally aligned and you know, i would tip my hat to les here because without his imagination and energy this would not have come together. but he called me in august and said i think we can make this happen. let's share it let's do it as partners. i agreed immediately. and we'll be ready to go on may 2nd. i think it's not only going to be a great event for boxing, i think it's going to be a great event for sports. >> will you be there? >> absolutely i will be there. absolutely. >> take a look at this. this is a clip i will show you. this is when the late david carr and josh and some other people were on here and you will recognize the subject they are talking about. >> roll tape. >> i have this feeling about the last 15 years in tv that have to do with at the beginning of it people were just defensive a

this is something that tom friedman writes a lot about. a terrible welcome to the united states. the airports are terrible and then you are going to drive 10 miles of potholes. brendan: are we at a developmental disadvantage? jim: i think so. i would travel a lot more if the airport i know personally was a lot simpler. trips get rethought because, i have to go to the airport. i used to date trip -- day trip all the time. olivia: got to go private, jim. [laughter] jim: wish i could. brendan: olivia understands private jets deeply. olivia: this is a great time to move on. time to talk about our top photos. oprah winfrey was in d.c. yesterday, giving a speech commemorating a new postage stamp. the room went dark. she went on speaking without a mic. the white house and the state department were also without power. is this the starry -- sorry state of american infrastructure or because a squirrel jumped in? brendan: in theory, the power grid of maryland should be about to with stand a squirrel attack -- which by the way, is wild speculation. ol

. >> that was a portion of tom friedman's recent hour long interview with president obama. washington. thank you so much for being here. we greatly appreciate it. >> between to be with you, joe and mika. >> so i'm sure you've heard from the same foreign policy giants and gurusto be with you, joe and mika. >> so i'm sure you've heard from the same foreign policy giants and gurus asking the question what is barack obama's guiding light, what is his doctrine. after your hour long sitdown with him, can you answer that question? you've written about it. what is the obama doctrine? >> i think what the president said is that he does believe that the united states is strong enough in a situation like this to take the calculated risk of testing whether you can basically shift iran on a path away from a nuclear weapon and also start to create the political chemistry for a change in the character of that regime. he does believe that we are strong enough and he really repeated that to have that test. >> so what is the common thread though, another question you tried to get at, what is

>> the doctrine is he was asked by tom friedman of the new york times and he said the doctrine is thatge, but we preserve our capabilities. we will engage with countries like iran or russia, but if things get dangerous, then we have what he calls superior military force to preserve stability and peace. stuart: yeah, but -- >> but. stuart: if you say i 5eu7b9 gonna use my big stick, it's not much use is it? >> yeah. teddy roosevelt, speak softly and carry a big sick. their version is speak softly and claim you're carrying a big stick which you have no intention of ever using. today, yesterday john kerry said we will not allow the middle east to spin out of control, we will become involved. this is literally incredible -- because when assad was using gas against the syrians a year or two ago remember that barack obama drew a redline in the sand, and john kerry at that point gave the most extraordinary churchillian speech about how this will not stand, we will not allow assad to use chemical weapons against his people. now we're back to the same thing with john kerry saying they will not

president obama goes to the "new york times" and tom friedman.e. the case he makes is, you have to understand they think like us and we'll treat them as though they think like us but they don't. they have a different culture. it is a very long and ancient culture. they have a set of ideas that are rational but different set of goals than the united states or president obama. stuart: president obama, i believe got roughly 70% of the jewish vote in the last election and one before that. i think it was really 70 to 80%. in the next election will a democrat get 70% of the jewish vote? >> depending which democrat they will get somewhere above 70% of the jewish vote, quite likely. stuart: how do you explain that. >> it is complicated. i didn't know we were going here this morning or this afternoon. the way jews vote tend to be fear of other issues than this. there is a lot of trust in government including big government. and they're i guess jewish vote is divided into two categories. they're ethnic minority category. they vote like any other ethnic min

if you go and google tom friedman's house, his guest house is bigger than most people's houses. we are not at the capital, who is everybody's favorite advocate, flies around in private jets. fly commercial if you really care about the environment. the other point is a lot of the folks that want the regulations that the gentleman from virginia want our people that are of means and can afford a 25% increase in the power bill. this will hit the people on the lower income scale, in the middle class. this will hit them a lot harder and basically will be a tax on them. if you put the question to the people and say, would you pay 25% more for electricity in order to protect the environment tackle -- the environment? the answer is a whole lot different than saying, do you believe in protecting the environment? host: mr. eisenberg, we will start with you first. guest: that last point is absolutely a dynamite point. we have polled extensively on greenhouse gas regulations. at the end of the day, that is the right point which is, yes people are willing to do something about it. again, it s

as the president said in his interview with tom friedman yesterday, because netanyahu has concerns about the deal does not mean he should be aligning with house republicans are senate republicans. and because we like the deal does not mean it should be a democrat thing either. hopefully americans will be coming together. as they say, political wars and at the water's edge. host: why do you think that's not so much anymore? guest: i don't really know, because certainly we have seen unprecedented support for israel with democratic and republican presidents alike since john kennedy forward. both republicans and democrats are upset with settlements and don't see that as a two state solution. and both parties together deeply believe in our responsibly to help secure israel's future. host: back to calls for congressman don beyer. in new jersey, hello. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i just have a quick question. i'm wondering if anyone has taken any poll, or has gotten the polls of -- the pulse of the american people with this decision with the decision that was made as

if you go and google tom friedman's house, his guest house is bigger than most people's houses. not at the capital, who is everybody's favorite advocate, flies around in private jets. fly commercial if you really care about the environment. the other point is a lot of the folks that want the regulations that the gentleman from virginia want our people that are of means and can afford a 25% increase in the power bill. this will hit the people on the lower income scale, in the middle class. this will hit them a lot harder and basically will be a tax on them. if you put the question to the people and say, would you pay 25% more for electricity in order to protect the environment tackle -- the environment? the answer is a whole lot different than saying, do you believe in protecting the environment? host: mr. eisenberg, we will start with you first. guest: that last point is absolutely a dynamite point. we have polled extensively on greenhouse gas regulations. at the end of the day, that is the right point which is, yes people are willing to do something about it. again, it shouldn'

. >> well you know tom friedman in the documentary, in the special, says this is the most difficult storydle east. why? because isis has a department of killing journalists. they don't want observers. most he covered hezbollah, he covered hamas. so this is unusual. this is a german journalist who managed to go in obviously cooperating with them but came out with this kind of video that made you realize, they are very focused on something al qaeda was. this is where they're different. they want to create a state. they want to create a caliphate. that's very important to them. they're trying to figure out not simply how to do terrorism. terrorism is all in service of creating the caliphate. >> so as the material started to come in and you're organizing your thoughts what stood out to you most? >> probably the most interesting aspect of it was how we were blindsided. that's why the you know that's the title. but it's not just the united states. it's the arabs. it's the people around. the neighbors. everyone no one saw this coming and why? part of it was we were all focused on al qaeda. right

tom: they usually follow big cats to scavenge on the leftovers. jack: scavengers are the world's least picky eaters. whether it's in the mountains-- what if they both come at us from both ways? bam! friedmanart: if you do get bitten it'll--it might take your nerve a bit, but you'll be all right. jack: jeez. or even up a tree. i've waited all my life to see

tom: they usually follow big cats to scavenge on the leftovers. jack: scavengers are the world's least picky eaters. whether it's in the mountains-- what if they both come at us from both ways? bam! friedmanof the sea-- stuart: if you do get bitten it'll--it might take your nerve a bit, but you'll be all right. jack: jeez. or even up a tree. i've waited all my life to see this, see a leopard eating an animal in a tree. and later, one of my favorite bloopers.

tom: they usually follow big cats to scavenge on the leftovers. jack: scavengers are the world's least picky eaters. whether it's in the mountains-- what if they both come at us from both ways? bam! friedman bit, but you'll be all right. jack: jeez. or even up a tree.