Political Analysts Mark Halperin & John Harris

Now it's my pleasure to introduce our distinguished guests. With the 2008 Presidential Elections less than a year away and more importantly the political primaries really upon us, we are happy to be joined this evening Mark Halperin and John Harris, who are two of the most accomplished political analysts in the country today. Mark is the editor at Large and Senior Political Analyst for Time Magazine. Before joining time he worked for nearly 20 years at ABC News where he covered five Presidential Elections and served as Political Director from November 1997 to April 2007. He also founded and edited the online publication "The Note" which is on abcnews.com and has been seen by by many in the businesses highly highly influential. And his latest book, he has written many but his latest book, "The Undecided Voter's Guide and the Next President" was just released this month. His colleague John Harris is Editor and Chief of the Influential Washington DC News Online Service and newspaper "The Politico" and the online service politico.com. And it looks at fresh ways at looking at political stories both on capital hill and beyond the campaign trail. He is always been fascinated by Washington and by politics and he covered National Politics for the Washington Post for about 20 years, including recovering the Clinton White House and that resulted in a book called the entitled "The Survivor-Bill Clinton in the White House". In 2006, Mr. Halperin and Mr. Harris teamed up to co-author their book "The Way to Win" taking the White House in 2008. So please join me in welcoming Mark Halperin and John Harris. I want to start by asking you both about first and foremost about whether this is an election possibly a presidential election that could turn on international issues and foreign policy and national security questions. I will start with you Mark. Okay. Thank you, it's great to be back in San Francisco. I moved about a decade ago from Washington where I grew up and where I covered politics. At New York I convinced my bosses that living on the upper west side of Manhattan I had been more in touch with real lives of real people. And when I come to San Francisco I get that same sense because this is a difference type of reality that I am used to so it's great to to be here and to speak. I think the defining issue of the power politics for many years, now it's been in the Iraq war, I think that will be more than a 120 troops on the ground on the election day based on talking to people and the government in the campaigns and I think how the candidates talk about that problem will be the the biggest issue in the race. And I think redefining foreign policy for the next president outside the practical challenge of Iraq, will be relatively easy because there will be a lot of people and a lot of leaders around the world who would welcome any president not named Bush and will welcome a change in direction. All the candidates are talking about change broadly thematically including on international affairs and it will be very easy to be a president of change. If your name isn't Bush and if engage in a different kind diplomacy and use of force policy around the world, there will be other issues that will be important, domestic issues as well as thematic issues and the comparison between the candidates but I think in 2008 international, security matters are as likely to be dominant issue and a dominant binary choice between the two candidates or three way if we have a three way race, as it's been in any election I have covered. I have to come to the question of three way race because we you and I had just talked about that last night a little bit. But let me ask you about change John. All of the or particular candidates that by virtue of their their current public image, their persona, their character, their style will particularly represent to the rest of the world an agent of change, a very different form of foreign policy. Well, I think it's inevitable that by virtue of biography and stylistic approach that the it's virtually inevitable that certainly on the democratic side to some degree on the republican side. We will have nominees who do embody change. You know, it's astonishing in a way how in sort of little remarked upon the fact that Hillary Clinton is the first you know, serious first woman to be a serious presidential contender with that woman presidential candidates in the past. But they haven't you know, reached that level top tier. And we also it is some way it's like the markets discounted for that well accepted it all had. I thought that's a good development as long since past due that woman be the head of government. Most industrialized democracies are have reached that milestone a generation or so ago. Margaret Thatcher was in 1977 or 78 I guess in the United Kingdom. And there we have Argentina. That's right. Barack Obama his candidacy is driven by a hope that his biography and his life story embodies value that are something fresh, original and new that would make a powerful statement to the world. I think we can overstate it. These people were all representing something new in terms of their life story. For the most run, I think intellectually conventional campaigns indeed was intriguing to me, frustrating to me is one gets a powerful sense in politics now. A new brand of politics desperate to break through the surface of the old new issues that weren't on the agenda. Therefore, new problems, new ideas there was lots of energy bursting up, you see it in the think tanks, on the campuses among the young dissatisfaction with the conventional lines and the conventional prism through which politics is viewed and that is not really being expressed on the campaign trial. The terms of engagement that are very familiar to people like Mark and I who have been you know, at this the last 15 years. And you know that gulf between interesting people but not terribly interesting ideas is - I think something that's inevitably got to be closed. And when it comes I mean when a candidate does deviate from a broad consensus among the elites I mean for example Barack Obama coming out for the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons isn't isn't that kind of viewed as evidence of of inexperience. Well it has been in his case. I have thought for a long time that what stood between senator Obama making a strong challenge to senator Clinton for the nomination or not is proving to the elites, to the filter and to the electorate at large particularly in places like Iowa which will be so important in and where the voters are so discerning that he is ready to be President from day one. He is taking a number of positions mostly to the left of what you might call and what a lot of liberal bloggers would call a Bush Clinton Clinton being both Clinton's foreign policy. Some to the right but mostly to the left and trying to not only differentiate himself from senator Clinton and from the status quo on on these issues the nuclear weapons elimination you mentioned, question of using force, potentially violating the sovereignty of countries if they weren't doing an aggressive enough job fighting terror. Whether he - without preconditions well with foreign leaders and it's first doing office who are from unfriendly regimes. All of these things that filter a judge were signs of his weakness and immaturity, senator Clinton in one of the few times she is kind of lashed out any of the other democratic candidates and said they were frankly naïve and I think for him thinking in a way that challenged the status quo has been a danger and I think again probably the biggest mistake I think he has made not describing the world that's perhaps it ought to be but describing the world the way it is. Their failure to be unconventional, even in the case of senator Obama, most of his use on the international relations are relatively conventional despite some of his advisor's desire to have a different kind of foreign policy and a new a broadly new way of thinking. Most of his use are conventional, most of the views of all the candidates on most issues foreign and domestic I believe are too timid, too conventional within the within the framework of their parties at least, and and represent a failure to really you are willing to take the risk to talk into what John was talking about and anyone looking at the experience of senator Obama has had I think would be chastened, its particularly - he is a particularly a candidate who is particularly vulnerable on that but I think any of them would be chastened, because if you try to be bold on foreign policy whether you are running to be the democratic nominee or the republican nominee and if you if you make a mistake or the filter judges you too have made a mistake you can pay a big price for it. But might the public John - be weary of bold and unconventional moves in this sphere of National Security and Foreign Policy, might they feel that we had a president that has deviated from that the longest standing consensus and may be they would like to edge back. That's certainly true with respective to Iraq where you know, the polls overwhelmingly show that that was a military venture that country thinks in should not have being launched in the first place. There is the divergence over what we should do about it now. I think politics is driven by problems and by perceptions or problems Mark and I even though we are political junkies you know, people that they were politics is like sausage you are not supposed to watch it getting it made, we enjoy watching and getting it made and you know, we think it tasty. Its probably too much of it and most political reporters have this or interested in style or interested in whose got the best stump speech, who raised the most money. You know, who is paying a lot for their hair cut, and it is easy to forget the politics at the end of the day about solving problems. Arthur Schlessinger, Jr. the great historian who died earlier this year, as - as a journalist I tried to always remember politics is about the search for remedy. And so I think that there is a whole new set of problems that's on the agenda, that is and you said would you think this selection might be determined by National Security, I wouldn't say National Security is going to be important but more broadly the I think in the elections and lots of elections to come are going to determined by what people think about Americans place in the world, virtually all our problems these days are international in character. And so the remedies must be must be international in character. The search for remedy is what politics is about. Its an its an interesting point about about most problems coming international in character when I look back at the structure of the Carter White House versus the Clinton White House. And crime fell in the domestic policy staff by the time I came to Clinton White House it was international crime that was on the National Security Council staff. Drugs was a National Policy - Domestic Policy issue became international. Environment went from domestic to international; health went from domestic to international, and its there here we do conceive ours and resolve problems in the government from more of internationalist perspective of now, that that does seem to be a changes, I guess my my question to you is whether we got amongst the candidate, folks who have a feel for the kinds of problems that stem from weak states, that come to haunt us problems like the one that I have mentioned plus terrorism versus the kinds of threats that come from strong states of which they are not that many left, Mark. Well, this is a group of candidates that are incredibly accomplished although many of them have accomplished more outside of elective office and have within the elective office and no one as Barack Obama has pointed out trying to paper over his relative lack of formal experience, traditional experience no one is ready for this job until they are on it, even the sitting vice president has lot to learn before once they get into office. We don't have the first time since the 1920s we don't have a president -incumbent president or vice president running to be president. And with the possible exception is senator Mccain to we came you can look at the whole of the other leading contenders the most likely nominees and not some of the others who may be other longer resumes, but less at this point less strong prospects to win all of the leading candidates with the possible exception is senator Mccain. You can look at their experience and say boy there is a really important missing aspects here, even even simple - relatively simple or basic question like thinking about strong states versus weak states is something that most of them have not been called on to do formerly in their lives as a Mayor of New York City of Governor of Massachusetts or one or two term senator, not called on to live within their formal lives and not really debt with all that much intellectually over the years. So I think that all of them recognize that the world is more interconnected place than it was that you cannot solve the list you gave was great, crime, health, environment, because you cannot solve any of those problems without a strong focus on on the international aspect of them. But what the challenge is going to be I think for whoever the next president you have you have to deal with Iraq and you can think all you want about weak states, strong states, China, Russia, the Middle East peace, Africa, Genocide you can you can come into office with the best intentions on dealing with those, you have to deal with Iraq number one, number two I believe the next president will be stunned at the psychological and physical strains on dealing with the Homeland Security, on that morning intelligence briefing. My guess is there aren't a lot of people here who are big Bush supporters just to be just to be sure, let me see a show of hands for any one here we will say that they supported and voted for president Bush in 2000 and 2004, if you are uncomfortable voting in front of other close your eyes when you raise your hand. Lets see I see a couple of hands congratulations by the by the standards of the Bay Area, you are very diverse group. Its nice to see all all types come out, raise your hand just to get one more quick question if you believe President Bush's Foreign Policy is being a disaster. Raise your hand, and so roughly more of you than the first group. The next president will come in with with a lot of people not not everybody been in the blue areas of the country certainly feeling that that president was has been a disaster, and I think all of them would feel - again the burdens of dealing with Iraq, the burdens of dealing with terror and and the personal burdens of that, and then finally all of them particularly the democrats, but I suspect all of the republicans too will have one or two domestic issues that they really wanted to get done, and now look at the Clinton and the Bush experiences and say what is what is historically been true. Not just for Bush and Clinton, you must get something big past in your first hundred days hundred and eighty days. So if you just think about War in Iraq, Homeland Security and one or two domestic initiatives, that is the kind of nuanced global view of dealing with the other international problems I think its going to take a really talent perhaps cloned person to get that done. Okay. So I am going to turn to both Iraq and Homeland Security but the first you you have actually raised this notion that we the American public and the world will have high expectations of whoever comes in, you know very high expectations of a of radical change all all I remember watching ABC News back in 1992 when Clinton was elected in November, he was to take office in January and in December ABC News went out an interviewed a man on street and asked how they felt about Bill Clinton and they said you know you know - you know, we elected him a month ago and he hasn't done anything. You know the world seem to be very - and there is just tremendous sense of disappointment with the man on having even take haven't yet taken office you know, changed their lives. What that kind of pressure would be even far, far greater on the next president that sense of expectation of you know, after two two term president, John. I think that there will be some pressures. You know we have seen a small version of of the challenge that you are posing with respect to the democratic congress, and a lot of people thought what we have elected democrats to take control of the House and the Senate, a lot of people work hard to make that happen and that their primary motivation was that they thought that Iraq War was a disaster as Mark said, they want something done about, and they are they are deeply frustrated that the something really - nothing has been done relating to the largely to the arithmetic of Washington and it takes more than just a majority. If it's a democratic president, that person better have the self confidence first of the skill to be able to set expectations properly for his or her own party and also have that - the discipline to sort of resist the important units I think the act of this and you know I think your suggest even more broader than you were just talking about the party base, but you are talking about the world, and what their expectations would be, I believe that there is going to be such a sense of relief in capitals around the world that the Bush experiment is over, that there is going to a new President is going to have an awful lot of leverage, just say okay, that chapter is over but I need your help and I don't think that I think there is this great eagerness around the world to restore a more traditional relationship with the United States. Okay, in practical terms Mark well what would that mean for Iraq? Because there is situation where we will need help. what what do you think that the actual options all that are going to be available to this next President? You know both people sitting up here with me, have heard me say before but hopefully not the rest of you that great political philosopher Yogi Berra says predictions are difficult especially about the future and I think in the case of Iraq, I am usually one to go out on a limb and make all sorts of judgments about the future, I think it's impossible to know what the next President will face and and therefore not know what the options are, I think it's it's - some things that are that I am willing to say kind of a scatter shot approach to to figuring this out. I already said earlier I think that will be substantial troops on the ground and I think congress John wrote an excellent piece on Politico this week about their have been forty attempts by the democrats to to force a change in Bush administration policy and all forty have failed, I think that's likely to continue and so I think that the policy will be roughly the same and I think the democratic party has has made a little bit of a political mistake in in living up to the republican acquisitions that they hope the policy fails, that they talk in negative terms about whether it's succeeding rather than talking in optimistic terms, about whether it will succeed and I think that that has has put both parties to the mattresses and to the respective corners if I can do as we do in East Coast and mix eight boxing metaphor with the mob metaphor. The the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary Gates I think he has been underrated in working quietly to try to have a kind of back timing from from November and January - next November of 2008 or January 2009 to hand this off to who ever the next President is in a way that is as manageable as possible but but the options will depend on the facts on the ground the facts on the ground are not knowable not knowable. Now I'm going to sound a little like Donald Rumsfeld and in that asking questions and answering them myself, well we know the facts on the ground? No. Will there be any good options? No. Do we hope there will be better options? Yes and I will just say I will just say finally I will just say finally that the that the critics of the Bush foreign policy and Bush policy in Iraq, not the initial invasion but but that beyond the surge and an on going attempt to to salvage this I think are not going to find that the next President comes in in the case of Iraq is suppose to that work around the world and have a a natural advantage with Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia or NATO or any of the other countries who who may not see US on this for instance. I don't think that the next President lets say it's republican - is suddenly going to beef up the coalition of the willing and get countries to send troops back I think that's unimaginable and so is is a President of either party going to be able to deal on better terms with Iran? I doubted that in the way that would do have the short term impact on on what's going on and in short, I don't think the next President as it relates to Iraq is going to have whatever the facts in the ground, a much stronger hand to play unless unless what they decided to do is withdraw troops as quickly as they can in which case I think they have a they have a decent hand to play including the validation of the election. Are there any candidates that are very clearly arguing still stay the course with respect to Iraq is - All the leading all the leading republican candidates John McCain has been most closely identified with that but Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney and Rudi Giuliani have all been remarkably consistent and strong in saying that the presidents policy should be given more time to work that is still not in this room but in the Republican Party, that is still their majority position. I think it is almost certainty and about this I will be I will be willing to predict I think it is almost a certainty that the Republican nominee even John McCain will distance himself more from the Bush policy in the general election, that they have in the nomination fight. And there is a big distinction between saying give the surge a chance to work, and saying you know in in 2008 and - January 2009 we want to stay in Iraq and that's a different there is a distinction because even the President is arguing that the point of the surge is to ultimately be able to withdraw. So - Fred Fred Thompson said when asked on an television interview this morning earlier this morning, how many troops would you like to be there in Iraq, I forget they said at the end of your first term, when you take office and he said well I would like there to be none. That would be my preference but but none of them are proposing policies or redefinition of the mission that would lead - that would lead you to think that that's what they would bring about John let me take you to the war on terror and I ask you whether that you see candidates being asked to be highly specific with respect to what they would do you know are they embracing the 9/11 commission report or they putting forth their own blue print and you know some candidates are more explicit about that then others. Oh, I haven't sensed that kind of specificity that would satisfy you Jane as you know some body who is a student of the policy. I do think that you know as we discussed previously I do think that foreign policy, the war on terror. Any number of these questions that involved engagement with the United States and the rest of the world is different than it was in the 90's I you know I started covering national politics in the 90's and I and I thought of these issues as policy issues of interest of very small, it's like you know group you know who cares about NATO expansion like well you do and you know may be some ethnic groups that might care about, its not some thing that engages the election in a in a fundamental way. What is different now is that these questions are values questions you know people will talk about about the values or where the values vote go in 2008 and that typically mean voters who care about abortion rights or gun rights or some thing like that. I do think these questions are values questions, they go right to the heart of what people will use of - what makes the world go round I think the great dividing line in our politics since 9/11 has been people who believe that the great motivating factor in the world is persuasion, America is got to persuade the rest of the world, see things to share its values, and to see that its interest are aligned with our own interest and in then in community of interest versus people's, so that's ridiculous naive talk. What makes the world go around is fear and if they if we assert our our interests forcefully, the rest of the world can accommodate itself to the you know with respect to the the - specifically the war on terror torturing is in that question that really resonates, democrats are are powerfully opposed to it, republicans are not in favor of torture but they are all very eager to say that they are willing to embrace aggressive techniques of the sort of the Bush administration has advanced and try to build the rational for. With the exception of John McCain right? Isn't that fair to say - That's correct. Yeah and - and what do you say who to say has the greatest credibility with the public on that subject? On torture or terror. Yeah, torture. Greatest credibility try to know what that would mean like who who is considered the best torturer or? Well - I guess, where I was going is we have one candidate who has been tortured. And that's John McCain and and there may be a big distinction between the way some one would be viewed who is part of the military service. Speaking on this and some body who has not served. Right. Well, you know it's it's testament to have nasty the republican nomination fight is has become in the last two weeks that when senator McCain is part of this attempt to make a come back said regarding Rudi Giuliani and Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney not of whom have served in uniform and not of whom were tortured as POWs obviously when he said you know none of those guys served and and with all the respect I know I know a lot more by torture than they do and and the wrong to not be condemning water boarding in explicit terms. Rudi Giuliani came back and said well you know I actually know about the interrogation techniques because I was an US attorney we questioned the mob pretty extensively. Did he use water boarding? Well he didn't say that but but I think he played his opera records very loud and Rudi Giuliani is the frontrunner in part because within the republican party at least we see about the broader elected if he is a nominee, he is seen as strong and tough and I think you talk about who has credibility on torture, homeland security, national security but the two front runners right now are both New Yorkers senator Clinton and mayor Giuliani both are seen poll after poll including a new CBS, the New York Times poll this evening. Poll after poll they are seen as the toughest, the most the most likely to win, the strongest in in dealing and standing up to their opponents - political opponents and opponents internationally and I think - you know John talked about sort of the the two schools have thought on torture and on how to make how to get America's way around the world, you could call that the San Francisco school versus the Crawford school. I think the the Crawford school is more powerful than the I think most of you think it is and in terms of winning a general election if you look at who has won our general elections say in the last say six elections and a lots of reasons and academics and people in our business study and who is the best on television, who is the most likeable but if you look at it, the one who came off and is toughest has won almost every elections won and and my be everyone depending on your view of of who is tougher between George Bush and Al Gore I think that the toughness particularly post 9\11 does matter and and if that needs you are best on torture, however that's defined I think that will be a component of it. Let me just take you to civil liberties for a moment because it seems to me it's perfectly possible to be viewed as as strong on national security and strong on defending civil liberties is that right and I think of Hilary Clinton and I think of McCain wouldn't would they - I think in the I will just say quickly, I just think in the in the in the real life of American politics in the recent past, the republican party and may be the brand has been so devalued that this will not be during 2008 but when they are within the context of a clash between - in within congress or between congress, in the white house or in a general election for the presidency, civil liberties is trumped by national security in almost every political fight I have ever covered civil liberties does not do as well as national security particularly when the republican party is holding up their national security cudgel. But is that that's also true within amongst the democrats? Well I mean they have pretty much the same position. Senator Clinton amongst the three or four things she is she is really bobbled in the last few weeks is is her position on torturing and this sort of fantasy case that may or may not we were talking earlier whether has real life applicability but this fantasy case of if someone is being held and and they know something that that if the American government could learn it in the timely fashion, could prevent the loss of American lives, would you be willing to use torture? In that case Senator Clinton has modified her position on that as as her top political adviser his last name also happens to be Clinton but the the within the democratic party for the most part you want to live off the differences between their views, on the major issues of Guantanamo, water boarding rendition I think that their views are pretty similar and within the republican party they are pretty similar. Let me ask you about an entirely different subject but it's related its because where where I think the great fear about about modern day terrorism that it will one day be linked up with weapons of mass destruction and we have talked a little bit about Barack Obama's position but what about the others, do we are they spinning out good plausible arguments for what approach they would take to stemming stemming the flow of weapons of mass destruction so strong on non proliferation policies and is this a set of issues that are important to the American electorate right now? Why I am not an expert on this issue but it has happened today, I was down at Stanford talking to somebody who is an expert on these issues former defense secretary Bill Perry and he has joined with George Shultz and Sam Nunn - a group of people who - you know who's whole career for products of and and conditioned by the cold war and he was making plain his frustration that he thinks this issue of the the threat of weapons of mass destruction hitting an American city is much more imminent - much more real and tangible than is reflected on our political brigade and in either party and no I have don't think that's a sort of robust part of the campaign candidates talking about it, offering this specific ideas of what to do about it and and being energetic and pushing those and if serious people like George Shultz and Bill Perry think that this is - in a way it's even more of a a bomb going off in the city is even more of a threat than it might have been in the cold war in terms of the odds that have been happening - if you ponder just how calamitous that would be. I mean its virtually absent from our debate. Which is - that's striking since you you started off by saying their - that kind of within, the conventional wisdom and in fact what what Bill Parry is reflecting is the consensus view of a national security community so that they - That's just a possibility but even a probability over a time frame - Well that that threat go - went up post cold war, it was higher after the cold war than during the cold war nuclear The foreign the foreign policy community views the cold war as the good old days. Yeah I mean in that sense yes but it was it was interesting to me when reading your bookmark that when you you kind of lay out where that candidates stood on key issues for the elections, non proliferations was not one of the key issues and I mean its hugely important, but as John said it doesn't really come up much they get a lot of town meetings in Iowa and New Hampshire when I am not having dinner here and that almost never gets asked about and certainly not really as much as other issues as immigration, health care, war in Iraq, energy and also again you know all the candidates there are some specific ideas John Edwards for instance has proposed in the international organization like NATO dedicated towards the sharing of the intelligence information, some of the other candidates like Mitt Romney has some ideas about sort of an elite cadre of inner agency task force to deal with sharing of information but they are all for fighting a strong war against terror using diplomacy and and spying and good management and it's hard to it's hard to find any breakthrough ideas or any great divisions in this case not only within the parties but between the parties and and like I have said before I think the next president is going to be surprised to have bigger part of the job that is one of the reasons that Dick Cheney and the president were able to get so many democrats relatively large number vote for the Iraq war authorization and to vote with them on on some other national security votes as at these white house briefing they talk explicitly and apparently the vice presidents is remarkably adept at telling stories hopefully not the same stories he tells his grand children about just how great the threat is and and how likely they think it is a probability in their view and not a possibility and what and how cataclysmic it would be from a public health point of view, from a national security point of view, from from the maintaining the way of life in America America enjoys even the post 9\11 era and that part of the job is going to be a big deal and I don't think we can tell from that what the candidates are currently proposing to extent a few of them have specifics how they would actually perform in that in that central and difficult part of the job. What we learn during the - the Cuban missile crisis in the in the early 60s was in fact now we had a president who was completely untrained to what he was facing, completely unprepared, yet it was stunningly well managed crisis, he said it is one of the best managed crisis - is kind of a - now taught in business schools and used as as an example of sound management. Do you have a sense from - the resumes from what they have said, from your own interaction with this candidates, do you have as sense of their various management styles and their capacity to - I mean in the end what's important is being able to distinguish the important from the unimportant in times of stress, do you have a sense of their, how well different candidates would do? Well it's a great question that you never know for sure until you see it in action, I have a sense with some of the candidates I have spent a lot of time in the Clinton White House in six of the eight years sometimes a little longer than that at times, but I do think that Hillary Clinton would borrow heavily from that - from what she - You don't see her I think she has a she is seen as some body who is - by her critics or some body who is rigid and doctrinaire, I think that she - and I think for temperamentally she might incline that way but I think has learnt flexibility and adaptability by watching the experiences of Bill Clinton, then she has a personal style in terms of her relationship with aids as much different than she is she has got a you know very tight cadre in Bill Clinton's world people where forever moving in and out that it would be rare somebody would completely leave his orbit but they were for ever moving in and out closer or further depending on his needs and that that was part of his management style I think, that wouldn't be part of hers but I do think that adaptability and crisis is some thing that - I mean part of the crisis of those years where her crisis too and I do think that's - let you know some thing about her sort of durability - we know some thing about Rudi Giuliani's strength in moments of public crisis, I think we need to learn more about his private management style, you know who he depends on and how he reacts to to information and how much dissent he is willing to tolerate - any way in some cases I don't think we know much about who these people are Is is it a warning sign when when they value loyalty perhaps too heavily? Yes although you know, I think like in much of life John John taught me some thing about Senator Clinton which she loves the word balance, she always talk about balance in her personal life and in public policy formulation, I think I think it's a it's a great balance to have loyal people who know you and and can tell you, when you are wrong and and new people who helpfully you empower to tell you when you are wrong and to give you the best advice, I think all of these candidates, there is not a perfect candidate in this race, not just in the conventional human sense but in terms of their resume, all of them I think are lacking either management experience or International experience or military experience or one one thing or another or more and none of them none of them have the record of of the kind of long standing management, that I think you would like to see Mayor Giuliani and and Mitt Romney have the most pure executive experience in management of a large organizations and dealing with budgets, but they have got - they have got other chinks in the resume so I think would be an issue. I see you have a lot of cards there you want to stop you want us to you know take - talk amongst our selves why you got why you do that to our state - because I talk a lot and I get a lot of questions I am anticipate too over them right now and I answer them so to save your time and I have no idea whether she pardon me - I missed my whole precanned joke. yes she can and I have no idea whether he will or not and so you don't need to ask us those two save some time. Thank you so much, so does that cover with their Mayor Bloomberg is going to run? We could to cover that you cover Al Gore, talk about Bill Clinton, pretty much any thing you want. I actually I actually want to find out the Mayor because I want to know from you what - what would be the impact on this race were he to enter it because that strikes me as the - politically the big imponderable there are lot of imponderables in terms of policy surprises that could occur, but it's politically the big imponderable but you know you do the math right so you figure this out- you share with us Well it's very difficult for an independent to win - any independent to win, I think the one person who could do in 2008 is the mayor of the New York city Michael Bloomberg he he would spent a billion dollars on the race he would spent more on positive and negative television adds and any one has ever spent and based on this record in the private sector and this two runs as the republican mayor nominal republican mayor in a democratic city, I think he would spend it well, he would make good commercials both positive and negative, he would use a lot of data to decide where to run the ads, what they should say and he will only run if he believes that the two major party candidates are people who he can define in negative terms, define himself in positive terms, he he will do a lot of polling to the determine whether the country is opened to an independent candidate and whether the country is opened to a particular independent candidate who is as he describes himself, a short Jewish divorced billionaire from New York city - not not if you were building a Frankenstein candidate, what you build, I believe he will run potentially run he won't run as a spoiler, he won't run to push an agenda or to or to defeat one of the major party candidates or run if he thinks he can win, if the major party candidates are Hilary Clinton and Rudi Giuliani, I think he will look seriously running, it will take the liberal New Yorker off the table because they are all liberal New Yorkers, they will offer people in San Francesco and that's what a diverse choice of one New Yorker who is in Westchester county and two in different part of the upper east side and I think under those circumstances running negative adds, running positive adds, he could win Ohio, I think he could win California, I think he could win a lot of states. if it's John Edwards and Mitt Romney I think he will also consider running. Other combinations are are much much less I think are much less than a run now could he win under the under the ideal circumstances, he gets the nominees he wants and he spends a lot of money - Ross Perot in 1992 when the country was clearly hungering for change in Washington and for some thing besides the major party candidates won 19 percent of the votes spent not much when people ask me to compare the Perot a 19 million votes 19 percent of the votes, with Bloomberg's possibility I say you can define the difference in in four words - more money, less crazy and I think - and I think that's a pretty potent thing, and because Perot with all his limitations and without spending very much money in the scheme of what Bloomberg would spent got got a fifth of the vote. Now conventional wisdom is that if he were to run, it would hurt the democrat more than it would hurt the republican, what is your view? On paper what if you took a mail list - if you took index cards with 50 states the district of Columbia and if you put them in order today which states are might is Mike Bloomberg most likely to win, the first 20 would be blue states, that will be states that the democrats was counting on but they will depend on who the nominees are. He clearly hurt the democrats more I don't think I don't even I am an opened minded guy I won't listen to the argument against that but you know as I said, he will only run if he has an electoral college strategy, get 270 electoral votes to win, I don't think he could win if the election withdrawn into the house and getting 270 electoral votes and just winning democratic states I think it's it's some thing he is unlikely to do because he will then be a spoiler, he will then be throwing the election to the republican nominees almost certainly, so I think he would spent in a in a variety of mostly blue, all the purple and some red states to win and and wouldn't necessarily - even if he didn't win keep the democratic from winning - but he clearly hurts the democrat more. What are the purple states? What are the purple states? I miss them. Florida, Ohio New Hampshire, Minnesota, West Consulate Rocky Mountain in the west that about Virginia is is red with light little tints of purple, that's how we were custom to think but it's not clear that's the way which you should be thinking about it in the future, I can't say is the Virginia resident the real America. You were inside the beltway or outside the beltway? I was inside the beltway but I often take my dog for walks out side the beltway I look very close. So so when you are on that walk with your dog, do you gain a sense John of what the dynamic is with respect to immigration policy, why that is grabbing so many people and why the word amnesty is in itself so radio active with so many voters. I am not close enough to the real America and that I I feel like I understand - in a tactile way, the energy behind this issue and I feel like as a journalist I am trying to understand it in an intellectual way, Governor Napolitano of Arizona was by the office not long ago, we were talking about this she obviously does understand it in a very visceral way and have to deal with this as a democrat, I think it's a mistake to attribute it entirely to nativist sentiment or to bigotry. If you are living in a community that's been in been affected in a big way by illegal immigration, your schools are not are more crowded and you have greater questions about the quality of the children's education, your hospital visits will be longer, your taxes will be higher the - and I don't think people here or any of us would be tolerant of - you know the crime that associated with the legal immigrants and these are not imaginary problems in the areas that are almost affected and so I think I think it's powerful. I do not think that there is any evidence other those lots of evidence that this issue can push it self on to the agenda in a very powerful way, there is not much evidence that strictly appealing to just the down the line hostility to immigration, is enough to get candidates elected who would otherwise not be elected and There has been enough to really hurt John McCain, hasn't at this issue? Well convergence of factors John McCain and that was one of them - he was running for the nomination in the conservative party and in these days a lot of conservatives are animated by a sense of - that illegal immigration is wrong and it should be met with a - an intolerant response but that was far from the only factor was the cost problem for - for John McCain this year. Can I can I ask you a quick survey question again because I know people like to vote. Who here is angry at the influx of the illegal immigrants in the country and the burden and and dangers associated with them being here, raise your hands if you are angry about that you are you are not the typical group again based on my travels around the country including in Iowa and New Hampshire two states you wouldn't necessarily think of, this is a community and largely I can tell from that survey and historically this is a community that welcomes immigrants to see humanity involved and the economic role that the emigrants legal and illegal play in this country. In Iowa and New Hampshire I cannot tell you about the angry john talked about understanding a journalistically and intellectually and not really having that tactile sense I I wish I could understand it better but I I can tell you I do understand this is a powerful force in the country right now, in lots of states and it is powerful in large part because it is making people angry, it's very difficult to people engaged in politics, it's very difficult to get them to beyond apathetic this issue is doing now and it has sure John McCain and I think if one of the building blocks of republican party could use probably short sited for the long term future of the party, but but for 2008 probably is one of the building blocks I can use to win in a election that today on paper that they should not be able to win.