tv Today in Washington CSPAN February 8, 2011 6:00am-7:00am EST
there are other times when the political protocol's don't allow you to acknowledge something publicly at that moment. but you can never consciously lied because that destroys the trust that is elemental to serving the president. dana made a good point that you are caught in this position. the geography for those who have watched the "west wing," the back door of the office that all four of us had, you walk out of it and 25 feet away you are with the president yelling at you about how bad the presses. you are literally just -- juxtaposed between these actors. you have to try to keep both halves of that happy. it is a very tricky thing to do because you will not make your
colleagues from the white house happy. you can never make the press corps happy because they are always bitching about something. it is a formula for having to establish a way in which people get your queues of what you are trying to -- >> do you feel you have lied on behalf of the president? >> because on that i said here is the state and i have. i was very conscious since i did not know what the whole truth wa i never went beyond a statement that was approved by lawyers. it was a very uncomfortable thing. i prided myself on being on top of the informational and giving it to the american people come bank but it was a matter that was being investigated by a very determined prosecutor.
the president had some privileges that we cannot put in jeopardy. so we wouldn't pollute the environment by saying what is the deal with you and this check? -- you and this chick? >> you were asked any number of times to decline things. what does it mean when he says this? >> other reports that are out there. those all came to you and a lot of them you talked around. -- the white house line was this was a political line that the special prosecutor was pursuing. and the president was reportedly denying some of these things happen. you had to repeat that the nile. i did not repeat that denial.
i repeated the statement he had issued and said that has been asked and answered. the president is doing the job he got elected to do. the good news is the american people agreed with that over time. they said the press needs to find the off button, because they are pursuing this thing. >> how tough did it get for you? when you know something is happening legislatively or a scandal, where you have more information you want to pass on. >> i think that is something you learned to do over time because not only do you have to give accurate information, but you have to set up your answers so ey don't track you down the line. i got trapped by one of my answers. when president clinton first came to the whit house
president h. w. bush went back to kuwait to celebrate the second anniversary of the liberation and there was an asssination attempt on his life. the fbi began to investigate. i started to give guidance prepared by the national security council. it was the fbi is investigating. the president will make a decision about how to proceed. i would periodically get asked a question what is going on with the assassination attempt? i would give the guidance in exactly those words. on friday i was going through my briefing with the deputy for national security and he said nothing has changed. the president will look at the results when they come from the fbi. i got asked a question. and announced to me the president received the information they did before. he decided iraq was responsible
for the assassination attempt and the united states would retaliate by bombing day agency in baghdad on saturday. i did not know it. then i realized i have now given them that guidance. i realized in hindsight what i should have said was when the president receives information from the fbi he will make a decision. but i did not. i think it is an example of how you have to think five moves ahead of all the time because it is not only about what is happening today, but the future. i learned to do that much better. >> some things people don't realize is in many ways the press secretary acts like a reporter as well.
i don't know the answers to everything. i will call somebody at the national security council that i trust. i might also ask the chief of staff to make sure i got the same answer. then you know those two have to talk. >> the most common question is who tells you what to say? no one tells you what to say. >> or everyone tells you what to say. >> it is of to the press secretary to be a reporter. >> what is the biggest mistake? >> that was it. >> i am sure you could put a montage together and it would be horrible. [laughter] >> funny you mention that. [laughter] >> it is a burnout job because you have the press banging on you to get me everything, don't tell me you don't know the answer. you have other times where you
are not going to. especially after 9/11 a lot at it was the security-related. it was covered by aljazeera whether the u.s. would move security forces on to th ground. we have pre deployed our troops. [laughter] >> but aljazeera wasn't the only one. >> in the american media there was a report that we capture the bad guy. regularlysecretary's have to confront things on a background. reporters came into my office and said is it true we capture this guy in yemen? i said i cannot help you on that. i am not asking for your name, just tell me yes or no. i said i cannot help you. the press secretary's job is to help.
i cannot even explain at the time but i can say it now. when we did capture a bad guy we did not want anybody to know. we wanted his satellite phone to ring again. we wanted to get another e-mail so we could chase it up the line. if i acknowledge anything, the trail could go cold. this is where you are doing what you think is right that the press never thinks is right. >> i will give you an example of a mistake i made that was not substantive, it was tone. there is a lot of pressure on the secretary. i remember one time in particular embarrassing a reporter for asking a question that had already been asked. they were behind by about five hours with the news.
i embarrassed him on national television and it was really unfair. the easiest thing to do is to be sarcastic and try to be funny. the most important thing you can do is swallow that and save the funny moments for your deputies and give theeporters in the randy information they are seeking. i did call and apologize to the reporter but it does not take back the fact i did it. >> tone and substance are very important. i am reminded of a situation we encountered at cnn. after 9/11 we put together guidance as a result of the conversation you and i had. we understood we could be used as a vehicle for nefarious means. the obama -- osama bin laden tape, what is our
responsibility? we said we were going toe sensitive to issues that might imperil operations of national security. we will try to tune it in. there was a time wn we first deployed u.s. troops to lose pakistan -- to uzbekistan. we were approached and asked not to report thabecause it might jeopardize security. we chose not to report that. then if it leaks some other place and a pakistani news organization puts it up. another network reported it in the u.s. what is your guidance to news organizations? how can you say i will not address that when it is going out through these other means? >> this is why that clash takes
place. whenever the president called me in the oval office and said were you the source i would give him a honest answer. i said to you go with it. you go with it and the president sees it on cnn and ask are you the source of it? i would say no, the source was another organization. >> it is a world of difference for someone in the name of the u.s. goverent and the president to confirm something than some murky report. >>ou would rather live with that ever meion that comes from another source? >> i would rather make sure journalists working to keep the american public informed move towards the truth in a way that
is not going to jeopardize people's lives. someone is getting ready to write something that is flat out wrong or going to move away from the truth, then you have an ligation to warn them against that. can press secretaries lai, the answ is no. the only press secretary that ever did that is jody powell who denied a rescue mission was underway to get the hostages out of iran, long before many students here were born. that was the test case. it has never been challenged sense because nobody has ever lied to the press corps. what gets you killed is when someone forgot to tell you something, which is why dana is right. we have to be reporters ourselves to get sources. it is hard work to stay on top
of that. >> what is the day in the life of the press secretary? >> i don't think they ever sleep now. i think it has changed a lot. you don't sleep as much as you like to. you have to have the papers read it for the first meetings. >> do you get phone calls in the middle of the night? >> there were five web sites when i left the white house. >> you are looking pretty good for 105. >> for all of us to remember the old fashion newspaper is, even when youre on the hill you know something will be in the paper thin next day where i have to open it up and find a story. then you are either happy or sad. now there is no element of surprise anymore. a "washington post"reports would
not necessarily know they were beaten with a story by another paper. back in the day when there was a bulldog edition of the papers what would happen is there would be something coming out that was a proprietary story. i would sit there and wade and the fund would start to ring. there was no black ber. -- the phone would start to ring. that was a big deal. they could cram it-just in time for their deadline. >>ari, if you had to some of the job of white house press secretaryn one tweet, what would you say? >> ec, joyful, lots of sleet. -- lots of sleep.
i would call it the most inllectually stimulating job. >> one of the things that we studied in political communication and throughout our school is framing an issue and how agenda's for issues get set. i would like to ask you from your perspectives, who set the agenda? did you set the agenda from the podium? is it reporters who set the agenda? could you control it? did you try? >> all of the above. >> the press secretary rarely sets the agenda. the president certainly can. events outside of the white house, weather it is markets crashing -- >> it is pretty rare.
that is the exception. >> that is the predent setting the agenda. -- that is the president setng the agenda. >> people in power tried to set an agenda. >> what worked best? >> anytime the president makes hard news. and the press assembly covers. my easiest briefings were when there was one big story going on. the new 30 minutes would be on that nasty topic. on a slow news day, my hardest. 15 or 20 questions, they always asked interesting questions. >> we used to say is it going to be a kitchen sink day? that was a lot harder. >> you tried to set an agenda. you try to move away from what
was called suicide bombing. talk about that. >> where everyday lives are being taken as a palestinian suicide bombers were taking lives in israel. it was reaching an unparalleled proportions. it occurred to me one day if this is called suicide why are all these other people getting killed? i asked condoleezza rice what do you think? she said sheill bounce it off the national security adviser. i didot bring the president into it. i call them homicide bombers. that seemed a more accurate description. >> how did that work? >> it caught people's attention. i think itorked well. a lot of people still use that phrase. >> do you think it worked well? >> i think changing the vocabulary on something like that is a way in which you can
use that job to do things. there are rare opportunities to use the podium -- >> is there a danger of going too far? >> yes, the greatest danger associated with that job is the american people don't trust the information they have. they lost faith in the media. we know there faith in the established media has declined to all-time lows. they see to me -- they see to many people doing this political speak. they're looking for someone to help the mold with what really matters. that is the hardest part of this job. reconciling the political things you have to do to be a protagonist for the president's point of view and conveying simple factual information to the american public that the american public needs to hear.
those roles are so much in conflict right now. >> how do you think brought gold -- barack obama and robert gibbs have done? >> what a surprise. the reason that president obama 's party lost 63 seats in november is not a message problem. he overreached his mandate. he enacted policies that the overwhelmingly majority of americans disagreed with. i do not see that aa communicions issue. >> do you agree with that? >> no, not entirely. i think that the process of
making legislation is compared to sausage making for a very good reasons. president clinton had some of the same problems. if you want to accomplish anything in washington, one of the ways to do it is legislatively. president obama came in and said, i want to do a couple of big things. i want to reform the financial system bred those are big things and they are legislative things. the republicans have adopted a strategy of the just say no. could be president have done a better job of intervening? of course. i think he had a lot of political capital and he took it out and he spent it. >> he went into debt with it >> he was willing to do that.
who would have thought two months after the midterms, and he would be in the same political shape he was then. >> they called ronald reagan the great communicator. is barack obama a great communicator? >> i think he gives a good speech i do not think that is the same as understanding your audience and understanding the moment and the bait -- and being able to deliver on that. >> i think the ability of the president to use the bully pulpit to help move a country in a direction is so different today than it was in ronald reagan's time because of the differencen the media and technology and the way in which -- the way in which we reach people. people want to have an emotional attachment to their president and know that the president feels like a field and knows that the president understands what their lives are about. president obama is acquiring the art of doing that fectively.
sometimes it was not prevalent in the first two years. there w a price paid for that. robert gibbs, who was instrumental the importance to the president, something that i am interested in my colleague's point of view, its nearly impossible to be a decision maker and a key policy maker on behalf of the president and simultaneously do the job that we have to do. you almost have to be a fly on wall watching all of these actors play out their roles to watch the president makes deep -- watched the president make the decision. >> if you are a participant in the process, your colleagues know that you have a point of view. they want you to go out and do the briefing.
i consciously and never tried to give the president my opinion on something. i gave him a point of view a couple of things privately, but not as part of the policy-making process. >> i totally agree with that. you simply do not have time. it is difficult to return all the phone calls. you have to be a hand holder to be a press secretary. >> do not be an adviser, ba press secretary. -- be it a press secretary. >> it is beyond the credibility. you have to go back to those people, who were just on the other side of a big fight that was important to them, and they will n be as reliable. you need to be an honest broker
in side. >> i want everyone to -- i wanted to hear everybody's point of view. >> when i was press secretary, i had access to all meetings that i could manage. i've played that fly on the role to role. sometimes i was asked my opinion. i did have a sense -- you go down that road, this is what is going to happen. it does not mean that we cannot management. -- we cannot manage it. you had to deal with it. i go back to the state children's health insurance program. president bush vetoed that legislation twice.
finally, we revealed the secret. [laughter] he wanted to -- he wanted the money to go to the poorest children first. we are crazy, right? we are going to veto it twice. >> nicely done. >> how about an example. when you go to the president, warning, warning, warning. when did you do that? >> i have a good one. >> you have the ear of the president to do this. george bush was the easiest. >> his dad had been vice president. he ran for governor. there is not a reporter that we had not tangled with. he had the highest tolerance for bad news. [laughter]
>> clinton did, too. he did not have such a high tolerance for bad news. he would take it in any would blow off a little steam. >> we did not have that. >> there was one time when president bush had done a press conference and he was in the briefing room. after he left, i followed him and we went into the oval office. ne said, that was good. i said, that world war ii comment is going to get a lot of press. about 3:00 in the afternoon, i just wise to call and tell you
that you're right. i love to hear. >> mindless somewhat similar. ---was somewhat similar. it was 2003, the war in iraq was winding down. all the sudden, the attack started up and we were losing a lot of our troops. the president was doing a news conference and he got ask about it. he said that if anybody tries to attack america's military, my message is, bring it on. we walked from the roosevelt room and i said, mr. peres -- mr. president, think of how bring it on is going to sound. he got indignant and he said, i have so much faith in our military, if anybody wants to tangle with us, bring it on because you will lose. he was sending a message to our
military about the fate he had in the military. i said mr. president, it did not come out that way. he healed. >> mr. it- mrs. bush repeated what you said then that helps. >> a question from one of my colleagues. i love this question. why did the democratic press operations have so much more trouble controlling the party's message compared with republicans? >> i will take a crack at that. if you scratch any professional democrats or people who worked in the party, they came up the 1960's and 1970's through movement politics. th were late -- they were union organizers, feminist,
environmentalist. they worked in a movement politics and believe that the press was going to be on their side. they were in the business of speaking truth. republicans never had that fiction in mind. they started from a viewpoint that was more corporate, more fuel than public relations. it goes all the way back to nixon. it was more about mass communications. republicans were more adept at the skills, public relations from the beginning brayed decrats just mistakenly -- >> that is pretty plausible. bush had the advantage of wahing all the mistakes made in his father's administrations. there were a lot of powerful individuals that fought against each other.
they regularly linking against each other. bush watched that as a son and he made the decision that the people he hired wou really be team players. i cannot tell you how many times i was in the oval office and it never leaked. the press loved the leaks. with our administration, white house is secretive. >> you are secretive and tight- lipped. >> congratulations. >> that is where weave the clash of priorities. when i covered the reagan white housand the bush white house some of it was disarray. it made it a little easier to take the story to the public. >> each was fighting for his own
turf. that is what did it. >> you are not going to stop turf battles between heavyweights in the adnistration. >> they seldom leaked in the bush administration. >> there is a myth that the republicans did not have message problems. if you look at the social security debate of 2005, that is not a cohesive message. >> is thathe same problem that obama had at reelection time? that is debatable. when you take on these big issues, it is not necessarily --
you will not have a cohesive message. >> lightning round. i want to go to a few questions. with regard to the television series the west wing, how realistic was that? >> one of the funny things about that, the creator of the show had been in washington. he read a script for the movie american president. he asked me if i would read his pilot and consult on the show. all of my friends in washington started calling me. hollywood never gets washington right. the show is going to be a disaster. the first show came on and i got calls from all of my friends.
two weeks later, i got a story idea for you. it was a -- it felt like the clinton white house. it was written duringhe clinton years. the culture was right, in some ways. events move fast and it was a way to depict the constant motion of events. the one thing that was least realistic was there was aut five people that made the decisions. the sense that most people better working har trying to do the right thing every day. the fact that just whenou think you have the answer to one question, another issue comes crashing over. the kind of gravity about what people face every day and sometimes the little things that when the day or knock you off
your course. all those things were realistic credit it was the characters that people related t there is a sense of idealism. there are a good patriotic americans, regardless of party. >> the panel represents two decades of media relations. what'd you think are the most salient chase it -- changes? this one touches on the technology issue. >> in some ways, we have fundamentally different jobs. reporter weiser, you've lost a lot of that senior level talents and broadcast media. this is coming down in a couple of hours. i am thinking of having the
president do this. we could have a conversation. there is a more cooperative relationship than you think. d.c. is not as partisan as it is made out to be. on the technology side of things, at first, i resisted. >> how many followers do you have? >> i think it is 30,000 now. i have a long way to go. >> how many followers to you have? >> i will follow you.
>> here is a very interesting question. 5.3 billion mobile phone subscriptions around the world. high-resolution remote sensing satellites generating enormous amounts of data. more satellite news network's every day. how has this changed what a whit house press secretary can do to set national and international prioties? is the essence of government itself changing? >> ask mubarak. >> one of the challenges that we are going through right now is how do we slowdown the transfer of information so that people can actually get information and use it, get a coherent information and use it
effectively to make decisions. all the competition in the news business -- and this is based on speed. breaking news. something or other. every 30 seconds. we have got to slow that down so that people -- >> that is not going to happen. >> the spokesperson can slow it down. >> a can win the white house consciously says, you have to stop and get things right. one of the things that has eroded the confidence of the american people is all this misinformation that gets out there when there is a cris. instantly, we had a congresswomen from arizona who was dead for two hours. wording how to slow dow, at be
thorough, it is something that both sides of this have to get better at. >> how is this change in the nature of governance? >> it is changing the press more than governments. reporters have got to respond to it. >> you do not think that it changes the nature of governance? and >> i think it has changed the press more than officials. you still have a higher obligation to get it right and figure it out. waseteran's day 2001, there a plane crashed on long island. it was two months after september 11. is this terrorism again? i was in a brief. i was coming in at 7:15. i heard it on my car radio.
i stayed down there with the president and i did not come up to greet until noon. that five hours -- they were furious with me. i made some enemies on the press that day because i would not briefs until i was ready to. i slowed down. the press has to go live. is it terrorism? yes or no? >> if you get it wrong, and you have to correct it. >> the consequences of us getting a wrong is that we lose a job. we lose credibility. the consequences of you getting it wrong is you do a correction and you fix it. >> it is a little tougher than that sometimes. i also know that it does change the decision making function. and the role the people are playing. when you have pictures coming
directly into the white house. i know that when the russian attacked, the white house was watching those pictures in real time. when you elevate that, put all that on steroids and attach it to is part of it. look how difficult it is for the white house to sustain a narrative on the topic they want to talk about. the president wants to talk about jobs, and egypt blows up. the president wants to sell his health care message ne has 15 seconds to get that message across. no matter how trivial, no matter how unimportant imight be. we have to spend two days on it.
>> it takes us to another question. what skills to rely on most as your role as press secretary? >> it is not necessarily a scale -- skill, but a lot of it is gut instinct. in some ws, i is falling your gut and knowing when there'll be a big story or when is not. >> you had training. >> i had worked as a journalist. when i say how important it was to defen the press to the president, that comes from
having that bit of training. an understding what it means when a journalist would call and they would tell you, i have this story. i have to sources. then i have 30 seconds before this thing hits the airwaves. you would tell the chief of staff. he says he has to sources, what am i supposed to do? a little bit of training from that perspective. a lot of it was trial and error. i had a wonderful chief of staff on capitol hill. >> he just got a new job.
>> what advice would you give a former journalist applying for a job in the white house press job? >> good luck. it will be a great test. two years and he buys president's office. -- in the vice-president office. when you are a journalist, every skill you have is to cover the news. it is different than selling the news or promoting your boss. this will test him to see how quickly he can make that transition. he is smart, fast on his feet, a very good-looking. its a great test. >> advice? >> i sort of disagree. i think a sense of humor will
diffuse tense situations. >> if it is self-deprecating. >> correct. that is the most important thing. >> you escaped that day. >> you managed to preserve yourself some howl through that whole monica mess >> thank you for reminding me. >> i try not to relive those days. >> i do not think i could devote -- did away with some of those trips i did now. they would all be on youtube. someone would start calling me out. >> you set on live television, let's go on backgrounds.
he tried to put the president on background. >> i remember that. >> it did not work. >> is spial did not work with at present. >> do you have a comment about the recent news that aol is buying huffington post? >> no. >> fascinating. >> it is whatever. just three months ago, and newsweek was sold for a dollar. the overhead costs, the legacy costs, not being able to keep up. the new media at is taking the world by storm. >> there is a real danger if we
think that all information that we value ought to be freely available. if we do not value and pay for the conten >> the huntington post started as a liberal bloc. -- the huffington opposed started as a liberal bloc. -- blog. >> it is a proudly liberal organization. you look at -- this is the turn of the last century where in new york city there were 23 or 24 newspapers. we're back to an era where all news comes from a point of view. people did not expect anything else. the huffington post was established in 2005 and was profitable last year. that is pretty remarkable.
>> can its aol? >> it has a good enough shot as anything. >> she is a creative -- she has created something. the other person who is running newsweek is tina brown. it is to be the other way. you take and on paper publication and you hitched a website to it. >> you had rupert murdoch announcing a new paper just for the ipad he would not do that if he did not think he could make money. you have to be willing to pay for it. that will be $40 a year. >> every model under the sun is
being tested how do you make the news business profitable? >> you have had an incredible job. incredible view of history. an incredible opportunity to help shape it. as you look at our political process now, as you look in armenia and technology now, as you look at the nature of our civil discourse in this country, think about our students, many of whom would like to do what you have done. how do you define this moment in history? how should someone that is 21 years old lookit as look at how we -- look at how we are as a culture?
i will let you take it whever you wanted to go. it is a great weight tolose the conversation. >> i am very optimistic about where we are going. we have a lot of dysfunction, bitterness, poisoned in the environment of our political culture. over time, i detect among young people a row pragmatism and desire tsolve problems, a real hunger for real information that allows them to make choices and allow them to shape their own choices about the future. i think that will results in a new journalism with a new business models are affected. it will result in a new civil discourse that is really focused on solving problems. our generation has failed to --
in not answering honestly, how much government do we want? we're all celebrating ronald reagan's 100 anniversary, but it began when we made that faults bargain. you can cut taxes and not cut government. it happened during his presidency. until we resolve that and get serious about those fundamental questions, up we will be back into place for we can have a coherent government. the students here today are going to be much more courageous in addressing those questions. as a result, they will invent a new politics and a new journalism. >> talking to young people, it
is more like asking them where are we as a culture. the things are changing so quickly and i think the tools are available and the view that is resulting from this technology age has totally transformed the world. what is happening in egypt is a faceok revolution. did never would' happened with a couple of facebook pages. to organize, to plan meetings, to save january 25 is theay. that is just the beginning of people organizing themselves. politics, we are in a bad place, but the next generation is going to jump over where we have been to create a completely new model. the model of the white house press sretary -- we're not going to have another network -- a generation of network news
anchors. it is an exciting time. it is fraught with danger. with all that energy and that democracy, it is on manageable by anybody. the repercussions of its are completely unpredictable. but it has potential to unleash innovation, new ways of thinking and new ways of creating wealth for the country. it is mind-boggling to think of the potential. it is a very exciting time. >> i share the optimism. d.c. and politics is not as partisan as some people.
we are showing that tonight. you can disagree on things and ill be able to have a civil conversation. i got a chance to teach at gw last year and i really enjoyed that. i grew u in a rule environment -- rural environments and the internet has allowed to people all across the country to have a sayn what is happening. that has made some people uncomfortable. people who never -- people from wyoming who are now online and participating and reading things in the did not he access to all this information. nobody is dropping off "the new
york times at my grandfather's ranch in the middle of wyoming. now they can have access and they can participate. just a year ago, when scott brown won the election in massachusetts, at ty were successful in getting small donations from people all over the country. it is a very interesting and exciting time. take advantage of being in d.c. and take the internship, the job, the one that does not sound very exciting. he starts in the credibility deficit. i took all of that -- i was able to handle that. always take the deputy job. i traveled on the weekends and all the holidays. i listen to so many young
people who are so exhausted all the time. you have to take advantage of what is going on in washington. work very hard and meet a lot of people. you find thaall over the city. it is a wonderful placeo be. tw is a fantastic pla to have this experience. >> i started 22 years old on capitol hill, right out of college. if you like politics, died then. this is what makes art -- dive in. this is what makes our country so great. there is also a lot of smart people who come together and work for a cause.
as much as people will say tuftings or how bad things are, look around the world. we have settled their differences peacefully in this country. it is a noisy process, di in ve into it. it is right at your doorstep. capitol hill has more young people than anywhere else in positions of influencef power. you come to capitol hill and you can really move up fast and move up well if you are sharp, smart, a team player. the best town for ideas. so many people here are
political communications majors. this is kind of like a rock concert. did better rock stars. that is my advicto you. [laughter] [applause] >> on that note, we arell privileged to have had a fascinating conversation here tonight. we've explored some of the cultural and journalistic and technological trendsetter altair. as well as some remarkable rsonal insights on the lives that you of lead. our radio and television audiences on c-span and elsewhere, thank you for joining us. i have to see what our next conversation series on march 23.
we will be talking to another pioneer of media. thank you for joining us this evening. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions pyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> that was an event from last night with former white house press secretaries at torch washington university. today on capitol hill, the house judiciary subcommittee on the constitution will examine funding for abortion.
that is live at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> cspan networks, which provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history available on television, radio, online and social media networking side and on their content any time through the cspan video library. we take cspan on the road with our local content vehicle. it is washington your way, the cspan networks, available in more than 1 million homes created by cable and provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" is next. later this morning, more about the political unrest and future of egypt. we will hear from the founder of the egyptian union of liberal use. live coverage from the hudson institute begins at 10:00 eastern. eastern.