>> and now he was not lost by the russian government. actually, very difficult and tough negotiations with putin and others, because israel had serious disagreements with russia over russian relative support of syria, iran, hamas. came to moscow to try to persuade russia.

so he made a compilation that as he was negotiating with russia about matters of great importance to israel, that would be not the best time for him to criticize russian government. during last 20 years, we came to a very different conclusion. we came to conclusions at the end of the cold war, we can tell about everybody, how they could talk about affairs and we can do it without limited impact on u.s. interests and on u.s. ability to do things which are very important to us, like russia's support of iran. like continuing supplies across russia to afghanistan. affects american security and american lives. where we should be able to have

our cake and eat it too, it's difficult to make a prediction but they do believe the instances when american interests and american values and some conflict. and i also believe that doing what is in the u.s. nato interest, that saves american lives and protects american security, but it also reflects americans from values and we should remember about that. >> thank you, dimitri. you've given us a lot to think about, and i hope to talk about. i think i will exercise the moderator's right to maybe ask you the first question, or make the first comment. and i'll give some fair warning to my good friend, general scowcroft, i'm going to give the floor to you after i've asked my

question and dimitri is answered, so you get a little time to prepare. but dimitri, i found part of your presentation maybe a little bit, you've given us a kind of paradox, if you will. i mean, i think he quite correctly pointed out that if you survey the whole political scene in russia, you don't find united russia on the one hand, and a group of western liberalizes on the other. the second largest political party are the communists. you've got your geek and his nationalists. you've got a gaggle of extremist parties. and as you point out, he would beat liberals scoring only at most 3.5, 4%. at the same time, however, as i watch those protests on the

news, i saw what you incorrectly pointed out where what we used to call in the 1980s, mainly yuppies. young urban professionals. who clearly, if they didn't get the straight news from television, they were in touch on the internet. they probably all followed this iconic figure, the famous blogger. there does seem to be, at least among some protesterprotester s a group of people who i would classify as modernizers. wouldn't necessarily call them liberals but they clear to our people who are not extremists, who are not ultranationalists necessarily, and didn't strike me as conventional communists either. so what's, in your view, am i wrong about this discrepancy?

i did get this sense just as you saw, at least in the early demonstrations in the arab spring that you did have people who wanted more openness, more transparency at least and wanted a government that they could influence the mac i think there is paradox in the extension between two of our objectives with the russians. on one level, we will look at this young organized, yuppies you called them. people clearly are outraged by pervasive corruption in russia. and it's difficult for us not to identify with them, particularly with people whom we mostly see on their own tv and read about them in new york and magazines. we have seen this in egypt

several months ago. and to support these people, to support reform is very nature for americans. but and also want to support something else called free elections. and then you discover in egypt, and then we may discover in russia, that there is a sudden disconnect between this young organizers who are so visible and to some like us, many of them speak good english, and some of them, some of the best spokesman even spent time in the united states at the best american universities. but do we discover once you are alone with elections, other folks, other social struggles come to the talk. what they want to do you may find very problematic. in the case of egypt, of course one of our challenges is what

islamic majority is the new mubarak, assuming they will be allowed to keep an islamic majority in the new parliament by military. what they would do with israel. in the case of russia, well, i would want to know how, if we had a nationalist majority in the russian parliament, how would that affect the policy with the united states. you mentioned alexa. almost a hero for young organizers in russia. is a former -- [inaudible] he was asked to leave because he was becoming a nationalist. he took part in anything which was was called russian marsh which included russian ultranationalist and he himself was talking about russia for the russians, meaning russia for

people -- [inaudible] talking first about starting to subsidize -- where they already felt strong separatist movement. but he was also talking about not russians, particularly people from moscow and. in it was this kind of policy coming from the new russian political majority. we may discover that this is not the outcome we would be fully comfortable with. >> you're suggesting perhaps the real political choice at this stage of a russian political development between putin and the ultranationalist? >> i am suggesting that we cannot be sure. we could not be sure in the case of egypt. what i'm also suggesting that there is an unfolding drama of a

variety -- i'm also suggesting they still have cards to play. but i do not see evidence so far that they can play their cards well. and let me mention to you a condition which was a conversation which i had last february in moscow. we, center for the national interest join an event with another open moscow led by a russian tv commentator who actually was just elected by a new chairman of the russian relations. that was just at the beginning of the arab springs, and people in the room where they saw the arab spring would come to moscow anytime soon. and everybody said no, it's not

going to happen. maybe two, three years from now. okay, but let's assume you're wrong. let's assume that there would be major disturbances in russia, particularly in moscow and during the next several months. particularly during elections. can the russian government relied on the military and security services? and every person in the room said no. there were little more specific saying that, you know, if it would be one demonstration, the russian government could use so-called internal security division, and he probably would be able to handle it. but if it would be like in egypt, day after day with the growing number of people, there was a sense in the realm that at the minimum the government would

not be separate. the military and security services, were the soldiers as enlisted in happened to be just regular recruits which were present a pro section of the russian society. you me asking, well, of course you had just one conversation over finra and in the moscow restaurant and why it's so important. it was important because participants in the finra included two former prime ministers, one of whom used to be that security service, and another intelligence service. former chief of the general staff who are now advisor to president medvedev. and several duma leaders and leading pollsters than. not a single person in the room had any confidence in and

russian security services being able to handle violence on any protracted basis. for me, it suggested that mr. putin has to be very careful in how he manages this russian protests. because if they want injury rebellion, would have a totally unpredictable situation. >> general scowcroft? >> thank you, dimitri. that was fascinating analysis. just a couple of points. first, you hearken to egypt in many different times. it seems to me that there is one thing you didn't focus on, and that is at the heart of both of them, the two things, first, the ease with which demonstrations

can be organized now. he said there was no party behind it. you don't have to have a party. all you have to do is push a button and say, turnout in the square at 10:00 tomorrow morning. and it goes to a million people. that's the first thing. the second thing is, as we are seeing in egypt and other places, we take opposition of demonstrations as a cry for democracy. it seems much, to be much more basic than that for dignity. and what happened with the switch from, between putin and medvedev was an affront to dignity. unacceptable. one of the things i want to ask you, do you think the primary motivation was what happened in september, that opened switch back again?

or elections which were considered to be corrupt? because it makes, it makes a difference. the last point, you ignored the last six years when putin was still obviously running the shot. but there was a different the near over it. and what i'm wondering is how much of that in the near was wrote influence of medvedev, how much of it was putin, and has putin learned that you get more flies with honey than with vinegar, or whatever this thing is? has that last six years nearly gone, or if putin succeeds now, we, in fact, have a new -- he is not a dummy. has he learned something from

the style of medvedev and how he is dealt with the world that might promise a different operation? >> general scowcroft, first of all, i think that putin, on many levels, is one of the most intelligent world leaders today. i have met some, and it seems that putin is one of the most impressive in terms of his overall intellect, in terms of his knowledge of history, in terms of use being able to think strategically. my concern is that while he is clearly not a communist anymore, and while i do not believe that he is in any serious attempt -- intended to re-create the soviet union or the russian empire, i think that there's a lot have security agent in his inner persona here by security agent,

i mean that a person who seems to trust in others is a witness. a person who thinks that if you share information it is likely to be used against you. a person who came from the military background, and who thinks that your subordinates should open a you unconditionally and express their opinions when they are asked, and in a kind of respectful but predictable manner, what i know about him, it is the exact opposite to what putin expected from his own security council. and -- it was very clear that any kind of freefall when agency heads, with top experts will be able to express their opinions, that's not, that's not what

putin ever expected. yesterday mr. putin talked about russian energy. apparently he had discovered that about 50% of officials, executives and russian government, control energy companies. simultaneously i engaged in businesses of their own. businesses which obviously connected -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> it sounded like he just discovered. and my impression is that, remarkably, there is a lot of things in russia will which these very well educated and does not know and doesn't quite understand about his own country. medvedev in the sense looked much more modern, much more appealing to this organized young generation. but the way medvedev was reduced

to putin's lawyer lieutenant after the announcement on september 24 was made about jobs, i think -- with this generation and in this sense, he stopped being terribly useful to putin. >> i didn't mean that medvedev wasn't useful. but putin is smart. had he not learned anything, he deeply resented the united states and the way we treated russia at the end of the cold war. medvedev has gotten much farther with the reset by having a different approach. now, if putin is so intelligent, and i agree with you he is, all he has to do is change is a visceral attitudes, not an intellectual -- >> let me say, if he's capable of that, he has not demonstrated

it yet. [laughter] >> all right. >> and i can only tell you two things. and his long td performance, a couple hours on russian channel. i thought in many respects it was a masterful performance. he clearly was on top. he clearly would be very spontaneous. it was a little bit orchestrated, but well, it is russia. but when i was think about putin's effectiveness, not vis-à-vis his traditional, but with this new generation, i thought that he was outright counterproductive. he said he looked at these people to demonstrate and they said why? he said to whom? look like they were wearing some kind of condoms. look, people had dignity.

people found this very offensive. to go to the demonstration, this was the first time a kind of pronouncement that they were becoming citizens. today in moscow, another scandal. a radical opposition leader, former vice prime minister might consider one of more despicable people in russian politics comes back from the '90s, russian corruption, he was one of yeltsin's favorite engaged in this, now he is a champion of democracy. but he is one of the people who is appealing to this yuppie generation. i understand that putin despises him because he accuses putin being a thief, and -- [inaudible] is difficult for a guest putin not to take it a little personally. having said that, they just released on their website,

audiotapes of phone conversations when he is using a lot of vulgar language, and where he is criticizing against, putting down a lot of his colleagues in the position radical movement. now, clearly the idea was it would be destroyed. but they view this as another offense to the dignity. they are taken for idiots. if they want to run the government and complain like that, they will further anger a lot of people. so it's not all over yet for putin to demonstrate his potential to become different. but the clock is ticking. >> i'm going to open this up, please, because we have our friends from c-span here, please identify yourself. arnold? >> arnold kornacki.

dimitri, you have the issue for united states and was by now a very familiar and traditional way, it really is, should we support a stability, which is fairly predictable, not entirely satisfactory, and opposed to which there are possible alternatives that are better and some that are worse. the ones that you spent most of your time on willie are the ones that are worse. we've been there. we've done this before. the answer certainly isn't to make a premature choice one way or the other, but to be as smart and as sharp, as attentive and as analytical as we think we can be to see which way the movement is going internally, depending partly on how putin and his

government are responding to the challenge and how the challenges are organizing themselves and preparing and behaving. the second big question has to do with the opposition. and that's equally difficult. and the liberal opposition in which we would be most, we are most interested in, as a very, very poor track record. is very vulnerable, but it's also clear that the opposition that those people who were out in the square demonstrating and who have been active on the internet, they are not interested in the official opposition. the official opposition is no opposition at all. the parties that gain most in this election, whether by hook or crook, are not parties in our

judgment of american interests that would serve our interest. so the struggle really internal, as i see, is between those forces who are trying to advance the delegitimization of a system which in their view has failed them and fill the country, and opposite forces, in this case headed by putin himself, are trying to reassert the legitimacy of the system. i think the u.s. response so far as sort of threaded the needle and has been i think quite skillful. i think the administration was right to put the secretary of state out front very quickly, and it was right not to follow the advice of some, a few, not including incidentally the republican candidates which was interesting, to have the president immediately come out

with a strong position on the elections themselves. so my reply to you is not so fast, i'm not so persuaded yet that any defeat of putin will lead to a political change in russia that will necessarily be to our disadvantage. and i see extraordinary benefits both for russia and for mankind indeed if, in fact, contrary to past performance the opposition now with a new input of vitality, energy and a different population could succeed in putting together something that the country can get behind. i think putin's initial response to it in the interviews was very bad. i don't think he advance his cause one iota. but on the other hand, the

opposition hasn't yet shown as they're capable of organizing a successful movement. >> the first thing is what they should stop doing, and that's what general scowcroft mentioned. dignity on those who disagree with the russian government. and accept what they should know themselves. the reasons for opposition are serious and real. putin and medvedev talk about russian, corruption all the time but they're talking all the time about bureaucracy climate, all power in russia and ignoring interest and dignity of the people. actually come it ignoring dignity and interests of foreign investors as well, which leads to outflow of capital from russia. i think that what you need to see is for mr. putin is start talking in start talking in a way that would entertain at least more moderate among the protesters and that putin is getting their message and as

general scowcroft perhaps suggested, that we see a new reincarnation of putin. we have soon a new reincarnation of nixon and many other american political leaders. we do know it is possible, not always successful, but possible. but the first leading question needs to make the conscious decision that something has changed in this country, and that he has to change some of his ways. without that i don't think putin will be able to be successful. the second thing was, specifically, i think that they have to accept that putin cannot win elections in the first two are as they made very clear they want him. in order for putin to win the election without a second round, he needs in the first round to get electric majority. absolute majority. according to every opinion poll

i have seen, this is simply not doable without much fraud. enemy emphasize, much fraud. not a little bit of hanky-panky here or there, but a kind of massive fraud which would make elections illegitimate in the minds of millions and millions of russians. putin would have to accept that he should be prepared to go to a second round of elections. and the fear of course is that a second round of elections are opposition can't ignite against putin, even to support somebody else, just to get rid of putin. and they do understand that putin would have to accept an element of vulnerability and an element of unpredictability. something he absolutely hates. if i was in his shoes i would hate to accept his unpredictability, too, because

if you listen to others, they are not running against putin's political program or the way putin runs the country. they are saying that he is a thief, a crook. they do not just want to change the government, they want to put putin and company in jail. they want to have an arab style revolution. and as you can imagine, once they have served in moscow what happened to gadhafi, you know, they take threats like that rather personally. but putin has to accept that that is the way it is today, that that is an element they have to accept. i am convinced if putin would play his cards right, he still can win in the second round. i do not know whether i would say this months from now, but today i believe he can win the second round. he remains by far the most popular politician in the country, and not just talk about

the polls, i'm talking about opposition polls, the polls which totally independent. [inaudible] thirty-seven -- 77% of the russian tv audience watched a putin for four and half hours. that is not information from tv channel that carries information begin from independent polls. he clearly remains a kind of charisma, and the kind of legitimacy whic which of makinga very strong candidate. but he would have to accept an element of uncertainty. he has to stop demonizing his opponents, particularly when she is talking not about local leaders are just people who go to demonstrate against him. and he would have to start talking seriously about what she's going to do for the country.

again, putin so far as offered a lot of pop listened to a lot of pronouncements how he is going to play this group, that group, military security, well, russia has its limits. they think it's important for putin to go to the polls, preventing his problem, then what is that that he intends to do. and that would require a problem, prepared for invited group of thoughtful people, and i don't see something like that happening so far. and the clock is ticking. but it is not too late yet for him. >> madam ambassador? >> thank you. as always this is one of the most strangest and challenging debating places in this town. i was going to ask you about the reflection on your description

of a relative support of russia but i think you get that much of an answer explain it can go much farther than what it is today. i think that what having today's discussion onto planes. when the domestic scene, india in the aftermath of the elections and the leader of the opposition and emergence of an opposition, and also the other point of course is dual politics and what are the complications of the expected aftermath of this election. i would really appreciate a comment from you, how would you describe what can be a rational argument in favor of more engagement with the west, whatever it may mean, and particularly the united states of american? and they get feeling i think is slightly different, that feeling that has been there for

generations, i think, correct me if i'm wrong, but ever since the times peter the great, kind of a defensive attitude, and in modern times this is the united states of america. how would you compare the policy of appeasement from european countries, this is russia, and the reset of the current administration? would they be likelihoods and one of these would be kind of a better attitude than the other? and another one, how would you describe, what is patriotic platform, patriotic attitude or nationalistic, depend on how you term it, in russia? what would come down to, not just russians, that's even more into the argument, but these are the the outer world, how would you describe a patriotic

political platform? >> well, let me start with your last because it's a very important point. i do know some people who demonstrated at the square on december 10. some of them i know very well. some art in full disclosure, close personal friends and, indeed, relatives. people who never have demonstrated in the past. and they think, since i spoke to them on the phone, i would not want to describe with any certainty their convictions at this point. but i think that they have two conflicting impulses. one impulse is, enough is enough. these people of power where denying our dignity and our rights for too long. now we want to be taken seriously. and because they don't have political platform, there's a

certain flexibility in terms of their demands. but what they want from government is not another monolog, but a genuine dialogue. at the same time, these people really support -- some of these people speak english, unlike me without an accent. some of them went to best american universities, and a very successful in their profession. but no, they do not want secretary of state providing them with guidance, how they should conduct elections. everything the secretary of state says is true but they still do not like it. so they are two conflicting emotions. they are very angry with the government, and yet they want to be able to make their own choices. actually --

>> along the same lines. cancer, that's a question. >> they want, they do not want to be told from anyone from the outside. they don't want their own government tuesday that they are acting on anybody's orders. but they also do not want anybody from outside the country to become involved in internal affairs. and i think that we have to try to develop policy which would not look, which would not be an appeasement policy. but which would allow us to of real dialogue with people, something arnold was talking about. and i would talk or three specific things we can, and in my view, seriously consider. first, i think that we, since russia's join, we need to get rid of the commandant because if

we keep it on the books it would really discriminate against u.s. business and against u.s. investors in russia. however, in the current environment, in my view, to get rid of the jackson amendment without replacing it, with some other legislation which would establish a link between u.s. policy and russian practices i think we would be sending the wrong signal and actually that would be great an impression of russia that we do not care about russian irruption. according i think that we should proceed with -- the pill which is named after russian who died in a russian jail, that's a long story, but i would say that we come in my view, should have carefully have piece of legislation which would give administration and appropriate procedures which would make sure

that it is sufficiently focused with sufficient safeguards and very important with the president, obvious he being able to make an appropriate nation security exemption when necessary. but i do think that some version of that bill is important the second thing i would do is, well, i don't think that we need to attack russian elections, and the russian duma out of these election. but if i was a member of office i would think seriously about engaging in exchange is with the new russian duma pic if we do believe that russian duma is legitimate, it certainly is our prerogative to what extent we want to have dialogue with people. and last but not least, them -- [inaudible]

instructed me to proceed with this event. we also have discussed our center, the center for the national interest taking foreign money, and the board have decided that we will not come and we did not in the past take any foreign government money, or foreign money connected with a government. i think that it is important for groups like ours, and other american public policy, nonprofit organizations, to become quite careful about taking money from groups connected to the russian government, and in which engaged in the russian propaganda. week, sometime ago, the center for national interest, we were taking russian money. we never did. but then the "washington post" proceed with a whole section, once a week, a whole section which is propaganda

advertisement, produced, produced by the russian government. so i want to suggest, you know, a certain degree of consistency and the higher level of integrity in how we deal with those in russia who we ourselves abuse irruption. let's look in the near and let's be prepared to put our money where our mouth is, and the certain money -- >> barbara slavin? >> thanks. barbara slavin from the atlanta. tamika, think of the countries about the latest addition to the presidential campaign, the owner of the new jersey nets. can you tell something about him. does he have a shot? and also, there are rumors that putin has had plastic surgery. do you know if this is indeed the case? thank you. >> i met mr. putin during his last performance, and he looked

a little different. i am not an expert on plastic surgery. i cannot give you any informed answer but i also have to say that if i was putin i would have a lot of sleepless nights. i really have no idea. prokhorov is a very successful businessman. he made the bulk of his fortune in the 1990s when his partner, $5 million to the center, where his partner went into the government, became first vice prime minister and was very active in privatizing russian government property on behalf of mr. prokhorov himself. that was the origin of mr. prokhorov's enormous wealth. over time, as you know, some

russian businessmen proved to be unable to grow from their previous unstable routes, and some proof that there capable. i think prokhorov demonstrated that he's a successful business leader, and he established himself as a formidable presence in russian politics. so far he had an intimate relationship with russian government but was considered basically on a fairly short leash. and i wonder if you would be legitimate if he run against putin. the chances that he would be elected, as you know, because the russians are in the populist mood. they don't like oligarchs who made their money in the '90s and who by teams in the united

states instead of contributing to russian causes. also, you know there was a scandal with prokhorov. he was arrested in france for allegedly importing a bunch of call girls but he was found innocent because they were not professional prostitutes. they just came to entertain him and his friends. but how to put it delicately, this is not a lifestyle most ordinary russians would exactly identify with. but he -- >> they might approve of it. [applause] >> they may dream about. but the bottom line is there is suspicion that the purpose of prokhorov scandals is to a kind of appeal to some of liberal without being a credible threat. that, in my view, well, these things happen in electoral politics, but putin relies on things like that, then i think he's going to be disillusioned.

>> we take no foreign money either. dimitri, earlier this year there was a good deal of expectation, i think, that putin and medvedev would delay announcing their presidential reelection scheme, until after the parliamentary elections. by doing it in reverse order they have provoked precisely the kinds of problems that we have seen. why do you think that they chose to exercise this slap in the face of announcing their castling scheme so close before an election where people could, to some extent, actually register their disapproval of? >> you're asking a very good question, and i have to short interest. first, clearly they were becoming nervous about the declining falling numbers. and if united russia would go

down in the elections, as it did indeed come it would provide justification for putin as the leader of united russia to announce his return to the presidency. by the second thing is that i think that they clearly miscalculated. and to the best of my knowledge, there was never any serious discussion inside the russian government, or if putin had any kind of -- which he doesn't come any kind of discussion of what they were doing and of likely consequences. as such decisions, it apparently was mr. putin who made his own calculations, a kind of lead medvedev delicately to the conclusion that medvedev is not going to run for presidency so medvedev went apparently to putin and kind of negotiated a deal what he will stay as prime minister, and putin has accepted this in the name of harmony.

and that was clearly a very serious miscalculation. and that is a reflection on putin's decision making style. >> margaret. >> short question. following up on what cliff asked, do you expect to see the putin government tried to stage manage who gets to run in a march 4 election in a way that either produces a choice that would be unacceptable to a majority of russians, or one that would at least not be? u..

>> two million signatures which can be easily verified unless the government allows you to do it, and then if government is fairly broad minded in verifying these figures, verifying the signatures. so the decisions will be made by the government. but the question is how the government is going to handle it. they might decide to be very strict and very prohibitive and allow only those which are already in the parliament, and most of them have strong government parpg. or they may agree who -- [inaudible] is not a hero of the radicals, and she is a little too old-fashioned for the new generation, but she's not corrupt and generally liberal

and quite thoughtful. you know, she may become a serious challenger. now, i'm sure there will be people in the government who will say, no, no, we should not allow it because god forbid she gets more votes, and she would go into the second round with putin and then who knows what is going to happen. if government would listen to these voices, i think there would be a widespread public indignation, real -- [inaudible] i would not say that anybody would accept these elections as perfect, but at least there would be a tiny modicum of legitimacy. >> okay, we're really running out of time here. i think there are three journal itselfs in a row here -- journalists in a row here. i'm going to let them all ask their questions and then, dmitri, you can answer as you see fit.

but i'll begin with you. >> channel one, russia. my question, you already mentioned the economical factor, and the possibility of arab spring scenario for russia. what we've seen in those countries even in the region that we're economically doing pretty well the arab spring didn't happen. it happened in countries who were economically poor. in russia, in european how the significant of economical factor and, furthermore, the price of oil. what kind of influence will it have in the future on the stability of the country in order for the government to do business as usual? thank you. >> barry? >> going back a little bit. what would the consequences be if, indeed, russia went through with an anti-missile deal with iran?

>> you mean to sell the iranians the -- >> well, dmitri's spoken about the relationship with the united states and russia, but what would it do to the world situation? >> if russians sold their air defense missiles to iran? >> right. >> okay. that's what i'm clarifying. you're number three. >> i'm curious if elections in russia might have a great impact on the elections in the united states. could it be a big deal during the debates debates and primarid could be a top foreign policy issue for republicans to take on obama who declared -- [inaudible] >> some in russia talking about supply and a more modern system as 400,000.

in terms of this system being delivered to the iranians, we'll have something to say about that. the israelis may have thought that fast. it may become more difficult for the government to constrain israel. i will simply say that that action would clearly indicate that iran got a powerful protecter. it may trigger a crisis, and it also would raise questions about what is going to happen on an aftermath of this crisis. because it's one thing to try to destroy their nuclear missile problem which is not going to be easy, but from now on they're not alone and that they can count on an active russian assistance in rebuilding whatever was destroyed. i think that it would change the security situation in the middle

east profoundly and in a very dangerous action. in terms of the impact of russian arab spring and economic factors. well, it's quite clear that while you cannot establish a percentage -- [inaudible] in addition to their dignity are their pocketbooks. and it is clear that because of the world economic crisis and because of russia and its management, corruption and excessive reliance on energy resources, as a result of that living standards in russia stopped imploding, and i have to say in some areas and for some categories even began to go down. so that creates an explosive potential. it is unlikely to contribute dramatically to what is going to happen between now and presidential elections. but if you are talking about what may happen next fall, that's what russian economists

were warning me about. that if we're hooking at the -- looking at the -- [inaudible] what to consider a presidential election so much, you have to look at possible economic problems in russia in the full and how a weakened, delegitimized russian government would be able to handle them. finally, mikhail, i think you have asked a very good question, and actually a lot of people in russia do not, in my view, understand the dynamics in washington. brent scowcroft knew as well as me -- [inaudible] was often oversold and overbought. and it seems the same has happened to the policy which obama administration, in my view allowed to look as more involved and more lasting that than it ry was. and the more president obama talked about policy as his

success, the more he seemed to count on president medvedev as his strategic partner. the more he talked about his faith in russian liberal reforms, the more i think he was encouraging the republicans to say wait a minute, what is going on in that country? so i do think that if there is a crisis in russia, it would become a foreign policy challenge for the obama administration and an inevitable topic of presidential debates. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry i haven't been able to call on everybody, but i'm sure you will all agree with me this has been a tour de force. we haven't gotten, of course, all the questions answered, but i think dmitri has really helped us think about how to answer those questions, what the context should be and what the crucial issues are going forward. so join me in thanking dmitri.

[applause] we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> up next on c-span2, the national menorah lighting ceremony. then a conference on the future of media and journalism. later, the national black caucus of state legislators discusses job training and education. that's at 10 a.m. eastern. >> this holiday weekend it's three days of booktv. here are the prime time programs. on "after words" moscow correspondent connor o cleary on the failed coup.

charles mann, author of 1493, revisited the americas a year after columbus' arrival. sarah weinman, news editor fur publishers marketplace on the bestsellers of 2011 monday at 7 p.m. and tom brokaw monday at 8:30 p.m. eastern. the full booktv schedule is online at booktv.org. >> white house budget director jacob lew took part in the annual national menorah lighting ceremony outside the white house tuesday. this year's celebration included the u.s. marine band. this is about 55 minutes. >> want to welcome you all here to the ellipse in washington, d.c. on the front lawn of the white house as once again we celebrate the lighting of the national hanukkah me -- menorah.

i'm the executive vice president of american friends of lubavitch, the sponsor of the national menorah and this evening's event. we would like to introduce some special guests this evening. first among them, the united states marine band, the president's own led by major pettig. [applause] we're also delighted to have with us three of the world's foremost cantors, cantor jeff nydell who has served as our musical director for nearly 20 years now. and a new rising star on the jewish music scene, cantor lemmer. the united states marine band and the three cantors will welcome us with "a song of

peace." are we ready? the three cantors and the united states marine band, the president's own. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue]

♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪

[speaking in native tongue] ♪ [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much, the president's own and the three cantors. wow. we heard them in rehearsal today, they were fantastic, were they not? let's give them a round of applause. [applause] why are we here? and what are we celebrating? we're -- what was that? let's hear the dismidz what are we celebrating? i want to hear everybody here who's not yet 12 or 13 tell us really loudly what are we

celebrating. one, two, three. my friends, that is the sound of our future. it says in the psalms, king david writes that as arrows are in the giver of the -- quiver of the worrier, so are the children of youth. and for us to have so many children here knowing what they're celebrating on the lawn of the ellipse here in the united states, i tell you, this is one nation, under god, indivisible, a blessed nation in which we jewish people in america should be considering ourselves fortunate to live. [applause] let's hear it for the united states of america. [applause] you know, it wasn't too long ago that a menorah had to be lit in secret. because if you were to be found sell rating this festival -- celebrating this festival, you could be imprisoned or worse. but today we are able to come

here, and in full sight of the public where our menorah is supposed to be illuminated, we can come and celebrate our faith and celebrate the story of hanukkah. so in a nutshell, what is it? many years ago, over 2200 years ago, there lived a people under heletic influence. and they wanted to destroy the faith of the jewish people. they wanted to be sure that there wouldn't be anything sacred in the lives of jews. live however you want, but don't make it so sacred. they went, and they defiled the temple and everything that was dear to the jewish people. and a small army of mca bees defeated this great army. they went back to the temple, and they were looking for oil so that they could recandle the menorah. but they couldn't find any oil

that was still pure until they found one little vessel. and they used that vesdz l which still had the seal of the high priest. and they lit the menorah, and even though it should have taken a week for them to get more oil, that oil of one day burned for eight. what's the story for us? even today we mark the victory of light over darkness, of right over might, of justice over tyranny and of decency over all people who are evil and seek to destroy it. it doesn't even matter if you are jewish. hanukkah has a message for you as well. so i think i speak on behalf of just about everyone here to say we're delighted to have this opportunity to celebrate this great tradition in such a wonderful fashion and in such a prominent place. be i would like to recognize

some officials of the administration who are here with us. we will be having a special guest who is presently on his way from the west wing, and he is the highest ranking official of the jewish faith many this administration, the honorable jacob j.lew who's the director of the office of management and budget. he will be arriving in just a few moments. i also would like to note the presence of julius genachowski, a good friend and the chairman of the federal communications commission who's with us. hanukkah is all about communicating a message, so we're delighted that you're here. [applause] and maybe we'll have a word with director lew about some hanukkah guilt too. the liaison of the white house

to the jewish community, mr. jared bernstein is here with us this evening. we want to welcome you. [applause] as well as daniel boor run who until recently was the july yeason of the white house and is presently a special assistant to the vice president. [applause] i also would like to note the presence of one who lit the menorah during a previous administration, undersecretary of defense dr. dov zakheim. [applause] as well as former deputy secretary of health and human invests, dr. troy. [applause] we have a few special hanukkah songs that the president's own have prepared for us tonight. we're going to ask for the cantors to return to the stage.

you might be able to join in the first song. please, feel free to participate. the president's own united states marine band. i just noticed director lew has arrived. we'd like to give him a warm welcome and welcome him to his seat, please. [applause] director lew, we were just saying that while we're up, while we're up lighting the menorah, you should remind me to have a word with you about some hanukkah guild. don't worry, i'll make sure he understands it later. so join in the medley if you can. the president's own, major jason fertig and the united states marine band, the president's own, and the three cantors.

[applause] ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue]

♪ ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [applause] >> now, before we start our next song, we have somebody everybody's waiting to hear from. but he wants to know that he's welcome. do you know who it is? if you say his name, we might get his attention. one, two, three. starts with a d. next letter's an r. i think we're getting there. let's hear it loud and clear. one, two, three.

look, his hearing must be hard, because i don't see him coming. i don't see him coming out just yet. i think he wants us to say it a bit louder. one, two, three. he's getting the message. i think he wants to hear us say happy hanukkah. one, two, three. >> happy hanukkah! >> here he comes. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ muck 34ubg. ♪ ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue]

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue]

♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] [cheers and applause] >> thank you, thank you again. the president's own and the three cantors. we'll have them back for the blessings. at this point we'd like to call to the podium one very special individual. this little individual, young individual i should say, flew in

across the country to share a few words with us. you see, we sponsor the national menorah essay contest in memory of rabbi mindy derrin who used to work with us on programs such as this. and children expressed their thought about hanukkah. thousands of children have expressed themselves about what hanukkah means to them. so one of our winners, rafael, is a fifth grader at the hebrew academy in san diego and is here with his parents to read his winning entry. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> are you nervous? >> probably. [laughter] what hanukkah means to me. what hanukkah means to me is the right to be free from the battle of light versus dark, to the miracle of the oil with only a spark. [speaking in native tongue] is a master to all, including me. it means to keep the torah in your heart, with it you shall never part. but if you feel like you are drifting away, just go to -- [inaudible] pray. that's what hanukkah means to me; the right of religion, the right to be free. [cheers and applause]

>> rafael will be receiving a little gift certificate so he can buy himself some jewish study materials. do we see a great future here for the jewish people or what? [cheers and applause] mass l to have. your parents are very proud, i can see. the menorah behind me was first lit in lafayette park in 1979, and then-president jimmy carter personally attended the lighting ceremony. two years later it was called, i should say, the national menorah by president reagan. and every year it's been lit first at lafayette park on the other side of the white house

and in more recent years, here on the ellipse. one individual who was very instrumental in establishing this project was ambassador stuart eisenstadt who served at that time as the domestic policy adviser to the president and insured that permission was, indeed, granted to place this menorah in this space. he did that in the partnership with rabbi abraham of our national director, my father, who spearheaded the effort of public menorah lightings. starting in 1974 in philadelphia. in front of the liberty bell. and then with a large menorah independence ball. followed afterwards by this national menorah. and today i'm proud to say that my 4,000 colleagues in 47 states

across this country and in over 80 countries around the world are sponsoring over 13,000 -- 13,000 -- celebrations of hanukkah for the public all over the globe. [applause] it all started with the menorah about this high in independence mall. and now the message goes not only into synagogues and community centers, not only into ha has been bat -- houses, not only into jewish schools, but we've celebrated at the pentagon. tomorrow we'll celebrate at the capitol. it's been celebrated at very remote army bases, and i think at this time i'd like to take a moment for us to celebrate and show our respect to those men

and women of the united states armed forces not only who are playing the music here this evening, but who serve stateside and at the tip of the spear. we want to welcome all those home who have returned, and we want to pray for the safety and well being of all those who are still deployed. i'd like to hear the loudest round of applause we can muster for the men and women of our armed services. [cheers and applause] it is through the sacrifices that they make and that their families make that we are able to celebrate our freedom here this evening. i'd like to call upon the second winner in our essay contest who actually hails from philadelphia

where this all began. her name is deborah earlybam. we're very excited by what she has to say. deborah? [applause] >> what hanukkah means to me. >> wait for the plane. a dreidel story. when something in your life goes wrong, how do you feel about it? some people feel fright and then discouraged as if their life is ruined and going to stay that way. the hanukkah dreidel teaches us otherwise. the dreidel is made up of four sides. on each side is a hebrew letter. on the first side is the letter

game el. if a player lands on this letter, he or she wins the whole pile of coins. then there is the letter -- [inaudible] if one lands on this letter, he or she doesn't get any of the coins. if you land on the letter hay, you win half the pile. if you land on the letter shin, you lose some of your coins. the dreidel game represents the ups and downs in the our lives. some days are gimmel days when everything goes just how we want it. we're given a big pile of coins. other days are heydeys when things are going fairly well, we're given half a pile. then we have our nun and shin days when things are not going our way. we might even be losing our coins. what we must remember is that the dreidel keeps spinning. on the other side of the shin is always a gimmel. the letters on the dreidel

symbolize -- [speaking in native tongue] which means a great miracle happened there. this phrase refers to the miracle of hanukkah. the battle against the greek empire seemed impossible to win which made it seem like a shin day. the mcabees didn't give up. they thought about the gimmel on the ore side of the shin -- other side of the shin. their faith cleared a path for god's miracle. this shows us that wherever we are in life, it's part of god's dreidel. miracles happen every day around us. we can always turn a shin into a gimmel. there's one other idea. if you add up the numerical value of the four letters on the dreidel, you get 358. none equals 50, gimmel equals 500. and messiah also equals 358.

shin equals 300 -- [speaking in native tongue] will teach us how to see the divine providence in everyone's life. when the shin will be turned into a gimmel. on hanukkah we are reminded that the dreidel isn't just a toy we play with, it's a way of looking at life. [applause] >> don't go anywhere else. now -- [inaudible] means speak in hebrew. is this a wonderful speaker or what? [applause] deborah also will be receiving the same gift for us for her winning as a -- deborah's a sixth grader in philadelphia. i'm sure her parents are proud. i can actually see how proud they are. [applause]

our next speaker, as i mentioned before, is a very special individual not only to me because he's my father, but to this project because he actually conceived of the idea and because he also established the organization which sponsors this event, the american friends of lebavitch. he is the chairman of the executive committee of the umbrella organization of the worldwide lubavitch movement, and it is our honor to hear greetings from him in ohioan of this occasion -- in honor of this occasion. [applause] rabbi shemtov, please.

[speaking in native tongue] when in the presence of my son, and it's, indeed, a source of -- [speaking in native tongue] and all of you have gathered here to join to celebrate this great moment. the idea was, of course, conceived by -- [inaudible] who raised -- [inaudible] spiritual giant of our times, raised us in the spirit of the -- [inaudible] and it is as a result of this that many ideas have been introduced, developed, one of which is, of course, the one

we're celebrating here today. rabbi shemtov has just mentioned the background of this hold today of hanukkah. first of all, i am reminded as much as the world changes and stands in one place the first time that we put up the first menorah in lafayette park, the then-president of the united states, president carter, was for 100 days inside, closed inside due to the hostage in iran, the hostages in iran situation which he saw it as dark moment. and here was his chance as he expressed himself to break this darkness by participating in a celebration of light. we hope that the full celebration of true light will come in our time so that we do not have to resort to any other

means except the continue in the bright light of the redemption of the world. i just would like to call attention to one word, and while i'm speaking to you as was mentioned here before, i have in mind the thousands of colleagues such as myself and mrs. shemtov who have gone into the mission set by the rabbi. when we light the first candle tonight, the first candle was not a miracle. it was there, and it was found. the miracle was that this candle, this jug of the oil that was found which was enough to last for one night turned into a means and a medium to provide light for full seven days, the time in which they had the

opportunity to prepare new oil. the message that the rabbis taught us, raised us with and entrusted that to bring to the world is it's not that we are looking for another candle. the first candle contained a power and a quality that was to last for eight days except the miracle was that this was disclosed, and this was discovered. and the message is that each and every one of us has the enormous potential of bringing light into the world. and as the rabbi says, you do not dismiss darkness with a broom. you light a candle. that's the way to deal with darkness. the light of candle that will bring the brightness of the recognition, the awareness that

the world is not a jungle, that the world has a ruler and that all of us here are in the mission of bringing the message to the rest of the world. every challenge the rabbi teaches us is an opportunity. it's not to be, to dismiss it, but to take advantage of it. the tremendous challenge of the darkness at the beginning of this era was met by the light that the rabbi kindled through all of us here who are sitting here and carrying the responsibility of taking the spark that is ignited here tonight, carry it all around you, in you, around you, and this will bring closer to the moment when the entire world will be lit by the coming of --

[inaudible] the righteous redeemer that will redeem the world out of its darkness into the brightness of the. [speaking in native tongue] [applause] >> thank you very much. as usual, those inspiring words. i'd like to introduce our next speaker. um, i will be brief in introducing him because he is in a hurry. to meet his boss. and with everyone who compromise that. so, ladies and gentlemen, may i introduce to you one of the humblest public servants in this administration and the united states, one who has done not only for our country, but for the jewish people here in america and around the world.

without any further bro duction, please -- introduction, please, put your hands together and welcome the director of the office of management and budget at the white house, the honorable jacob j. lew. [applause] >> thank you, rabbi shemkov, and welcome, everyone. it's a pleasure to be with you here again today. it's much nicer to be here when it's not freezing cold and windy, and that's something of a miracle that we're all back here with a menorah after we went through what we went through last year. the rabbis have been great leaders in this community, they've been dear friends of mine, and they've done so much to help build this washington community. i want to thank jared bernstein for all he's doing and his predecessor, daniel boor run, and my friend, julius genachowski s here with his family today. hanukkah is a special day for all of us. it's a day when we remember that miracles happen, but miracles happen only when people put

their minds to it and do their part. we saw today that there's a new generation growing up. rafael and deborah understand that it's a partnership, that we have to do our part in order for miracles to happen. yet so many of us have come to where we are because our parents, our grandparents came to this great country, and they started a life where they had no previous, no previous life before. we're here in a country where we celebrate our freedom, where we live with the opportunity for us and our generations to come after us to have great opportunity. and today it's particularly moving day. the president went out and greeted the returning colors with the troops who came back from iraq. it's a day when we welcome back the people who are represented here on our stage who fight for our freedom, and we're thankful to them every day. i think that one of the things about hanukkah that's so moving is that it is, it's a holiday of light.

it's a holiday when it's getting dark, and we see the hope that when we light the lights, it gives us reason to believe that great thicks can happen -- things can happen. i hope that as we go up in just a few minutes and light these lights tonight, all of us are thinking about what we can do to headache our country, our community -- to make our country, our community a better place. and if we do our part, the miracles will happen for us. happy hanukkah and welcome. [applause] >> thank you very much, director lew. we're now going to proceed with the lighting of the menorah. i ask everyone to, please, remain in your places after the lighting of the me menorah for s to sing "god bless america." please, again, remain in your places after the lighting of the menorah. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ ♪ speak speak tongue. ♪ [speaking in native tongue]

♪ ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

[speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ ♪

[speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations]

♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ ♪

[speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ ♪ [speaking in native tongue] ♪ ♪ thank

>> thank you very much, again, the president's own united states marine band. just before we conclude -- thank you. [applause] nice round of applause wouldn't hurt. [cheers and applause] now, just before, now just before we conclude our program, there's some people we'd like to thank. first, we'd like to thank the almighty god for this wonderful weather. [applause] and for protecting the united states and allowing us to live with religious freedom. [applause] as we celebrate hanukkah, of course, we remember alan gross who's still imprisoned, an american jew who we hope will see the light of hanukkah. last year we played for e lad

shah lead, and this year he is celebrating with his family. [applause] i'd also like to thank some of those who have sponsored this event and helped make it possible. we want to thank our national chairman, mr. ronald perlman. we'd -- hold the applause until we're done. we'd like to thank the mayberg family who have made a special effort to support events like this. we'd like to thank duty-free america for their sponsorship. we'd like to thank the jahvid family, and we'd like to thank all the companies that have helped by donating in kind like westerly press and all the other companies like national events who extend themselves way above and beyond the call of duty to insure that these events can happen in an expanded manner like the theme of hanukkah to keep on increasing more and more light. [applause]

round of applause, sure. [applause] we'd like to thank the national park service, the united states park police for their involvement. it's not easy to permit an event like this and for their cooperation. we'd like to thank the military district of washington for sending their support in the form of the president' own. we'd also like to thank our staff at american friends of lebavitch who each worked the tasks of three or four people each to make sure all those people who called in the last 48 hours were able to be part of this. we've distributed thousands of tickets, and just take one look at the crowd here tonight, you see that everybody showed up. [applause] and we'd like to thank all of you for coming out here and showing support for this most

important event. after we conclude with "the song of peace" and the prayerful song of "god bless america," we will invite everyone to get a little me menorah to take home. you'll find one of the mcabees and find one. if not, go to national menorah.org, we'll have it sent to you, and then we're going to enjoy some hot last cas and doughnuts. but, please, if you'd all rise in your places so we can sing these two songs together. >> please join me in thanking someone who never says thank you to himself. were it not for rabbi shemkov, we never never be here. thank you, rabbi shemtov. >> as always, thank you, cantor, for helping put this music together for the last 20 years. all the military libraries have now the most obscure hanukkah songs thanks to you.

[laughter] thank you very, very much. without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, the president's own. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ god bless america, land that i love.

♪ stand beside her and guide her through the night with the light from above. ♪ from the mountains to the prairies to the oceans white with foam. ♪ god bless america, my home sweet home. ♪ god bless america, my home sweet home. ♪ god bless america, land that i love. ♪ stand beside her and guide her from the night with the light from above.

♪ from the mountains to the prairies to the oceans white with foam. ♪ god bless america, my home sweet home. ♪ god bless america, my home sweet home ♪ [cheers and applause] >> thank you, thank you, thank you. the three cantors and the president's own. we have one more thank you to mention, and that is for the community security service which offers security for the jewish organizations here in america. may -- made a special trip down from their headquarters in new york to help protect this event. ladies and gentlemen, a very

happy hanukkah. have a safe trip home. we have last cat and doughnuts provided right in the tent to my right. good night, happy hanukkah, thank you very much one and all for coming. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> with the iowa caucuses and new hampshire primary next month, c-span's series "the contenders" looks back at 14 men who ran for president and lost but had a long-lasting impact on american politics. here's our lineup for this week. tonight, five-time socialist party candidate eugene debs. friday, charles evans hughes, chief justice of the united states, and three-time governor

of new york, al smith, followed by businessman and member of the liberal wing of the gop, wendell willkie. this weekend, three days of american history tv on c-span3. saturday at 7 p.m. eastern visit the congressional cemetery. and at 8, university of colorado at boulder professor thomas ziehler on american prosperity in the '50s and '60s. meet the white house chefs dating back to the carter administration, and monday at 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eye lights -- highlights of c-span's coverage of the 70th anniversary of the attack on 3er8 harbor. and the history of native american military service. experience american history tv all weekend, every weekend on c-span3. [applause] >> next, a discussion on the future of media and journalism. we'll hear from a panel of reporters and media executives. this event was held at the

newseum of broadcast communications, and it's about an hour and ten minutes. >> a very old media brand that's doing a lot of new things. it's appropriate, i think, that we're here at a museum, at a museum of broadcast communication. because the question that we're going to talk about today is whether that very idea, broadcast communication, is an oxymoron. right? how much broadcast is there anymore? everything is narrow cast, everything is delivered to you directly. think about it. there's no twitter museum yet. there's no facebook museum yet. but there are television and radio museums. museum isn't always a great word because it has to preserve something that is going away, but there is still radio, people still write poetry, and i don't think any of that will go away. but it's all changing in ways that are dramatic. and you're going to hear from this incredible panel about what's going on now and what the

future holds. so evan rat live right here is one of the best young magazine writers around. i consider anybody young who's younger than i am. [laughter] and he wrote a fantastic, memorable piece a number of years ago, a couple of years ago for "wired" where he went off the grid. it was a fantastic piece. but more importantly, he's here because he's the founder of something called the atavist which i recommend you all go to and download. but one of the things he's doing, it's a kind of mini publishing empire where it's taking text and putting in music, video and, basically, enhancing it in a way that i think all media will have to be going forward. karen swisher who is the impresario of all things digital which is the absolute go-to site for everybody who's interested in new media and digital communications. she's been a longtime reporter for "the washington post." i've been reading her so closely because she followed aol like

nobody's business, and it was nobody's business. [laughter] and those folks like me who work at a company which used to be called aol/time warner, you know, read everything you wrote like it was the bible. joe mcginnis, the selling of the president, 1969. one of the most seminal books about politics in america, changed the way people report about politics. he went inside in the nixon campaign. it's a book i reread again a couple of years ago. it's incredibly fresh, it's incredibly well reported and well written, and that was a long time ago. has written, i believe, 11 books since then, many of them bestsellers including fayal vision and that -- fatal vision and that series about the jeffrey mcdonald murder case, and joe once again has been in the news because he rented a house next to sarah palin and has written a book that sarah sarah sarah

palin and her many fans don't think so so great. but that may be good for you. [laughter] i was reading it this morning. so ayman mohyeldin was the face and the voice for many of us of the biggest story of the year, arab spring. he kind of used to be, i mean, you worked for nbc many years ago, right? as a desk assistant. and then he migrate todayal ya al-jazeera where you really had an opportunity to do a once in a lifetime thing. you were at the very center of something that is, i think, truly transformational. and ayman now has cashed that in and is going back to nbc as a foreign correspondent. only an american media company would call an international correspondent a foreign correspondent. you'll fix that. now, jim warren, i'm sure, is familiar to all of you, right?

he is the dean of the chicago press corps. and one of the things that's fantastic about jim is that you're one of the few people in the business -- and we're like the same age, right? -- who actually managed to figure out how do can i keep the best and most important of old media, of shoe leather journalism, of talking to people, of going out and reporting which he still does, and how do you mesh that with new media, with twitter, with facebook. so jim was the managing editor of "the chicago tribune", he's now writing for the atlantic monthly, the new york times, and you've started the chicago cooperative which i think you'll talk a little bit about. when we start talking. so, um, so we're going to have to figure everything out for you today. and we chatted a little bit beforehand and, basically, this is a conversation that all journalists have all the time. like, well, what's happening and what's the future. so we're going to talk about what's happening now, and we're going to talk about the future. actually, just before i was coming on stage, cara saw i had

a piece of paper stuck to my foot, and she said you better take that off, and joe said print media. [laughter] so, cara, let's start with you. what is going on? you've managed to migrate, you're tracking this both, you know, as a georgeist -- journalist, but you're also a participant. so you have a unique perspective looking at what's going on in media. >> sure. well, i was a reporter, again, for the was post and for the journal as their first internet reporter. when i got to the journal, i started covering it at "the washington post." i went on book leave to write a book about aol, the first book where things are going well for that company. the second one was down. and i was just very -- once i saw the internet for the first time, i realized it was going to change everything, and i was very almost adamant that this was the end of news print, everything that i was doing at "the washington post" which is an amazing place run by a terrific family, the grahams. and when i was walking out the

door, don gramm said, you know, why are you leaving? why are you leaving the washington post? he says the water's rise -- don, the water's rising, and you're on a lower plane that "the wall street journal." and one of the things that was important to me that news organizations did not understand what was happening. when i got to the journal, i was the only internet reporter, literally. one of the media reporters who was, you know, that was the hot thing at the journal, to be one of the media journalists to be covering time warner said, oh, you'll be covering cb radio. that's what they called the internet. [laughter] and i said, the internet's going to kill you, you and your beat and everything else is just going to be washed away. and i was very struck by classified, how "the washington post," for example, classified business could be attacked. that was one of the bulwarks of its business. they were losing big retailers who weren't advertising anymore. there were better ways to advertise. so even while i was at the journal covering the internet,

it was almost impossible not to see the biggest implication was on news and how news was delivered. and my whole premise was people didn't not want news, they didn't want a newspaper. i wasn't reading the newspaper. so years later when the journal was starting to do a saturday journal, they had focus groups, and i'll finish with this. they had focus groups on what people liked about it. i thought it was homework. i was, like, oh, great, i have to read the journal on saturday now. so i'd sit in the back, and they'd say what do you think about this, what do you think about that, and they finally got to me, and i wanted to put all their money into online. that was what i was interested in. and i said -- they said how can we get young people to read the news? and i said, well, if you tape a joint between every page, maybe that'll work. [laughter] and they kicked me out -- >> that would burn up the paper. >> it would be fantastic, what are you talking about? so, and it would give you a whole new perspective on warren