CQ Transcriptswire

SPEAKERS: JOHN KING, HOST

DAVID AXELROD, SENIOR ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT

LT. GEN. HENRY “TREY” OBERING, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.)

WENDY SHERMAN, FORMER SPECIAL ADVISER TO PRES. CLINTON

SEN. BOB CORKER, R-TENN. SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW, D-MICH.

[*] KING: I’m John King, and this is our “State of the Union” report for this Sunday, April 5th.

A defiant North Korea launches a rocket designed to reach as far as the United States. President Obama calls it a provocative act and calls for swift international sanctions. Pyongyang says it was simply launching a satellite, but its neighbors call the launch threatening. We will check in with CNN correspondents around the world covering this breaking story.

And what are the U.S. options going forward? We’ll ask a veteran diplomat who has met North Korea’s unpredictable leader face-to-face, and two members of the United States Senate.

President Obama is calling on world leaders to step up on the economy and Afghanistan, and this morning a new poll challenge -- to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Senior White House Adviser David Axelrod joins us to talk about the president’s overseas debut. That’s all ahead in this hour of “State of the Union.”

We begin with the breaking news out of North Korea. The reclusive communist regime defied the United Nations resolution and ignored international threats of sanctions and launched a long-range rocket. The Taepodong 2 missile, which passed over Japan, was launched Sunday morning in Asia about 10:30 p.m. Eastern time Saturday here in the United States.

The goal for the North Koreans was to launch a satellite into orbit and to test the reach of its long-range missile program, but U.S. and Canadian aerospace officials say the mission failed. They say one stage of the rocket landed in the Sea of Japan. The remaining portions, along with the satellite, landed in the Pacific Ocean.

Still, the launch was in violation of a United Nations resolution passed after a previous North Korean test firing in 2006, and the Security Council is scheduled to meet later today to discuss a response.

President Obama is traveling overseas, and earlier this morning in the Czech Republic, he had strong words for North Korea.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response.

North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. All nations must come together to build a stronger global regime, and that is why we must stand shoulder-to-shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course. (END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Our senior White House correspondent Ed Henry is traveling with the president, joins us now from Prague. Ed, let’s start with how the president found out on this overseas trip.

ED HENRY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, it was White House press secretary Robert Gibbs who informed the president and woke him up around 4:30 this morning here in Prague. We’re six hours ahead of Washington. Robert Gibbs says that initially, the president expressed no surprise at all. He has been briefed on this. He’s been prepared. In fact, the president had several high-level meetings back in Washington even before they went on this trip to go through the various scenarios.

So today here in Prague he already had high-level briefings from his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel ; his national security adviser, retired General -- Marine General Jim Jones, traveling with him as well. The president also reaching out by phone to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, military officials as well. And I can tell you, the U.S., as you know, pushing for strong action by the U.N. today when they have that emergency session of the Security Council. That’s why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is traveling here with the president, she has been working the phones as well, reaching out to her counterparts from China, South Korea, Japan, as well as Russia, trying to make sure that this response is coordinated, John.

KING: And Ed, as we await the Security Council meeting, how about the timing of this? The North Korean leader is known to act to get attention. He picked a pretty good moment here. The president giving a dramatic speech in Prague, trying to talk about a pledge to rid the world someday of nuclear weapons. Does the White House believe the timing was on purpose?

HENRY: Top aides are saying, look, we can’t get inside the mind of the North Korean dictator. We don’t know whether they planned it, but the White House is insisting they were not planning anything on this side of things, that this speech had been in the works for weeks. They were going to move ahead on this speech about ridding the world of nuclear weapons, regardless of what North Korea did. They say they just can’t get inside the head of that regime, but they believe, at least right now, that it was all coincidental.

What the president was trying to do in this speech today here in Prague was to try to put this whole situation in a broader context and say that the threat, the nuclear threat around the world is much broader than just North Korea. It also involves rogue nations like Iran, and the president made some bold promises. He said he wants to push now for a comprehensive test ban treaty all around the world, that the U.S. would be willing to sign, and he also wants to rid the world of the loose nukes, nuclear material that’s available around the world that could get into the hands of terrorists. He promised he would rid the world of that in his first four years in office, so some big promises today from this president on a very dramatic day, John.

KING: Ed Henry, keeping track of the president’s trip and the dramatic surprise or not-so-surprise from North Korea in Prague. Ed, thanks very much.

Let’s turn now to CNN correspondents in the region. Sohn Jie-ae is in Seoul, South Korea, and Kyung Lah is in Tokyo. Kyung, let me start with you. Japan had mobilized some military resources just in case. Obviously no military threat from this launch, but what is the reaction in Tokyo?

KYUNG LAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the reaction has been that now that nothing on Japanese soil has been struck by any loose debris or any falling objects from this rocket, what they want is diplomatic action, strong diplomatic action.

Japan’s prime minister saying that today’s actions simply cannot be overlooked. So Japan immediately called for and then was granted by the U.N. Security Council that emergency meeting. All eyes here in Japan looking forward to that meeting now, six hours away. They are hoping out of that emergency meeting, John, that there will be a strongly worded statement, and then follow-through, but no specifics on what exactly Japan is hoping for. John.

KING: And Kyung, in terms of the United States and Japan working together, any hope -- you say no specifics as to what to work on. In the past, sanctions have simply not worked against the North Korean regime. Is there any hope this time that you will get anything more than a symbolic resolution out of the United Nations?

LAH: What Japan is saying is it’s a hands-off approach. They are really waiting for the U.S. to take the lead. They keep using the words “appropriate steps.” These are words that the president has used, and they are hoping for a similar measure.

But what we are seeing behind the scenes is a lot of diplomatic action. Japan really pushing the U.S. for some strong, strong movement, but at this point, Japan is really just waiting to see what the U.S. is going to do.

KING: Kyung Lah, joining us there from Tokyo. We’ll check in with Sohn Jie-ae in Seoul a bit later in the program. But joining us now is retired Air Force Lieutenant General Henry “Trey” Obering III. He’s the former director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency in the Defense Department. General, thanks for joining us.

I want to take a closer look at what we have. This is a simulation built from satellite images, and let’s go in to where we know this took place here. Let’s come on in here.

This is the launch pad area here. You see residential areas, dormitories essentially, on the military facility. Let’s come in and look a little bit closer here, this simulation. Looks pretty familiar. I know you’ve seen this many times before. The control bunker here. Over here, -- this gets a little finicky sometimes -- this is the assembly. You see the road, so they can take the missile out. They put it together in here. And this of course, what we are most concerned about, is the rocket right here. Taepodong 2 missile on the platform. The North Koreans have been working on this for some time. It’s a two-stage missile. Payload on the top. What do we know about the capabilities?

OBERING: First of all, this could be an intercontinental ballistic range missile. That typically means it has more than one stage, two or three stages. We know that it is basically built on the old Scud technology that they improved. They made the engines larger and more capable. There may be advanced engines that could be used in the upper stages. We don’t understand or know that. That is one of the things that we were very concerned and looking for.

But this represents basically the ability to range certainly the northwestern portions of the United States, if it is a two-stage missile. If it is three-stage, with some of the advanced propellants and lighter materials, it could range the majority of the United States.

KING: I want to take a look at the neighborhood. We can switch out to a different shot here. This is the neighborhood here. You mentioned the potential range, so let’s start at that point, let’s start from the range of this.

What they are hoping with this missile -- you see North Korea is here. The west -- just west of the Hawaiian islands, the residential parts of the Hawaiian islands. But up here, of course, this missile, if it makes that range, could reach Alaska, some of western Canada, and dangerously close to the West Coast of the United States. Are they capable of doing that yet?

OBERING: Apparently, because this did not succeed, they have not been able to achieve that yet. But it does show the dogged determination by the North Koreans to continue this development program, in spite of the intense diplomacy and the sanctions that have been placed against it.

One thing I would like to show you, if I could, John. If they were aiming for a space launch, what you would see them do is try to take advantage of the earth’s rotation. So that’s why you see the trajectory the way you see it, headed in this manner. So we are looking for any azimuth in this direction that would be a threat to the United States. That’s one of the things that we were looking at, with respect to any threats to the United States.

KING: Let’s break down what happened. Because we do know, as predicted, first stage hit in the Sea of Japan, to the west of Japan, from our perspective in the United States. But the second stage, this orange area is where a successful missile launch, based on everything we’ve been able to put together -- they thought the second stage would hit here. Instead, we are told by NORAD that the second stage of the missile, along with the satellite payload, hit the drink somewhere in here.

What does that tell you about what happened, what went wrong?

OBERING: It says that, first of all, they had successful first staging, and they were able to control that rocket through staging. That is a significant step forward for any missile program, because oftentimes those missiles become unstable as they go through these staging events.

The fact that they did not get apparent separation of the payload from the second or third stage means that they have more work to do there in terms of being able to achieve that. But the bottom line is they are continuing to advance in their ranges, and I think it’s why it’s important that we have the ability to defend against these types of threats.

KING: And help our viewer at home understand that this is not just to snub the nose -- thumb your nose at the international community. North Korea does this because it is in the missile business.

OBERING: Absolutely. In fact, in 2006, they launched seven missiles in addition to -- or six in addition to the long-range Taepodong 2 they tried then. Those other six were very successful, and they showed ranges of being able to range Japan, for example. They were successful.

The one thing in their brochure they have not been able to demonstrate is the very, very long-range weapon, and I think that was one of the primary intents of this launch.

KING: And in terms of the marketing, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, anywhere else?

OBERING: Yes. Well, anybody else that they can -- that is willing to buy the missiles, they’d be willing to sell to.

KING: General Obering, thank you so much.

KING: We’ll continue to talk to you as this develops. And as you see the map, right here, again, just to show the neighborhood -- you understand the nerves -- South Korea here, Japan here, China here.

We’ll continue. Thank you for the military perspective.

And when we come back, much more on the North Korean missile launch throughout the next four hours. CNN reporters around the world, getting the latest details on this story.

And up next, you’ll want to watch this. We’ll talk to a top U.S. diplomat who has actually sat face-to-face with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il.

And later, we’ll got to Prague for a conversation with one of President Obama’s closest advisers, David Axelrod. “State of the Union” will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Some breaking news this morning: North Korea launches a long-range rocket. The rocket failed to reach orbit, instead landing in the Sea of Japan and the Pacific Ocean. That’s according to U.S. and Canadian aerospace defense officials.

Joining us now is Ambassador Wendy Sherman. She was President Clinton’s North Korean - Korea policy coordinator, and she participated -- quite rare -- in direct talks with Kim Jong-Il, the reclusive president of North Korea.

Wendy, based on that experience, why now?

What is he up to?

SHERMAN: I think that Chairman Kim Jong-Il is up to several things. First, he wants to solidify his own position as the leader of his country, following a stroke.

He wants to tell his military that it’s a military-first economy, because, in fact, they get money, funds from the sale of this missile technology.

And he wants to say to the Obama administration, “Pay attention to me; I’m serious; I have chips on the table, and negotiating with me is serious business.”

KING: Well, they are paying attention and they will take their attention first to the United Nations Security Council.

You have been the Security Council route. Are there any viable sanctions?

The world can scream; the world can complain, but are there any viable sanctions against this regime, considering that it has so few contacts with the outside world?

SHERMAN: I suspect that we’ll get either a presidential statement or a resolution that reinforces existing sanctions. I think that China, in particular, and Russia, secondarily, won’t want new sanctions, and they have veto power in the Security Council.

And I think everybody agrees, including the United States, Japan, and South Korea, that the most important thing is to get back to the six-party talks and back to the negotiating table.

KING: Explain to a viewer who might not follow this closely how different this country is. If you go to the DMZ -- it’s not as common as it used to be, but they have the big speakers blaring the propaganda.

The missile failed. The missile went into the Sea of Japan and the Pacific Ocean. The satellite did not reach orbit. But will the people of North Korea be told that?

SHERMAN: No. The people of North Korea will be told that, in advance of their parliament meeting this coming Thursday and anointing Kim Jong-Il their leader once again, that a satellite has gone into orbit and the songs of Kim Jong-Il and his father Kim Il-Sung are being sung throughout the universe.

It is a very closed society. People really only know what the leader tells them. They think all good things come from the leader. It’s quite extraordinary and it’s quite hard for all of the rest of us to understand what a closed society and what a controlled society is. In this Internet age, we can’t imagine it.

KING: And because of that, when you talk about potential sanctions, one of the few things that gets in is emergency food aid, from time to time.

But you hear from all the governments and nongovernmental organizations that they believe a lot of that food goes to the president and to the military and not the starving people of North Korea, right? ?

SHERMAN: Well, in fact, the North Koreans have decided they don’t want the World Food Program’s aid because of complicated negotiations about the terms for that aid.

That’s terrible for the North Korean people. There’s probably an entire generation with stunted growth, stunted mental capability. And so, as the day comes that there is reconciliation with the South, it is going to be a big lift for that economy to help North Korea. KING: The six-party talks are the platform for the diplomacy. The United States is a key partner there, as well as Russia, China, South Korea and Japan.

One of the things President Bush did at the end of his term was to take North Korea off the list of state-sponsored terrorism.

Now, we know -- Vice President Cheney was in that chair a few weeks ago, on this program. He disagreed with that decision. I want you to listen to the former vice president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: He gets to listen to whoever he wants to listen to. And I had my say. I got my chance to voice my views and my objections. I didn’t think the North Koreans were going to keep their end of the bargain, in terms of what they agreed to. And they didn’t.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: The vice president, the former vice president, believes North Korea should still be on that list. It is one of the options available to President Obama. Should he take it, put them back on the list of state sponsors of terror, now that they have violated a U.N. resolution?

SHERMAN: I suspect that the president will not do that. Because, indeed, we have to get back to the bargaining table. That would probably make getting back to the six-party talks a longer route to go. This was agreed upon with the other parties in those six-party talks as a way to move forward.

And in fact, terrorism is probably not what we have to be most concerned with, with North Korea. What we have to be most concerned with is not only their nuclear weapons program but this missile technology which they sell to other countries gives them money to keep their regime going. We need to make sure missile technology gets added to the six-party talks.

KING: If you frame it that way, though, does Kim Jong-Il gets what he wants?

He gets the attention. He gets the United States asking him to come back to the table, and no sanctions with any teeth?

SHERMAN: Well, I think that, in fact, what we will have is a condemnation, an international condemnation, which the president began in his speech in Prague, has been joined by the European Union, by South Korea and by Japan.

Even China has said, although we ought to be calm, that this was not a helpful step forward. Russia, as well, agrees.

So I think that it helps to isolate North Korea further. I think we have to say that this was a mistake; this was not helpful. This will make the negotiations more tense and will make countries less likely to give everything North Korea wants as soon as it wants it.

KING: What is he like?

(LAUGHTER)

You sat across the table from a man who is a recluse. He is a mystery to the world. He and doesn’t care when he defies the world. What’s he like?

SHERMAN: He is actually fairly straightforward, more so than you would think. You can have a perfectly rational conversation with him. He doesn’t much like to talk about his family and his personal circumstances, but he really is the leader of his universe.

He doesn’t have to worry about the global economic crisis. He doesn’t have to worry about the war in Afghanistan or building down in Iraq. He doesn’t have to worry about health care for his country. He only has worry about one thing, and that’s keeping his power.

KING: And let me ask you lastly about the timing of this. Any doubt in your mind that we’ve known this is coming? They fueled up the rocket, they put it on that launch pad and we’ve known for several weeks it could happen here, it could happen here, it happened on a day the president of the United States, on his first major overseas trip, was giving a big speech in Prague about proliferation of nuclear weapons and tried to call the world together to say let’s rid the world of nuclear -- weapons grade nuclear technology, and let’s stop the proliferation of missiles like this.

Any doubt that that’s why this happened today?

SHERMAN: I think that Kim Jong-il has actually helped President Obama today because he has given a perfect example of why the president’s remarks are so important, that we really have to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

At the same time I think he was either going to do it during the NATO meeting yesterday, the West military alliance, or today during the president’s speech about nuclear non-proliferation. In either case I think Kim Jong-il has helped President Obama make a very serious and important for the world’s peace and security.

KING: Ambassador Wendy Sherman, thank you for your insights. And we’ll keep in touch as this goes on.

And in addition to condemning North Korea’s missile launch, President Obama made a speech this morning with an ambitious goal, as we just noted, to rid the world of nuclear weapons. We will talk about that and more with one of the president’s closest advisers, David Axelrod. Our STATE OF THE UNION report, we’ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: President Obama is nearing the end of his first overseas trip as commander-in-chief. It’s a high stakes tour that began in England. That’s where Thursday he conceded Wall Street greed was a major cause of the global financial crisis. And he appealed to other leaders for quick coordinated action to turn things around.

Yesterday in France, President Obama won only a modest, mostly temporary commitment of new NATO troops to help U.S. forces to secure Afghanistan. And the latest stop this morning, the Czech Republic, the president spoke in Prague calling on world leaders to join him in seeking a world rid of nuclear weapons.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: This goal will not be reached quickly, perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Joining us from the city where the president delivered that speech just a few hours ago is senior White House adviser David Axelrod.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING: David Axelrod, let’s start with the ambitious agenda the president set out there in Prague when it comes to reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons. And let’s start with the short-term proposal. The president says he wants to go back to table with Russia, renegotiate a new START treaty, strategic arms reduction treaty, and do it this year.

Under the current START treaty the United States and Russia are limited to 6,000 nuclear warheads, and in fact, both countries are already below those limits. How deep does the president want to go by the end of this calendar year?

AXELROD: Well, I think that’s the subject of the discussion that is going to follow the meeting that he had this week with President Medvedev of Russia and -- but the president is committed to an aggressive regime.

And I think that there is a broad realization, John, the Russians understand it, the president certainly feels it, that this issue of nuclear proliferation has taken on a new and deadly turn with terrorism, the possibility that weapons can fall into the hands, not of a rational state, but of an extremist group bent on destruction.

So I think both countries have an impetus to help lead that reduction.

KING: And the broader goal of eliminating, eliminating the production of weapons grade fissile material, how realistic is that when you look around the world and you see in Pakistan, in Iran, in North Korea regimes that are not -- not only have nuclear programs, but trying to advance them?

AXELROD: Well, we have to mobilize the world to be part of this process, because this is really -- this is one of the great threats, nuclear -- weapons grade nuclear material falling into the hands of those who could fashion it into a weapon.

What we want to do is create a situation where nations that want nuclear materials for peaceful purposes, for powering their countries, can get it from an international bank. But that material is secured so it doesn’t fall in the hands of rogue states and extremist groups.

KING: When a president, more than two decades ago, started down this path, the city you are standing in was still part of the Soviet Union, inside the Berlin Wall, the Iron Curtain. President Reagan made a mark with the Soviets in reducing nuclear weapons.

Is President Obama’s goal a legacy of a world free of nuclear weapons?

AXELROD: There’s no question about it, John. And he said that during the campaign. He believes that now. He is acting on that.

You know, obviously, we live in a dangerous world and we can’t unilaterally disarm but we can lead the movement to corral these nuclear weapons and begin that process of reduction.

And that would be the goal to remove this scourge from the face of the earth and take away that threat that hangs over us now.

KING: Let’s talk more broadly about the trip to Europe. The pictures have been fascinating. The president’s reception has been overwhelmingly positive. Most of the news accounts talk about it mixed results in terms of the substance.

Some progress at the G-20, but not as much stimulus spending from France and Germany as the United States would have liked for their economies. At the NATO summit, some short-term commitments of troops to help around the Afghan elections, and certainly some important financial commitments, but no major investment of troops from NATO companies (sic) to go along with the risky big commitments the president is making here with new U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Is that how you see it?

AXELROD: No. I really don’t, John. I think the G-20 was really successful. I think it was the most successful international conference in response to a financial crisis that has ever been held. There has been trillions of dollars of commitment made over the last few months as part of the process that led up to this -- to this summit.

There was agreement to pursue aggressive financial regulatory reform so that the kinds of things that happen that caused this crisis won’t happen again, to set up early warning systems as well, to add to the International Monetary Fund $1.1 trillion, and the World Bank, and some of these other agencies that can help countries who are in desperate shape right now as a result of the crisis, and keep markets open for American businesses.

So a lot was accomplished at this conference. In terms of NATO, I disagree with your interpretation. The president, after 60 days of review, unveiled a strategy about a week ago and the world has embraced that strategy. The NATO countries have embraced it today -- over this weekend.

And Secretary Clinton met with foreign ministers from 80 nations earlier in the week at The Hague and there has been unanimous support for this. And there were strong tangible expressions of that support at the NATO meeting. Thousands of military personnel to help secure the elections that are coming up in Afghanistan and on August 20th, which is the next great test in this process. Thousands more to help train army personnel, police.

AXELROD: Half a billion dollars to help revive the Afghan economy, because that’s a very important part of this mix. It’s not just the military challenge. And additional money to help -- in a fund to help build up the Afghan army so they can defend themselves. So there was an awful lot that was accomplished. Eleven new countries are now participating in this process.

KING: One of the overriding goals of the trip at every stop, the president has been trying to tell his European audience that he is not George W. Bush . Many viewed George W. Bush in Europe as a cowboy diplomat, if you will. But striking at a town hall in Strasbourg, France, when the president was talking about the threat of Al Qaida and how the world still has to keep its eye on that terrorist threat, interesting language. Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Al Qaida is still a threat. And that we cannot pretend somehow that because Barack Hussein Obama got elected as president, suddenly, everything is going to be OK. It is going to be a very difficult challenge.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: David Axelrod, what is the message there? And was the use of his middle name, Barack Hussein Obama, was that somehow calculated?

AXELROD: Well, that was an answer to a question. I’m sure the president used his full name for a reason, but the most important thing here is that the president was very candid with the Europeans about our mutual responsibilities. He was candid about ours and he was candid about theirs.

And what was most interesting to me, John, standing at that town hall, was the enormously positive reception he received from an audience of people who -- who heard him make the case for why we had to be engaged in Afghanistan, who might have been expected to oppose the U.S. on this in the past, but who understood the case he was making. And I think the greatest benefit of all, as much as we’ve accomplished on this trip, is that he has sent a signal to the world that we’re reengaged, that we want to build alliances that are based on mutual respect and mutual responsibilities, and that we’re prepared to lead and we’re also prepared to listen.

KING: First big international trip is a heady moment for any new president. On a lighter note, I’m wondering, since you just flew into Prague on Air Force One, how is the president enjoying traveling in his wife’s shadow?

(LAUGHTER)

AXELROD: Yes. That’s -- you know, I think he is used to that, to be honest with you. I think he resigned himself to that long ago. Michelle was hugely well received along the way here and has done a number of events on her own, communing with...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: They are joking back and forth. Do they joke back and forth about that, the headlines?

AXELROD: I don’t know. But I think it isn’t lost, at least on the staffs, that her approval rating is higher than his. I don’t know what that engenders behind closed doors.

But you know, I mean, the fact is that the president -- Michelle Obama has fans all across the world, but there is no greater fan than the president himself. And I think, you know, he -- he’s happy to bask in her reflected glow.

KING: A couple of weeks back on the program, we had the former vice president of the United States. And I know from talking to people high up at the White House that many officials, including you, were not so happy at the message former Vice President Cheney delivered. Sharp criticism of your boss on a number of fronts, including this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Do you believe the president of the United States has made Americans less safe?

DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: I do. I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: I wanted to give you a chance to respond to Mr. Cheney.

AXELROD: Well, first of all, I find it supremely ironic, on a day when we were meeting with NATO, to talk about the continued threat from Al Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they are still plotting against us eight years -- or seven years later. I think the question for Mr. Cheney is, how could that be? How could this have gone so long? Why are they still in business? That is the fundamental threat that we face, and it’s a little incredible to me that he would -- that he would argue somehow that what we’re doing in forging an international alliance to finally pursue a strategy to defeat and dismantle Al Qaida in Afghanistan is going to make us less safe.

I think it was an unfortunate statement. And let me say, in contrast, how much we appreciate the way President Bush has behaved. He was incredibly cooperative during the transition. And when he left, he said, I wish you guys the best. I’m rooting for you. I believe that to be the case, and he has behaved like a statesman. And, as I’ve said before, here and elsewhere, I just don’t think the memo got passed down to the vice president.

KING: David Axelrod, senior adviser to the president, thanks for joining us from Prague.

AXELROD: John, great to be here.

KING: And up next, we’ll talk about the economy here at home, President Obama’s overseas trip, and how the United States should respond to the North Korean missile launch with two United States senators, Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow and Tennessee’s Bob Corker . “State of the Union” will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: I’m John King and this is “State of the Union.” Here are some stories breaking this Sunday morning.

North Korea has launched a long-range missile defying repeated international warnings. The U.N. Security Council is holding an emergency session on the launch later today. North Korea says the Taepodong 2 rocket put a communications satellite into orbit. The South Korea and the United States say the payload never made it into space.

Speaking in Prague, President Obama says North Korea broke the rules with its rocket launch, calling it a provocation. He also called for international efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. The president is attending the E.U. summit in the Czech Republic. Next, he heads for Turkey.

In Pakistan, a suicide bomber blew himself up in a mosque, killing at least 20 people. It happened at the front gate of the mosque as worshipers were attending an event inside. That and more ahead on “State of the Union.”

A view of the United States Capitol there. A beautiful morning, look at that sky, here in Washington, D.C.

Let’s talk about the North Korean rocket launch and other issues with two members of the United States Senate. Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee joins us from Chattanooga, and Michigan Democrat Debbie Stabenow , celebrating the Michigan State win last night. She’s in Lansing.

Senators, and Senator Corker, let me start with you. What are the United States’ options here? North Korea has launched a rocket. Apparently, not a successful launch, but still in defiance of U.N. resolutions, and the president wants the Security Council to do something. Is there anything the United States can do here?

CORKER: Well, look. First of all, I think the president’s comments, the tone was very good. Obviously, the follow-on is going to be more difficult. We need to quickly move back to the six-party talks, as has been discussed.

And let’s face it, China is the key player here. Russia plays a role that’s strong, but China is the key player. So I think convincing China that additional sanctions need to be put in place is going to be one of the most important components to what we do going forward.

KING: Any difference here, Senator Stabenow? And one of the options the president has would be to restore North Korea to the list of nations the United States says are state sponsors of terrorism. President Bush took North Korea off near the end of his term. Should the president put them back on?

STABENOW: I’m sure they are looking at all the options right now. As the president said, this is very provocative. We are fortunate that, at least in the short run, it was not successful, but it certainly sends a message about where they are headed and their defiance in terms of other countries. And so I would agree with Bob that this is a broader than just the United States. The National Security Council, of course, meeting. They’ve got to look at all the options and take this seriously.

KING: Let’s talk more broadly about the president’s first overseas trip. We’re still getting to know this president here in the United States. This is our first chance to watch him in a major way on the global change -- on the global stage.

Senator Corker, at the G-20, the president didn’t get as much investment from Germany and France as he would like in their economies. Do you see anything coming out of the economic part of this trip that is going to create jobs here in the United States, improve our economic standing here at home?

CORKER: Well, look, generally speaking, I think the president has had a good trip. I think he was well received. Candidly, I agreed with Germany that stimulus was not the answer.

The issue is credit. Many of the European countries have an unusual amount of banking assets in those countries compared to their GDP. They realize that the credit issues are going to be deep in those countries, and I think wisely, are not spending a lot of money on stimulus. So I actually agreed with their position in that regard, and still agree that in our country, the number one issue is solving our credit problems. That is the only way we’re going to build this economy back. So I actually agreed with them there.

I think some of the other issues, of quantitative easing at the IMF -- we have been meeting with the IMF to understand where that goes. I did very much appreciate the fact that all of them agreed that we would not engage in protectionism over the next 12 months. I think that was a very healthy step.

KING: Senator Stabenow, let’s look at the national security front. At the NATO summit, the president did win a commitment of about 5,000 troops from NATO into Afghanistan, but it’s pretty temporary. They are only going in -- most of those troops are only going in for security around the Afghan elections.

In the campaign, President Obama said electing him meant the United States would restore its alliances and get more out of those alliances. This early test, the world is not ready to go along yet, right?

STABENOW: Well, I think this was step one. I mean, they were not coming together just to talk about specific commitments. So the fact that in their first meeting, that there were any commitments made, I think, was significant, and I think what is most important on this trip, John, is that, as the president said, he is there to listen and learn, as well as lead.

It’s a very different tone. It appears to have had, I think, excellent results in terms of rebuilding some very frayed relationships. And everyone knows that we’re all in this together when it comes to Afghanistan, what is happening in terms of Al Qaida and the fact that we all are threatened by this. It’s not just the United States. I think the president made that clear. And my guess is we’re going to see more willingness as we go along to make further commitments.

KING: Let’s bring the conversation back home on this Sunday morning. You’re both from key states, and you’re both key voices in the debate about the future of the automotive industry here in the United States.

Senator Stabenow, you went on the record last December talking about the prospect of bankruptcy for General Motors or Chrysler. And you said this, “Bankruptcy in the auto industry just doesn’t work. First of all, people aren’t going to buy automobiles from a company in bankruptcy, and we’re told that one bankruptcy could cost the taxpayers over $150 billion.”

As you know, the White House essentially fired the CEO of General Motors last week, and the new CEO, who will be with us later in the program, he says he doesn’t like bankruptcy, but that might just be the route we’re going. Has your position changed, or do you think the White House would be wrong to push GM into bankruptcy?

STABENOW: Well, first of all, I’m very appreciative of the commitment that they’ve already made. You know, when March 31 came around, because they did not have all of the pieces in place for viable plans, the administration could have walked away, but they didn’t. They have given additional time, additional commitment to Chrysler in forming a Fiat deal, an additional 60 days for GM to be able to get the bondholders to the table. We know that the workers have stepped forward and will continue to do that, with tremendous pain in our state as a result of what is happening.

I do not support bankruptcy, certainly as the first, second, or third options.

What they are talking about is a different kind of what they hope would be in and out of bankruptcy option.

But I still am very concerned, because, John, we have 600,000 retirees whose pensions, by the way, would become a federal liability in the worst-case scenario in a bankruptcy. We have retiree health care. People who gave up wage increases multiple times in order to make sure they had a pension and had health care. And so, there are tens of billions of dollars -- I’ve heard upwards of $80 billion -- in federal requirements, federal dollars that would be needed potentially if they went into bankruptcy. So it certainly is not my first option. And I know that it’s not the first option of the administration.

KING: Well, Senator Corker, I want to bring you in, but first, I want to listen to something you said a few months back and something the president said just this last week. You have been on opposite sides on many of these issues, but listen to this. It sounds quite the same.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CORKER: The labor costs are out of line. They have to agree to have a contract in place that puts them on parity, on parity with companies like Toyota and Nissan and Volkswagen and other companies here in our country.

OBAMA: It will require unions and workers who have already made extraordinarily painful concessions to do more.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: So, Senator Corker, has the president come around to your way of thinking?

CORKER: Look, there’s no question that they have been pursuing the same thinking that I laid out in December. I wish we had moved more quickly towards that, and I think these companies would be in much better shape.

Look, I think Fritz Henderson is the right guy. I think a lot of Fritz, and I hope that this administration is successful for both Debbie’s state, our state, and actually this country, and the many people that depend upon it.

There is no doubt that bankruptcy is a possibility. I know they are looking at a 363 code section in the bankruptcy law to look at bankruptcy.

But the fact is that I do disagree with the government just coming in and taking over a company like this. I think that was heavy-handed. I think that is something that we’ll look back on in several years and be very concerned about. But I hope they are successful.

And yes, this whole issue of shared sacrifice is something that I agree with the president on. Again, I wish they had done it in a different way. I wish the board and the company itself was moving through this and hope, as much as possible, that politics will stay out of the decisions that are made.

KING: You say, Senator Corker, politics will stay out of the decisions...

STABENOW: John, John...

KING: Go ahead, Senator, go ahead. Jump in, Senator Stabenow.

STABENOW: John, I just want to add, because Bob and I are working together on a number of fronts, but I disagree on one thing. When Bob talks about heavy-handedness in terms of the CEO, I remember back in December when Senator Corker was in a room representing Republicans in the Senate, saying that the UAW, the workers of the country, had to negotiate directly with Senate Republicans in order to be able to get their support in terms of what their wages were going to be and so on. I really felt that that was a tremendous intrusion into the company as well. So people look at that in very different ways.

The reality is I want to make sure that we have a company that is strong and healthy, that people have -- workers have pensions and health care and jobs. And we should support Fritz Henderson moving ahead in making decisions.

KING: Senator Corker, I want to ask you quickly...

CORKER: John, let me -- let me just jump in...

KING: ... before we run out of time...

CORKER: Let me jump in.

KING: Go ahead. Go ahead.

CORKER: OK. There’s no -- we were not negotiating. Republicans were not negotiating with the UAW. Chris Dodd and I were negotiating a bill that, again, provided covenants on loans. We were not trying to negotiate their contracts. That was going to be left to the folks at GM and Chrysler. So that is a gross misstatement and is not the way it worked (ph) out at all.

STABENOW: Bob, you were trying to negotiate how much they would make. KING: All right, we need to call a time-out here. But as we can tell from both of our senators, this debate and conversation will go on in the months ahead. I want to thank you both. Debbie Stabenow , and again, congrats to Michigan State. You are wearing your green today and joining from Lansing.

STABENOW: That’s right.

KING: Senator Bob Corker in Chattanooga. And later in the program, as we said, we will have Fritz Henderson on the program, and also a report from Senator Corker’s home state of Tennessee. We went down to Spring Hill this week and we talked to some of the auto workers affected by this.

Up next, though, our chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour joins us with her unique insights into North Korea’s provocative missile launch today. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Our chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, of course, following the latest developments on the North Korean missile launch. She joins us from New York.

And, Christiane, let’s start with the basic premise. We have been down this road before. What is Kim Jong-il up to?

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is a successful launch, according to them, because last one, the Taepodong 2 that was fired in 2006, fizzled less than a minute after take-off. This one, at least, took off and went across Japan and then bits fell into the sea.

So for them -- and the North Korean ambassador to the United Nations has just made the first statement, saying, quote: “We are happy that this was successful.”

Now, of course, other experts in intelligence say that the actual satellite did not go into orbit. So it’s a mixed bag. But Kim Jong- il appears to be, according to experts who I have spoken to who have recently met with North Korean officials, appears to be making a statement at home at this time, but also making a statement about rejoining and moving forward with engagement with the United States and other countries.

KING: And so, Christiane, as those conversations, the diplomacy takes the next step, and as we have the conversation, I just want to show viewers on the map here what we’re talking about.

You mentioned the missile went over. And the last test did fizzle out over here. That was in 2006. In this test, the first stage landed west of Japan, from the United States’ perspective. And while the satellite did not make it into orbit, the second stage landed out here in the Pacific.

The debate moves next to the city where you are, to the United Nations and the Security Council. Is there anything beyond words of condemnation the Security Council can do here?

AMANPOUR: Well, look, you know, you just had former Assistant Secretary Wendy Sherman on, who has been to North Korea with then- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who said perhaps one might see a presidential statement at the Security Council condemning what happened and an attempt to reaffirm existing sanctions. You know, the U.S. has taken North Korea off the list of states that sponsor terrorism, and moved towards lifting some of unilateral U.S. sanctions on North Korea. And what’s interesting from nuclear experts who I spoke to overnight, they say that this missile, if it was used as an intercontinental ballistic missile, North Korea is still far away from developing the kind of small, light, and heat- resistant nuclear warhead that it could put on such a missile.

So they don’t believe it had nuclear applications.

KING: And, Christiane, very quickly, what is the market? If they have at least proved they could fire it this far, who are we talking about in terms of the potential market to sell these missiles?

AMANPOUR: Well, as many intelligence and others who are tracking this suggest, North Korea has been selling and sharing proliferation technology and missile technology, whether it be with Iran, whether it be with Syria and others.

You know, Iran just launched a satellite, according to its defense ministry, more than a month ago. And Syria has also been in contact with North Korea over, they say, conventional weapons. But you remember Israel took out a plant in Syria back in -- back a couple of years ago that they said had some nuclear application. The details on that are still very, very vague. But obviously, that is what worries the rest of the world.

But having spoken to North Korea’s chief nuclear negotiator and many others who have done, they want to engage the United States and they’re desperate to engage the United States on long-term issues that affect them. For instance, on trying to, you know, give them the energy they need, give them the food they need, and try to make sure that the U.S. is not bent on obliterating North Korea.

KING: Christiane Amanpour for us in New York. We’ll continue to touch base throughout the day as developments warrant. And our coverage of the North Korean rocket launch and world reaction continues STATE OF THE UNION.

Plus, Howie Kurtz previews the real star of President Obama’s first overseas trip, that would be Michelle Obama. All coming up after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: I’m John King, and this is our STATE OF THE UNION report for this Sunday, April 5th.

North Korea ignores warnings from world leaders and launches a long-range rocket. The United States says the missile landed in water, but still represents a big threat.

We’ll check in with CNN correspondents around the world covering this developing story.

A new ultimatum to struggling General Motors and Chrysler: Produce a better plan to justify more federal help or face bankruptcy. GM’s new CEO, Fritz Henderson, right here, on what needs to change, and quickly.

And why is First Lady Michelle Obama getting as many headlines as the president?

Howie Kurtz takes on that and more ahead in this hour of STATE OF THE UNION.

We begin with the major developing story out of North Korea. The reclusive communist regime defied the United Nations resolution and they ignored international threats of sanctions and launched a long- range rocket. The Taepodong-2 missile which passed over Japan was launched Sunday morning in Asia, about 10:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Saturday night, here in the United States.

The goal for the North Koreans was to launch a slight into orbit and, of course, to test the reach of its long-range missile program. But U.S. and Canadian aerospace officials say the mission failed. They say one stage of the rocket landed in the Sea of Japan. The remaining portions, along with the satellite payload, landed in the Pacific Ocean. Still, the launch was in violation of the United Nations resolution passed after a previous North Korean test-firing back in 2006, and the Security Council is scheduled to meet later today to discuss a response.

North Korea’s actions have put other countries in the region on edge, including South Korea. That’s where we find CNN’s Sohn Jie-Ae.

SOHN JIE-AE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: John, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak had some harsh words for North Korea. A spokesman saying that the launch was a serious threat to the Korean peninsula and the rest of the world.

South Korea said it was very disappointed over what it called the North’s reckless act. South Korea also said that this was a clear violation of the U.N. Security Council resolution banning the development of North Korea’s ballistic missile technology.

The military here were was also on a high state of alert. Military officials saying that they were on the watch for any further provocation from North Korea.

On a different note, however, today was Arbor Day here in South Korea. And while the news of the launch blanketed the South Korean media, for most South Koreans, they went about their business and planted trees -- John.

KING: Sohn Jie-Ae there in Seoul.

Let’s go now to Hong Kong and Mike Chinoy, who’s with the Pacific Council on International Policy. He’s a former CNN correspondent, also the author of “Meltdown: The Inside Story of the North Korean Nuclear Crisis.”

Mike, it is great to see you.

You know this regime as well as anybody. Just let’s just get to the calculation of Kim Jong-il and launching this rocket.

MIKE CHINOY, PACIFIC COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL POLICY: I think there are a couple of factors. Number one is domestic.

He suffered a stroke last August. That has put into play the whole issue of his succession. And so having what they will portray as a successful launch is a way to build up his prestige, a way to promote the regime to the people of North Korea. So I think that’s important.

The second thing is the North Koreans see this as very much strengthening their position vis-a-vis the United States and the other members of the six-party talks that have been under way for several years trying to roll back the North’s nuclear program. The North clearly still wants to engage with the United States, but by defying all these warnings and carrying out these tests, I think they see themselves as coming into any future diplomatic process in a stronger position by having been able to go ahead with this.

KING: And Mike, you’ve watched the six-party talks, as you mentioned before. Is there any reason to believe with the change in administration -- President Bush, of course, late in his administration, pushed those talks forward. As you know, they get go in fits and starts. There’s a commitment, then there’s a long time between meetings. Then the United States and sometimes the other nations accuse North Korea of violating its word.

Any reason to believe with the new administration comes new hope for progress in those talks? CHINOY: Well, the irony is that Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of engaging adversaries like North Korea. But you’ve had a variety of factors driving the North Koreans to take a much more bellicose position.

Partly, as I mentioned, it’s the internal dynamic uncertainty over Kim Jong-il’s health. Partly, the North Koreans felt in the last few months of last year that they weren’t getting what they had expected to get from the Bush administration as part of that process. And they said that if a sanctions effort moves ahead at the U.N., they’d consider pulling out of the six-party talks.

So I think the challenge for the Obama administration is, on the one hand, to not appear weak in the face of this provocative North Korean action. At the same time, to somehow keep the lines open so that some form of diplomacy can go ahead, because the track record of the last seven or eight years shows that coercion and sanctions don’t tend to work with the North Koreans. Indeed, they have the opposite effect. And only when you sit down in a negotiating process is there any prospect of actually making some headway in rolling back their nuclear or missile programs, although by no means is it certain that resuming negotiations will lead to the kind of results that the United States and other countries out here in the region would like to see.

KING: And Mike, as people in the United States and around the world track this today, you’re one of the few western journalists who have been in North Korea. Just take a minute and describe to the audience what life is like.

CHINOY: It’s a very strange place. It’s extraordinarily regimented, it’s cut off from the rest of the world. The population is indoctrinated almost literally from birth with the idea that everything they have is due to Kim Jong-il and his father, the late president Kim Il-sung.

You have a very small elite who live very well in Pyongyang, some of whom are fairly plugged into what’s go on in the rest of the world, who have access to the Internet, to CNN, to international media. Then you have the vast majority of the people who are leading pretty difficult lives. Malnutrition, hunger remain very widespread. Political oppression very widespread -- all pervasive political control.

And the game of this regime, and what Kim Jong-il’s goal here is, to maintain this very strange system and to pass it on to one of his sons. And so regime survival is driving everything that the North Koreans do.

KING: Mike Chinoy for us in Hong Kong.

It is great to see an old friend. Sorry it’s under these tough circumstances.

Mike, thanks for your insights and your help this morning.

And we will continue to track this story, North Korea’s dramatic missile launch. We will to track it throughout the day here on CNN.

But for now, it’s time, a little later than normal, to turn things over to Howie Kurtz and his RELIABLE SOURCES.

Hi, Howie.

HOWARD KURTZ, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, John.

Well, with the global economy in crisis, with banks failing and people losing their homes around the world, Obama went to Europe this week with the network anchors in tow. Among the world’s leaders, the media spotlight was on Obama. Every day, every night, it was all about Obama.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: Europe is getting ready for Michelle Obama. Never mind the president.

(UNKNOWN): Michelle Obama’s already created a sensation over there.

(UNKNOWN): She has become a fashion icon in just the few months that she has been at the White House. And everybody in Europe is enthralled by her.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC: The president’s one thing, but millions of people are just watching Michelle Obama, wondering what she will wear, wondering where she will show up next.

(UNKNOWN): All of Britain seems to embracing America’s new first lady.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: All right. The president was there, too. And there were some stories about the G-20 meetings and all of that. But Michelle, her wardrobe, her personality, her meeting with the queen, let’s face it, the journalistic appetite is simply bottomless.

So, has the coverage been over the top? And how are news organizations assessing the first lady’s husband?

Joining us now in New York, Keli Goff, liberal blogger and political analyst. And here in Washington, Danielle Crittenden, conservative author who blogs at NewMajority.com and HuffintonPost.com. And Matt Frei, anchor of “BBC World News” on BBC America.

Matt Frei, what explains this tsunami of favorable coverage for Michelle to the point that it overshadowed the president and that whole G-20 thing?

MATT FREI, ANCHOR, “BBC WORLD NEWS AMERICA”: It’s Michelle the mensch. I mean, Michelle is not just glamorous, she’s different. She’s confident, she strides forth. She can basically talk to school kids in north London, but also put an arm around the queen and get way with it.

And why can she do that? It’s because she’s genuine.

And, you know, we, in the media, we’re always looking for that rarest of things, that bit of gold dust, which is the genuine politician or the genuine politician’s genuine wife. And this is what we’ve got in Michelle Obama. It also helps that her husband happens to be the most powerful politician in the world.

KURTZ: I’m sure it doesn’t hurt.

Danielle Crittenden, she’s been compared to Jackie O., to Princess Diana. Isn’t the coverage getting a little breathless?

DANIELLE CRITTENDEN, AUTHOR, “THE PRESIDENT’S SECRET IM’S”: Well, it’s probably a little breathless, but it’s fun. I happen to enjoy reading it.

I think it’s more actually the analogy is that this -- they are like the Brangelina of politics right now. We call them Barchelle -- go to Europe.

She’s also, I think, the first post-feminist first lady we’ve had in that she seems to really be embracing her role as first lady. She finds it fun. It’s a great job.

She gets a high profile doing charity work. She’s not there jockeying for -- seeming to jockey for power with her husband.

KURTZ: Right.

CRITTENDEN: But remember, he said to her -- he was criticizing something she was going to wear, and she said, look, go save world hunger, get out of my closet. Like she’s very confident in her role.

KURTZ: Get out of my closet.

Keli Goff, watching MSNBC, when the first couple went to France, and the headline was “Carla Bruni, First Lady’s Fashion Smackdown.”

Isn’t this out of control?

KELI GOFF, MEDIA ANALYST: It is out of control, but I agree with Danielle, it’s kind of fun. You know, by the way, I’m still waiting for President Obama to say that “I am the man who accompanied Michelle Obama to Europe.” I’ve just been waiting for that.

KURTZ: That’s been used by JFK.

GOFF: Absolutely.

But no, I actually did a bit of checking, and on “The Huffington Post,” which work I blog for as well, I noticed that, in the last couple of days of the 15 most popular stories, at least five of them have to do with Michelle Obama’s wardrobe. And I think only one of them had anything to do with the G-20 or NATO or any of the things that are actually really important.

KURTZ: Well, that tells it right there. There apparently is a bottomless appetite.

But Matt Frei, the British press seems even more gobsmacked about Michelle Obama than here in the states. And that business -- if, we can put the picture up -- with her putting her arm very lightly around the queen, breaking protocol, I mean, you would think she had elbowed her in the ribs.

FREI: Ah, but Howard, who put the arm around the other person first? Was it the queen or was it Michelle Obama? There’s a whole bit of discussion going on about this. Here’s the point...

KURTZ: Why is this a controversy?

FREI: I’ll tell you why. Because if you saw the film “The Queen” with Helen Mirren, you know that the royal family has a problem, and that is, how does it transport itself from the 15th century to the 21st century elegantly?

By putting her arm around the queen, as Michelle Obama did, she did the royal family the biggest favor that anyone can possibly do them. She bestowed some of that modern, gritty glamour the Obamas embody onto a family that is known for being a little bit aloof.

I mean, when the queen is normally touched, she bristles like a hedgehog. There, she purred like a cat. And, of course, she returned the favor to Michelle Obama. She then put her hand on Michelle Obama’s back and, what’s more, was heard to say after the meeting, in which her husband, by the way, who’s a grumpy old fellow, was basically smiling like a split watermelon, the queen said, “We should keep in touch.”

GOFF: Howard?

KURTZ: Go ahead, Keli.

GOFF: I was just going to say, one thing that we can’t forget, too, is let’s not forget she has a higher approval rating than he does.

KURTZ: She has a 76 percent approval rating. But if I can just briefly give you my thoughts here, I mean, look, she’s a very impressive person. She comes from a modest background.

But this gushing -- “Oh, she was wearing J. Crew today,” is just getting to be a little too much. Laura Bush never got anything like this. It almost seems like we in the media need someone to fall in love with, and it makes it look like we’re in the tank for the family.

And in fact, you probably disagree with many of President Obama’s policies, but you like Michelle Obama.

CRITTENDEN: Yes. Look, I think we should all be -- you know, the press complains that we’re not, you know, high-minded enough in our coverage, that we should be paying more attention to the economic things that went on in the summit, and that’s all true. But there’s also color, and these are what make our politicians human.

I think there’s a great amount of pride seeing a first lady go over and conquer like that. And I’m just sorry she didn’t high-five the queen.

KURTZ: Matt?

FREI: I think that there’s another point here as well, is that -- this is a very British point -- in Britain, we don’t do aspirational rhetoric particularly well. We can’t talk about a British dream. It sounds a bit cheesy. The Germans can’t talk about a German dream, because if they do everyone heads for the door.

But Americans talk about an American dream, and there is an American dream in what Michelle Obama and Barack Obama , more importantly, have achieved. So when she goes to black British school kids in north London, as she did last week, and almost tears up when she tells them that she has achieved something that she never dreamt she would have achieved, that’s the kind of thing you never hear from any politician in Britain...

KURTZ: All right.

FREI: ... quite frankly. And it rings true.

KURTZ: There was also a focus about the gift-giving, and just take a look at some of the softer side of the coverage. We’re going to roll some tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: The president gave the queen a new iPod.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS: Your Majesty, here is your royal iPod.

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC: An iPod with photos of her 2000 state visit.

JEANNE MOOS, CNN: An iPod?

COOPER: Apparently, she had an iPod already.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: They can’t think of a creative, thoughtful, appropriate gift for, you know, prominent world leaders.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Keli Goff, have you gotten tired of the iPod controversy?

GOFF: I’m not even sure it was a real controversy. I mean, I think that this is pretty funny, that we have all of these major problems, and Sean Hannity and others can get so worked up over something like an iPod. But, no, I mean, back to the overall issue, though, Howard, in terms of this coverage and whether or not it’s getting out of control, you know, the one thing I’d like to say is, you’re right, Laura Bush didn’t get the same level of coverage, but she also didn’t display quite as much of an interest in fashion. I mean, part of this is that it’s a really tough time, it’s a tough economic climate. It’s no coincidence that romantic comedies -- the box office for those types of films go up when people -- like, during the depression and during tough economic times.

I think it makes people feel good to see someone who -- it makes the country look good and feel good about things like this. It’s almost escapism in a way from the tough problems people are having.

KURTZ: Do you think, Danielle Crittenden, that one of the reasons we focus on this, besides the fact that it’s fun, is that it’s hard to judge the complicated global economic issues being debated at the G-20 summit? What did this summit actually accomplish? In other words, that’s hard, this is easy?

CRITTENDEN: Well, yes, but I think if you go back, the press throughout time has always focused on these things. And human interest is about personality and story.

I did think it detracted a little bit from more criticism of what Obama actually achieved at the summit. That did get lost, and I think that’s a shame. But on the other hand, I think everybody’s just so excited.

I was thinking as I was watching them that this is the first time in a long time, maybe since Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan, that we’ve had a first couple who seem actually very connected to each other, a very good marriage, doing the job together in a way that sort of is exciting. And you get the sense with them that when they go back to their hotel at night, they talk it all over, and it’s a real joint project in a way that we have not seen a long time. That’s very fascinating.

KURTZ: Right.

But at this G-20 -- and I liked it better when it was the G-7, because I could remember all the countries -- they agreed to make $1 trillion available to spur growth around the world. I mean, clearly, that -- you know, obviously some stories and analyses, but it got short shrift

FREI: Well, I think it did get quite a lot of coverage, to be honest, certainly -- well, in the British tabloids, it was all about Michelle Obama. In the quality papers, it was a kind of balance between the two.

But I think Danielle’s point is right, which is that Michelle Obama, who doesn’t need to negotiate with Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel of Germany, who doesn’t need to justify the fact that, actually, the administration didn’t get all of the things it wanted on this trip, can basically become the custodian of the Obama mojo. What makes the Obamas special? Their connectivity, their kind of combination of glamour and grit, cool and clever, and all that kind of stuff. She’s the custodian of that mojo while her husband goes out and does the hard talking.

KURTZ: Well, thank you for that insight.

There’s one more thing I want to get to, one more piece of tape, because Obama, in his speech in France, criticized the U.S. And in the next sentence, he criticized Europe.

Fox’s Sean Hannity played a bite from that speech. Let’s take a look at that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: There have been times where America’s shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: And the liberal tradition of blame America first, well, that’s still alive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: But in the very next sentence, the president of the United States said, “But in Europe, there is also an anti-Americanism that can be casual but can also be insidious.”

And Sean Hannity’s entitled to any opinion he wants. If he wants to criticize Obama for talking about American arrogance, that is fine. But he didn’t play the second part of the sound bite, and I thought that was not quite fair.

When we come back, getting a pass. Another Obama cabinet nominee has to write a check for back taxes. Why did the press beyond with a great big yawn?

And don’t forget, become a fan of RELIABLE SOURCES on Facebook. You’ll get an early look at guests and topics, and you can throw in your own two cents along the way.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: It had all of the makings of a Washington scandal story. President Obama’s nominee to run the Health and Human Services Department had to belatedly pay thousands of dollars in back taxes, just like his first nominee to run the department, Tom Daschle.

But the story about Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius seemed to last about half a day. Fox News jumped all over it, CNN did a story. There were some inside the newspaper pieces, but Sebelius’ tax troubles got a couple of sentences on the NBC and ABC newscasts, zilch on the “CBS Evening News,” and then vanished.

It’s almost like a group of journalists sat around the table and decided, well, that did kind of happen, on MSNBC.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC: Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius , President Obama’s second choice for health and human services secretary, revealed that she, too, has run into tax problems around the table.

Does anyone care?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

BRZEZINSKI: OK. Care? Care?

OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Is that is how it works? Just sit around the table saying, “I done care” and then the story vanishes?

CRITTENDEN: Well, I think the thing that I was more shocked by was the “I don’t care about Geithner.” That should have been much more criticized than it was.

And I think by the time you get here, it’s not as big a story. And in comparison to that, of course you don’t care.

On the other hand, I think if you’re going to be the party that raises the taxes, you should pay them. And this is sort of like the equivalent of Republicans and sex scandals -- if you’re going to be moralistic, don’t have them.

KURTZ: Interesting analogy, Danielle.

Keli Goff, why does the governor of Kansas get a pass from the media when Tom Daschle, it became such a big story that he was basically run out of town and had to withdrawal from the HHS nomination?

GOFF: Right. And Killefer, too.

I mean, I think there’s a little bit of tax coverage fatigue. But I actually think that the bigger issue, Howard, is that when you -- that’s a lot of money to a lot of us, right, thousands of dollars? But when you compare that to the AIG bonuses, I think the average American looks and says she messed up on $8,000, and then you have corporations giving out a hundred million dollars’ worth of bonuses. It just doesn’t even compete in terms of warranting front-page coverage and getting the interest of readers.

That’s what I honestly believe happened.

KURTZ: And you certainly didn’t have the symbolism, as with Daschle paying taxes on a car and a limo driver to ferry him around town.

GOFF: Right. Absolutely.

KURTZ: Matt Frei, does it seem to you the American press is a bit hypercritical of presidential nominees, and almost everybody who putts their name up for some job gets dragged through the mud?

FREI: Well, not surprising. The process is arduous. The process is all-encompassing.

And this is something that certainly you don’t get in Europe to the same extent. So I think the bigger question here is, do you really want to put yourself up for nomination in this administration when you have to answer a 63-page questionnaire, more than you used to?

(CROSSTALK)

KURTZ: And then have your reputation dissected and sometimes trashed in the press.

FREI: Absolutely. And also, you’re not necessarily perhaps getting the best people to apply for those jobs because a lot of people are staying in New York or elsewhere, saying, you know what? I don’t want any part of that.

KURTZ: On the other hand, it is our job to hold people accountable.

FREI: It is.

KURTZ: And that’s what we try to do here in the states. Matt Frei, Danielle Crittenden, Keli Goff in New York, thanks very much for joining us.

Coming up in the second half of RELIABLE SOURCES, Beck bashing -- why everyone from “The New York Times” to Stephen Colbert is scrutinizing the high-decibel rhetoric of Fox’s Glenn Beck.

Plus, Chi-Town trouble. How can it possibly be that both of Chicago’s major newspapers are in bankruptcy? We’ll talk to veterans from both papers.

And monitoring the Material Girl. Did media outlets really need to jump on Madonna’s latest adoption adventure?

In our next hour, John King, one-on-one with the new General Motors CEO, Fritz Henderson.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: I’m John King, and this is STATE OF THE UNION.

Here are stories breaking this Sunday morning.

North Korea has launched a long-range rocket. President Obama calling it a provocative act. The U.N. Security Council has called an emergency session later today. North Korea says the rocket put a communication satellite into orbit, but the United States and South Korea say the payload never made it into orbit.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is busy working to build an international consensus to condemn the North Korean rocket launch. Clinton spoke on the phone with foreign ministers of China, Japan, and Russia this morning. All three of those countries are involved in talks aimed at getting North Korea to abandon its nuclear program.

And speaking to a crowd of some 20,000 people in Prague, President Obama laid out an ambitious goal of getting the world to rid it sell of nuclear weapons. He also pledged in the short term to negotiate a new strategic armies treaty with Russia by the end of this year. Later today, the president heads to Turkey.

That and more ahead on STATE OF THE UNION.

Let’s turn things back over now to my partner, Howie Kurtz, and his RELIABLE SOURCES.

KURTZ: Thanks very much, John. We’ll talk to you later in the program.

If there’s one guy on TV who is mad as hell and doesn’t want to take it anymore, it’s Glenn Beck. Since jumping from CNN’s Headline News to Fox News last year, Beck has become a bigger hit in the ratings and a magnet for media attention, not always of the favorable kind. Some folks love him, others can’t stand him, and some think he’s a little Looney Tunes.

Here’s Beck this week on America’s reaction to the Obama presidency with a striking visual in the background.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GLENN BECK, FOX NEWS: People are realizing, wait a minute, the grass isn’t any greener on the other side. They’re marching us to a brand of nonviolent fascism.

KURTZ (voice-over): “The New York Times” gave him front page billing this week, saying that his “mix of moral lessons, outrage and apocalyptic view of the future... is capturing the feelings of an alienated class of Americans.”

MSNBC’s “Morning Joe had a bit of fun with the Beck bombast.

BECK: I’m sorry. I’m just a guy who cares an awful lot about my country.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, again, I got nothing...

(LAUGHTER)

BRZEZINSKI: What the hell was that?

KURTZ: And Stephen Colbert seems to view Glenn as something of a role model.

BECK: I’m sorry. I just love my country and I fear for it.

STEPHEN COLBERT, “THE COLBERT REPOT”: I’m sorry. I just love Glenn Beck’s sanity and I fear for it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KURTZ: Joining us now to talk about Beck’s approach and the way the media treat him, in New York, Steven Malzberg, talk show host on WOR Radio and columnist for Newsmax.com. And in Los Angeles, Stephanie Miller, host of the nationally syndicated “Stephanie Miller Radio Show.”

Stephanie, I’m going to take a wild guess and think that you don’t agree with anything that Glenn Beck says. But what explains his appeal?

STEPHANIE MILLER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, you know, Howard, I thought there was no crying in baseball or television, but I guess I’m mistaken. And you know, your show does great, Howard, but it’s my goal to make you cry before the end of this segment, because that can only skyrocket your popularity.

KURTZ: It will get me on YouTube. You may have to work it.

Steve Malzberg, Glenn does seem to get people riled up, both the people who like him and the people who are not crazy about him.

STEVE MALZBERG, WOR RADIO NETWORK: Well, you know, Glenn Beck is a great talent. Our station, my flagship in New York, WOR, just picked him up. And the reason Joe Scarborough is all ticked off is because Glenn Beck is beating Scarborough opposite on another station in New York. So that explains that criticism.

MALZBERG: But I think that Glenn Beck presents his own unique kind of humor and his own unique kind of message, and it’s appealing to people because there a lot of people that are afraid right now.

Look, “The New York Times,” in their economic section on March 31st, the writer actually said that Barack Obama ’s economic policies remind him of Hitler’s economic policies, and that was a compliment by the writer. So, I mean, you can say Glenn Beck showing the film of the Nazis, and all that, “The New York Times” themselves said that Obama’s economic policies are like Hitler’s.

KURTZ: Well, personally, I’m for banning all Hitler references from our political and social discourse.

But we had Glenn Beck on this program two years ago. I want to play a clip from that. I asked him why he refers to himself as a rodeo clown.

Let’s watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I don’t know. Actually, I’ve gotten a lot of hate mail from rodeo clowns as well who say, “My job is harder than yours.”

You know, I tick off I think people on both sides of the aisle. I’m just dumb enough to speak from the heart and from the gut.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Stephanie Miller, when he uses that phrase “rodeo clown,” is that kind of an attempt to let himself off the hook for any rhetorical excesses?

MILLER: I think so. And you know, as Bill O’Reilly proves on a nightly basis, crazy is entertaining.

I think that it’s his schtick, to be honest. I think Glenn Beck knows exactly what he’s doing.

You know, listen, my show is popular, but not that popular as his. My friends have said that I couldn’t be crazier in person. I just need to let more of it out on the air. I think that’s my mistake.

KURTZ: All right. So you’re suffering from insufficient craziness.

MILLER: Yes, really.

KURTZ: Steve Malzberg, has the mainstream media treated Beck fairly? I mean, that was a nice profile in “The New York Times.”

MALZBERG: Yes, that was a nice profile in “The New York Times,” but overall, the mainstream media has a double standard for us conservative talk show hosts compared to the liberals. Look, Randi Rhodes talked about assassinating President Bush with a gunshot. She got in a little trouble for that.

KURTZ: She got in a little trouble? She later was...

MILLER: No she didn’t.

KURTZ: ... kicked off Air America -- not for that remark.

MALZBERG: Now, but when Bernie Ward convicted on child porn, I watched the media, I read the media. This guy was a hugely popular liberal talk show host. I’ve debated him many times over the years. Silence, nothing.

Meanwhile, Jon Stewart just told Rush Limbaugh, get the F out of here, you know, rhetorically out of New York, said he had a penchant for murder. I mean, these terrible, vulgar things.

Whenever the left says anything, it’s entertainment, it’s creativity. If they didn’t let that out, there would be a cosmic explosion. But when the right says something, it’s mean, it’s vicious, it’s mean-spirited, go get those people. It’s a double standard, and it’s awful.

KURTZ: Stephanie?

MILLER: You know, I don’t even know where to start with that. Jon Stewart is a comedian. Yes, it is entertaining. I think people know the difference between, you know, comedy and things that are just plain mean-spirited.

MALZBERG: Stone Henry Hyde to death, Alec Baldwin. Bill Maher saying that the conservatives are buying guns now because they’re afraid that Obama’s Negro friends are going to take theirs guns away. That’s all hysterical, isn’t it? That’s so funny.

KURTZ: But Steve, don’t -- go ahead, Stephanie.

MILLER: Well, you know what? It was really hysterical when Glenn Beck said the day after 9/11 on his radio show because he hates the 9/11 victims because they’re whiny. Was that supposed to be funny?

MALZBERG: I’m not hear to defend what Glenn Beck said on particular instances. If he said that, if he did say that, that seems reprehensible. But let me hear the context of it.

MILLER: It seems that way? Oh, I see. Well, we’re here to talk about Glenn Beck.

KURTZ: But that’s the point, Steve Malzberg. It’s about context. So you can pick out things that people have said, and sometimes they go over the line, who are comedians or satirists. But also, we need to distinguish that from more serious sentiments that people, even those who do comedy parts, are.

MALZBERG: Well, let’s look at what Rush Limbaugh faced with “I want Obama to fail.” OK?

It turns out, of course, that there was a poll done during President Bush’s term where they actually asked the question, “Do you want to Bush to succeed or fail?” And the majority of Democrats polled said fail.

James Carville, ironically enough, on 9/11, before the attacks, talking about President Bush very early on in his presidency, said, “I hope President Bush fails.”

So, I mean, but when Rush said it, it’s like, oh, my God, treason. Hang him, shoot him. He wants Obama to fail. It’s natural if you’re on the other political side.

KURTZ: Stephanie, let me -- go ahead.

MILLER: Steve, there was a difference. People didn’t like Bush’s policies, they didn’t like the Iraq war. And it turns out they were right.

MALZBERG: And they don’t like Obama’s policies.

(CROSSTALK)

MALZBERG: And we won the Iraq War, Stephanie.

KURTZ: All right. Well, I’m not going to debate the Iraq War right now.

I want to bring it back to talk radio.

Stephanie Miller, clearly, it has been a conservative-dominated business. The Washington station that you are on, objectively named “Obama 1260,” recently switched to a business format.

Why is it such an uphill battle for liberals on talk radio?

MILLER: Well, you know, I just did a panel on the fairness doctrine, and I have to tell you, I brought ratings information. And people like me and Ed Schultz are consistently beating conservative shows in many, many markets, and yet there is 10 percent liberal radio in this country, 90 percent of the stations are conservative. And you just cannot argue any more that it’s because liberal radio can’t compete.

I’m not for the fairness doctrine, but I’m for fairness. You know, you can bring up any -- I mean, Howard, you bring up Washington, that’s actually a good point.

The station had no signal. No format that’s ever been on the station got ratings. But they have -- that same company has a right wing station that has no better ratings, and they didn’t drop that format.

So that what’s Democratic senators are starting to look at, is there have been markets where we were number one in the market, where they were going to drop the format. So, you know, that’s getting Democratic senators’ attention, I’ll tell you that.

KURTZ: But Steve, aren’t these business decisions because conversation radio is popular with people who feel that their point of view is not represented elsewhere in the media?

MALZBERG: Of course the -- absolutely. And conservatives do well in every market they’re in.

But I like the Democratic senators, like Debbie Stabenow , whose husband has an interest and has had interest in liberal talk radio. She goes on the record and she says, oh, yes, we’re going to hold hearings, we’re going to fix it, we’re going to level the playing field. And her husband has an interest and the mainstream media is silent about that? Give me a break!

KURTZ: Let me jump in because we’re short on time.

MILLER: She’s not the only senator that’s interested in this, believe me.

KURTZ: Steve, Stephanie mentioned Ed Schultz, the radio host. He just signed a deal with MSNBC. We talked about Fox moving to the right by bringing in Glenn Beck and having Hannity without Colmes. MSNBC certainly seems to be moving to the left.

MALZBERG: Oh, absolutely. They’re radical to the left, and there’s a market for that, there’s a niche for that. Absolutely. You know, Maddow...

MILLER: Thank God there’s no TV station that’s radical to the right.

MALZBERG: No, there isn’t. Where is the TV station radical to the right?

MILLER: Oh, really? Fox News is fair and balanced. I see. OK.

MALZBERG: Absolutely. You know what? I’m constantly -- when I’m on Fox News, I’m always sitting there against a Democrat debating an issue, like I am with you right here.

KURTZ: Got to jump back in.

Stephanie, I want to play one last piece of videotape for you. This is Keith Olbermann on his program talking about the different MSNBC personalities and where Ed Schultz might fit in. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEITH OLBERMANN, MSNBC: Chris is the political inside baseball guy. Rachel is the affable, charming policy wonk. I’m the a-hole.

What are you going to be?

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC: I’m going to be that guy who’s going to be there for the working folk of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Stephanie, I didn’t know you could use the “A” word on television.

MILLER: About yourself you can, Howard.

KURTZ: Ah. You get an exception for that.

MILLER: Yes.

KURTZ: All right. Got to wrap it up there.

Stephanie Miller, Steve Malzberg, thanks for taking off the gloves here with us this morning.

MALZBERG: Thank you.

KURTZ: And you can take RELIABLE SOURCES with you wherever you go. We are portable now. Download our podcast at cnn.com/podcast, or look for us on iTunes.

Up next, double trouble. “”The Chicago Tribune”” and “”The Chicago Sun-Times”” both bankrupt just as Blago is under indictment.

Can these papers survive?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: There’s nothing like the rough and tumble world of Chicago newspapers -- the competition, the cussing, the columnists, the corruption, the unmistakable whiff of that classic film “The Front Page.”

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE, “THE FRONT PAGE”: You lead on the hanging. And say, don’t use Hartman’s (ph) name in this at all. Just say “The Sheriff.”

UNIDENTIFIED MALE, “THE FRONT PAGE”: Why can’t (INAUDIBLE) so we can get some sleep?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: But the world has changed since Venhekt (ph) wrote that play in the 1920s, and he would barely recognize the Windy City today.

In December, just a year after real estate mogul Sam Zell bought the firm, The Tribune Company declared bankruptcy, leaving the city’s dominant paper with an uncertain future. And this week, “The Chicago Sun-Times” joined its rival with a Chapter 11 filing. The tabloid has been struggling since its former owner, Conrad Black, turned out to be a crook.

And now The Sun-Times faces a serious crash crisis. How did it come to this?

Joining us now in Chicago, Carol Marin, political editor and reporter for WMAQ-tv, and a columnist for “The Chicago Sun-Times.” And in Providence, Rhode Island, Jim Warren, former managing editor of “The Chicago Tribune.”

Carol, we also had “The New York Times” company this weekend threatening to close down “The Boston Globe” unless the unions make serious concessions. I’m looking at Chicago, one of the great newspaper cities. Two bankrupt papers, and just thinking, how did it come to this?

CAROL MARIN, POLITICAL EDITOR & REPORTER, WMAQ: You know, we wonder that, too. But I’m here in the CNN newsroom, Howie, where there were used to be an awful lot more people than there are today. The same thing with the television stations across the country. We’re not unique in this regard. Yes, two bankruptcies in one city, and it worries all of us, but it’s everywhere.

KURTZ: Jim Warren, you’re a lifelong newspaper guy, about a quarter century at The Tribune. This has got to be depressing.

JIM WARREN, FMR. MANAGING EDITOR, “THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE”: Yes. I mean, you’ve got this bubonic plague of declining revenue, and you’re beginning to see some of the weak sisters in the industry now falling out and dying.

Obviously, on one hand, it’s apples and oranges in Chicago, Howie. “The Chicago Tribune” situation is a function of about $8 billion of leverage which Zell took on in 2007. “The Chicago Tribune” itself is undoubtedly in a pretty good cash flow situation, vastly superior to “The Chicago Sun-Times,” which is actually burning money every week, it is losing money.

So if you had to bet, painfully, you would say that the prospects for “The Chicago Tribune” are far, far, far superior than those of “The Chicago Sun-Times.” But the impact, even now, on the quality of journalism in a complex metropolitan area and in a major, major state are pretty self-evident.

KURTZ: Carol, does Jim have a point? Are you worried about the future of The Sun-Times?

MARIN: I think this is the classic competition between The Tribune, which always had a more Patrician view of itself than The Sun-Times. The Sun-Times doesn’t have the debt of The Tribune, and The Sun-Times, in fact, may have a buyer not too far down the road, at least they’re certainly talking to some.

The Sun-Times has lived through the criminal enterprise of Conrad Black and David Radler. We survived that and I think we’re not ready to die. I certainly am not. Richard Roeper, one of our columnists for 20 years, just wrote a big piece about at his own endurance at The Sun-Times. We love it; we believe it’s going to keep going.

KURTZ: And Carol, since you mentioned Conrad Black, who’s engaged in a little bit of jail blogging -- he’s now in prison, and he wrote a piece for “The Daily Beast” saying that he’s one of the chief victims of these crimes, that he didn’t do anything, it was the partner who was responsible. But of course he was convicted of essentially looting the company of tens of millions of dollars.

MARIN: Oh, please. And his wife, what -- what was she paid, $170,000, $270,000, to read the paper and give advice? I mean, come on. Conrad Black and David Radler raped “The Chicago Sun-Times,” and nobody should be in any doubt about that.

But, you know, Howie, when you e-mailed me to say, would I come on RELIABLE SOURCES, and did I know that both papers were in bankruptcy, you were the first guy to tell me, because I was in a meeting covering the story. We’re still doing the same stuff we’ve been doing, and I think we’ll continue for as long as we can. KURTZ: I didn’t realize I had broken the news.

MARIN: You did.

KURTZ: Jim, you talked about Sam Zell. Now, obviously, no hint of any criminal activity there, but by buying The Tribune Company and loading it up with $13 billion of debt, and then cutting the staff, and then a year later the company goes into Chapter 11, not just for The Tribune, but for all its other media properties, did Sam Zell badly damage The Tribune?

WARREN: Well, I mean, I think on one level, yes. And like a lot of folks in the industry, he doesn’t seem to know what to do beyond reflexively cutting, cutting, cutting. But in fairness to him, when he closed the deal on December of 2007, nobody in the industry, nobody at “The Washington Post” company, nobody at “The New York Times” company realized the precipitous falling revenues that would hit to within a couple of months.

I was still at the paper for about half of 2008, and by February and March of 2008, we at “The Chicago Tribune” were running about $1 million a week behind what had been our pretty conservative revenue projections. Classified ads we know are dying, but then all of our other key categories, industry-wide, Providence, Rhode Island; Washington. It’s all the same story, whether it’s the retail sector with the department stores or whether it’s cars or whether it’s real estate market, everything absolutely imploded.

KURTZ: Let me ask both of you -- Carol first -- I did a story this week about a blog, one of several news blogs that have sprung up in major cities. This one’s called “Chi-Town Daily News.” It has just a handful of reporters and freelancers, but ells me that they go to things like meetings of the Chicago Housing Authority that The Tribune and Sun-Times don’t anymore.

So I guess what I’m asking is whether or not these financial difficulties have really cut into the muscle and the bone of the kind of journalism that both papers have prided themselves on practicing.

Carol?

MARIN: You know, Chi-Town, I’m familiar with it. I think it’s a good blog. Yes, they do send reporters there.

But what they don’t do, what they can’t do, is supply the infrastructure for sometimes selecting what may be the most important story of that day and investigating it. Or defending reporters who are investigating and sources try to push back.

I think I told you last week, you know, I’ve been subpoenaed federally recently in a case where they want to know sources. And the pushback that you get comes from a place with big infrastructure.

We’re still doing the major investigations. I think that’s something that’s very hard for the blogs to do. And no, do we go to every single meeting? We don’t. I’m not sure that every single meeting require attendance for us to do the kind of due diligence we’ve been doing in Chicago, and especially investigatively.

KURTZ: Right.

Jim Warren, you were a managing editor at The Tribune. Obviously, the paper was going through downsizing and layoffs and things like that. You know, isn’t the journalistic product -- and I could probably say this about virtually every paper in America -- you know, a much lesser enterprise than it used to be?

WARREN: Well, you know, it’s got -- it’s had to scale down its vision a little bit. When I was there, we had as many as 650 people in the editorial department. It’s probably around 450 right now. Folks are not going to have the same time that they once did under our regime, six, seven eight, maybe a year -- six, seven, eight months, maybe a year, to do things.

You know, while I was there, just in the last few years, we did everything from extensive investigations, which resulted in defibrillators now being on every single commercial flight in the U.S., to getting everybody off of death row in Illinois, to having huge recalls last year of lead-based Chinese-made toys, and also a huge recall of a particular baby crib. That’s the sort of stuff which may begin falling by the wayside...

(CROSSTALK)

KURTZ: Let me jump in because we’re short on time.

One of the people who was investigated was Rod Blagojevich, the impeached ex-governor of Illinois. And The Tribune broke that story about the investigation.

WARREN: Right.

KURTZ: Carol Marin, you know, we all had a good time with Blago, as he made his media blitz, he went on Letterman and all that. But now this indictment the other day, pretty serious charges.

Do you think that the media, at least outside of Chicago, were treating him as entertainment?

MARIN: You know, sure. They are, because he’s such an anomaly, he’s such a character. And it’s perfect for television.

But what we in Chicago -- and The Sun-Times has broken its fair share on Blagojevich as well -- understand is the sort of tentacles of corruption in this town. I mean, it’s Chicago. You asked for it, we got it. You don’t ask for it, we can find it.

KURTZ: Right.

MARIN: You know, I mean, we are...

WARREN: But two things...

MARIN: So it’s part of the culture, and that isn’t funny to any of us here.

KURTZ: Just briefly, Jim Warren.

WARREN: Howie, two things.

Both The Sun-Times and The Tribune did magnificent work, which the U.S. Attorney’s Office piggybacked on in recent years and led to the indictment of Blagojevich. But rather than sort of fixate on the caricature of the guy who was on David Letterman and made a bit of a fool of himself on “The View,” I think folks should step back, look at that indictment, and say, hmm, how is the substance of the that as it pertains to the daily workings of American politics that much different than what we know in our city and state? And it’s not.

KURTZ: We’ve got to go. And that indictment, of course, includes charges that Blagojevich pressured “The Chicago Tribune” to fire some editorial writers in exchange for state aid.

All right.

Jim Warren, Carol Marin, thank you very much.

At noon Eastern, new GM CEO Fritz Henderson sits down with John King on the future of that car company and the American auto industry.

And as for us, after the break, out of Africa. The mainstream media suddenly very interested in international adoptions. Could that have something to do with Madonna?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: President Obama may be trying to rescue the global economy in Europe this week, but some in the media seem equally fascinated by another international issue. This involves another public figure who strides the world stage. Her name is Madonna.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KURTZ (voice-over): It’s not about her breakup with Guy Ritchie, her relationship with A-Rod or a new concert tour.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you tell us why you’re adopting again, Madonna?

MADONNA, SINGER: No.

KURTZ: She may not be seeking publicity, but her trip to Malawi had reporters staking her out and anchors chattering about her mission there.

MEREDITH VIEIRA, NBC: But first, the controversy surrounding another attempt by Madonna to adopt another child from Africa.

HEIDI COLLINS, CNN: Madonna is going to have to wait a few more days before learning whether she can adopt a second child from the African nation of Malawi.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Madonna is being criticized as a material mom in Malawi.

A.J. HAMMER, “SHOWBIZ TONIGHT”: Tonight, there are brand new demands that Madonna back off charges that she’s getting special treatment.

KURTZ: But word came Friday that Malawi authorities had rejected Madonna’s request to adopt a 3-year-old girl named Mercy.

Of course, the media are just playing their favorite game here, pouncing on a social issue that just happens to have a celebrity hook. When Rihanna was badly beaten, she and boyfriend Chris Brown, who was charged in he assault, are now said to be taking a break. There was a spate of stories about domestic violence.

Paris Hilton’s brief stint in jail gave rise to reports about driving infractions and law enforcement double standards. For Britney Spears, whose wild lifestyle led a judge to hand over her kids to her ex-husband, it was a debate over child custody issues.

Nadya Suleman wasn’t a celeb, but the media make the octomom famous, and suddenly there was a surge of journalistic interest in multiple births.

So, when Angelina Jolie or Madonna adopt children from abroad, many news outlets suddenly have an insatiable desire to delve into the questions surrounding international adoptions.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KURTZ: What a coincidence.

You know, I think my colleagues should just drop the fig leaf. If you want to do stories about Madonna and her exploits, be my guest. Just stop pretending it’s about anything other than her glittering fame.

What is it that she’s famous for again?

Still to come, breaking political news from set of “The Tyra Banks Show.”

We’ll explain in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: “The Tyra Banks Show” doesn’t usually make political news, but that changes tomorrow. Tyra’s guest is Levi Johnston, the ex-boyfriend of Sarah Palin ’s daughter and the father of her baby, who was trotted out at last summer’s Republican Convention. The governor had said that he and Bristol Palin were getting married, but then they broke up.

Bristol gave an interview to Fox News. And now Levi is on the talk show circuit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TYRA BANKS, TALK SHOW HOST: Were you practicing safe sex?

LEVI JOHNSTON: Yes.

BANKS: Even when the baby was conceived?

JOHNSTON: We were.

BANKS: And so there was a wardrobe malfunction?

JOHNSTON: I guess.

BANKS: Yes?

(END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: Johnston said a moment later that they didn’t always practice safe sex.

Now, Governor Palin has put out a statement saying, “We’re disappointed that Levi and his family, in a quest for fame, attention, and fortune, are engaging in flat-out lies, gross exaggeration, and even distortion of their relationship. It is unfortunate that Levi finds it more appealing to exploit his previous relationship with Bristol than to contribute to the well-being of the child.”

John King, I was sort of taken aback by all this. I kind of wondered whether Tyra Banks should have this 18-year-old guy on. But then again, Bristol Palin appeared on Fox News.

Still, the situation is getting messy.

KING: It is getting messy. Most would think this is a private family matter that maybe should stay within the two families, even if they’re feuding a little bit, Howie. But you were just talking about Madonna. We’ve talked about other issues. It is, I would say, sadly, just my opinion, the nature of the business.

KURTZ: Yes. I kind of think it’s a private matter, too, but the media, being what they are, are going to want to milk this, I think, and continue to do that.

We’re going to turn things back over to you, John King. Thanks for being my partner this Sunday morning.

KING: Thanks to you, Howie. Have a great rest of your Sunday.

KING: And I am John King and this is our STATE OF THE UNION report for this Sunday, April 5th. North Korea makes good on its threat and launches a rocket. The United States says it was a missile with long-range capability. President Obama says the move demands an international response. How the president’s confronting his first big global security crisis, from senior White House correspondent Ed Henry. More job losses in March put the nation’s unemployment rate at a 25-year high. But could the economy finally be bottoming out? Some insight from former General Electric CEO Jack Welch.

And the White House is now in the car business. But did the president go too far by effectively firing the top boss at General Motors? This morning’s, GM’s new man in charge, face to face. What Fritz Henderson says needs to happen and fast. That’s all ahead in this hour of STATE OF THE UNION.

The president’s goals on his first overseas trip were to try to deal with the global economic crisis and to ask for NATO help in Afghanistan. And with an early morning wake-up call came a reminder presidents don’t always get to pick their challenges. So his big speech in Prague went to rewrite, to add condemnation of North Korea’s missile launch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now’s the time for a strong international response.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: One of the few American diplomats to look the North Korean president in the eye says the reclusive dictator is not just trying to get the world’s attention.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERMAN: He wants to solidify his own position as the leader of his country following a stroke. He wants to tell his military that it’s a military-first economy because, in fact, they get money, funds, from the sale of the missile technology and he wants to say to the Obama administration, pay attention to me, I’m serious.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: The debate over what to do next now moves to the United Nations’ Security Council and the administration’s point person there says the world has to do something to get North Korea’s missiles off the market.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN RICE, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: We view North Korea as a proliferation threat. Its actions today underscore our concern about its development of not only a nuclear weapons capability, but the capability to deliver it. That’s what we’re most concerned about preventing and preventing North Korea from sharing that technology.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And here at home, the new CEO of General Motors is rushing to come up with a new business plan that satisfies the Obama White House. While wishing him well, one Republican senator with a GM plant in his state says the White House went too far in pushing out the former CEO.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BOB CORKER, R-TENN.: But the fact is that, I do disagree with the government just coming in and taking over a company like this. I think that was heavy-handed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: As you can see, as always on Sundays, we’ve been watching the other talk shows so you don’t have to. Let’s turn to someone who knows quite a bit about business and the ups and downs of corporate America, former General Electric chairman and CEO Jack Welch. Jack joins us from New York.

Jack, I want to get to the economy in a second. But first, you were the CEO of GE at a time you’re trying to crack tough Japan markets, trying to crack tough South Korean markets and seeing the opportunity in the opening of Chinese markets. I’m just wondering when you sat around in the boardroom looking at Asia, what did you talk about when North Korea came up?

JACK WELCH, FORMER CHAIRMAN & CEO, GENERAL ELECTRIC: Not much. We never -- we had a discussion about it. It never hit the radar screen, John. It was something that was there, never really discussed, and --

KING: Because you knew you couldn’t get in there?

WELCH: There was nothing there to get into.

KING: All right, now let’s talk about the economy here at home. And I’m going to get up, Jack, and walk over to the wall because as Americans watch this economy, they’re getting pretty mixed signals.

I want to start, I’m going to pull out a chart here that shows the Dow. And we have had four consecutive weeks of the Dow not dramatically, but at least going in the right direction, closing above 8,000 this past week. That’s good news for Americans after a big stretch of bad news. However, at the same time, they’re seeing progress in that front Jack, they see this, which is quite sobering.

Not since 1983 has the unemployment rate been up at 8.5 percent. That rate continues to go up. Some economists think it might crack 10 percent. Help us Jack Welch understand, from your perspective, which number should the American people follow? Is the market telling us we’ve hit bottom and we’re coming back or is the unemployment rate telling us still a lot of pain to come?

WELCH: Well historically, the market has in fact been a leading indicator. And the employment statistics a lagging indicator. I think we’re going to see, tragic as it is, some more tough economic news on the employment front. And I don’t disagree with those who think we can crack 10 over the next two or three quarters.

KING: And is there anything else the government can do, anything, weapon it has in its quiver? You passed the stimulus plan. That’s in the pipeline already. Does the government need to do more or does it simply need to wait it out?

WELCH: Well I think the administration has done a lot, done the TALF plan. The Fed has put lots of money in the system and I think we’re really making real progress. Now over the last eight weeks, John, auto rates and the number of businesses that I work in in private equity have in fact bottomed out.

Now, that means sequentially they haven’t gone down. January is about equal to February and March. That’s the first time since May of the prior year that that has happened. So there is, in fact, some, if you will, threat of good news. We don’t see a big turn up by any means. It’s operating at a very low, low level but it’s not going down.

KING: So then help the families sitting around the table this morning watching this program deciding we’ve got a little bit of money but boy, I got punished in the stock market last year. What’s Jack Welch doing with his money? Will you go back to the market at this point?

WELCH: Look John, I wouldn’t ask me for advice on the stock market. There are a lot of better people than me, I’ll tell you that.

KING: Let’s -- I want you to look, you were the CEO of a major American corporation. We saw this past week something extraordinary. General Motors presents its plan to the government. It obviously is taking federal bailout money. The administration says if you want more, you have to show us you can be viable. They come with a plan. Rick Wagoner, the CEO, walks into a meeting. The White House says not only is your plan not good enough, Mr. Wagoner, you need to go.

Is that an appropriate role for the government of the United States, the White House, to be telling a corporate CEO of a private company, you’re gone?

WELCH: Well the government, in this case, John, kept the company alive. All the players who went for the money knew the government was keeping the company alive and so the board -- I mean, the government is just acting like a board of directors would in a case like this and they made a tough decision. But we all knew they were forming a car task force, an automotive task force. The task force went in and the task force made a decision. I don’t think it’s a shock to anyone that they did that.

KING: Would you ever think you’d have the day where a Democratic president of the United States elected with the support of labor unions would go out and publicly tell the unions look, you’re going back to the table and you have to give up more?

WELCH: Well, I’ll believe that when I see it.

KING: Why the skepticism?

WELCH: Well, I mean, look, just for the reasons you pointed out. Labor spent a lot of money to get this president elected. Labor has been a partner of his. And obviously he has asked everybody to come to the table, the bond holders and labor. I’d like to see everybody take a haircut here. We’ll see how much labor takes.

KING: Let me ask you a question. From the perspective of a guy who has been the CEO, imagine that you are the CEO of Ford at this moment. Ford decided we’re going to try to get through this without taking any government bailout money. But now you have the president of the United States essentially saying publicly, look, we’ll back up a GM warranty, don’t worry if GM goes into bankruptcy. Buy a GM car. The government will back up the warranty. He’s pushing the unions. You say you’re skeptical, but he’s pushing unions to go back to the table. If this happens and they go into a controlled bankruptcy with the federal government support, has the government of the United States created an environment that is disadvantageous to Ford?

WELCH: Well, I think Ford is going to be able to offer the same benefits. Ford was not able to knock out their competitor, that’s all that’s saying. And they’re going to have the same competitive playing field they’ve had all along. So I don’t think it’s a surprise to Ford. They happen to be in better shape at this moment. But I think it is what they expected.

KING: Is it America?

WELCH: Well, America’s in a very different spot now. Capitalism has gone off the rails and government has had to step in. And once you allow that, because you have to, you’re not allowing it, you’re begging for it once you get that help, you get all that comes with it, John.

KING: You get all that comes with. Let’s rate the president’s trip overseas and let’s start with the G-20 summit, where he was trying to get international coordination when it comes to the global economy. Anything out of that meeting that you think will bring progress in the short term to the troubled economy?

WELCH: No. But I think a lot of good things happened there. I think the IMF funding was a good deal for the developing countries. And I think the idea of protectionism being knocked down was a big takeaway. I also think, on this trip, the president was remarkable. He has -- he didn’t make one misstep. I thought his press conference yesterday in Strasbourg was a Tour de France, was an incredible job. The idea of explaining American exceptionalism in the context of Europe was as masterful a speech as I’ve ever heard.

KING: I was going back through your political contributions over the years and when it comes to presidents, you’re a Republican. You supported Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani back in the last campaign. You have high praise for this president. Let’s close by I want you to go on a little bit more on about that. When you watch him on this first overseas trip, so many opportunities to be on the leadership stage, what’s he doing right? And do you see anything he’s doing wrong?

WELCH: Well, look, there are a lot of policies I don’t agree with. My wife and I are writing a column this weekend. And we end up giving the lead away by giving him an “A” in terms of leadership, that doesn’t mean we like his policies but we like the way he’s expressing a vision, the way he has brought a team together, I think the way the economic team is working with egos subdued, I think the terrific job Mrs. Clinton is doing with his support, that team is together.

And so, he has done the vision thing, he’s a great communicator, and he has got a team-building skill that is really working. So from the leadership standpoint, I wish he were pushing policies that I liked more, but in the end i give him an “A” for leadership.

KING: And, Jack, I want to circle back with one more question. If we have a conversation in three to five years, will there be a viable General Motors and Chrysler that are competitive in the world market?

WELCH: John, I don’t know the answer to that. I think that with the help we’re giving him, I’ve seen this new fellow, Mr. Henderson, on television a couple of times, I don’t know him, he seems determined to take action. Look, I don’t know the answer but I would bet on it.

I bet America is going to come back in the automotive business if everybody makes concessions they have to make, everybody.

KING: Jack Welch, as always, appreciate your thoughts and your insight. And we’ll hear from Fritz Henderson right here on STATE OF THE UNION in just a few minutes. Jack Welch, thank you.

And up next, CNN’s Ed Henry on the White House response to North Korea’s missile launch. Stay right there, STATE OF THE UNION will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: The Obama team is confronting its first big global crisis today. A defiant North Korea ignored warnings and launched a rocket at 10:30 last night Eastern time. NORAD says the Taepodong 2 missile passed over Japan with part of it falling into the Sea of Japan and the rest, including the satellite landing in the Pacific Ocean. But North Korea maintains it launched that satellite into orbit. Senior White House correspondent Ed Henry is traveling with president and joins us from Prague.

Ed, one of those moments most presidents face, a surprise in the middle of the night.

ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That’s right, John, that 3:00 a.m. phone call that Hillary Clinton talked about so much in the campaign finally came, except it came at 4:30 a.m. here in Prague, and it was in the form of Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, waking up the president in the middle of the night to inform him.

The president certainly not surprised by this. They had been expecting that it was a real possibility. Also interesting to note obviously that now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among the top officials here in Prague briefing the president very early this morning to stay on top of the situation.

Secretary Clinton has also been on the phone consulting with key allies, reaching out to her counterparts from China, South Korea, Japan, as well as Russia, trying to build some momentum before the United Nations.

And what’s interesting is top White House aides are saying that the fact that this rocket did not reach orbit doesn’t really matter because they’re saying that the real problem here that warrants U.N. action, is what the president called the provocation, was firing the rocket in the first place.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: North Korea broke the rules once again by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles. Its provocation underscores the need for action, not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Now, in terms of that spread, the president went ahead with a long planned speech on trying to diminish the nuclear threat around the world. He was saying North Korea was just one of many threats around the world.

It was almost like a campaign-style speech for the 20,000 people here in Prague, the president at one point even borrowing a line from the campaign saying that while a lot of critics may say it will be hard to pass a complete, comprehensive ban on all nuclear testing around the world, he said to those critics, yes, we can -- John.

KING: Ed, an interesting trip. The policy challenge in London was he economy. The policy challenge in Prague was Afghanistan, the NATO alliance, and the speech you just mentioned. The president wraps up in Turkey. A very interesting mission there, sitting down with young Muslims. Tell us about that.

HENRY: Absolutely, because, as White House aides have been saying in private, even they didn’t expect this early they’d be going to Turkey. But the fact it has a large Muslim population was part of the calculation. The president making that promise in the campaign that he wants to reach out to the Muslim world. Clearly he wants to send a signal by going there very early. I think another thing to watch over the couple of days, this president has been looking very tired in recent days.

This is now this E.U. summit here in Prague, his third summit in just a few days, a lot of one-on-one meetings on the sidelines as well. Two more days now coming up in Turkey. He has been battling a cold as well, now dealing with his first international crisis.

He’s obviously going to be looking forward to eventually getting back home -- John.

KING: Learning those international trips, a lot of work, and sometimes can run you down. Ed Henry staying on his feet for us. Ed Henry in Prague, enjoy the rest of the trip. Thank you, Ed.

And coming up, we’ll sort through this morning news out of North Korea and President Obama’s European trip with the best political team on television. Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: When I was born, the world was divided and our nations were faced with very different circumstances. Few people would have predicted that someone like me would one day become the president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Talk about that, the president’s trip overseas and North Korea’s dramatic missile launch, today, with our three members of the best political team on television, CNN’s senior political analyst David Gergen joins us from Boston; in New York, the Republican strategist Ed Rollins; and with me here in Washington, senior political analyst Gloria Borger.

I want to get to the moment, the president’s first overseas trip in a minute. But let’s start on North Korea.

David and Ed, you’ve both been with presidents on overseas trips, and it often happens; there’s a surprise somewhere else in the world when you’re trying to focus on one thing.

Let me start with you, David Gergen. The options, when it comes to North Korea -- they’re not very good?

GERGEN: They’re not very good. But it was, in some ways, a good coincidence that the president was planning to give this major address today on nuclear proliferation. It’s one of the toughest issues he faces as president. It’s not well understood by the public.

But the experts all think that, if nuclear weapons continue to spread as they have in the last few years, it will be extraordinarily dangerous.

Once again, we have this highly ambitious president taking on this huge issue. And I think, because of the dexterity he’s shown in his trip, I think he will have a better chance of uniting the other nations and isolating North Korea.

KING: Just another challenge, Ed, or a challenge big enough that it, maybe, will distract him from something else? ROLLINS: Well, he’s got many distractions on his plate. Obviously, the fiscal thing is what we’re all most concerned about. You know, North Korea’s a very -- I mean, the people in North Korea have been eating bark for many years. They don’t have food. They don’t have a whole variety of things.

And we’ve always, kind of, had this carrot-and-stick relationship. They’ve now waved their stick. They’ve basically said, we have the capacity to fire a rocket a great distance (inaudible) and we’re obviously in a nuclear world and we’re building, as fast as we can, a nuclear capacity to put on the end of that rocket.

We can’t allow that, because they are terrorists and they basically have sold their rockets and weaponry to all sorts of terrorist organizations around the world.

I don’t know whether rhetoric stops them or not, though. And I think the key thing here is to make sure that, whatever we need to do to basically put the squeeze on them, is very important.

The only concern I have about the nuclear proliferation, when the Russians start calling you “comrade” on your first meeting...

(LAUGHTER)

... and, obviously, you know what they want, and the president’s offering to surrender everything and have a nuclear-free world, it’s just not realistic. And I think, to a certain extent, as important as his trip was, the strength is still not measured yet. And that’s going to be an important test to him.

KING: I want to come back to that point in a minute, the bigger issue.

But, Gloria, on the issue of North Korea, the previous administration didn’t think much of the United Nations. This administration will go to the Security Council this afternoon. Any reason to think that anything except tough words will come out of the United Nations?

BORGER: No, probably -- probably not. But on your show this morning, Wendy Sherman said there -- there’s still going to be the six-party talks. The important thing is getting back to the table.

And there was a lot of disagreement within the Republican Party when George Bush changed his policy on North Korea, even with his own vice president.

And now you see a united Democratic Party standing behind this president, as he decides to continue to the six-party talks because he believes that’s important.

And, by the way, John, he did get that 3 a.m. phone call, didn’t he?

(LAUGHTER) KING: 4:30 a.m.

BORGER: Four-thirty.

KING: The campaign...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Let’s go to the bigger picture. You just heard the president coming in, standing there in Prague saying, you know, when he was born, the was divided; it was just -- when your guy, Ronald Reagan, was president, Ed, you know, Prague was behind the Iron Curtain.

He says you’d never expect an African-American to be president of the United States. Let’s grade the trip in the big picture.

David, to you first: First time overseas, two important summits, the G-20 and NATO -- what do we learn about our president?

GERGEN: Well, politically, John, this was a first-class trip for the president. I think he’s done more in a single trip to transform U.S.-European, U.S. international relations than I’ve seen any president do in a long, long time.

He was -- he reached out in a conciliatory way. He was humble. He listened instead of lecturing. As Strobe Talbott said, he showed that one could be a leader without being the boss, which has been so aggravating.

Substantively. I do think that he came up with less than the administration hoped over the last few weeks, whether it was in terms of a stimulus plan or getting more troops into Afghanistan.

And you know, Ed Rollins has made the point that he’s going to have some controversy here at home about his nuclear plans.

Substantively, I do not think it was a spectacular trip. But politically, both for President Obama and, importantly, for his wife, he has done a great deal to lift American prestige in the world. And I think it’s going to give him a lot of personal self-confidence back at home.

I think we’re going to see a somewhat -- I think we’ll see a stronger president back home because of what he accomplished overseas.

KING: And, Ed, jump in on that point. From the perspective of somebody who was at Ronald Reagan’s side when he took his first trip overseas and everyone said, yes, who is this former movie actor guy; is he capable of leading the United States?

ROLLINS: Well, I think he had an incredible public relations trip. Obviously, other world leaders have to respect his ability to charm and his ability to move an agenda forward.

I don’t think he accomplished much in the sense of what they set out to, but those goals are pretty high.

I think the key thing, here, it’s the beginning of a long, long task here. He has two major summits that he’s lined up, here, with China and Russia. There’s a lot of work ahead. I keep coming back to, is he taking on too much when we still have very strong economic things?

The ticket cost is $100 billion that we had to kick into the IMF. We didn’t get any more troops. I don’t think we need any more countries to hold our coats when our troops are on the ground in a place like Afghanistan, when this really was the a U.N.’s -- or the NATO’s efforts over the last several years, and they certainly couldn’t hole the line.

So I’m concerned from that perspective.

KING: to Ed’s point on the troops, he got a modest installment, mostly around the elections, not a -- no one else is buying into this policy.

BORGER: No.

KING: This is President Obama’s Afghanistan policy. When he comes home, does that increase the risk, the ownership, if you will?

BORGER: Oh, it does. And, I mean, he’s already got the ownership and it increases the ownership. And in terms of this trip, you know, what was important for Barack Obama was that he stood toe to toe with other leaders and that he emerged as a leader among leaders.

I mean, here’s a guy trying to talk about a deal on tax havens, for example, between -- with China and France. They were disagreeing about the issue of tax havens. Who cut the deal? Barack Obama cut the deal. That was very important for him.

From a political point of view, on the stimulus and on Afghanistan, the political team managed the expectations pretty well on this. Going over there, we were all told he doesn’t expect to get everything. And guess what?

KING: He didn’t.

(LAUGHTER)

BORGER: He didn’t.

KING: All right, three of my favor people when it comes to kicking around politics. So let’s have a more political moment, here, at ending.

I was talking to David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser, and at the end of the interview, after most of the substance, I gave him a chance to respond to Vice President Cheney, who was here a few weeks ago and who said he believed the policies of the Obama administration had made the American people less safe.

Let’s listen to David Axelrod.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AXELROD: I think it was an unfortunate statement. And let me say, in contrast, how much we appreciate the way President Bush has behaved.

He was incredibly cooperative during the transition. And when he left, he said, “I wish you guys the best. I’m rooting for you.” I believe that to be the case.

And he’s behaved like a statesman. And as I have said before, here and elsewhere, I just don’t think the memo got passed down to the vice president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Ed, did the memo not get to the vice president or did he simply choose not to read it?

ROLLINS: He definitely hasn’t read many memos, I think, of late, other than the ones he’s written himself.

(LAUGHTER)

I think, historically, presidents, when they leave office, take a six-month or a year period; they don’t criticize their successors. The rules should be for vice presidents, too. But I think Cheney had so much invested in this administration, particularly in the war efforts, that he’s out being a loud voice to a lot conservatives. I don’t think it’s necessarily beneficial to the country.

KING: Is this one over, David, or will there be more salvos back and forth?

GERGEN: There will be more salvos back and forth because Dick Cheney will disagree with some of the substance of the foreign policy on this trip, starting with the nuclear weapons issue.

But I think David Axelrod did a very shrewd thing. He’s driving a wedge between George W. Bush and Dick Cheney . That’s a smart thing to do. He has good politics.

BORGER: This isn’t the last we’ve heard from Dick Cheney . He’s writing a book. This is Dick Cheney , unbound. He needs, he believes, to set the record straight on just what he did and did not recommend to this president, including on North Korea. You’re going to hear a lot more from him.

KING: And George W. Bush is writing a book as well.

And Gloria Borger, David Gergen, Ed Rollins all could write books, maybe collaborate on a great book.

(LAUGHTER)

Thanks for joining us on this Sunday, here.

And the White House showed some tough love, this past week, by muscling out the top boss at General Motors.

KING: Did the president go too far? We’ll ask the new man in charge of GM. He’s right here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: I’m John King and this is STATE OF THE UNION. Here are stories breaking this Sunday morning. United Nations Security Council is holding an emergency session this afternoon. At issue, North Korea’s launching a long-range rocket. President Obama called the launch provocative and called on the international community to quickly condemn it. Afghan President Hamid Karzai bowing to pressure from the West says he’ll review a new law that critics say makes it legal for men to rape their wives. President Obama called the law abhorrent. The law is intended to regulate family life inside the Afghan/Shiite community.

And when the nets are cut down tomorrow night, the recession slammed Motor City hopes it will be the big winner. North Carolina and Michigan State play at Detroit’s Ford Field for the NCAA basketball championship. Detroit hopes for $30 million to $50 million boost to its economy. That and more ahead on STATE OF THE UNION.

A shot of the cherry blossoms there in Washington, D.C., a spectacular April morning here. If you can get to the nation’s capitol, always a beautiful sight.

You know, it was just one week ago today that the White House forced out the CEO of General Motors, Rick Wagoner. The new CEO is charged with coming up with a new restructuring plan so that he can get more money from Washington. We think of GM as Detroit, as an American company, but it’s worth noting, GM has more than 118 facilities in 33 countries around the world. As you look here in Europe, as you look all the way around in Asia, it is a diversified company.

So we went out to Detroit this week to sit face to face with the new CEO, Fritz Henderson. And we asked him, what do you do to satisfy the president? How many more workers will lose their jobs?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING: You have a very difficult job. The company had submitted a plan to the task force and the administration said it wasn’t good enough. And you, yourself, have said you have to go faster and move more deeper into the company. In February, GM had about 92,000 employees here in the United States and your submission said you’d get to 71,000 by year end. How much deeper in terms of employees here in the United States?

FRITZ HENDERSON, CEO, GM: I don’t have the answer to that question today but I think it’s going to certainly require us to be even leaner -- certainly require us be leaner than we had foreseen in February.

KING: But if leaner than 71,000, does that mean 50? Does it mean 60?

HENDERSON: Again, I don’t have that finalized. We would certainly have that finalized as part of the revised plan. But it’s certainly going to be, you know a significant additional change for the company because we just got to go further.

KING: In addition to the numbers that you have to deal with, how many employees will you have around the world and how many here in the United States? There’s also the wages they’re paid and we’ve been in the last 10 weeks to Lansing, one of your plants, Indianapolis, to see autoworkers who work for GM and just this week, in Spring Hill, Tennessee. And in every one of those stops, the workers say you know, we’ve given a lot. How much more are they going to have to give?

HENDERSON: We need to go further. I think at this point, it would be inappropriate for me to try to guess what that would be. I just know this. If the conclusion is you’ve got to go deeper, you’ve got to go faster, you can’t really afford to take anything off the table.

KING: When you have a Democratic president of the United States, a man elected with the help of those very unions, saying things like it will require unions and workers who have already made extraordinary painful concessions to do more -- when the president is telling the unions sorry, go back to the table, does that help?

HENDERSON: I would say yes, but I would also say our own people understand the situation of the company. And I think like I said, our people have sacrificed. There’s been no shortage of willingness to say we need to do the right thing. So but I think what he was saying, what President Obama was saying and certainly what the task force said, is what you’ve outlined is you haven’t gone far enough. You haven’t gone fast enough, it’s not deep enough, you’ve got to go further because the environment’s tougher. There are a lot of things that are tough and you can’t really rule anything out. It was very clear, we understand the message and so we’re going to sit down with our people and get the job done.

KING: And what about facilities? Forty-seven assembly plants, staffing facilities in the United States. I assume if you have to cut workers, you’ll have to cut more facilities.

HENDERSON: We’ll have to improve our level of capacity utilization, which means consolidation. We’ve already done quite a bit in terms of plant closures, getting our capacity utilization higher. More will be necessary.

KING: You can’t say which plant but can you help people understand the standard you will use when you look at a plant? Does it matter? We were just in Spring Hill, Tennessee, for example. Used to make the Saturn. That facility doesn’t make Saturns anymore. Now it makes the Chevy Traverse. They say the company put about $1 billion into it to make it a more modern, leaner facility.

So they think from a technology and efficiency and a product standpoint, they should be OK. They also worry they’re in a state where the senators have said you know what? Let the auto industry go into bankruptcy. The government shouldn’t be involved at all. How do you make your decisions? Does politics play a role? Does the age of the facility play a role?

HENDERSON: I would say it’s much more age of the facility, the technical capabilities, the quality of the workforce, the flexibility of the plant. A lot of it depends on what the product that is built in the plant as well. We have a lot of great plants. Take for example our Jamesville, Wisconsin plant. Fantastic work force, but the facility was building full-size SUVs. We just didn’t have demand for full sized SUVS.

KING: One of the most interesting things in your first week in office is that you sound so much more open to bankruptcy than your predecessor. I was out here two years ago to see Mr. Wagoner. Even back then this was an issue on the table. And he said flatly, no. And then in the early consultations with the administration, he said he didn’t want to go that way to the point in which Mr. Wagoner said he didn’t think it would work. You need in the end a long period of bankruptcy which I believe would result in liquidation of the company. You disagree?

HENDERSON: You can’t rule options off the table. So you basically say we will spend time to try to get it outside of bankruptcy. But if we can’t, we’re not going to compromise our goals. We’re going to get it done inside our bankruptcy. Our preferred approach is still to do it outside, but you can’t rule out going in. And candidly what happened, if I think about it this week on Monday, unprecedented, there was one, a finding or at least the conclusion of the task force was General Motors can be viable, will be part of the future.

Second, guaranteeing and standing behind customer warranties so that you can feel confident that you can buy a GM car or truck, even if we go to that path.

Third, financing for the companies during this period. So, enormous, strong, tough messages, stinging messages in some ways but powerful messages for consumers.

KING: You mentioned strong signals. Don’t you have a pretty strong signal from the president that he thinks bankruptcy is a cleaner option?

HENDERSON: What the task force indicated as did the president is it may very well be the best solution for the company to achieve these goals which is why when you look at the situation, we say OK, we’ll spend the time to say complete the work, more aggressive work outside of the court process. But if it’s required, that’s what we’ll do.

KING: And if it is required, do you have any doubt that GM would look very different, perhaps the court would tell you to spin off, take a few and make it a separate company or somehow change your product so that you have essentially you have a good GM and maybe in the real estate world, now they use the word toxic assets, a bad GM?

HENDERSON: I think what the task force has talked about is there are mechanisms that can be used within the bankruptcy code to allow companies to move faster. Typically you do require financing while in bankruptcy and what the government has said is OK, we understand what’s required there.

Our principal concern has been about consumers. We think we now have both the product as well as the offering so the consumers can feel that if that’s required, you can still feel confident. You can buy a GM car or truck and we’ll be there for you in the future.

So will GM look different if we have to go through a bankruptcy process? We would actually. I’m quite certain, because I think whether we do it outside of a bankruptcy process or inside, we will change. We will be fundamentally different going forward. And the company’s going be reinvented.

KING: What’s your sense of where we are in the strange environment where you have the government, in many ways, calling the shots? It was the Obama administration, the White House that said, Rick Wagoner had to go and that said you should take over this company. It was an interesting this week in Spring Hill, we met a guy named Michael O’Rourke, he’s the president of the local down there, represents the union autoworkers, guy who supported the administration but he was angry at the idea the president of the United States is calling the shots in his company. And this is what he told us --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL O’ROURKE, SPRING HILL: How many automobile makers are in Washington, you know? They’re not doing a real good job with the banks either so I’m a little skeptical.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Do you share Michael O’Rourke’s skepticism about government involvement at the highest level in what you do?

HENDERSON: I certainly understand the emotion of our people, because our people have been historically -- I mean, very loyal to Rick. He’s a fantastic guy. I need to look forward. We need to pick up the pieces. We need to look forward and we don’t have a lot of time to be asking second or third questions. We have a short period of time to get the job done and we need to have 100 percent of our attention focused there. KING: What about fairness argument? When you talk to the workers, it comes up quite a bit and again, most of these are people who supported this president and supported the Democrats who run Congress. But what they see is this double standard. They say they are told that they have to go back to the table and renegotiate their contracts and then they hear from the same administration, well we can’t go after bonuses of the AIG guys because that’s contractually negotiated money. Is there a double standard when it comes to your people?

HENDERSON: Our people really have done a fantastic job. We’re going to focus on General Motors. We have our hands full at General Motors. I don’t work for AIG. I don’t work for a bank. I think that the way the administration’s handled General Motors has been in a very professional way. You know, human nature being what it is of course there’s got to be some part of that. But I think our people really understand, what it will take to make General Motors competitive? How do we actually move to the next century and not necessarily dwell on how we compare with some other industry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: It is President Obama who put Fritz Henderson at the helm of GM. Does the new CEO trust the president? Did he vote for Mr. Obama? We’ll ask him, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Let’s get back to our discussion with the new CEO of General Motors, Fritz Henderson.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING: There was a question if you went back to the campaign as to whether this president was a friend of your industry. He came to this city, gave a big speech at the Detroit Economic Club talking about somebody needs to give some tough love to the car companies and tell you look, in this world, you need to have more fuel efficiency, higher standards. Do you trust him?

HENDERSON: I’m a citizen. This is the president of our country. And moreover, I’m an executive with responsibility to General Motors. So in the end, you know, I trust that we’re going to get this job done. I have to understand that the taxpayer, you know, the president’s job and the task force’s job is to look after the tax payer. We need to respect that. The day we took a dollar from the taxpayer because we ran out of money last December was the day that we brought on additional responsibilities on all of us. And so we need to do our part to first take care of customers so that ultimately we can win because the customers pay the bills.

And then second, with respect to the taxpayer, we need to develop a plan that is satisfactory to the country and will allow us to be successful and competitive so we’re not careening from problem to problem. KING: The president in some of the more stern remarks said it’s been a failure of leadership here in Detroit and in Washington he said. You’ve been at company for 25 years, where have you failed?

HENDERSON: Well and I’ve been with the company 25 years. I know I’ve made a lot of mistakes. I had a professor in business school once who said the finest executives make the right decisions about 55 percent of the time. And about 45 percent of the time, they make mistakes and they recognize them and they adjust. So I think we all make mistakes.

KING: How long are you partners with the government, to use that term?

HENDERSON: One of the saddest days in my career was when we needed to borrow money from the U.S. taxpayer. And I’m quite convinced that one of the happiest days of my career is when we repay it.

KING: I want to talk a little bit about you in closing. If you read the industry press, and I’m no expert on the auto industry, but they say you’re very different from Rick Wagoner. Let’s start from the financial standpoint. He agreed to work for a dollar a year at one point. You have decided not to do that. I assume because you think that sends a bad signal, why?

HENDERSON: Well, a couple of things. I took a 30 percent pay cut, a salary cut and as part of the loan agreement, we agreed to work without any form of incentives. I don’t have a contract. We don’t have golden parachutes. I am 25 years with the company. I don’t have a pension. I don’t have any of those things. In fact, when I took the 30 percent pay cut as the president and chief operating officer, it put me at a level which was well below I think in terms of my peers than the president. In truth, I think it’s a fair level of compensation. Ultimately, that’s what the board felt. And that’s where I am today.

KING: Are you a car nut?

HENDERSON: I love them.

KING: Since when? Take me back. What was your first car?

HENDERSON: 1969 Buck Skylark.

KING: Buick Skylark. And why do you love it?

HENDERSON: Well first, I loved it because my dad bought it for me. It was used. I loved it. It had a 352 barrel and I thought it was just fantastic.

KING: And what do you drive now?

HENDERSON: I drive...

KING: They let you drive? HENDERSON: Oh, absolutely. I have my 2005 Corvette which I got in the first year, the current generation. I love that vehicle. My wife’s got a Saab 93 convertible which she let me drive once in a while on the weekends and I drive an Escalade as well.

KING: Most people think of CEOs as Republicans. I looked through the records and you’ve given money to Democrats and Republicans. When it comes to presidential races, you gave money to Bush and Cheney in 2000 and again in 2003. You seemed to have skipped the last election in 2008. It’s Fritz Henderson a Republican?

HENDERSON: Yes, I am. But I am -- I always vote for who I think is the best person. And so, you know, I try as much as possible to get myself up to myself up to speed and I vote for who I think the best candidate is.

KING: You put that on the table. Then who did you vote for last time?

HENDERSON: I’m not going to get into that.

KING: If you look through your resume, you’re head of operations in Latin America, you’re head of operations in Asia. You have had some experience in Europe as well. With all that global experience, now you’re here, the CEO of the company that acknowledges most of its problems when it comes to profitability are here in North America.

KING: What is wrong with the North American model of making cars that you need to change to be successful?

HENDERSON: Well, I think if you look at our plan, John, it’s about getting focused around core brands. Because only here in the U.S. do we have, I’ll call it, the proliferation of brands that we don’t really have those in the rest of the globe. So it’s about getting focused around core brands.

KING: In business school and in your early days at GM, could you ever imagine it coming to this? This is Detroit. It’s Motor City. It’s home of the big three. I’m not sure people equate the big three in the way they used to before. But this was capitalism at its finest, companies going out there making new cars, hiring people. And now you’re dependent on the government. Did you ever see this happening?

HENDERSON: No, I didn’t.

KING: Is it American? It’s sort out of our way of doing things, isn’t it?

HENDERSON: It is out of our way of doing things. But I think, you know, what is also American is when you need a hand, when you need help, that is American.

KING: And so to those out there, whether they’re every day Americans or members of the United States Senate who say, you know what, this government is not supposed to be doing this, up or down in the marketplace, tough love, go to bankruptcy court if you have to but this is not the government’s job, you would say what?

HENDERSON: I would say that we can and will play a role in the future of the auto industry. Clearly, the weaknesses and the fragilities of our business were exposed in the current economic environment. It’s our job to take care of customers and then take care of the taxpayer, pay it back and justify the -- you know, what has been done to try to help us.

KING: Thank you very much.

HENDERSON: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: The CEO’s perspective there. Well, you might be surprised at what union GM workers think about the president stepping into their business. Up next, we head to Tennessee, a state with a lot to lose if the auto industry fails. Why watching a car company try to remake itself there is nothing new.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: As you know, our goal is to get out of Washington every week to meet everyday Americans. And with the future of the auto industry at stake, we decided this week to go down to the state of Tennessee. If you look here, the unemployment rate in Tennessee is 9.1 percent. There are three auto plants in the state and approximately 11,000 Tennesseans employed in the auto industry.

Where did we go, we went to Spring Hill, right up here. There is a population of 23,462. It’s the 14th fastest-growing city in the nation, the site of a Civil War battle back in 1864, also the site of a General Motors plant. About 3,000 people work there now.

It’s a conservative county, but those workers -- those union workers, blue collar, Democrats, most supported President Obama in the last election, however, when we visited, you might be surprised at what they think of the president of the United States meddling in their business.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING (voice-over): Brenda Carter in the kitchen, enjoying her first day of retirement.

BRENDA CARTER, RETIRED GM EMPLOYEE: Well, it’s wonderful. I woke up this morning at 3:30 and I let the clock go off and I hit it and went back to sleep.

KING: Happy with a chance to sleep in. Not happy, though, with the White House that forced out the boss who signed the certificate marking her 30 years at General Motors.

CARTER: I don’t believe that the government should actually run the businesses. You know, we need help from them. But to say that the president tells a company’s CEO that he has to leave, I just don’t believe it should happen.

KING: Make no mistake, Brenda Carter says she loves President Obama. But her concerns are proof of the risk Mr. Obama faces as he faces an aggressive role in the restructuring of GM and Chrysler.

Already anxious about their job security, many blue collar autoworkers who backed Mr. Obama in last year’s election are nervous about the administration’s heavy hands-on role now.

MIKE O’ROURKE, PRES., UAW LOCAL 1853: How many automobile-makers are in Washington, you know? They’re not doing a real good job at the banks either. So I’m a little skeptical.

KING: Michael O’Rourke is president of the United Auto Workers local in Spring Hill, Tennessee. Bring up the big AIG bonuses and O’Rourke gets visibly annoyed at the Democratic White House.

O’ROURKE: They say we can’t break those contracts. But by God, we can break the UAW contract. And we’re going to give them a hair cut. And, you know, fundamentally, are we really on the right path here in this country? I wonder every day.

KING: The union chairman, Mike Herron, is more diplomatic about the White House role.

MIKE HERRON, UNION CHAIRMAN: I’m always concerned when you get that high degree of involvement. But we have got a great agree of trust. And so they have thrown the life line out there. They have helped us through some very difficult times.

KING: Herron says the blue collar doubts about Mr. Obama are borne of a bigger gnawing uncertainty, as GM seeks more wage concessions and more plant closings.

HERRON: You have got to earn your way every day. And then you have got to hope and pray that you’re not one of the plants that ends up on the closure list.

KING: The Spring Hill plant is tucked amid gorgeous rolling hills and farmland. It is a reminder that GM has tried to remake itself before.

CARTER: I was there at the beginning, what an experience. I love Saturn with all of my heart.

KING: Brenda Carter remembers the launch of the Saturn brand and the sleepless nights before Spring Hill built its last Saturn in early 2007.

CARTER: It bothered me so much, I just woke up, and I just wrote a poem, you know, about the Saturn.

KING (on camera): What did you say in the poem?

CARTER: Good-bye to the coupe (ph). And I talked about how we -- the -- how we...

KING (voice-over): Emotional in an upbeat way about the Saturn in the garage, 216,719 miles and counting.

CARTER: I helped build this.

KING (on camera): Yes?

CARTER: Mm-hmm.

KING: So it’s your baby?

CARTER: It’s my baby.

KING (voice-over): Brenda Carter thinks GM is wrong to give up on the Saturn brand, worries now the president she loves might make some wrong calls in his oversight of GM. But she isn’t ready to give up on Mr. Obama or on the company she gave 30 years.

CARTER: The president is not going to be right all the time. You know? So I’m not going to judge him on just one thing that I think that should happen. I have every confidence that it will survive. And we will do everything we can to help it survive.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: I’m John Ling. This is our STATE OF THE UNION report for this Sunday, April 5th. A defiant North Korea launches a rocket designed to reach as far as the United States. President Obama calls it a provocative act and for swift international sanctions.

Pyongyang says it was simply launching a satellite, but its neighbors call the launch threatening. We’ll check in with CNN correspondents around the world covering this breaking story.

And what are the U.S. options going forward? We’ll ask a veteran diplomat who has sat face-to-face across from North Korea’s unpredictable leader.

KING: Press pictures of President Obama departing Prague. Next stop: Turkey. He’s calling on world leaders to step up on the economy and Afghanistan. And this morning, a new, bold challenge to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

Senior White House adviser David Axelrod joins us to talk about the president’s overseas debut. That and more, all ahead in this hour of “State of the Union.”

We begin with the breaking news out of North Korea. The reclusive Communist regime defied the United Nations resolution and ignored international threats of sanctions and launched a long-range rocket.

The Taepodong-2 missile, which passed over Japan, was launched Sunday morning in Asia about 10:30 p.m. Eastern Time Saturday, here in the United States.

The goal for the North Koreans was to launch a satellite into orbit, to test the reach of its long-range missile program. But U.S. and Canadian aerospace officials say the mission failed. They say one stage of the rocket landed in the Sea of Japan. The remaining portions, along with the satellite, landed in the Pacific Ocean.

Still, the launch was in violation of the United Nations resolution passed after a previous North Korean test firing in 2006. And the Security Council is scheduled to meet later today to discuss a response.

President Obama is traveling overseas. And earlier this morning, in the Czech Republic, he had strong words for North Korea.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

Now’s the time for a strong international response.

(APPLAUSE)

North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that’s why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Our senior White House correspondent, Ed Henry, is traveling with the president, joins us now from Prague. Ed, let’s start with how the president found out on this overseas trip.

HENRY: Well, John, it was White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs who informed the president, woke him up around 4:30 this morning here in Prague. We’re six hours ahead of Washington.

Robert Gibbs says that, initially, the president expressed no surprise at all. He’s been briefed on this. He’s been prepared. In fact, the president has several high-level meetings back in Washington, even before they went on this trip, to go through the various scenarios.

So today, here in Prague, he’s already had high-level briefings from his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel , his national security adviser, retired Marine General Jim Jones, traveling with him as well; the president also reaching out by phone to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, military officials as well.

And I can tell the U.S., as you know, pushing for strong action by the U.N. today, when they have that emergency session of the Security Council. That’s why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who’s traveling here with the president -- she has been working the phones as well, reaching out to her counterparts from China, South Korea, Japan, as well as Russia, trying to make sure that this response is coordinated, John.

KING: And, Ed, as we await the Security Council meeting, how about the timing of this?

The North Korean leader is known to act to get attention. He picked a pretty good moment here, the president giving a dramatic speech in Prague, trying to talk about a pledge to rid the world some day of nuclear weapons.

Does the White House believe the timing was on purpose?

HENRY: Top aides are saying, look, we can’t get inside the mind of the North Korean dictator. We don’t know whether they planned it. But the White House is insisting they were not planning anything on this side of things, that this speech had been in the works for weeks; they were going to move ahead on this speech about ridding the world of nuclear weapons, regardless of what North Korea did.

They say they just can’t get inside the head of that regime. But they believe, at least right now, that it was all coincidental.

What the president was trying to do in this speech today, here in Prague, was to try to put this whole situation in a broader context and say that the threat, the nuclear threat around the world, is much broader than just North Korea. It also involves rogue nations like Iran.

And the president made some bold promises. He said he wants to push now for a comprehensive test ban treaty all around the world that the U.S. would be willing to sign. And he also wants to rid the world of the loose nukes, nuclear material that’s available around the world that could get in the hands of terrorists.

He promised he would rid the world of that in his first four years in office. So some big promises today from this president on a very dramatic day, John.

KING: Ed Henry, keeping track of the president’s trip and the dramatic surprise, or not so surprise, from North Korea in Prague.

Ed, thanks very much.

Joining us now is retired Air Force Lieutenant General Henry “Trey” Obering III. He’s the former director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency in the Defense Department. General, thanks for joining us.

I want to take a closer look at what we have. This is a simulation built from satellite images, and let’s go in to where we know this took place here. Let’s come on in here.

This is the launch pad area here. You see residential areas, dormitories essentially, on the military facility. Let’s come in and look a little bit closer here, this simulation. Looks pretty familiar. I know you’ve seen this many times before. The control bunker here. Over here, -- this gets a little finicky sometimes -- this is the assembly. You see the road, so they can take the missile out. They put it together in here. And this of course, what we are most concerned about, is the rocket right here. Taepodong-2 missile on the platform. The North Koreans have been working on this for some time. It’s a two-stage missile. Payload on the top. What do we know about the capabilities?

OBERING: First of all, this could be an intercontinental ballistic range missile. That typically means it has more than one stage, two or three stages. We know that it is basically built on the old Scud technology that they improved. They made the engines larger and more capable. There may be advanced engines that could be used in the upper stages. We don’t understand or know that. That is one of the things that we were very concerned and looking for.

But this represents basically the ability to range certainly the northwestern portions of the United States, if it is a two-stage missile. If it is three-stage, with some of the advanced propellants and lighter materials, it could range the majority of the United States.

KING: I want to take a look at the neighborhood. We can switch out to a different shot here. This is the neighborhood here. You mentioned the potential range, so let’s start at that point, let’s start from the range of this. What they are hoping with this missile -- you see North Korea is here. The west -- just west of the Hawaiian islands, the residential parts of the Hawaiian islands. But up here, of course, this missile, if it makes that range, could reach Alaska, some of western Canada, and dangerously close to the West Coast of the United States. Are they capable of doing that yet?

OBERING: Apparently, because this did not succeed, they have not been able to achieve that yet. But it does show the dogged determination by the North Koreans to continue this development program, in spite of the intense diplomacy and the sanctions that have been placed against it.

One thing I would like to show you, if I could, John. If they were aiming for a space launch, what you would see them do is try to take advantage of the earth’s rotation. So that’s why you see the trajectory the way you see it, headed in this manner. So we are looking for any azimuth in this direction that would be a threat to the United States. That’s one of the things that we were looking at, with respect to any threats to the United States.

KING: Let’s break down what happened. Because we do know, as predicted, first stage hit in the Sea of Japan, to the west of Japan, from our perspective in the United States. But the second stage, this orange area is where a successful missile launch, based on everything we’ve been able to put together -- they thought the second stage would hit here. Instead, we are told by NORAD that the second stage of the missile, along with the satellite payload, hit the drink somewhere in here.

What does that tell you about what happened, what went wrong?

OBERING: It says that, first of all, they had successful first staging, and they were able to control that rocket through staging. That is a significant step forward for any missile program, because oftentimes those missiles become unstable as they go through these staging events.

The fact that they did not get apparent separation of the payload from the second or third stage means that they have more work to do there in terms of being able to achieve that. But the bottom line is they are continuing to advance in their ranges, and I think it’s why it’s important that we have the ability to defend against these types of threats.

KING: And help our viewer at home understand that this is not just to snub the nose -- thumb your nose at the international community. North Korea does this because it is in the missile business.

OBERING: Absolutely. In fact, in 2006, they launched seven missiles in addition to -- or six in addition to the long-range Taepodong-2, they tried then. Those other six were very successful, and they showed ranges of being able to range Japan, for example. They were successful. The one thing in their brochure they have not been able to demonstrate is the very, very long-range weapon, and I think that was one of the primary intents of this launch.

KING: And in terms of the marketing, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, anywhere else?

OBERING: Yes. Well, anybody else that they can -- that’s willing to buy the missiles, they’d be willing to sell to.

KING: General Obering, thank you so much.

We’ll continue to talk to you as this develops. As you see, the map right here, again, just to show the neighborhood. You understand the nerve, South Korea here, Japan here, China here. We’ll continue.

Thank you for the military perspective.

And up next, you’ll want to watch this. We’ll talk to a top U.S. diplomat who has actually sat face-to-face with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il. Then, later, we’ll go to Prague for a conversation with one of President Obama’s closest advisers, David Axelrod. “State of the Union” will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Some breaking news this morning, North Korea launches a long range rocket. The rocket failed to reach orbit, instead landing in the sea of Japan and the Pacific Ocean. That’s according to U.S. and Canadian aerospace defense officials.

Joining us now is Ambassador Wendy Sherman. She was President Clinton’s North Korea policies coordinator and participated quite rare in direct talks with Kim Jong-il, the reclusive president of North Korea. Wendy, based on that experience, why now? What is he up to?

SHERMAN: I think that Chairman Kim Jong-Il is up to several things. First, he wants to solidify his own position as the leader of his country, following a stroke.

He wants to tell his military that it’s a military-first economy, because, in fact, they get money, funds from the sale of this missile technology. And he wants to say to the Obama administration, “Pay attention to me; I’m serious; I have chips on the table, and negotiating with me is serious business.”

KING: Well, they are paying attention and they will take their attention first to the United Nations Security Council.

You have been the Security Council route. Are there any viable sanctions?

The world can scream; the world can complain, but are there any viable sanctions against this regime, considering that it has so few contacts with the outside world?

SHERMAN: I suspect that we’ll get either a presidential statement or a resolution that reinforces existing sanctions. I think that China, in particular, and Russia, secondarily, won’t want new sanctions, and they have veto power in the Security Council.

And I think everybody agrees, including the United States, Japan, and South Korea, that the most important thing is to get back to the six-party talks and back to the negotiating table.

KING: Explain to a viewer who might not follow this closely how different this country is. If you go to the DMZ -- it’s not as common as it used to be, but they have the big speakers blaring the propaganda. The missile failed. The missile went into the Sea of Japan and the Pacific Ocean. The satellite did not reach orbit. But will the people of North Korea be told that?

SHERMAN: No. The people of North Korea will be told that, in advance of their parliament meeting this coming Thursday and anointing Kim Jong-Il their leader once again, that a satellite has gone into orbit and the songs of Kim Jong-Il and his father Kim Il-Sung are being sung throughout the universe.

It is a very closed society. People really only know what the leader tells them. They think all good things come from the leader. It’s quite extraordinary and it’s quite hard for all of the rest of us to understand what a closed society and what a controlled society is. In this Internet age, we can’t imagine it.

KING: And because of that, when you talk about potential sanctions, one of the few things that gets in is emergency food aid, from time to time.

But you hear from all the governments and nongovernmental organizations that they believe a lot of that food goes to the president and to the military and not the starving people of North Korea, right?

SHERMAN: Well, in fact, the North Koreans have decided they don’t want the World Food Program’s aid because of complicated negotiations about the terms for that aid.

That’s terrible for the North Korean people. There’s probably an entire generation with stunted growth, stunted mental capability. And so, as the day comes that there is reconciliation with the South, it is going to be a big lift for that economy to help North Korea. KING: The six-party talks are the platform for the diplomacy. The United States is a key partner there, as well as Russia, China, South Korea and Japan.

One of the things President Bush did at the end of his term was to take North Korea off the list of state-sponsored terrorism.

Now, we know -- Vice President Cheney was in that chair a few weeks ago, on this program. He disagreed with that decision. I want you to listen to the former vice president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: He gets to listen to whoever he wants to listen to. And I had my say. I got my chance to voice my views and my objections. I didn’t think the North Koreans were going to keep their end of the bargain, in terms of what they agreed to. And they didn’t.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: The vice president, the former vice president, believes North Korea should still be on that list. It is one of the options available to President Obama. Should he take it, put them back on the list of state sponsors of terror, now that they have violated a U.N. resolution?

SHERMAN: I suspect that the president will not do that. Because, indeed, we have to get back to the bargaining table. That would probably make getting back to the six-party talks a longer route to go. This was agreed upon with the other parties in those six-party talks as a way to move forward.

And in fact, terrorism is probably not what we have to be most concerned with, with North Korea. What we have to be most concerned with is not only their nuclear weapons program but this missile technology which they sell to other countries gives them money to keep their regime going. We need to make sure missile technology gets added to the six-party talks.

KING: If you frame it that way, though, does Kim Jong-Il gets what he wants? He gets the attention. He gets the United States asking him to come back to the table, and no sanctions with any teeth?

SHERMAN: Well, I think that, in fact, what we will have is a condemnation, an international condemnation, which the president began in his speech in Prague, has been joined by the European Union, by South Korea and by Japan.

Even China has said, although we ought to be calm, that this was not a helpful step forward. Russia, as well, agrees.

So I think that it helps to isolate North Korea further. I think we have to say that this was a mistake; this was not helpful. This will make the negotiations more tense and will make countries less likely to give everything North Korea wants as soon as it wants it. KING: What is he like? You sat across the table from a man who is a recluse. He is a mystery to the world. He and doesn’t care when he defies the world. What’s he like?

SHERMAN: He is actually fairly straightforward, more so than you would think. You can have a perfectly rational conversation with him. He doesn’t much like to talk about his family and his personal circumstances, but he really is the leader of his universe.

He doesn’t have to worry about the global economic crisis. He doesn’t have to worry about the war in Afghanistan or building down in Iraq. He doesn’t have to worry about health care for his country. He only has worry about one thing, and that’s keeping his power.

KING: And let me ask you lastly about the timing of this. Any doubt in your mind that we’ve known this is coming? They fueled up the rocket, they put it on that launch pad and we’ve known for several weeks it could happen here, it could happen here, it happened on a day the president of the United States, on his first major overseas trip, was giving a big speech in Prague about proliferation of nuclear weapons and tried to call the world together to say let’s rid the world of nuclear -- weapons grade nuclear technology, and let’s stop the proliferation of missiles like this.

Any doubt that that’s why this happened today?

SHERMAN: I think that Kim Jong-il has actually helped President Obama today because he has given a perfect example of why the president’s remarks are so important, that we really have to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

At the same time I think he was either going to do it during the NATO meeting yesterday, the West military alliance, or today during the president’s speech about nuclear non-proliferation. In either case I think Kim Jong-il has helped President Obama make a very serious and important for the world’s peace and security.

KING: Ambassador Wendy Sherman, thank you for your insights. And we’ll keep in touch as this goes on. And in addition to condemning North Korea’s missile launch, President Obama made a speech this morning with an ambitious goal as we just noted to rid the world of nuclear weapons. We’ll talk about that and more with one of the president’s closest advisers, David Axelrod. Our STATE OF THE UNION report will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: President Obama is nearing the end of his first overseas trip as commander-in-chief. It’s a high stakes tour that began in England. That’s where Thursday he conceded Wall Street greed was a major cause of the global financial crisis. And he appealed to other leaders for quick coordinated action to turn things around.

Yesterday in France, President Obama won only a modest, mostly temporary commitment of new NATO troops to help U.S. forces to secure Afghanistan. And the latest stop this morning, the Czech Republic, the president spoke in Prague calling on world leaders to join him in seeking a world rid of nuclear weapons.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: This goal will not be reached quickly, perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Joining us from the city where the president delivered that speech just a few hours ago is senior White House adviser David Axelrod.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING: David Axelrod, let’s start with the ambitious agenda the president set out there in Prague when it comes to reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons. And let’s start with the short-term proposal. The president says he wants to go back to table with Russia, renegotiate a new START treaty, strategic arms reduction treaty, and do it this year.

Under the current START treaty the United States and Russia are limited to 6,000 nuclear warheads, and in fact, both countries are already below those limits. How deep does the president want to go by the end of this calendar year?

AXELROD: Well, I think that’s the subject of the discussion that is going to follow the meeting that he had this week with President Medvedev of Russia and -- but the president is committed to an aggressive regime.

And I think that there is a broad realization, John, the Russians understand it, the president certainly feels it, that this issue of nuclear proliferation has taken on a new and deadly turn with terrorism, the possibility that weapons can fall into the hands, not of a rational state, but of an extremist group bent on destruction. So I think both countries have an impetus to help lead that reduction.

KING: And the broader goal of eliminating, eliminating the production of weapons grade fissile material, how realistic is that when you look around the world and you see in Pakistan, in Iran, in North Korea regimes that are not -- not only have nuclear programs, but are trying to advance them?

AXELROD: Well, we have to mobilize the world to be part of this process, because this is really -- this is one of the great threats, nuclear -- weapons grade nuclear material falling into the hands of those who could fashion it into a weapon.

What we want to do is create a situation where nations that want nuclear materials for peaceful purposes, for powering their countries, can get it from an international bank. But that material is secured so it doesn’t fall in the hands of rogue states and extremist groups.

KING: When a president, more than two decades ago, started down this path, the city you are standing in was still part of the Soviet Union, inside the Berlin Wall, the Iron Curtain. President Reagan made a mark with the Soviets in reducing nuclear weapons.

Is President Obama’s goal a legacy of a world free of nuclear weapons?

AXELROD: There’s no question about it, John. And he said that during the campaign. He believes that now. He is acting on that.

You know, obviously, we live in a dangerous world and we can’t unilaterally disarm but we can lead the movement to corral these nuclear weapons and begin that process of reduction.

And that would be the goal to remove this scourge from the face of the earth and take away that threat that hangs over us now.

KING: Let’s talk more broadly about the trip to Europe. The pictures have been fascinating. The president’s reception has been overwhelmingly positive. Most of the news accounts talk about it mixed results in terms of the substance.

Some progress at the G-20, but not as much stimulus spending from France and Germany as the United States would have liked for their economies. At the NATO summit, some short-term commitments of troops to help around the Afghan elections, and certainly some important financial commitments, but no major investment of troops from NATO companies (sic) to go along with the risky big commitments the president is making here with new U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Is that how you see it?

AXELROD: No. I really don’t, John. I think the G-20 was really successful. I think it was the most successful international conference in response to a financial crisis that has ever been held. There has been trillions of dollars of commitment made over the last few months as part of the process that led up to this -- to this summit.

There was agreement to pursue aggressive financial regulatory reform so that the kinds of things that happen that caused this crisis won’t happen again, to set up early warning systems as well, to add to the International Monetary Fund $1.1 trillion, and the World Bank, and some of these other agencies that can help countries who are in desperate shape right now as a result of the crisis, and keep markets open for American businesses.

So a lot was accomplished at this conference. In terms of NATO, I disagree with your interpretation. The president, after 60 days of review, unveiled a strategy about a week ago and the world has embraced that strategy. The NATO countries have embraced it today -- over this weekend.

And Secretary Clinton met with foreign ministers from 80 nations earlier in the week at The Hague and there has been unanimous support for this. And there were strong tangible expressions of that support at the NATO meeting.

Thousands of military personnel to help secure the elections that are coming up in Afghanistan and on August 20th, which is the next great test in this process. Thousands more to help train army personnel, police.

Half a billion dollars to help revive the Afghan economy, because that’s a very important part of this mix. It’s not just the military challenge. And additional money to help -- in a fund to help build up the Afghan army so they can defend themselves. So there was an awful lot that was accomplished. Eleven new countries are now participating in this process.

KING: One of the overriding goals of the trip at every stop, the president has been trying to tell his European audience that he is not George W. Bush . Many viewed George W. Bush in Europe as a cowboy diplomat, if you will. But striking at a town hall in Strasbourg, France, when the president was talking about the threat of Al Qaida and how the world still has to keep its eye on that terrorist threat, interesting language. Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Al Qaida is still a threat. And that we cannot pretend somehow that because Barack Hussein Obama got elected as president, suddenly, everything is going to be OK. It is going to be a very difficult challenge.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: David Axelrod, what is the message there? And was the use of his middle name, Barack Hussein Obama, was that somehow calculated? AXELROD: Well, that was an answer to a question. I’m sure the president used his full name for a reason, but the most important thing here is that the president was very candid with the Europeans about our mutual responsibilities. He was candid about ours and he was candid about theirs.

AXELROD: And what was most interesting to me, John, standing at that town hall, was the enormously positive reception he received from an audience of people who -- who heard him make the case for why we had to be engaged in Afghanistan, who might have been expected to oppose the U.S. on this in the past, but who understood the case he was making.

And I think the greatest benefit of all, as much as we’ve accomplished on this trip, is that he has sent the signal to the world that we’re re-engaged, that we want to build alliances that are based on mutual respect and mutual responsibilities and that we’re prepared to lead and we’re also prepared to listen.

KING: First big international trip is a heady moment for any new president. On a lighter note, I’m wondering, since you just flew into Prague on Air Force One, how is the president enjoying traveling in his wife’s shadow?

(LAUGHTER)

AXELROD: Yes. That’s -- you know, I think he’s used to that, to be honest with you. I think he resigned himself to that long ago. Michelle was hugely well-received along the way here and has done a number of events on her own, communing with at-risk young people...

KING: They’re joking back and forth -- do they joke back and forth about that, the headlines?

AXELROD: I don’t know. But I think it isn’t lost, at least on the staffs that her approval rating is higher than his. I don’t know what that engenders behind closed doors. But, you know, I think the fact is that the president -- Michelle Obama has fans all across the world, but there is no greater fan than the president himself.

And I think, you know, he -- he’s happy to bask in her reflected glow.

KING: A couple of weeks back on the program we had the former vice president of the United States. And I know from talking to people high up at the White House that many officials, including you, were not so happy at the message former Vice President Cheney delivered. Sharp criticism of your boss on a number of fronts, including this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Do you believe the president of the United States has made Americans less safe?

CHENEY: I do. I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that led us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11.

KING: I want to give you a chance to response to Mr. Cheney.

AXELROD: Well, first of all, I find it supremely ironic on a day when we were meeting with NATO to talk about the continued threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they’re still plotting against us eight years or seven years later. I think the question for Mr. Cheney is, how could that be?

How could this have gone so long? Why are they still in business? That is the fundamental threat that we face. And it’s a little incredible to me that he would argue somehow that what we’re doing in forging an international alliance to finally pursue a strategy to defeat and dismantle al Qaeda in Afghanistan is going to make us less safe. I think it was an unfortunate statement.

And let me say in contrast how much we appreciate the way President Bush has behaved. He was incredibly cooperative during the transition. And when he left, he said, I wish you guys the best, I’m rooting for you. I believe that to be the case. And he has behaved like a statesman. And as I’ve said before here and elsewhere, I just don’t think the memo got passed down to the vice president.

KING: David Axelrod, senior adviser to the president, thanks you for joining us from Prague.

AXELROD: John, great to be with you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Up next, he’s a graduate of West Point, a former Army Ranger and now a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, so how does he think President Obama should respond to North Korea’s missile test? Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island has “The Last Word” when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: I’m John King and this is STATE OF THE UNION. Here are stories breaking this Sunday. The United Nations Security Council is holding an emergency session this afternoon over North Korea’s launch of a long range rocket. President Obama called that launch provocative and called on the international community to quickly condemn it.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is busy working to build an international consensus on condemning the North Korean launch. Secretary Clinton spoke on the phone today with the foreign ministers of China, Japan, and Russia. All of those countries members of the six-party talks aimed at getting North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. Speaking to a crowd of some 20,000 in Prague, President Obama urged nations around the world to come together and eliminate nuclear weapons. He also pledged in the short term to negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, hoping to get that done by the end of the year. Later today the president heads for Turkey. That and more ahead on STATE OF THE UNION.

Twenty-four newsmakers, analysts and reporters were out on the Sunday morning talk shows today. But only one gets “The Last Word.” And that honor this Sunday goes to Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. He is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and also the Senate Banking Committee.

Senator Jack Reed , welcome to STATE OF THE UNION.

SEN. JACK REED (D), RHODE ISLAND: Thanks, John.

KING: Let’s start with this simple test -- not so simple test facing the president of the United States. North Korea launches this rocket, Taepodong 2 missile, capable, if it works, of reaching Alaska, reaching the Hawaiian Islands. What does the president do now?

REED: Well, he made it very clear. This was the deliberate provocation against the wishes not only of the United States but of the international community and the regional powers, China, Japan, Russia.

So he has to go initially to the United Nations Security Council and, I think, produce some concrete sanctions either enhancing the enforcement of present sanctions or additional sanctions in order to respond to what is a very calculated, very provocative act on the North Koreans.

KING: And the administration is also saying that one of the ways to deal with this is to get North Korea back to the negotiating table and the six-party talks. There are some who would say, huh? The guy has just violated world treaties, resolutions of the United Nations, now you are going to sit down and talk to him?

Is there anything of substance we can do to punish North Korea or does it simply not work with that regime?

REED: Well, I think you have to keep the pressure on. And -- but it has to be very carefully calibrated because you don’t want a situation where they completely walk away from any meaningful conduct, it’s not just with the United States, but with China, who is particularly influential there, and Japan and Russia.

So it is a carefully modulated sort of pressure you have to apply. I mean, one of the things that happened, unfortunately, is that during the Bush regime, the Agreed Framework, in which the plutonium, under international supervision, was overturned by the North Koreans.

And now we don’t know quite where that plutonium is. We’re trying to do that now. So it is a careful -- and frustrating, frankly, dealing with this regime, set of both pressure and the willingness to talk, but also to produce real tangible results because of those talks.

KING: This happened as the president was on his first overseas trip. I want you to listen to just a little bit of what the president said in response to the launch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Now is the time for a strong international response. And North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Elsewhere in that speech, Senator Reed, the president said “let’s eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world. I’m going to sit down with Russia and negotiate in the short term. Deeper cuts in the Russian and the U.S. arsenal.”

There are some who say why would you put those things, more reductions of our weapons on the table at a very time North Korea takes this provocative act? Iran not long ago launched a satellite into space. Is it risky? Does it send the wrong message to talk about reducing our arsenal here in the United States when you have these two regimes clearly testing theirs?

REED: I think, in fact, it sends the right message. It says that not just the North Koreans and the Iranians but the whole world community has to think very hard about nuclear weapons. And I think we can, in fact, send the signal when we’re asking them to refrain from reduction of nuclear weapons. We, at the same time, are asking our major powers in the world and ourselves to begin to reduce our arsenal.

I think one of the inconsistencies is we continue to build and maintain a large arsenal in Russia, the United States, other countries. And then we turn around and say, but you -- you all can’t join us.

KING: Let’s turn the conversation here at home. You’re also on the banking committee. The president raised a lot of eyebrows last week when the White House essentially fired the CEO of General Motors because that company is taking government money. The White House said we don’t like your plan, the boss has to go. Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, was out this morning and he said the same could happen to CEOs of big banks it’s they take government money and don’t shape up. Let’s listen to Secretary Geithner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEITHNER: If in the future, banks need exceptional assistance in order to get through this, then we’ll make sure that assistance comes with -- and this is not just to protect the taxpayer, but to make sure this is the kind of the restructuring necessary for them to emerge stronger and if that requires the change in management of the board, we’ll do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: On the one hand, makes perfect sense. You take government money, we call the shots. On the other hand, there are a lot of people out there saying, whoa, how much involvement should the government, the president of the United States have in private industry? First GM and now the banks?

REED: That is a question that is going to have to be faced by all of us, not only the president and the treasury secretary but Congress. We need a strong, well capitalized, well managed private banking system in the United States to continue to operate this economy and provide the innovation and the success we’ve enjoyed.

And, frankly, the capitalization issue is one that we’ve been struggling with. That is the whole purpose of these injections of the capital. But if we ignore the notion of management of these things, if we allow management that got us into the problems in the first place and seems incapable of getting their institution out that, that is a disservice to the taxpayer. It is really also a disservice also to the shareholders of that institution.

So I think they have to be conscious of that. And I would think that this challenge of the industry would be taken up very quickly by the companies themselves looking hard at their management, their structure, their ability to operate successfully in this global economy and this particular situation. And that they would make the steps for us rather than any sort of government entity saying well, you got to go.

KING: We’re about out of time. But how long will the government be involved like this? Essentially inside the board rooms of major banks, major companies like GM? When will it end?

REED: Well, I hope it’s a very brief and transitory period, that the ultimate commitment is to restore, again, a banking system that is private in nature but is well capitalized and well regulated. So part of the transition from active involvement is rebuilding a regulatory structure that can deal with the issues and that structure needs vast overhauling.

KING: Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, “The Last Word” on this Sunday. Thanks for coming and joining us. And the United Nations Security Council convenes an emergency session later today on North Korea. We’ll get a preview from CNN’s senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: A little more than two hours away from an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council, where members are set to debate a response to North Korea’s missile launch earlier today. Senior United Nations correspondent Richard Roth is at the U.N. Richard, what do we expect?

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT: We expect closed door consultations. There are differences between China and Russia on one hand and the U.S. and Britain on the other. There is a lot of unhappiness here including the U.N. secretary-general. But someone who was pleased is North Korea’s U.N. ambassador who a few blocks from here commented briefly on the missile launch today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SIN SON HO, NORTH KOREAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: We are happy. We are happy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: He’s happy, but here the U.S., Japan on the Security Council, likely to push for toughening of those existing sanctions which seem to have a lot of loopholes, John.

KING: You mentioned the loopholes. We’ve been down this road before. We’ll have condemnation. We’ll have tough statements. But is there anything tangible the United Nations can do to force North Korea to behave differently?

ROTH: I don’t think so. And especially we have a different administration, a different environment. The Obama team, of course, reaching out. Doesn’t want to be too tough. They’d like to get North Korea back to those famous six-party talks. Hillary Clinton, secretary of state has been working the phones with her Chinese counterparts and others. We’ll have to see what unfolds. But I doubt strongly you’re going to see some very powerful resolution. It seems like a different era. I mean, this is widely advertised, maybe the sting even has gone out of it especially since it didn’t hit anyone.

KING: You mentioned, Richard, the key players. United States wants to take the lead. Japan, of course, is outraged because the missile flew over its territory. But whether the end can come together depends on Russia and China. China, I would say, has been I would say characteristically quiet. What do we expect? Does the new administration have any impact on getting China to play here?

ROTH: Well, we’ll find out pretty quickly. The Chinese and the Russians on one hand have been very tough for the United States on issues from Darfur, Sudan and Myanmar. No matter the chance in the White House, we expect this type of split to still play out.

KING: And Richard, North Korea, you had the representatives saying he is happy. They consider this a success even though the missile, the satellite did not make orbit. Explain to our viewers why.

ROTH: Well, they were able to show, of course, they’re getting a lot of attention. This test went better than other tests which weren’t as successful. They also say that on their outer space international treaties, you’re still allowed to test as long as it’s peaceful purposes.

ROTH: The U.S. and others pointing to language in an existing resolution of the Security Council say all missile technology -- three years ago, the council, here, told the North Koreans, “Don’t do it.” They still did it, anyway. Look, there are also some journalists who are hostage. North Korea, right now, has the cards. I don’t think the Security Council will be too tough on them immediately.

KING: And we will watch it as it unfolds. Richard Roth at the United Nations for us. Richard, thank you very much.

And don’t forget, coming up right here at 1 p.m. Eastern, “Fareed Zakaria: GPS” takes a comprehensive look at international affairs with world leaders, policy experts and journalists. This week, it’s the former secretary of state, James Baker, sits down with Fareed and explains what he thinks should be President Obama’s key priorities.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FMR. SECRETARY OF STATE JAMES BAKER: Dealing with the economic crisis facing the nation is the number one priority. That ought to be his number one priority, his number two priority and his number three priority.

(LAUGHTER)

Health care is something that’s going to take a long time. You can bring that up later on. Climate change is something that’s going to be very controversial and going to take a while to do.

I mean, there’s just a lot of things coming -- a lot of proposals coming out. And I just -- I just think that focusing a bit more on the economic problem now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Stay tuned. “Fareed Zakaria: GPS,” coming up at the top of the hour, only here on CNN.

As you know, we get outside of Washington as much as possible. This week we went down to Tennessee, where people have a big stake in the success of the auto industry. But ahead, why some people we talked to there want the president to butt out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Down to Tennessee. I want to quickly remind you, the unemployment rate in the state is 9.1 percent. There are three auto plants, one of them by General Motors, approximately 11,000 employees in the auto industry in the state.

That GM plant is here in Spring Hill. Spring Hill, as you notice, it’s in a red county. It’s a relatively conservative place, blue-collar workers at the plant. They weren’t so sure about whether the president should be involved.

Then we went next door to neighboring Franklin. It is a conservative town. Over fabulous pastries at Merridee’s Bread Basket, a lot of skepticism about the government having such a hands-on role in the American economy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING: As you all know, the future of GM is up in the air right now. And one of the questions is, should the government be involved at all or, and if it is involved, to what agree should it be involved?

What are your thoughts on that, in the context of -- just last week, the White House essentially told the CEO of GM he has to resign.

(UNKNOWN): I didn’t think that taxpayer money should be spent...

KING: At all?

(UNKNOWN): ... on bailing out a private industry. I think government needs to stay out of private industry.

KING: So whether it’s General Motors which is a big company, but they’re middle class workers or whether it’s a big bank?

(UNKNOWN): I don’t think it has anything to do with, you know, what class you’re in. I just think, in general, the government should stay out of private industry. I think competition is what runs our economy, a free economy. And if they need to go bankrupt, then they need to go bankrupt.

(UNKNOWN): I think that AIG and General Motors, they both -- bankruptcy was the way to go. I understand the impact of AIG. But to have the government involved in buying into the private banking system and getting involved in industry, where they can hire and fire people -- they’ve done such an outstanding job of running the government, I don’t think they’re going to do a much better job with General Motors, to be honest.

KING: I get the impression that no hands are going to go up. But just to be certain, if you supported Obama in the last election, raise your hand.

That’s a nobody.

When you watch him now -- this is first overseas trip. It’s a pretty big deal for any president. Have you been paying attention to that trip at all, and anything jump out at you? (UNKNOWN): I just saw it briefly yesterday. And I think he’s doing OK on the trip, from what I can tell. As far as not making a fool of himself, I think he’s doing fine.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: So that’s, sort of, a lone standard.

(LAUGHTER)

As far as not making a fool of himself -- that’s a pretty low standard to judge a president by.

(UNKNOWN): Well, I mean, he seems like he’s doing a good job. And at least he’s articulate. And -- the iPod thing that he gave, I thought, was, kind of, silly, but...

KING: Why?

(UNKNOWN): Well, she probably has one. I think it should be something that, maybe...

KING: For the queen, you mean?

(LAUGHTER)

(UNKNOWN): I agree with that. I thought that was just a silly gift that you would get your child or a family member, not the queen of England. But I think they’re both coming across as very articulate, which is good for the United States.

KING: So who’s your leader? Who would you like to see?

(UNKNOWN): Do you want me to answer that?

Right now, Sarah Palin interests me the most.

KING: Why?

(UNKNOWN): I just think she’s fresh and I think she really stands up for what she believes in. And I think she would be a breath of fresh air for the Republican Party. But I think it’s going to be very hard for her to get anywhere.

KING: Why?

(UNKNOWN): I just feel like there’s so many people that don’t want her, and the media doesn’t seem like they really care for her. It’s like -- I think being a woman, she has a harder road to do than a man. Just, some of the attacks they had on her when she was running for the vice -- running with -- with McCain.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: Forgot McCain already, huh?

(LAUGHTER)

(UNKNOWN): I was trying to.

(LAUGHTER)

(UNKNOWN): He wasn’t our pick.

I think it’s too early. Palin is interesting. I’m not sure she has the experience.

KING: Forget the next election. Do you -- when you look at what’s happening in Washington, the debate about, you know, whether it’s the health care policy, economic policy, Afghanistan policy -- pick your issue -- do you see anybody standing up to Obama on these issues that you think, oh, I didn’t know that guy or I didn’t know that woman, but I like -- I’m going to listen here?

(UNKNOWN): Not so far.

(UNKNOWN): I’ve been real disappointed in the Republicans so far.

(UNKNOWN): I don’t see anybody surfacing yet. Maybe they will. You know, the next two years are going to be interesting because the next -- the midterm election is going to be tell-tale, I think, of the way we’re going to go. I hope it’s not too late.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: We’ll be here again next Sunday and every Sunday, 9 a.m. Eastern, for the first and last word in Sunday talk. Until then, I’m John King in Washington. Have a fabulous Sunday.

END

.ETX