CQ Transcriptswire

SPEAKERS: JOHN KING, HOST

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, CENTCOM COMMANDER

SEN. BOB CORKER, R-TENN.

SEN. BOB CASEY, D-PA.

HOWARD KURTZ, CNN ANCHOR GIDEON YAGO, HOST, THE IFC MEDIA PROJECT

JOE KLEIN, TIME MAGAZINE

RACHEL SKLAR, THE DAILY BEAST

AMANDA CARPENTER, WASHINGTON TIMES

[*] KING: I’m John King, and this is our “State of the Union” report for this Sunday, May 10th.

President Obama meets with the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan and says he’s getting promising signs from both about their commitment to fighting Al Qaida and the Taliban. But are they up for the job, and what is the job for U.S. troops in the region? We’ll talk with the man in charge of the U.S. military effort, General David Petraeus.

Mixed economic signals this week as the overall unemployment rate increased, but the pace of job losses slowed down. Is the administration’s effort to pump up the economy starting to have an impact? Democratic Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee are here to discuss that and a whole lot more.

And we’ll go to Los Angeles on this Mother’s Day for an up-close look at the changing face of homelessness.

That’s all ahead in this hour on “State of the Union.”

A live picture of the White House on Sunday, Mother’s Day, here in Washington, D.C. President Obama met this week at the White House with the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan, reiterating the U.S. goal to help disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaida and its allies in the region.

But while Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari both pledged their full cooperation in the fight, there are deep concerns at the White House and in Congress about whether their governments are capable, capable of defeating the militants.

I spoke a short time ago with the man in charge of the U.S. military efforts in the region and the head of the U.S. Central Command, General David Petraeus.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING: General Petraeus, welcome back to “State of the Union.” I want to start with the offensive under way by the Pakistani military in Pakistan. It took a long time for you to convince Pakistan to get about this. And I’m starting at the map so I can pull out and show our viewers the area we’re talking about, the Swat district up here, right in here.

Just a basic question for you, sir. This offensive has been under way for quite a bit of time now. How effective is it?

PETRAEUS: Well, let me say, I’m not sure I accept the characterization that you said. This is Pakistan’s offensive, and it was galvanized by Taliban action, certainly not by American rhetoric or encouragement.

What has happened in this case is that the actions of the Taliban in breaking the agreement that was reached for Swat, and then moving into other districts of the Northwest Frontier province, these have served as a catalyst, really, for all of Pakistan. And you now see all of the Pakistani political leaders, including opposition figures, you see the Pakistani people and you see the Pakistani military determined to reverse this trend and to deal with the Taliban threat, ultimately, in Swat Valley.

KING: And how effective do you think it is being -- and let me ask in the context of -- this is a military offensive. They are going in there and bombing and pushing them out and attacking them, but I would not say this is out of the Petraeus counterinsurgency playbook. So do you worry at all that these gains will be short-term, not lasting?

PETRAEUS: Well, the true test in counterinsurgency -- and I can tell you that in our dialogue with Pakistani leaders this past week, there is a clear recognition of the concept of counterinsurgency operations, of employing all the tools of government, a whole of government approach. And over the past year, for example, there have been a number of actions that reflect the kind of, if you will, learning and adapting that our own forces have taken -- gone through in recent years as they have carried out operations in Bajaur and Mohmand and so forth. And this will be the challenge, I think, is to bring all of the assets of the government of Pakistan to bear to help their military as it goes in and conducts operations, which inevitably already have displaced citizens, and certainly will displace more of them over time.

KING: When you were here, sir, with Ambassador Holbrooke a few weeks back, both of you spoke openly about the trust deficit between the United States and the Pakistani government and the Pakistani military that has played out in recent years. After the conversations of the past week, how much of that has been repaired and still how much of it do you have?

PETRAEUS: Well, I think the conversations here were quite productive and positive. In fact, I think most participants assessed after the conduct of the trilateral meetings that not just the rhetoric, but even the substance exceeded expectations. So I think they’re very helpful. I think they were truly unprecedented in the way that some of the individuals on either side had never even met each other before, and then we had good bilateral conversations with each of the leaders and their delegations as well.

But this is a process. It continues.

The trust deficit, if you will, is something that stems back to us dropping Pakistan in the wake of the expulsion of the Soviets from Afghanistan. It lasted for years, and it will take months and years to reestablish the kind of trust and bonds and partnership that are necessary to move forward.

And of course, it’s not just the United States. This is the entire world. And it is with a government that has been in office, the first really truly democratically elected Pakistani government in some time, elected just nine, 10 months ago.

KING: When you were here, you said that the United States would not go into Pakistan unless it saw something compelling. This has been a sensitive issue. As the Pakistani military has put pressure on the Taliban, have there been any occasions in the past few weeks where you have had targets of opportunity that have caused U.S. forces to go across the border?

PETRAEUS: No. And I think we have been unequivocal in saying that this is not about us putting combat boots on the ground. This is about us providing assistance, as we do numerous nations around the world. A bit more robust in this case, certainly, but we provide some training assistance, we provide ammunition, we provide spare parts, help with maintenance systems, processes. But a lot of these very similar to the kinds of security assistance programs that we have around the world, albeit this one more robust, and also in the form of the coalition support funds, significantly additional funding.

KING: As this focus now is on the Taliban, give me your assessment of Al Qaida. It has moved, essentially, its headquarters from Afghanistan into Pakistan. With all the focus on the Taliban right now, is this allowing Al Qaida a chance to regroup? And let me ask it in this context. If Al Qaida in Afghanistan was at a 10 in its operational capability on 9/11, how would you rate Al Qaida on that same scale now, as it is based in Pakistan?

PETRAEUS: I don’t want to get into that kind of numerical ranking, but I think it’s worth going back and looking at the history, of course. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, we expelled the Taliban and Al Qaida and the other elements of the so-called syndicate of extremists that had found sanctuaries and safe havens in Afghanistan. They eventually relocated into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and some of the other areas of the border regions.

But I think it’s very important to note that those organizations, Al Qaida in particular, has sustained some very serious losses over the course of the last six to 10 months or so, and there is a considerable concern among those leaders because of the losses that they have sustained.

KING: I want you to listen to something that the Afghanistan president, Hamid Karzai, told our Wolf Blitzer a couple of days ago, when he put the question to him, are there still Al Qaida in your country? Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Are you saying there’s no Al Qaida in Afghanistan right now? HAMID KARZAI, PRESIDENT OF AFGHANISTAN: No Al Qaida based in Afghanistan.

BLITZER: So who are you fighting against?

KARZAI: That’s the thing, that’s why we say that the war on terrorism is not in the Afghan villages. That it’s in the sanctuaries, it’s in the financial support system to them, it’s in the training grounds. And it’s beyond Afghan borders. That has now been established by the U.S. administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: No Al Qaida at all in Afghanistan. Is that an exaggeration, General Petraeus, or is that true?

PETRAEUS: No, I would agree with that assessment. Certainly, Al Qaida and its affiliates. Again, remember that this is, as I mentioned earlier, a syndicate of extremist organizations, some of which are truly transnational extremists. In other words, don’t just conduct attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan and India, but even throughout the rest of the world, as we saw in the U.K. a couple of years ago. They do come in and out of Afghanistan, but the Al Qaida -- precise Al Qaida, if you will -- is not based, per se, in Afghanistan, although its elements and certainly its affiliates -- Baitullah Mehsud’s group, commander Nazir Khaqani (ph) network and others, certainly do have enclaves and sanctuaries in certain parts of eastern Afghanistan. And then the Afghan Taliban, of course, has a number of districts in which it has its fighters and its shadow government, if you will, even.

But I think, no, I think that’s an accurate assessment, and that the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan -- that very, very mountainous, rugged terrain just east of the Afghan border and in the western part of Pakistan -- is the locus of the leadership of these organizations, although they do, again, go into Afghanistan, certainly, and conduct operations against our troops, and have tried, certainly, to threaten all the way to Kabul at various times.

KING: President Karzai was quite adamant in that interview with Wolf that he wants the air strikes to stop. He believes the air strikes are not taking out terrorist elements, and instead are killing civilians in his country and fomenting anti-American sentiment. Will the air strikes stop?

PETRAEUS: Well, he and I had a good conversation about this yesterday, actually, John. I thought it was important to discuss this with him. I heard that interview. There is no question, and we have all agreed for some time -- and General McKiernan, in fact, put out tactical guidance to this end, as did the Central Command headquarters -- that we have to be very, very sensitive that our tactical actions, our tactical employment in battles and so forth of close air support and other enablers does not undermine our strategic goals and objectives.

PETRAEUS: And we reaffirmed that in our conversation yesterday. We’ll certainly relook this yet again in the wake of this latest incident, although as the joint press release that was put out by Afghan and U.S. authorities in Afghanistan after the initial investigation of the latest situation in Farah province in western Afghanistan affirmed that Taliban bears enormous blame for this latest incident by apparently forcing civilians to stay in houses from which they were engaging our forces with heavy-fire RPGs, and quite effective fire, as the term is used.

KING: General David Petraeus, thank you for your time this morning, sir, and best of luck to you.

PETRAEUS: Good to be with you, John. Thanks.

KING: The assessment of General Petraeus there on the situation in Pakistan and over in Afghanistan. But what do members of Congress think of this administration’s approach to the problem? We’ll talk with two senators who met with the presidents of both Afghanistan and Pakistan up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: In addition to President Obama, the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan met with members of Congress, including a luncheon with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Two of them join us now. Democratic Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who joins us from Boston this morning, and Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, here with us in our studio.

Gentlemen, you just heard General Petraeus on the program. That is as optimistic as I have heard him, especially about Pakistan, in some time. You were both at the luncheon with the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan. And after that luncheon, Senator Corker, you said this, to the Washington Post. “My guess is they left the room with a lot less support than they came into the room with.” So you’re not nearly as optimistic as General Petraeus.

CORKER: Well, look, General Petraeus is a folk hero in our state, and I’m one of his great fans, and when he talks, I listen. He was in the same meeting, and there was just an air of smugness, flippancy when serious questions were asked. I asked about what our mission in Afghanistan ought to be, and I thought that President Karzai’s response was a nonresponse. And when I pushed him further, he basically said, look, this is your mission, which made me feel that our partnership there was not quite I think what Americans would like to see.

So my guess is that you’re going to see some probing by the Senate and Congress. I think we are going to want to see some -- we want to see this mission articulated. I think the weakness right now is what does it mean to make Afghanistan a place that’s not a safe haven for Al Qaida, especially when you hear General Petraeus talking about the fact that Al Qaida is actually in Pakistan, which is what we all know.

KING: And how about that, Senator Casey. A simple question first. The challenge is enormous, but do you trust -- are these the two leaders to get the job done, or are they too weak or just too unwilling to do what it takes?

CASEY: Well, John, I was in the same meeting, and some of the concerns that Bob raises are very well founded. Because I think it may go back to that old line I guess from President Reagan, trust but verify. And the only way we can verify is to continually evaluate what the Pakistani army and their military forces are doing to push back the Taliban and to defeat them.

If they achieve that goal over time, then I think the trust that we must have will be a lot more solid than it is now. So there’s a lot to play out here, but one of the real challenges in the near-term is not just the military engagement, but this refugee crisis, which seems to be spreading across parts of Pakistan because of the -- because of the military conflict. But we have to continually evaluate the representations that they make and see the evidence of their progress against the Taliban.

KING: One of the representations made while in this country from President Zardari of Pakistan was how he needs more money and he needs it now. Let’s listen to President Zardari.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASIF ALI ZARDARI, PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN: I’m thankful for the support that I’ve got and thankful for the people of America to give their tax dollars to us, but I need more support.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Senator Corker, grateful for American tax dollars. They want $10 billion more. That’s what the administration is asking for, for Pakistan over the next five years. Do they deserve that money, given the track record? If you go back through the Bush years and the Musharraf years, billions of dollars sent to Pakistan, and pretty hard to account for it.

CORKER: Well, I think, look, the fact is that we are going to have to support Pakistan. I know one of the things they’re going to begin doing is billing us from their military, what they’re doing against counterinsurgencies there. The fact is that we find ourselves -- and this is one of the questions I have -- how big is our footprint going to end up being? We’re in Iraq now. We’re seeing some problems as we begin to draw down. We’re in Afghanistan. Certainly there have been concerns about our relationship with the army and the ISI in Pakistan itself. Where is that going?

But at the end of the day, we’re going to be in a position as a country to have to support Pakistan in some way, in large ways. And we’re going to have to figure out a way, though, to verify, as you mentioned earlier, that what our money is doing is actually furthering a cause that we all believe in. That, obviously, has been less than the case in the past.

KING: Senator Casey, how weak is the U.S. hand here? There’s a great sensitivity to putting U.S. boots on the ground in Pakistan. We know it occasionally happens with Special Forces, but the military doesn’t like to talk about it. You have the drones going in there up in the northern region of the country. But we’re just sending money to Pakistan and hoping -- hoping that they do what is necessary inside their country. Pretty weak hand?

CASEY: Well, no I think we have a strong hand for a couple of reasons, John. One is I think President Obama has set forth a strategy which you can clearly articulate in the line that you just used in the lead-up to this interview, where you talked about President Obama focusing on the threat from Al Qaida, to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaida. It’s very important we’re clear about that being the objective.

But this can’t just be military help on our part or the military campaign by the Pakistani army. This has to be a comprehensive effort, including the legislation that passed the Foreign Relations Committee and should pass the whole Senate and the Congress, the Kerry-Lugar bill, which provides economic aid and other aid for development. That’s critically important here if this is going to be solved. We cannot just have a war in Pakistan. We have to begin to build up the country itself so they can -- they can govern effectively even as they fight the Taliban.

CASEY: If we do that, I think it’s a great investment in our national security to provide the kind of economic aid. But as Bob Corker said, you have to be able to follow the dollars better than we have over time and better than the Pakistani government has allowed us to do in previous efforts to provide economic aid.

KING: And Senator Corker, any concerns on your part? We’re sending more U.S. troops into Afghanistan. It is clear the biggest problem at the moment is across the border in Pakistan. Is the Pakistani government strong enough? Is it weak, as some administration officials have questioned in recent days? And if there are significant stability problems in Pakistan, do we have enough troops on the ground in Afghanistan to deal with what could be a nightmare?

CORKER: Well, look, the major entity in Pakistan, as everyone knows, is the army. And, you know, there’s no doubt that the government is weak. It’s been weak for a long time, and the entity that we have to deal with there and need to deal with, is the army.

I agree with Senator Casey that we certainly need to do more in the area of economic aid and development in that regard. I mean, we need to win the hearts and minds of people there.

My question with our strategy is, if it’s about Al Qaida, does that take us into Somalia and to Yemen? And I just think we need to step back and look -- we’ve got folks in Africa right now training against Al Qaida there. I think we need to step back and look at this overall issue, because it’s not unlike a balloon that you squeeze. And when you put pressure in one place, Al Qaida ends up in another place.

I think these are things that all of us, Senator Casey, myself, and others need to be looking thoroughly at, as this whole issue of the supplemental comes forth. Because, again, I understand the threat, but I’m not sure that we of yet articulated what the end game is for us. And these fine young men and women in uniform deserve for us to be able to have the ability to articulate what our end game is here.

KING: Senators Casey and Corker, I want you both to stand by. When we come back, we’ll get some insights into some political issues, including the party switch of Arlen Specter , one of the top GOP senators. We’ll be back with Senators Casey and Corker, right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We’re back with Democratic Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee.

Senator Corker, to you first on the economy. You’re on the Banking Committee. The administration put out the stress tests last week, and they think this is potentially a turning point, that most banks are in pretty good shape. Some banks need a little bit more help in the capital department, but they don’t think more taxpayer money. Are they right? Have we turned a corner in the financial sector?

CORKER: Well, there are glimmers of hope. I met with Treasury and the Fed the evening they put these out. We obviously are going to want to get behind the data a little bit, but, look, I think it was a positive step. I know that it’s being pooh-poohed by many, but there will possibly be additional government dollars. Now, I think that hasn’t fully been said, and I think that what we’ve got to be concerned about as we move into the future is not causing TARP to be codified so that it’s there forever. And that’s one of the things the Treasury secretary has asked for as a resolution ability down the road.

So hopefully, not much in the way of government dollars. It looks like -- for instance, GMAC looks like a definite for about $11 billion in need in the very near future -- but hopefully either through converting to common equity or many of the private offerings that were very successful this week, we’re going to see a real difference in our financial institutions, and I actually -- I’m feeling better about it, I really am.

KING: Feeling better from Senator Corker. Senator Casey, you represent, of course, one of the big industrial states, one of the hardest hit states in this recession. I want your sense, when you have a week where the unemployment rate goes up -- it is now approaching 9 percent -- but people cheer the fact that the economy lost fewer jobs last month than the month before. Still more than 500,000 jobs lost last month. When you go home to Scranton, are the businesses and the blue-collar workers, are they telling you we’ve hit bottom or do they still see it getting worse before better?

CASEY: Well, John, on the good news front, we’re hearing from business people and small-business people especially that some -- a lot of inventory, I should say, is moving off the shelves. That’s a good sign.

But when we describe, we use language like the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator. That gives no hope and doesn’t reflect the reality that so many people are living through. If you lose a job or your home or your hopes and your dreams, these economic statistics don’t mean much. So we have a long way to go, and I think we have to continually focus on the job numbers, even as maybe the financial sector numbers or other data improves.

I was questioning Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve this week, and in focusing him on the question of the unemployment rate over time and the job loss. And we’ve still got a long way to go there. And that’s why we have to continually focus on these strategies.

I think the recovery bill was a very important pillar in this strategy, but the work that has to be done on our financial system is still playing out. The stress tests, I think, give us a sense of where we are, but there’s still a lot of work to do.

KING: I want to talk politics for a minute with both of our senators. As I do so, I’m going to get up and walk over to the wall, but also show you the front page, the cover of this week’s Time magazine. Endangered species, it says of the Republican Party. That’s your party, Senator Corker. And as we discuss it, I just want to play this little timeline through here, to go through what has happened. This goes back 17 years, to 1992, and you see the line here. The red is the Republicans. The Republicans in the minority here, minority here, minority in the governorships in 1992.

Then, of course, came the big Republican sweep in 1994. The Republicans took the majority in the House, the majority in the Senate, up to 19 governorships at that point. This was the Republican heyday, just after 1994.

Fast forward to 2000. George W. Bush wins the White House, and Republicans pick up at the governor level. Parity, 50/50 in the Senate. A smaller majority for Republicans in the House at that point after 2000.

And let’s forward now to where we are in 2009. Look at this, a much smaller, Republicans now back in the minority in the House, back in the minority with just 40 Senate seats. 22 Republican governors now across the country.

So as I come back, Senator Corker, just like to ask you this question. I’ve been covering politics for 25 years. Usually when we use the term “circular firing squad,” it has been about Senator Casey’s party. The Democrats have not handled their struggles very well over the years, but it seems Republicans now are in this internal war, pointing at each other when the party needs to be rebuilding. You’re a former mayor, not just a United States senator. What’s the way back?

CORKER: Well, I think that, look, we’ve been the party of common sense and sound judgment, I think, in most years in the past. I may offend some folks, but I think a lot of people, even though they may disagree with Republicans, have always looked at us to act as grown- ups as it relates to things like fiscal issues and other kinds of things.

I think we’ve lost that to some degree. We certainly, I think, need to lead by solving problems in these common-sense ways. And I think that we cannot just be against -- although I am concerned about the overreach that’s taking place right now on many issues. And certainly, look, I’m a deal guy. I want to see good things happen, but part of our job is to help keep bad things from happening.

But again, we’ve got to create alternatives. We’ve got to talk with the people.

I saw, John, during the General Motors/Chrysler debate, if you will, the American people will respond overwhelmingly to good common sense, to talking about issues as they are. And while many people feel they’re in the wilderness today because of this economic stress, I believe that if we as Republicans can walk them through and show them the way that we can regain our majority -- so, look, this is not as much fun as it was two weeks ago when we at least had 41, but I think that will change, and certainly we all want this president to be successful. It’s important for our country, but helping him be successful might be enlightening in some ways of policy that hopefully will take our country ahead in a positive way and not a negative way.

KING: Senator Casey, the latest Democratic vote is now Arlen Specter , the former Republican. He is now a Democrat with you from the state of Pennsylvania. The president is behind him, the vice president is behind him, the Senate majority leader is behind him. Your Democratic governor is behind him. There are other Democrats, though, who are outraged about this. Congressman Joe Sestak was right here in the studio last week. He is considering a primary challenge against Arlen Specter , and he says, what’s going on here? Barack Obama promised to change politics as usual, to stop bowing to the establishment, and he says, here’s a guy, who, since becoming a Democrat, has voted against the Obama budget and said he wants Republican Norm Coleman seated in Minnesota in that disputed Senate seat. Is Arlen Specter a Democrat?

CASEY: I think he is, but as you know, in our party, we have a lot of diversity, a lot of different points of view. But, John, this is a process. This will play out over time. We have a primary for this Senate seat next May, May of...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: But should in a primary -- excuse me for interrupting, Senator, but in a primary, should President Obama, Vice President Biden, Senate Majority Leader Reid, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the governor of Pennsylvania be saying, stay out, we’ll help this guy raise money, we’re going to beat you. We have all the powers that be are now behind Arlen Specter , who has been a Democrat for a week?

CASEY: Well, there will be expressions of support for Senator Specter, but I don’t think anyone in our party should ever dictate to a candidate. That’s really up to that candidate, to run or not run.

But I think in this case, it may not seem it now, it may seem a little divided now, but there will be -- I think there’ll be consensus. Because the objective here by 2011 is to have a Democratic senator in that seat.

But the prime objective today, tomorrow, and for the next several years is to help President Obama figure out more and better ways to get the economy out of the ditch, to focus on healthcare, energy, and education. If we do that, I don’t really care how the politics play out and what the personalities are. We have to help President Obama get this country moving, and I believe this development is an indicator of that. Senator Specter’s support of the recovery bill, which I think is very important.

KING: Incredibly diplomatic there from Senator Casey. He’s auditioning for secretary of state if the administration goes on.

(CROSSTALK)

CORKER: That’s right, there you go.

KING: Let me ask you a question in closing. We’re out of time, but one of the Republicans out quite frequently, to the surprise of many, has been the former vice president. He came in here, Dick Cheney , about six weeks ago and said President Obama is making the American people less safe. He’s been on the radio this past week getting involved in a debate within your party about what next, and he’ll be back out today.

Is Dick Cheney being so visible helpful or hurtful?

CORKER: I think it’s important for everybody who has the ability to communicate ideas to be involved. I don’t really give editorial comments about whether people are being positive or negative.

Look, Arlen -- the change there -- I’ll get back to that -- certainly was a little bit of a solar plexus blow. I mean, to say that it wasn’t, it was.

But I don’t think it had anything to do with the Republican Party. He was very transparent about the fact that on Friday, he met with his pollster. His pollster told him he could not win as a Republican, so on Monday, he came in and told Mitch he was going to be a Democrat.

Now, I like -- I like Arlen fine, but let me just say, John, after 30 years of service, if you see me -- I hope that isn’t the case for me, but after 30 years of service, if you see me taking a poll and switching parties, give me a call, if you will.

KING: We need to end it on that. Senator Bob Corker , Senator Bob Casey , gentlemen, thanks both for coming. I guess that experience on the Foreign Relations Committee makes you very diplomatic.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: Thank you both.

And as we just heard from Senator Corker, a lot of advice for beleaguered Republican Party these days. We’ll talk about the GOP’s effort to rebound with CNN political contributors Mary Matalin and Hilary Rosen. That’s up next. Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Joining us now to share their unique political insights, Republican strategist and CNN political contributor Mary Matalin, who’s in New Orleans this morning. With me here in Washington, CNN Democratic political contributor, Hilary Rosen. Happy Mother’s Day to both of you, ladies. Welcome.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Mary, I want to start with you. If you look at the Sunday talk show landscape this morning, you’ll see John McCain , Newt Gingrich, and your friend and old boss, Dick Cheney . And as we showed in our last segment, the cover of Time magazine this week is “Endangered Species.” As you know, on the left, they’re having a field day with the Sunday lineup, saying, great, if that’s the face of the Republican Party, more of it. Let’s have more to it, specifically to the point of the former vice president.

You know the debate he has stirred up over the past several weeks, beginning right here on “State of the Union.” Helpful or hurtful for the Republican Party for Dick Cheney to be out there so much?

MARY MATALIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, if you consider the -- as I do, as most conservative do -- that Republicanism and conservativism are not necessarily synonymous, that when Republicans aspire and ascend is when they go back to what they do best, which is radical reform and being a party of ideas, as they did post-’64, as they did post-’92. When you have the people who best exemplify and represent those ideas getting (ph) and articulating them, like Newt Gingrich and Vice President Cheney, then that’s a good thing.

MATALIN: You’ll note whenever the Democrats attack Dick Cheney for being out or what he’s saying, they never attack the ideas. There’s never an answer for what he’s speaking about, it’s always just a personal attack.

Specifically, and I’m sure he’s speaking even as we speak now about how really damaging and dangerous it was for this president to release the legal memos on the EITs, on the enhanced interrogation techniques. Very dangerous, very bad precedent and will come back to haunt this president.

So rather than have an argument about that, there’s a personal attack on Dick Cheney , which means there’s no argument against the ideas, which goes to what the Republicans need to do, which is to quit being an echo as Goldwater said, really the godfather of the conservatives and present a clear choice.

KING: Do you want to jump in on that one? Are they personal attacks or will you take on the ideas?

ROSEN: I think Mary’s probably the best spokesperson the Republicans have right now, but the attacks on Dick Cheney have been fairly specific. I mean he, after all, I think came on to this network and said that he thinks that the president is making this country less safe.

So the responses back have been about where Americans feel that we have been less safe and that the more vulnerable and that President Obama, as we see from the polls, has been addressing that. And in fact, Americans now feel more safe under this president than they did over the last several years. I find that poll fairly remarkable.

KING: That is -- I want to jump in, I’m sorry to interrupt you, but I want to bring this because Hilary makes an important point. Mary, security, keeping you safe, has been the Republican Party’s calling card. Before 9/11, but especially since, 9/11, if you look at the most recent CBS/”New York Times” poll, who is more likely to make the right decisions about keeping the nation safe, President Obama, 61 percent, Republicans in Congress, 27 percent. That is a stark turnaround and a problem for your party politically, isn’t it?

MATALIN: Well, it is absolutely, it is irrefutably true that Barack Obama , particularly on his personal approval, when you ask those surface-skimming questions, he gets high numbers.

When you go deep into the policies, both domestic and foreign, there is a support you can call them conservatives, you can call them trust the verify, call them peace through strength, whatever you want to call them, those are hard security positions.

Smart diplomacy is not working. It’s not working with Iran. It’s not working with North Korea. It’s not working with al Qaeda and what he’s doing that is working making people feel and people can identify with is doing a enhanced counterinsurgency, if you will in Afghanistan, Pakistan, as General Petraeus talked about this morning. People understand that.

But they do not think, and Dick Cheney is 100 percent right, specifically the things that endanger our security are releasing our sources and methods of intelligence and impending the potential release of these detainee photos at the end of May. The ACLU is running our national security.

That, specifically, unequivocally will not make us safer, will endanger us as evidenced by what happened when photos were released before. So there’s specific examples of where this is happening, and that people feel good about it because we have not been hit again is not evidence that that’s the course that will keep us safe in the future.

ROSEN: You know, Vice President Cheney had six years to prove to the American people that their torture methods actually did help keep people safe and they never did it and they’re not going to be able to do it now. I heard General Petraeus say something fascinating this morning in your interview. What he said was, when they sat down and had these tri-lateral meetings last week with Pakistan and Afghanistan and the United States, that more progress was made in those meetings, in those few days than had been made in years in terms of understanding. That Ambassador Holbrooke and General Petraeus, who was not a Barack Obama appointee, he was a Bush holdover, that essentially what they’re saying is, we’re actually getting somewhere now with our efforts. And that, I think is something that’s resonating. And that, I think, is due to this attitude.

KING: I want to shift our focus. Hilary and I, Mary, you’re in New Orleans, safely out of the Beltway. Hilary and I were at this annual event in Washington last night, it’s the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. It was meant to have fun. The president came and he’s a good performer.

ROSEN: We missed you, Mary.

MATALIN: I didn’t miss you guys, sorry.

KING: The entertainment was Wanda Sykes, the very funny comedian. And she was very funny, and very pointed in her humor, but then she reached a point where many think she crossed the line. I want you to listen to Wanda Sykes last night and I want both of your reactions. She’s talking here about Rush Limbaugh and his statements that he would like Obama’s administration, which he calls liberal socialism, to fail. Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WANDA SYKES, COMEDIAN: That’s treason. He’s not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You know, you might want to look into this. I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker, but he just so strung out on Oxycontin, he missed his flight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Hilary Rosen, I know you’re not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, but was that over the line?

ROSEN: You know, Rush Limbaugh gets by on theater, and when anyone holds him accountable for his words, when he says things like “I want this administration to fail and I’m proud of it,” when he makes money of politicians, his defense is always, “Listen, you know, I’m as much entertainment as I am substance.” Wanda Sykes, hitting right back in entertainment. I think it’s fair game.

KING: Fair game to call Rush Limbaugh the 20th hijacker, Mary?

MATALIN: Well, I rest my case. It’s a perfect example and it epitomizes what I just said about -- not that it’s Wanda Sykes’ responsibility or within her capacity to make an argument against what her Rush Limbaugh talks about every day, which is the essence of conservatism, she attacks him personally.

So it’s just part of what the paradigm is when you confront conservative ideas. Just like the Democrats -- let me go back to the torture thing. Torture, this is not torture. What the enhanced interrogation techniques were, were legal, they were limited, they were used on water boarding, which has become -- completely blown out of context.

It was used on three people, which Nancy Pelosi knew about, she at least knew about Abu Zubaydah, which led us to KSM, which led us to thwart all those second wave attacks, which saved lives. So much of what made us safe, was classified, is now coming out in a way that is going to make us less safe in the future. So rather than take on those arguments, we call Rush Limbaugh a drug addict.

KING: I’m going to call time-out here, because we’re over time. I could spend all day with two of my favorite ladies and favorite moms. We’re going to have to call it quits for today, but we will have this conversation I suspect many times in the weeks ahead. Hilary Rosen, Mary Matalin, thanks for coming in this morning.

Look closely on the streets of America’s major cities these days and you might be startled, especially on this Mother’s Day. More women and families among the homeless. When we come back, we’ll go to Los Angeles to meet a remarkable mother and see her struggles up close.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: One way to look at the impact of this punishing recession is to look at unemployment. The brighter the state, the higher the unemployment rate. Another way to look at it is homelessness. One of the ripple impacts of the recession has been an increase in homelessness. Look how bright California is, the largest state, the largest number of homeless people.

We wanted to get a better sense of how this plays out. So we went out to Los Angeles. Some call it the homeless capital of the world. More people on the streets and more of them leading families.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING (voice-over): Up early to beat the L.A. traffic and to get Jacob to school on time. Then to the office. Martinez is a working mother and something else you would never guess.

RUTH MARTINEZ, LOS ANGELES: We went to the movies to go see the move (inaudible). And there was a lady sitting next to us, a very nice lady. I turn to my son and go, little does she know we’re homeless. She thinks we live just like regular people. Little does she know we have curfew and after the movie, we have to run back to the car to get home by curfew.

KING: A curfew because Ruth and Jacob live here. In the family wing of a Los Angeles homeless shelter.

MARTINEZ: This is our room. And nothing big so we can kind of squeeze in.

KING: Cozy.

Their tiny room comes with strict rules -- no TV, no lights on after 10:00 p.m. But no complaints of a grateful Ruth Martinez.

Tell me about the first few days.

MARTINEZ: Here?

KING: No. Before that.

MARTINEZ: Well, we were in the car. A couple people at my job knew what was happening and they tried to help. But it’s easier to say, oh, I hear what you’re going through, uh-huh, and they can get in their car and go to their house. But they won’t know what it is to pick up your son and say, wow, where am I going to go now?

KING: Her husband had lost his job and took off. Ruth and Jacob were evicted after falling behind on the rent, living in her car, afraid to ask for help.

MARTINEZ: Just prayed and -- yeah. We just prayed. And I wasn’t embarrassed because Hispanic Latina does not ask for help. The way I was raised, you put your pride to the side and do what you have to do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am not feeling uncomfortable sleeping in the street.

RUDY SALIS, PATH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH: Would you be open to the idea or the possibility, not right now but in the future maybe staying with us so you have a safe place to sleep at night?

KING: Rudy Salis sees it every day -- the changing face of homelessness.

SALIS: Recently, I have noticed in certain communities in L.A. County an increase in the number of women with children, women with kids below the age of five that are struggling for the same resources that a 40-year-old man may be trying to get to so they have somewhere to sleep at night.

In my eight years of doing this, I never come across as many people who have told us they’ve never been homeless before.

KING: Some have just lost their jobs. Others, like Ruth Martinez, are still working but were evicted after falling behind on the rent or because their landlord faced foreclosure. Salis’ works for PATH, People Assisting the Homeless, which runs the shelter is where Ruth finally found a room and where she will celebrate Mother’s Day.

What are you going to do for mother’s day?

JACOB MARTINEZ, RUTH MARTINEZ’S SON: Make her something.

KING: It’s Sunday you know.

J. MARTINEZ: (Inaudible)

KING: Residents can stay six months. If they have jobs, they are required to set aside money to build up enough for a rental property. Ruth is saving but makes an exception because of her new understanding of what it’s like to be homeless.

R. MARTINEZ: When I get off that freeway. I see a gentleman there all the time. However long, if I have a couple dollars, I give it to him. Even though I’m homeless, I’d rather give the last dollar to a person who needs it even more than me because I know I’m going to be blessed.

(END VIDEOTAPE) KING (on cameras): Send out a Happy Mother’s Day to Ruth Martinez and thank her for sharing her story with us. We wish her and Jacob the best. And we want to say good-bye now to our international audience for this hour.

Coming up for viewers in the United States, why does the press give so much coverage to President Obama’s run-in with Vice President Biden this week? Howie Kurtz talks about that and a whole lot more.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: I’m John King, and here’s what’s ahead in our STATE OF THE UNION report for this Sunday, May 10th, 2009. Happy Mother’s Day. The headlines are calling Republicans an endangered species. Is that the real story or just the way it’s being portrayed by the press? Howie Kurtz takes up the question with three top political reporters in our RELIABLE SOURCES hour.

John Edwards’ political future was destroyed by a scandal. Was Elizabeth Edwards the suffering spouse or a willing participant in a political cover-up? Howie talks to two correspondents who cover the gray area where gossip and politics meet.

And lately, it seems when former Vice President Dick Cheney is on the air, controversy follows. We’ll break down what he said today with the best political team on television. That’s all ahead on STATE OF THE UNION.

Time now as always to turn things over to Howard Kurtz and his RELIABLE SOURCES. And Howie, as I do so, here’s “The New York Daily News.” “Ham in chief. Comic Obama brings down the house.”

That, of course, at last night’s White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner. The president was quite funny but also had a bit of a serious message.

KURTZ: Yeah, he is getting pretty good reviews, John, for his comedy stylings, but he had some serious thoughts that have not been replayed endlessly on the cable networks this morning. Let’s take a brief look at that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: There are extraordinary, hardworking journalists who have lost their jobs in recent days, recent weeks, recent months.

OBAMA: When you are at your best, then you help me be at my best. A government without a tough and vibrant media of all sorts is not an option for the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: What did you think, John, of the president paying tribute to a news business that is having a lot of difficulties right now?

KING: Well, his relations with the press will run hot and run cold. That happens in any administration. But it was nice of the president to acknowledge the hard times in the industry, especially the print industry.

And you know what? He sells a lot of newspapers and magazines, but I think he also said at one point we weren’t eligible for a bailout.

KURTZ: Right, exactly. All right. We’ll talk to you later, John. Thanks very much.

With all the media focus on Barack Obama , Michelle, the kids, the dog, the basketball playing, the BlackBerry, and the shirtless photos, the struggling Republican Party is sometimes treated as an afterthought. And when the GOP gets some press attention, it tends to be pretty negative, or about such lightning rods such as Dick Cheney or Rush.

Not that Republicans have much to brag about these days, but the new “TIME” cover story goes so far as to question whether the GOP, like some rare Whooping Crane, is an endangered species. Here, take a look.

“The party’s ideas are not popular ideas. A hard-right agenda of slashing taxes for the investor class, protecting marriage from gays, blocking universal health insurance and extolling the glories of waterboarding produces terrific ratings for Rush Limbaugh, but it’s not a majority agenda.”

And who gets to write the accompanying essay? MSNBC’s morning host Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman, who has sharply criticized his party. He says Republicans “... must again find the middle of the American political life and stop being seen as tone-deaf ideologues mixed with self-consumed radicals.”

So is this kind of coverage fair when contrasted with the reporting on Obama?

Joining us now to talk about that and some other political controversies, Rachel Sklar, contributor to “The Daily Beast”; Joe Klein, columnist and political correspondent for “TIME” magazine; and Amanda Carpenter, who writes the “Hot Button” column for “The Washington Times” and blogs online.

All right, Joe, much of this piece by your colleague, Michael Grunwald, read like a liberal indictment of the Republican Party -- shamelessly hypocritical, embittered, over the top. Is “TIME” being fair and balanced here?

KLEIN: Well, “TIME” stopped being fair and balanced a long time ago. We go with the voices of our journalists and go with what they see. But the hilarious thing to me about this is that I wrote the exact same story about the Democratic Party in “Rolling Stone” magazine in 1981, and then I proceeded to do 30 years of Democrats in disarray stories. The other hilarious thing...

KURTZ: But what’s the lesson, then, that when we try to bury somebody, a political party, a political person, they can rise from the dead?

KLEIN: Well, the thing is that there are cycles in American politics. Democrats went through a down cycle during the Reagan era. That’s changing now.

But the other interesting thing is Joe Scarborough’s column, the title was “They Only Look Dead.” And E.J. Dionne wrote a book about the Democratic Party a few years ago...

KURTZ: With the title?

KLEIN: “They Only Look Dead.” This is nothing new.

KURTZ: All right.

Amanda Carpenter, when “Newsweek” wanted to have a piece by a conservative, the editors had David Frum write a story ripping Rush Limbaugh and saying the GOP should modulate its social conservatism. “TIME” picks Joe Scarborough to criticize the Republican Party.

What does all of this tell you?

CARPENTER: Well, it is interesting. There should be a number of voices. I do agree it’s definitely the state of the Republican Party. It’s interesting to see the perspectives, numerous amounts of, you know, different views so you can kind of see where they think you should go.

But what’s lacking is some real reporting on what the people inside the Republican Party, the direction they would like to take it. I think that’s where the real interesting debate is.

Look at what happened last week with the New Council for a New America. That was really interesting, because you had essentially a bunch of Republicans talking about lowering the costs of health care, education. So I kind of see a new dynamic coming where they’re going to be talking about these issues on the consumer side, possibly with an eye towards spending. Whereas, you know, that’s happening. Yet, we just have essays about how dead the Republican party is.

KURTZ: And Rachel Sklar, it probably wasn’t hard for “TIME” editor Rick Stengel to find Scarborough to write this essay since he goes on “Morning Joe” every week to preview the new “TIME” magazine cover.

Do you see a striking contrast in the way President Obama is being covered, particularly in these past 100 days and the way the GOP is being portrayed?

SKLAR: Well, you know, Howie, we’ve talked about this before. I don’t think that the two necessarily have to do with each other. I don’t think that -- I mean, they have to do with each other in the sense that the disarray of the GOP in many ways enabled the rise of Obama and the Democratic Party. As Joe said, this is just the cycle that government goes through. But, you know, I think that the media has been very cheerleady (ph) about Obama, but he’s had a pretty decent hundred days, and he keeps coming up to the plate and sort of doing all right.

KURTZ: But you know that people out there feel like the media lean to the left, they’re going to be naturally sympathetic to a Democratic...

SKLAR: I know that people say that, but...

(CROSSTALK)

KURTZ: But you just said that the media have been kind of cheerleady to President Obama even though he’s had a pretty good...

SKLAR: But based on the fact that when he’s had to step up to the plate, he’s done a very good job. You know? The 100 days press conference, he did a great job. Last night at the correspondents’ dinner...

KURTZ: Your 100-day piece for “TIME” magazine said that he had gotten off to the best start since FDR.

KLEIN: Yes, but I also said that it didn’t mean all that much, that 100-days pieces are a kind of flimsy journalistic conceit, and the rubber’s really going to meet the road when he lays out an agenda. We’ll see whether it works. That’s what’s important.

Can I just defend our “TIME” magazine piece?

KURTZ: Please.

KLEIN: Michael Grunwald, who wrote it, actually did a lot of reporting, and he did reporting from the grassroots up. He’s based outside of Washington. He talked to governors like Mark Sanford and portrayed them in a pretty sympathetic way. But you have a real kind of DNA problem here with the Republican Party.

When the Democrats were in trouble, they would always propose these nice, touchy-feely, you know, proposals for the country -- let’s spend more money on health care, let’s do this. Then when the Republicans have been in trouble over the last 100 days, all too often the face has been hateful and angry and dismissive. And that is a cultural problem that the Republican Party is going to have to deal with and overcome.

KURTZ: I’ve got to move on, but do you want to briefly respond to that?

CARPENTER: Yes, just a quick response is that, you know, part of the reason I think that the Republican Party has been characterized with so much hatred is because a number of times, over and over again, you have up-and-coming figures in the Republican Party having to answer for controversial remarks made by Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney , people who are no longer really controlling the political agenda. I mean, Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, and again and again, they...

(CROSSTALK)

KURTZ: Cheney was vice president for eight years.

Look, let me move on, because I want to talk about the Supreme Court vacancy that President Obama is going to have a chance to fill. And there’s a lot of talk in the past week on the airwaves about one word that Obama used.

Let’s roll that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC: He wants empathy, darn it. He wants a justice who can understand and appreciate the struggles and challenges of the little guy.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS: That is a singularly loopy idea for a qualification for a justice.

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC: Republicans already using code words for the Supreme Court nomination. Since when is empathy a bad thing?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Since when did conservative commentators decide that “empathy” was a word to be attacked?

CARPENTER: Well, empathy, it’s an emotive term. I mean, Barack Obama is calling for a judge who will take their emotions into account when making a judicial decision.

KLEIN: This is just hilarious. First of all -- first of all...

CARPENTER: I mean, what does empathy mean to you?

KLEIN: First of all, this is Exhibit A of what I was just talking about. This is -- the Republicans, when they hit the word “empathy,” are being hateful and ugly.

KURTZ: Hateful?

KLEIN: Hateful, because they’re saying -- no, but they’re saying -- you know, they’ve always talked about the strict constructionism, but when you look at the legal surveys of who has been more radical on the bench, especially over the last 10 years, it’s the Republicans who continually overturn precedent. You know, the liberal judges, moderate judges, a guy like David Souter, was a profound conservative because he really believed in stare decisis in respecting judgments.

SKLAR: I just want to talk about the term “empathy.” It’s actually a very contextual term.

It talks about how you interpret the law. You know, the Constitution was written in a very different time. You have to take into account evolving social situations, evolving technology. I mean, this is how the world operates now. You know, you have to take into context...

KURTZ: My take -- my take...

KLEIN: But it’s a word game. I mean, really, that’s -- you know, Republicans are playing a word game.

KURTZ: Well, because there is no nominee. So, this is sort of a spring training fight. And once Obama actually names somebody, then we can debate whether that person has the qualifications, the temperament and, yes, the empathy.

SKLAR: But that’s something that Schumer asked of -- I think it was Alito. He talked about, can we -- or it was actually Roberts -- like, can we see into your heart? I don’t know your heart. I mean, this is pretty standard stuff for discussing a Supreme Court nominee.

KURTZ: All right.

I want to turn to one other thing on Capitol Hill this week, up on the Senate side. Senator John Kerry holding a hearing about the future of newspapers. Indeed, whether they have a future.

I talked last week about “The Boston Globe” facing a shutdown threat from The New York Times Company. That was averted after the Globe’s unions agreed to substantial pay cuts, a furlough, giving up benefits, and there’s going to be more layoffs at that newspaper.

Let’s take a look at the Kerry hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Today, it is fair to say that newspapers look like an endangered species.

DAVID SIMON, TELEVISION PRODUCER: High-end journalism is dying in America, and unless a new economic model is achieved, it will not be reborn on the Web or anywhere else.

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, HUFFINGTON POST: The future of journalism is not dependent on the future of newspapers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: I’ve got a half a minute for each of you.

Amanda Carpenter, should Congress be getting involved at all with the plight of newspapers?

CARPENTER: I don’t have a problem with them discussing it, but, no, they should not be involved in maintaining newspapers or even thinking about it. It’s an interesting discussion, but no.

KURTZ: Rachel Sklar, your former boss, Arianna Huffington, we just saw said the future of journalism is online. Does that mean then newspapers, at least the printed versions thereof, increasingly matter less or not at all?

SKLAR: I think that the problem is equating newspapers with journalism. Newspapers are just one platform for distributing and receiving and taking in news.

KURTZ: They’re one platform that happens to have big newsrooms that actually do original, enterprising, investigating reporting.

SKLAR: Right. And that work can be done and distributed in other forums.

I think that it’s important at every step of the way to examine how these changes are being implemented, and I think it’s an important public policy issue. But, you know, I don’t think that newspapers equal journalism in...

KURTZ: Joe, go ahead.

KLEIN: Let’s take your alma mater. Until the Huffington Post or any of these Web outlets or “TIME” magazine’s Web outlet have the resources to put someone like Anthony Shadid, as “The Washington Post” has, in the Middle East, and have Dana Priest work for months and months and months on the Walter Reed scandal, you know, if we can’t find a model to do that, this democracy is going to suffer.

KURTZ: Well, “The Washington Post” is still my employer.

But just very briefly, you worked in Boston. The Globe was a great, aggressive, politically attuned newspaper. How did it come to this?

KLEIN: They lost $75 million last year, I think. I mean, you know, it’s -- I think, you know, clearly, the times are changing and, clearly, younger readers are not reading newspapers.

KURTZ: This is a great discussion, but we’ve got to get a break.

When we come back, prom night. Journalists, politicians and celebrities getting all decked out for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. But is this sort of thing a little too cozy?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) KURTZ: Journalists here in Washington are accustomed to seeing big-shot politicians all around, but when a few Hollywood celebrities show up, they can act a bit like breathless tourists, especially if a movie star is sitting at their table. D.C.’s version of the spring prom took place last night, only we call it the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. And the name of the game is to get top administration officials and members of Congress -- oh, come on, you know what the real game is.

The down and dirty competition is to snag (ph), the stars like NBC bringing Samuel L. Jackson, ABC taking Jon Bon Jovi, and CNN, which scored with Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore.

Joe Klein, you’re down here from New York to go to this dinner. Does it have any journalistic value to you?

KLEIN: Occasionally it has journalistic value. You meet, you know, a member of the administration you don’t normally get to see, and you have a conversation. And, you know, you establish a contact. But I think that there is something really tawdry about all this. I mean -- and it’s changed quite a bit in the thousands of years that I’ve been going to it.

KURTZ: Rachel, you’ve been twittering your party-going attendance. Is there something -- do we look a little silly getting kind of hot and bothered over these movie star types that descend on the capital?

SKLAR: Well, I think that, you know, talking about change, it just seems to be permeating the air here today. But I think that part of what the value I see as someone who just, you know, attended the festivities this year for my second time is the intermingling of people coming up and people who are established.

And personally, I find it very beneficial to meet and talk with members of my profession. You know, it’s kind of cool to see Bradley Cooper or someone like that. But I think that there’s value in that, and I think that there’s value in sort of throwing a whole mix of people into one room and seeing what happens.

KURTZ: Let me play a little bit of President Obama’s routine last night, if we can roll that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me.

(APPLAUSE)

Apologies to the Fox table.

Michael, for the last time, the Republican Party does not qualify for a bailout. Rush Limbaugh does not count as a troubled asset. I’m sorry.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: The president address Michael Steele, the Republican chairman.

And speaking of Rush Limbaugh, Wanda Sykes, the comedienne who followed the president, told this joke that got some groans in the room. She said -- she kind of accused -- she accused Rush Limbaugh of treason and she said, “I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker, but he was just strung out on oxycontin and missed his flight.”

Does that go way, way over the comedic line?

CARPENTER: I think it does. I mean, there is a willingness for these jokes to be a little saucy at these dinners. I think that went over the line.

I think the joke she told about Sarah Palin and Todd Palin’s sex life was inappropriate. I think the inference she had to Barack Obama ’s race was also inappropriate. Overall...

KURTZ: She talked about if he was successful, he would be seen as an African-American president. And if not, he’d be seen as some half-white guy.

CARPENTER: Yes. Yes, I thought that was over the line.

KLEIN: You know, comedy is, by definition, inappropriate. I mean...

KURTZ: Or it wouldn’t be funny.

KLEIN: This is just comedy. And we’re talking about a guy in Rush Limbaugh who is inappropriate half the time I hear him on the radio.

CARPENTER: Yes, but he doesn’t go to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner to...

(CROSSTALK)

KLEIN: But he describes himself as an entertainer. Wanda Sykes, entertainer. This is entertainment.

CARPENTER: But would you hold up Rush Limbaugh at these dinners to tell those jokes?

SKLAR: It goes to context. I really think that it goes to context.

I mean, everyone in the room is aware of the bigger picture here, the history. I think that if you deliver a monologue, a toothless monologue, without reference to context, then it means nothing.

CARPENTER: I think she could have done a fine job that was in better taste. That’s all.

KURTZ: Speaking of dinners...

KLEIN: So could Rush. He could be in a lot better taste on a daily basis in which he is delivering misinformation, lies to a large audience in America. That is far more serious than telling a couple of jokes at a banquet.

KURTZ: Well, “lies” is a strong word, but we’ll come back to that another time.

Speaking of dinners, “Newsweek” reported that Paul Krugman, “The New York Times” columnist and Nobel Prize winner for economics, had an off-the-record roast beef dinner with President Obama and “pushed for more aggressive government intervention in the banking system.”

Now, maybe he’s right, maybe he’s wrong, but can he privately advise the president and then write columns about how Obama doing on the economy? Is that a problem?

CARPENTER: Well, it should be. I think he should disclose it. But we’re talking about it right now. We can see how it influences his columns, and so he’s -- he’s his own person.

KURTZ: We’re talking about it because “Newsweek” reported it. And Krugman takes the position, well, I can’t talk about it because it was off the record.

KLEIN: Well, I’m a columnist, and I think that I’ve always felt that it was fair to have conversations with politicians about positions that you’ve taken in print.

KURTZ: But what if they turn to you and say, “Joe, what should I do about this particular problem? What’s your take?”

KLEIN: And I’ve had those sort of conversations with politicians and I’ve said, “Here’s what I’ve written about national health insurance. Here’s what I think would actually work.” You know, it’s a conversation.

KURTZ: I recently reported that “The Atlantic” has been hosting these off-the-record dinners for its journalists and others with the likes of Rahm Emanuel , Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, King Abdullah. And the problem is you go and it’s all very interesting, but you can’t report a single word.

SKLAR: I think it’s about relationships. Actually, as someone who’s pretty now new and who has only recently sort of experienced what it’s like to get on the inside and have people speak to you off the record...

KURTZ: You want to have dinner with Rahm.

SKLAR: Well, that’s a different story. But I think there is real value to establishing those relationships, and it gets the flow of information going. Then you find something else, you can ask another source.

I think it’s ultimately good for journalism and good for the public to have that free flow of information. I do.

KLEIN: And it’s best. It helps you establish a context. When you’re talking to military sources in Afghanistan, there are a lot of things that they can’t say on the record about operations, but they can give you a sense of the battlefield off the record that informs your reporting.

KURTZ: And you have done that in Afghanistan.

We can’t let you go without talking about one of the big breaking stories this week, and this is The Daily Show’s take on the actual live coverage on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell anchoring.

Let’s watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC: This just in. What you’re watching is two guys going out for lunch. And I’m talking about a cheeseburger here, mustard, I’m not sure about hot sauce.

I’m also told by the experts in the control room who have watched all of this that the president wanted fries. They didn’t have them, so he tried the potato puffs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Why did Barack Obama and Joe Biden going out for burgers in Virginia get this kind of coverage?

CARPENTER: A slow news day? No, it’s interesting. I mean, part of Barack Obama ’s push is become more familiar with the neighborhood. I thin it was a nice thing. I happen to live close to that little burger shop.

KURTZ: Ray’s Hell Burger?

CARPENTER: Yes.

KURTZ: Can you vouch for it?

CARPENTER: It’s delicious.

KURTZ: But isn’t this part of this sort of everything Obama does is fascinating for the media?

SKLAR: I think it just exposes the mustard conspiracy in this country.

KURTZ: Oh, because he asked if they had Dijon mustard and some conservatives didn’t like that.

CARPENTER: Yes. You know, I saw more left-wing blogs saying that conservatives were making a big deal about this. And actually saw right-wingers discussing it.

KURTZ: You’re denying it?

CARPENTER: I did not write about Dijon mustard.

KLEIN: I feel sorry for Andrea, who is, you know, one of the least likely people in television to cover a burger. But, you know, she does a lot of substantive reporting, and there she is...

KURTZ: She does. She absolutely does.

KLEIN: And then Jon Stewart takes her apart that night.

KURTZ: Well, he mostly just played it because it kind of went on for a while.

All right. Rachel Sklar, Joe Klein, Amanda Carpenter, thanks for joining us.

Coming up in the second half of RELIABLE SOURCES, opening up to Oprah. As Elizabeth Edwards sit downs with the queen of daytime talk, journalists start slamming her, as well as her philandering husband. Is that fair?

Plus, well healed. Gideon Yago, the host of IFC’s Media Project, on whether the man who through those shoes at President Bush should be considered a journalist. Really?

And breaking the fever. The media following lowering the temperature on the white-hot swine flu coverage.

And at noon, John King talks with General David Petraeus on the war in Afghanistan and the growing concern over Pakistan.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) KING: I’m John King, and this is STATE OF THE UNION. Here are stories breaking this Sunday morning.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has arrived in Baghdad on a one-day visit to Iraq. Speaker Pelosi met with Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to discuss U.S. and Iraqi economic relations. She’s also meeting with senior U.S. officials and U.S. troops.

Pope Benedict celebrated an open-air mass today in Amman, Jordan. He called on Middle East Christians to preserve their faith despite hardships facing their ancient communities. The pontiff also called for greater respect for women.

Cool, moist ocean air is helping tame a wildfire in Santa Barbara, California, that has burned nearly 9,000 acres. Evacuation orders have now been lifted and residents are returning home. Firefighters say the blaze is about 40 percent contained. It has destroyed or damaged nearly 80 homes and buildings.

That and more ahead on STATE OF THE UNION.

Time now, though, to turn things back over to Howie Kurtz and his RELIABLE SOURCES -- Howie.

KURTZ: Thanks very much, John. We’ll talk to you at the top of the hour.

For nearly a year since her husband admitted on “Nightline” that he had an affair with a former campaign aide, Elizabeth Edwards had held her tongue. She avoided media interviews, suffered in silence, faded from the news. But now, with a book coming out, the former senator’s wife is lifting the veil, sharing her feelings, hitting the talk circuit, beginning with Oprah.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

OPRAH WINFREY, TALK SHOW HOST: So, when you would be out and you would be introducing your husband, or speaking about your husband and campaigning for your husband, not just the causes, but literally campaigning for your husband and saying what a great husband and father and man he was...

ELIZABETH EDWARDS, JOHN EDWARDS’ WIFE: Right.

WINFREY: ... were you being honest?

EDWARDS: Well, I mean, I changed the way I talked a lot. I -- it was very -- it was actually -- at first I didn’t think I could do it. I was still angry and hurt, and a lot of self-doubt about, you know, who I was, what I meant to him.

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS: ... his mistress.

KURTZ (voice-over): And from serious newscasts to gossipy shows, everyone is wading back into the scandal, talking about John Edwards, Rielle Hunter... UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will Rielle demand a DNA test?

KURTZ: ... a newly disclosed federal probe into whether he improperly used campaign money to pay her for making videos. And most of all, with a cancer-stricken wife, how could he?

GIBSON: The extramarital affair that brought an end to John Edwards’ political career is resulting in a spate of new headlines and potentially legal trouble for the former presidential candidate.

NATALIE MORALES, NBC NEWS: Investigators are looking into whether any campaign money was wrongfully paid to the woman he admitted having an affair with.

JOY BEHAR, “THE VIEW”: Let’s tell it like it is -- he’s a dog. And people do not like him. And I think his political career is over.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: But what about Rielle Hunter’s baby? There’s -- obviously, there’s been a lot of speculation about who the father is. Hunter famously said she’d never get a paternity test.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don’t want to confuse the victim with the victimizer, but Elizabeth hushed it up, too. It’s not like anyone came in front of the American people and said this guy is having an affair.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KURTZ: Joining us now to talk about the Edwards coverage and the Palin family feud that has erupted again on the morning shows, in New York, Lola Ogunnaike, entertainment reporter for CNN’s “AMERICAN MORNING.” And here in the studio, Lois Romano, reporter for “The Washington Post.”

All right, Lois. John Edwards is washed up politically, his wife has a fatal disease. She’s still angry with him over this tawdry affair.

Why the utter media fascination that continues here?

LOIS ROMANO, “THE WASHINGTON POST”: Well, I think what you’re seeing here is pushback from the national media, who really protected Elizabeth and liked Elizabeth and treated her -- and basically gave him a pass a lot of times because of her. She was an integral part of his narrative...

KURTZ: Yes.

ROMANO: ... the death of their son, four children at 48, 49, 50 years old. And then her cancer came back.

And so now what you’re seeing is the media feels misled by omission. This man could have become president, and if he had become president and this came out, it would have blown up the Democratic Party. So, I think all the media is saying, whoa, wait a minute here, you know, you knew all this. Why are you dredging it up again?

KURTZ: Lola Ogunnaike, do you think there is a certain element here where reporters and correspondents and pundits are kind of turning against Elizabeth Edwards, who, as Lois says, had been the kind of sympathetic figure here. Nobody would wish on any woman what she has gone through, and now it turns out she’s known all along.

LOLA OGUNNAIKE, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. I mean, she was painted as this martyr figure, this woman who had suffered great tragedy, has terminal cancer, had stood by her husband. They had what seemed to be this ideal marriage.

And it turns out that he was complicit in basically this cover- up. She knew all along that he’d had an affair, that he cheated on her, and decided that they would go along with this massive cover-up, and she ultimately decided that his political career was worth more than being honest.

KURTZ: And here she is resurrecting it all by bringing out the book, by going on “Oprah.” In other words, she’s got us all talking about it, and not in ways necessarily flattering to Elizabeth Edwards.

ROMANO: Well, that’s the question. I mean, there’s clearly something in her personality that is pushing her to get the last word. And if you listen to it -- and I listened to the Oprah interview a couple of times -- she’s defending her husband and attacking Rielle Hunter. So, you have to kind of ask yourself, why would she do that and open up this can of worms again?

Secondly, she’s exposing...

KURTZ: A lot of people think revenge.

ROMANO: Well, maybe, and...

KURTZ: But they’ve got little kids.

ROMANO: Exactly. She’s exposing her children. Now we have Rielle making noises about, you know, maybe getting a paternity test, which she has never gotten before.

KURTZ: According to “The National Enquirer,” which has been right about every aspect of the story.

ROMANO: Exactly. And the question is about Elizabeth. I think she is at risk of diminishing her own stature. I mean, people held her up as the soul of this relationship, and now she’s turned it into a spectacle again.

KURTZ: Let me play a little more, Lola, of the interview with Oprah Winfrey for our viewers and ask you a question on the other side.

OGUNNAIKE: OK.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDWARDS: I thought, you know, for my family, for my children, for John, for me, it would be best if he got out of the campaign. He said -- and truthfully, he was right, it was hard to argue with this -- that if you wanted to raise a lot of questions, what you do is get out of a campaign you got into two days before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Lola, how did Oprah do in that hour-long sitdown at the couple’s North Carolina mansion? And to ask an obvious question, how important is it to go on “Oprah” when you’re peddling a book, particularly a book about the affair that your husband had when he was running for president?

OGUNNAIKE: Well, you go on “Oprah” because, you know, one, the book is going to sell. And two, everyone’ going to watch it. So why would you not go on “Oprah?”

I thought Oprah handled this interview well. She was not particularly tough on her, but she asked the questions that everyone wanted to know. And I thought one of the really interesting tidbits that she drew from Elizabeth, I mean, Elizabeth referred to this baby that could potentially be her husband’s daughter as “it,” never referred to it as this child, this little girl, called her an “it.” It’s very, very telling.

KURTZ: I also thought that Oprah did a good job and didn’t unduly sensationalize what was already a pretty sensational story.

But just to go back to this question of the way journalists are treating the former senator’s wife, here’s Salon’s Rebecca Traister, to take one example. She calls Elizabeth’s decision to go out with this book and hit the talk show circuit “... one of the most sadomasochistic publicity jaunts in political history.”

I mean, people can’t believe that she’s doing this.

ROMANO: Well, I think what we’re going to see here is we’re going to see the curve of the public follow us. Right now, I read all the comments after Oprah, all the comments on the stories, and the public is still generally in support of her. You know, he was a cad, he’s this and that.

Let’s see what happens after two weeks of this and after people start asking, well, what if it is her child -- his child? And I think there’s a very good chance that it is his child. And what about all these family values? Doesn’t he want to take care of the child? And why not find out? If it’s not his child, let’s put it to sleep. If it is his child, wouldn’t he want to take care of it? And those questions are going to come up.

KURTZ: That’s the unanswered question at the heart of all this. And boy, what if Rielle Hunter decides to do an interview? What if she goes on “LARRY KING LIVE?” That will really boost this thing into the stratosphere.

OGUNNAIKE: Or even worse, Howie, what if she decides to go on Maury Povich?

KURTZ: OK. Good point.

ROMANO: I don’t know though. He’s turned down a lot, by the way, and a lot of money.

KURTZ: Another person who has been in the news this week hitting the talk circuit -- two network morning shows, to be precise -- is Bristol Palin. She, of course, the Alaska governor’s daughter who had a baby out of wedlock and then broke up with her boyfriend.

Let’s take a look at the interviews on “The Today Show” and “Good Morning America.”

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATT LAUER, “THE TODAY SHOW”: One of the ways to avoid it is through abstinence, and yet you’ve come out and said in an interview that abstinence is in some cases unrealistic.

BRISTOL PALIN, SARAH PALIN’S DAUGHTER: Well, definitely. If you’re going to have sex, I think you should have safe sex. And regardless of what I did or anything like that, I think that abstinence is the only 100 percent, full-proof way of preventing teen pregnancy.

LAUER: But it put you in the position a little bit of other teenagers as saying do as I say, not as I do.

PALIN: Yes, exactly. Learn from my example.

CHRIS CUOMO, ABC: Do you think it should be black and white, abstain versus protection? Or do you think there’s going to be some middle ground some day? What do you think Bristol?

PALIN: I think definitely some middle ground.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Do you think, Lola Ogunnaike, that Matt Lauer and Chris Cuomo should have pressed Bristol Palin about what birth control she did or did not use? In other words, have done an actual aggressive interview?

OGUNNAIKE: I don’t think they should have pressed her. I think that’s going a bit too far.

Tyra pressed Levi, actually, on her show, and he admitted that they didn’t have safe sex all the time. It’s clear that they did not have safe sex. The proof is in the pudding. So, I don’t think they should have pushed her at all.

We get it. We know.

The fact that she is the face of abstinence, though, I mean, is it opposite day? Miss California is the face of sanctity of marriage, she’s running around with fake breasts, in a bikini. And this girl, who is a teen mom, wants to be the face of abstinence. What’s going on here?

KURTZ: Well, since you mentioned Levi Johnston, let me play a brief bit of tape from his appearance this week. They kind of had dueling morning showdown appearances. This one on CBS.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Were you using birth control when Trip was conceived?

LEVI JOHNSTON, FATHER OF BRISTOL PALIN’S BABY: I was using condoms, but, you know, there was a few times, you know, we didn’t. And that’s what happened. We had a kid.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: “That’s what happened. We had a kid.”

Lois Romano, is it somewhat ludicrous for the morning shows to book Bristol Palin as some kind of advocate for abstinence when she’s walking, talking example of the exactly the opposite?

ROMANO: I think it is ridiculous, and I also think it’s ridiculous to have him countering it. I mean, it’s a little bit more than I personally would like to know about their sex life. I mean, why do we really care?

And also, she’s delivering very muddled messages. Let’s abstain and look what happens, it’s awful to be a teen mother. But no, he was a blessing. I mean, what are we to take from all this, that if I, as a teenager, get pregnant and have a baby, I, too, can be on the talk shows?

OGUNNAIKE: Right. What kind of cautionary tale is she, really?

I mean, she’s out on every television show. We’re all talking about her.

Clearly, she’s had support from her family. She has a Candies endorsement. I mean, come on. If she’s the face of not what to do...

ROMANO: And if Candies is paying her.

OGUNNAIKE: Exactly.

KURTZ: Well, we would not care and we should not care, except for the fact that she’s Sarah Palin ’s daughter. But also, they’re putting this all out there. Nobody is forcing these kids to go on television.

ROMANO: And who is protecting them? I mean, where are the parents here?

KURTZ: Well, I guess they’re 18 and they can make up their own minds.

I want to touch on the Miss California situation that you alluded to earlier, Lola.

Perez Hilton was on this program a couple weeks ago, the celebrity blogger who asked Carrie Prejean in the Miss USA contest that gay marriage question. She said she was opposed. Everyone has now been attacking her.

And the latest thing to happen is some nude or, I should say, seminude, photos of her surfaced on the Internet. Perez Hilton put it up on his site.

Do you think, Lois, that whatever you think about this woman and her answer on gay marriage, putting up these lingerie photos is kind of a low blow?

ROMANO: Oh, I think it’s totally unfair. And I thought her answer to the question was fine.

You know, she said it’s great that we have a free world and we can choose, and this is what I just personally feel. And why we all care what a celebrity blogger who puts up a crass site says I just don’t know.

KURTZ: And Lola, you know, we’ve only shown it to you once, but I think one of the reasons TV loves this story is they can run those pictures of Carrie again and again.

OGUNNAIKE: Who wouldn’t want to run pictures of an attractive woman in a bikini over and over again? But Howie, the bigger story here is you do not want to get in a fight with Perez Hilton. You’re just not going to win. Don’t even bother.

He’s the queen of all media. You don’t want to go there.

KURTZ: All right. Well, ironically, some nude photos of the singer Rihanna have also hit the Internet this week. Some people suspecting her estranged boyfriend. And we don’t know how those came about.

But thanks very much for that advice on Perez.

Lola Ogunnaike, Lois Romano, thanks for stopping by this morning. Up next, from MTV to the IFC, Gideon Yago on season two of his media series on the Independent Film Channel and why he thinks Al- Jazeera is getting a bad rap in the U.S.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: Gideon Yago has just launched his second season with the “IFC Media Project,” and he’s been looking at questions that don’t get too much attention in the mainstream media.

Take “Al-Jazeera English,” a two-and-a-half-year-old spin-off of the Arab satellite network based in Qatar. The channel has been virtually unavailable in America until it got limited distribution last week.

Yago examined the question of whether the Al-Jazeera Channel has been suppressed for political reasons.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YAGO: Because it’s owned by Arabs, there’s a battle going on over whether or not you should be able to watch it here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think there is some patriotism on the part of American cable and satellite providers that they don’t want to put this stuff on the air knowing that it could incite people to kill Americans.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KURTZ: Joining me now from New York is Gideon Yago.

Welcome.

YAGO: Thanks for having me.

KURTZ: You raised a question as to whether “Al-Jazeera English” has been censored in the U.S. Now, censorship usually refers to government suppression, but you’re suggesting that it’s been kept off the air for political reasons?

YAGO: Well, “censorship” isn’t the word that we used. It was more of just a blockade.

Why is it that cable providers have pretty much uniformly boxed it out of their cable programming with the exception of one carrier in Ohio, one carrier in Vermont, and as of about two weeks ago, one carrier in Washington, D.C.? So it’s not censorship, it’s the idea of why are we not letting this in to what is ostensibly a free market of ideas?

KURTZ: Well...

YAGO: Especially when you can get all of this stuff on the Internet.

KURTZ: Of course. What about financial reasons? Perhaps cable operators have decided there’s not a huge market for “Al-Jazeera English” in the United States.

YAGO: And when we ask cable providers about that, that was what they gave us in prepared statements. But the funny thing is, if you just go cruising through a cable channel and you look at the hundreds of different specialty channels that are on there for Punjabi lifestyle or Korean pop specialty stuff, here’s things that you wouldn’t logically think would work, and yet are being carried on mainstream cable packets. So just to say that this Qatari, who is our ally-based cable television station, has no place in the American discussion about news is, I think, a dangerous thing.

But because, frankly, what it’s going to do is it’s going to keep us from really engaging in a meaningful dialogue with the Islamic World if we just refuse to even acknowledge that they have a viewpoint which exists. The crazy thing about it then...

KURTZ: But on the other hand, Dave Marash, the longtime ABC News anchor who had been with “Al-Jazeera English,” when he quit after being demoted as an anchor, he said he thought there was some shoddy reporting at the channel. He didn’t accuse it of being propaganda ...

YAGO: Well, you don’t even have to look at that. There was a great documentary that came out a couple years ago by a documentarian named Jehane Noujaim called “Control Room,” which was really all about the experience of a guy who is now an Al-Jazeera correspondent, a guy named Josh Rushing, who then was a Marine working for CENTCOM, and how CENTCOM was trying to manage the war for both Al-Jazeera and the American market in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

I don’t know if it’s shoddy reporting. I mean, I think there’s shoddy reporting everywhere, especially in broadcast.

KURTZ: Well, that’s a good point.

Let me move on because we’re limited on time.

YAGO: OK, sure.

KURTZ: I want to talk about what you’re airing tonight, and that is the episode having to do with an incident in Baghdad last December that everyone has seen a thousand times. We’re going to replay it for our viewers right now.

YAGO: We’re going to look like we’re the Mideast specialty show, but please.

KURTZ: This was Muntadhar al-Zaidi, who now is spending a year in jail for throwing those shoes.

In the promotional material, at least, you raised the question, what that guy just did, was that an act of violence, a political act, or an act of journalism? And I have to ask you, are you kidding? An act of journalism?

YAGO: No, the -- well, the point that we had leading up to that was, yes, we threw that in the lead-in for the piece just basically to generate a conversation and keep eyes on the screen. Obviously, the conclusions that we come to in that piece is that the guy is an out- and-out activist who banked his journalistic credibility the second that he took off his loafers.

But for us, what was more interesting about that is that that piece got played again and again and again virally and on the late- night shows, and in the 24-hour news cycle. That guy, Muntadhar al- Zaidi, he was actually a legitimate TV journalist. It would be as if one of your CNN correspondents, Jane Arraf, or something, had taken off her shoes and flung them at Paul Bremer or something like that.

And so for us, the bigger question was not only how did that play in the room, and how did the journalists who were in the room have to report this incident where they’re covering a press conference and there is a guy screaming outside because he is getting the crap kicked out of him...

KURTZ: Right.

YAGO: ... and at the same time they’re now part of the story? And also, what is it that took this guy who was part of the two legitimate Baghdad broadcasting stations, and took him from being a legitimate TV journalist to a guy who is an out-and-out activist...

KURTZ: Right.

YAGO: ... and how did he get pushed over the edge? And that, to us, is the more interesting documentary.

KURTZ: The act of journalism thing just threw me. And by the way...

YAGO: Oh yes, ,sure.

KURTZ: ... there is strict language in all CNN contracts, I believe, to keep your shoes on.

YAGO: That’s a good clause. That’s a handy clause to keep in there.

KURTZ: Now, the creator and executive producer of your series, Meghan O’Hara, has worked with Michael Moore on such movies such as “Sicko” and “Fahrenheit 911.”

YAGO: Sure.

KURTZ: Would you say that you critique the media from the left? YAGO: I would say that, yes, and I think that’s just part of keeping in what the Independent Film Channel is. But at the same token, the other executive producer and creator of the show is a guy whose other screen credits include “Up All Night with Dave Attell.” So, you know, I don’t know if that means we have a pro-late-night drinking agenda as well.

KURTZ: Gideon, I’ve got half a minute here.

YAGO: Sure.

KURTZ: The news business in pretty deep trouble. Would you say that a lot of the wounds are self-inflicted?

YAGO: Yes, very much so, especially when it comes to print over the last couple of years. I think that there was a willingness to get in bed with Wall Street and investors and demand higher returns rather than just efficiently run small businesses on the local level. And now it’s the local papers who are most threatened.

And unfortunately, that’s where you see the real crisis in journalism, just as news aggregators are coming out and just siphoning headlines off of print journalists and investigative journalists. It really, I think, is going to be the golden era for corruption on a local and state political level for the next couple years until we find out whatever the alternative is going to be to shore up the death of the newspapers.

KURTZ: Well, I can tell you as somebody in the middle of it, it’s very painful.

Gideon Yago, thanks very much for joining us.

YAGO: Thanks for having me.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KURTZ: Gideon Yago stopped by the other day. His program airs at 11:00 p.m. tonight.

After the break, fizzling flu. After two weeks of feverish coverage, hyperventilating journalists finally take a deep breath. Did they go way overboard on swine flu?

KURTZ: I have good news to report this morning. We’re not all going to die. The swine flu outbreak isn’t over, but the media hyperventilation is finally fading.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KURTZ (voice-over): You remember the feverish coverage that for days seemed to eclipse everything else -- the front-page newspaper headlines, the magazine coverage, and, as we showed you, the network reports and constant cable updates.

KATIE COURIC, CBS NEWS: The world is moving closer to a full- scale pandemic.

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS: We, in covering and reporting on this story, are not immune to it.

(voice-over): Our senior staff buzzed through a good portion of a bottle of hand sanitizer today.

LARRY KING, CNN: Is anybody safe from this ticking time bomb?

KURTZ: The tone and the volume were just out of proportion to what we knew about the outbreak. Of course it was a story that people were interested in, that journalists had to cover, that had the potential to turn into a public health crisis. But the key word is “potential.”

Even as medical reporters sounded cautionary notes, the saturation coverage turned excessive, even scary. And then, well, the thing fizzled.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS: If you spent at least part of this weekend wondering if this flu outbreak might be milder than we were warned about, you’re not alone.

CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: U.S. health officials say the worst fears about the swine flu don’t appear to be panning out, but it looks to be no worse than a typical seasonal flu.

BILL O’REILLY, FOX NEWS: But everybody else, it seemed, ran with this thing all day long, and now it turns out, hey, you know, it’s not so bad. Well, a lot of people got hurt.

KURTZ: Swine flu is behaving pretty much like regular flu. You know, the one that kills 36,000 Americans each year. Most people quickly got better. One Texas woman died, but she had chronic health problems and was late in seeking treatment.

I knew the media were backing off when Janet Napolitano ’s briefings were no longer carried live and cable news returned to such fare as missing toddlers and the indictment of Drew Peterson on charges of killing his third wife.

There was one program that warned you about this last Sunday.

KURTZ (on camera): Well, my two cents is this, that we may look back on this as a textbook case of media hype, of shouting “Fire!” based on some embers?

(voice-over): Let’s roll that tape back again.

(on camera): Textbook case of media hype.

(voice-over): You heard it here first.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KURTZ: I can’t tell you how many people have complained to me about what they see as the media’s wild overreaction on swine flu. Whatever short-term bump you might get in the ratings is outweighed by a loss of confidence among news consumers, and there’s no vaccine for that.

After the break on this Mother’s Day -- Hi, Mom -- what’s more offensive, Michael Savage on the radio or decision to ban him?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KURTZ: I find some of what Michael Savage says to be offensive. Six years ago, the right-wing radio ranter was dumped by MSNBC for telling a gay caller he hoped the man would get AIDS and die.

And then there was this gem...

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL SAVAGE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I don’t want to hear anymore about Islam. I don’t want to hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind.

KURTZ (voice-over): This week, British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith released a list of murderers and other undesirables who are banned from entering the country. Savage was on the list.

SAVAGE: I was astounded when I saw this. I thought it was some bizarre joke.

I said this can’t be real. How in the world could she lump me in with people such as Russian skinheads who are in prison for killing people? It makes no sense.

(END VIDEOTAPE) KURTZ: And I have to agree. Britain is banning Savage for his opinions, not for any act he committed. And that is offensive. He says he’s suing to clear his name.

The Brits, oddly enough, are making Michael Savage look good.

And John King, we have a First Amendment in this country. You can be kicked off the air if listeners or viewers don’t like what you say, but you certainly can’t be barred from America’s shores.

KING: And look, it’s a mistake, I believe, by the British government. I will take the same position as you.

And number two, I think in an odd way, they’re doing him a favor, because if they think he’s so offensive, by doing something like this, what do they do? They bring attention to him.

KURTZ: It’s serving as a publicity platform for Michael Savage and his radio show.

KING: Absolutely.

KURTZ: Thanks very much, John.

KING: Howie, have a great Sunday and a great Mother’s Day.

KING: Here’s what’s still to come in our STATE OF THE UNION report for this Sunday, May 10, 2009. The Pakistani army is in a pitched battle with the Taliban as terrified civilians flee the conflict.

Did the White House summit with presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan gain or lose crucial political support for what many now call President Obama’s war?

We’ll take about that and much more with veteran political observers Donna Brazile and Bill Bennett.

Plus, last night, the capital’s press and politicians were entertained by the first comedian. Tough crowd. Mr. Obama hasn’t had much luck in the past with jokes. We’ll get a review of last night’s performance from a trio of pretty tough critics.

And we’ll meet a mom doing right by her three kids despite today’s tough economic times. It’s a very different kind of Mother’s Day story. That’s all ahead in this hour of STATE OF THE UNION.

After months of frustration, the U.S. general leading the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban says Pakistan is now aggressively doing its part.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETRAEUS: You now see all of the Pakistani political leaders, including opposition figures, you see the Pakistani people and you see the Pakistani military determined to reverse this trend and to deal with the Taliban threat ultimately in Swat Valley.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: But there are still many critics in the administration and in Congress, not only with Pakistan’s commitment but also with Afghanistan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CORKER: There was just an air of smugness, flippancy when serious questions were asked. I asked about what our mission in Afghanistan ought to be, and I thought President Karzai’s response was a non-response. And when I pushed him further, he basically said, look, this is your mission, which made me feel that our partnership there was not quite I think what Americans would like to see. (END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Well, here in Washington this past week, the Afghan president demanded an end to U.S. air strikes. The White House says it will be more careful, but says it has told President Karzai it won’t take that option off the table.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM “THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS”)

GEN. JAMES JONES, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I think he understands that we have to have the full complement of our offensive military power when we need it. We have to -- we can’t fight with one hand tie behind our back. But on the other hand, we have to be careful to make sure that we don’t unnecessarily wound or kill innocent civilians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: As you can see, as always, we’ve been watching the other Sunday shows so maybe you don’t have to. Let’s bring in the best political team on television, as we do most Sundays at this hour, and break down the day’s big headlines and issues. With me here in Washington, Democratic strategist and CNN political contributor Donna Brazile; and the Claremont Institute’s Washington fellow, radio host and CNN political contributor Bill Bennett.

And welcome. Happy Sunday. Let’s start with General Petraeus, more upbeat than I’ve heard him in months about Pakistan’s commitment to the fight. But you heard Senator Corker who says from not only Hamid Karzai, who he was criticizing there, but also Pakistan’s president, when they met with the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he came away from it feeling quite uncomfortable that these two leaders, Bill, are up to the challenge.

BILL BENNETT, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, starting at the other end, you know, you can’t create the leaders that you’re going to have in other countries. You often have uncertain allies, you often have fallible and very imperfect people.

I was struck by it, too, listening to your interview with him, when he talked about flippancy and so on. Obviously, the president of Afghanistan shouldn’t be flippant to senators of the United States who, when the United States is bringing them so much aid.

Nevertheless, what troubles me here for the long run is whether there will be a loss of support for the effort. And here I think President Obama has actually been pretty good on Afghanistan and Iraq, and my worry right now is more than his base will start to oppose him on this. So far, he has stood up.

But, you know, as George Bush said, and think as Barack Obama has said, and certainly recognized, this is a long war, this war against global Islamism -- Islamic terrorism. And it’s going to take a lot of patience.

It’s probably going to take more casualties, as well, unfortunately. But I was a little troubled to see the reaction being, well, you know, we wish people would be more cooperative. Again, imperfect world.

People wanted to get rid of Musharraf, right, John, right, Donna? And now you have got Zardari. Well, you’ve got them acting like a military country now, like, you know, you’ve got a general in charge.

Well, they crushed the Taliban in the Swat Valley but it’s not over.

KING: And does -- assess the president’s challenge for me. Let me ask it that way. I worry sometimes that, you know, with -- “worry” might not be the right word. All of the attention on the economy, rightly so, on the first 100 days, rightly so, trying to get off the path on climate change and health care, do you think the administration -- spent some time on it in this past week, but overall in the 100 days-plus, is there a fear in your mind that the American people maybe take their eye off the ball?

And if things do go bad for a week or more, it could more of a political problem because it seems to have receded?

DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, the good news is that the president has put some experienced people in the region, Ambassador Holbrooke, of course, who has been talking to these leaders.

He accompanied both the president and Afghanistan and Pakistan to Capitol Hill to meet with lawmakers. I was glad to see that lawmakers had an opportunity to sit down with these two leaders to get an assessment themselves of just what’s going on in the region.

We’ve committed to spending $7.5 billion over five years in Pakistan to help with not just civilian aid, but to train their military. And remember, this is a country of 170 million people. They have nuclear arms. And we need to put some focus on that northwest region and not allow the Taliban and the other extremists to rule that land. We’ve seen a great deal of civilians now evacuate in that area.

BENNETT: Interestingly, when you had -- is it Howard Berman who is the chairman of the committee that was grilling Holbrooke and the others, they gave him a pretty tough ride in that hearing. It looks to me as if the president is right now closer to David Petraeus’ view than he is to many House Democrats. We’ll see how that develops in the future.

KING: And let’s talk about the complexity of the challenge, because Iraq, as complex as it has been, is one country. We have relative progress there right now, we believe, and what used to be called by President Bush the central front of the war on terror, this administration does not use that term anymore, General Petraeus in the White House would tell you the stroll front of the effort is now in Pakistan and in Afghanistan.

But when we were talking about this earlier with senators Casey and Corker, Senator Corker made an interesting point. I want you to listen how he assesses, maybe if things go well in Pakistan, you’re not solving the problem. Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CORKER: I think we need to step back and look at this overall issue because it’s not unlike a balloon that you squeeze, and when you put pressure in one place, al Qaeda ends up in another place.

Again, I understand the threat, but I’m not sure that we have yet articulated what the endgame is for us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Senator Corker’s broader point was if you start to succeed in Pakistan and al Qaeda spreads and flees somewhere else, will we make an effort in Somalia, in Yemen, in other places where al Qaeda might seek refuge?

Are the American people prepared for that?

BENNETT: This is an intellectual conceit, it’s very interesting, I think we first used this in the drug war, we used to talk about the half-full balloon, when you press down here, does it go other places?

You know, people would say, are you going to fight demand or supply? And the answer was, you’ve fight it in all places at the same time. And that’s what you have to do against this -- this global war against Islamist terror, fight it at all times as well.

Yes, you pushed down in Afghanistan, and they moved into Pakistan. I was interested to hear on your show General Petraeus backing up Karzai saying there’s no more al Qaeda in Pakistan. I don’t know...

KING: Afghanistan.

BENNETT: Yes, in Afghanistan. In any case, they move, and we know they can move freely on that border which means you have to stay tough on it.

On that business about using U.S. military, keeping that option open, people have to realize the Taliban is expert at gathering innocent civilians into their ranks so that when there is an attack they can claim how many civilians have been killed.

BRAZILE: And Bill is making a key point, and that is civilians. We know from our experience over the last couple years that the strength of the al Qaeda movement is that they’re able to co-op, whether it’s tribal leaders or civilians, and they’re able to, you know, get these certain areas that they control.

We have to have a multi-front approach to fighting this, and not just use military strength, but that’s one of the reasons why the president has put a lot of emphasis on diplomacy, working with the local tribal leaders, working with civilians and humanitarian assistance.

BENNETT: One more thing, if I may. Just got to show the hypocrisy of the Taliban on this opium business. I mean, they do have to get after that poppy, that opium. The Taliban making profits off of this, which is absolutely against every dictate of Islam, it’s impossible.

KING: I want to change the subject a bit. Vice President Cheney -- former Vice President Cheney has been very critical of this president. On this program, started a debate in which he said President Obama is making the American people less safe.

He has been very critical of them closing Guantanamo Bay and changing and outlawing some of the enhanced interrogation tactics, as they called them. The vice president was out again this morning, and Bob Schieffer put the question to the vice president, do you have any regrets for using waterboarding, slamming people against walls, other enhanced interrogation techniques, any regrets? Here is the vice president’s answer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM “FACE THE NATION WITH BOB SCHIEFFER”)

DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: No regrets. I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. I am convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: It is helpful for him to be out?

BENNETT: I think it’s fine. I mean, George Bush is not out. He is out. I do think there are things to fault. He get attention for the things he says. These are important issues. And I think -- I said last time I was on the show, you know, when you build a gallows, be sure you know whom you’re going to hang.

Nancy Pelosi said she didn’t know about all of these interrogations, didn’t approve, doesn’t appear so. It appears she did know about them. So we should see.

But this is a very important business. Look, I think on the moral question, it’s not hard. If interrogating these guys through waterboarding saved the lives of thousands of Americans, it is absolutely justified.

KING: Bill just raised a point...

BRAZILE: I don’t think it’s ever justified. I don’t think torture is ever...

BENNETT: Saved the lives of thousands...

BRAZILE: I don’t think -- if we’re a country of laws, and that is our principle...

BENNETT: It wasn’t against the law, Donna.

BRAZILE: Well, according to a legal memo written by a staff person who might be in trouble now because he wrote something that was erroneous. I don’t think it’s ever justified.

BENNETT: The question of waterboarding, whether it’s torture or not, is at least a debatable proposition.

KING: I want to come to the point that Bill just made about Speaker Pelosi because she was not speaker at the time but she was the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee in the House. And her own administration, this is the Democratic administration now, the CIA and this administration sent a report to Congress that is saying she was at briefings where they were told that these tactics were being used. She has said that she did not know they were being used and she has said, I believe, on another occasion that they discussed that these tactics had been made legal or were legal. She was not aware they were being used. The former speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, this morning, had this to say about Speaker Pelosi.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: She’s now changed her story again and said, well, she’s been reassured they were all legal. So, initially she didn’t know about it, had not been briefed, then she’d been briefed but it wasn’t clear. Now she’s been briefed and in fact had been told the it was all legal so she didn’t worry about it. I think she has a lot of explaining to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Donna Brazile, does the speaker of the House have a credibility problem here?

BRAZILE: I think the speaker, as well as others involved on Capitol Hill, should explain what they know and exactly -- let some of the memos they’ve wrote to the various government agencies also come to light.

I don’t think we would shift the emphasis from an administration that put itself above the law to now members of Congress and what they knew and when they knew it. But if that’s going on the game, then I think members of Congress will also have to fully disclose what they knew, as well.

BENNETT: Well, that’s fair enough. I mean, don’t shift the emphasis, but if there’s going to be all this indictment of the Bush administration, all this indictment about their actions and their procedures, let’s look at what everybody’s involvement was. Let’s look at what was said to the Congress and what they approved. You want to open up this can of worms, let’s open the whole can.

BRAZILE: And I support opening up the can.

BENNETT: OK.

KING: All right. We have agreement on something. We’re going to take a quick break. Donna and Bill are going to stay right here and you stay right where you are. A lot more to talk about, including highlights from last night’s star-studded White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The president’s pretty funny. We’ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We’re back with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile and CNN political contributor Bill Bennett. One of the big debates, Bill you know it well from your radio show and from other conversations including those we’ve had here is how should the Republican Party find its way out of this wilderness? We’ll call it that. I know you’ve seen this happen before in the past.

As part of this debate, the vice president, the question was put to the vice president today about Rush Limbaugh, his role in the party, and some of the criticism of Rush, including criticism from Colin Powell, who says, you know, if Republicans would just stop listening to Rush. Let’s listen to Dick Cheney .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: In terms of being a Republican, I go with Rush Limbaugh, I think. I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn’t know he was still a Republican.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BENNETT: I hadn’t heard that. I saw Colin Powell on Friday at the Jack Kemp memorial service, by the way, which was beautiful. It was just the ministers and the children. And I offered to Colin, I said, would you like me to be a mediator between you and Rush? I said, I know you both, I like you both. He said, oh, no, you guys have to -- I said, what do you mean “you guys”? Have you left? Is there some announcement here? Look, Rush is not the leader of the Republican Party.

KING: Did he answer your question?

BENNETT: No, he was just -- small talk. But he is the leading -- obviously the leading talk radio guy. But we have -- we have to go through 15 more cover stories in “Time” and “Newsweek” about how the Republican Party -- you got one there.

KING: I’ve got one here, I’ll take it out for you.

BENNETT: The Republican Party is dead, it’s never coming back, it’s an endangered species. Anybody, read some history books, you know, these things happen in American life. We are better off than we were in ‘64, in ‘74, and in 1992.

BRAZILE: Well first of all, I think --

KING: Colin Powell, that’s who I asked first.

BRAZILE: I hope he remains a Republican because I think we need leaders in that party who are intelligent and capable of carrying on a dialogue with the majority of the American people, and he is someone who’s very admired by the majority of Americans. You poll Rush Limbaugh, Colin Powell, my money is on Colin Powell. But the Republican Party abandoned its own principles during this last decade and I think they’re having an internal discussion about what kind of party would it like to be in the 21st century. I ran into Meghan McCain and I have to tell you Bill, she’s refreshing, she’s honest, and she’s a face that could help them galvanize young people and independents.

KING: You mentioned McCain. Her father is also out on television this morning. And Dick Cheney on a radio show last week said we shouldn’t moderate. There’s been a whole debate, do we need a more moderate Republican party? Now you can define that and debate that in 100 different ways, depending on this issue. But the former vice president said we shouldn’t moderate, so that little bit was played to John McCain this morning. Here’s what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ.: I don’t want to moderate either. I think our policies, the principles of our party are as viable today as they have in the past. In all due respect, previous administration, by letting spending get completely out of control, by betraying some of those principles of our party, cost us a couple of elections. And maybe I didn’t do a good enough job communicating with the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: If you listen to that last part there, Bill, from Senator McCain, this is a view shared by many, many Republicans that, look, you say historical cycle. A lot of Republicans think, you know what, the end of the Bush administration in particular was really bad for us. Spending was up, the war was unpopular. All we need is distance from George W. Bush and then we’ll be fine. Is that right?

BENNETT: No. You also need a program, you know a set of ideas, John. I agree on that. But, look, it’s going to be relatively easy to develop those ideas because I think those lines are being drawn in Washington. We are drawing lines in Washington. Democrats are in charge of everything and we shall see. You know, accountability time is here for the Democrat Party and we shall see. But one thing the media could do, some of the media, is to move the debate off Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. This is probably not the future of the Republican Party. It could talk about --

KING: You don’t think Governor Palin is the future of the Republican Party?

BENNETT: I do not. You could talk about a Paul Ryan or a Mike Pence . We could talk about Bobby Jindal . It could talk even about a Jon Kyl or a David Petraeus. There’s a lot of talent in this party. But I understand why a lot of the media wants to focus on Palin and Rush, because they can get the numbers against the Republican Party. But we shall wait. Our time will come again.

BENNETT: And I’ve got to tell you just quickly because you mentioned this, I was in New York meeting with some CEOs, Wall Street, this isn’t my crowd, I don’t run in that circle, the bewilderment at the Obama administration. A lot of people supported Obama but they said they vilify us, they talk about, you know, our banks offshore, as if they’re illegal, they talk about us doing this and that. They were kind of shocked. I had not seen this before.

BRAZILE: Shocked? They should be shocked that more of us are not throwing our shoes at them given the dismal state of our economy that they just went out there to make a buck.

BENNETT: These are not people who did anything illegal. These are not people who, you know, are getting bonuses unjustifiably. These are people who run very big companies and hedge funds. A guy who runs a hedge fund said I am villain number one. I run a hedge fund that profits 8 million people. That’s a reasonable argument.

BRAZILE: First of all, I agree with you. We should move beyond personalities and get to what’s the vision of the Republican Party.

BENNETT: Absolutely.

BRAZILE: And is it inclusive.

BENNETT: Absolutely.

KING: And we don’t throw shoes here on STATE OF THE UNION.

BRAZILE: Not my shoes. My shoes are too expensive.

KING: I want now -- we’re going to play rate the comedian, OK? You’re both very funny when you want to be. The president last night, it was his first big Washington dinner. If you’re in that room it was an array of Hollywood and Wall Street and Washington, an odd mix toy might say.

But the president was pretty funny. Here’s the president talking about his first hundred days.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I’d like to talk a little bit about what my administration plans to achieve in the next hundred days. During the second hundred days, we will design, build and open a library dedicated to my first hundred days. It’s going to be big, folks. In the next hundred days, I will learn to go off the prompter and Joe Biden will learn to stay on the prompter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: He also said his second hundred days is going to be so good he’d get it done in 72 days, I think, I believe. He’s not known for off the cuff jokes, Donna, but he was pretty good last night.

BRAZILE: I thought he was excellent. It was a wonderful program. A little bit too long, but it was still a great problem. I hope in the second 100 days we stop the loss of jobs and home foreclosures and bankruptcies because I think that’s what the American people want. They want a government that works for them and not against them.

BENNETT: Ability to laugh at yourself. Ability to tell a joke on yourself. When he said I’m glad you’re all here and you all voted for me. Very funny. Playing into what conservatives criticize, saying a memorial to my first hundred days, hold the lantern on your own problems, it was I think quite effective.

KING: Well, let me turn your subject to another person who told a joke at last night’s event. I don’t know if we have it to play. I hope we do in a second. But the president was very funny. Poked fun at himself, poked a little fun at John Boehner, a little fun at the Republicans, a little fun at us in the news media.

Wanda Sykes came on next, she was giving a very funny routine. Then she said something about Rush Limbaugh, we’ve talked a little about it, that many thought crossed the line. Because Rush is on record saying he thinks Obama is way left of center, socialist policies and that he wants that to fail, criticized for it even by some Republicans. But what Wanda Sykes last night said rolled some eyes. Let’s listen. She compared Rush Limbaugh to the 20th hijacker.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WANDA SYKES, COMEDIAN: The me that’s treason. He’s not saying anything differently other than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You might want to look into this. I think may be Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: You two politely debate the issues here all the time. You both always say let’s not keep it personal. Rush is fair game. He’s in this debate. He pokes fun at people. Was that over the line?

BRAZILE: No. It was funny. She thought it was funny. Some people thought it was funny. Some people did not think it was funny. So, I’m not going to debate whether or not a comedian said something over the line. She’ll be criticizing me tomorrow. I’m leaving it alone.

BENNETT: Way over the line. I hope he fails was the next line, I hope his kidneys fail. What the hell is that? Can we -- I understand the dislike of Rush, the disapproval of Rush by liberals. But can we at least put some decency in our remarks? Michael Savage was criticized rightly for saying to a gay caller, I hope you die. You do not talk about people like that. You never talk about people like that. She was way over the line. This is why Elaine Bennett and I did not go to this dinner. We went twice and twice we had to leave because of remarks by comedians.

I’m for vigorous debate and exchange, but I don’t care who you’re talking about, and there are people I strongly dislike in this world, you don’t go beyond decency and she went way beyond that. “I hope his kidneys fail.” Come on.

BRAZILE: She was ...

BENNETT: Joking.

BRAZILE: ... trying to make fun of somebody who makes fun of everybody, Bill.

BENNETT: I understand that.

BRAZILE: He has said some things, Bill, I tell you, I won’t repeat because Rush Limbaugh, he has -- he gives everybody the blues, including many Republicans.

BENNETT: He has said things in the past for which I have criticized him. But when it gets to the point liberals will not criticize their own when they step over the line, then they’re out there way over the line.

BRAZILE: We criticize our own. We’re not perfect.

BENNETT: I’d like to hear somebody step up on this one.

BRAZILE: What’s the point?

BENNETT: What’s the point? Just say that’s too much.

BRAZILE: What’s the point? She is an entertainer.

BENNETT: So is Rush an entertainer but you’re happy to criticize him.

BRAZILE: Of course.

BENNETT: What would have been too far? What would Wanda have said that would have offended you, anything?

BRAZILE: Of course. Of course.

BENNETT: Like what? She said I hope he dies.

BRAZILE: No.

BENNETT: I hope his kidneys fail.

BRAZILE: No. She was making fun of Rush Limbaugh and Rush Limbaugh makes fun of everybody else.

BENNETT: I’m sorry, I know what it means to be made fun of and I know what it means for someone to say I hope you die.

KING: I’m going to call a time-out here because the last thing I want is a divide between you two. So I’m going to call a little time out here. You both have very strongly held opinions on this one and did it in a polite way, which is the way we like debates here on STATE OF THE UNION.

In just a moment, we’ll break down today’s news and yes, we’ll take another look at last night’s press dinner with CNN’s best reporters.

But straight ahead, my favorite part of the program. Where I get to leave Washington and hear from people just like you. This week we met three women who don’t think the recession has bottomed out. We’ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: For our travels this week, we went all the way across the country out to the State of California right down here into the Los Angeles area. One of the things we wanted to check on with people is how do you feel about the economy? So we sat down for breakfast, and this is where we started the discussion because it’s been a week of mixed signals. The national unemployment rate, of course, this is way back 1998, 4.6 percent, now this past month up to 8.9 percent. Many people believe that number will go higher in the months ahead. Yet there is optimism about the economy. Because if you look at this chart, you see the job loss rate month by month, nearly 750,000 lost in January, 700,000 lost in March. The last report, 539,000. Still a lot of jobs lost but fewer jobs than the month before. So, some say maybe the economy has hit bottom and is bouncing back.

KING: That’s the question we put to three mothers at our diner in L.A.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Have we hit bottom? Is the economy coming back?

ROBIN LEACH, LOS ANGELES: I don’t think it’s hit bottom in general. I think hopefully real estate wise we’ve hit bottom and hopefully that fuels some of the comeback.

STEPHANIE JELINEK, LOS ANGELES: I don’t think we have hit bottom yet. I think the aerospace industry is going to be hit be hit harder. I think real estate is going to unfortunately continue to drop. I’m in the health care industry. I think there’s going to be massive layoffs.

JENIFER MCINTOSH, LOS ANGELES: I see it every day. We have a business in the city of Compton and we’re actually going to close the doors probably starting today, we’re going to start packing up and moving on. The woodwork business, the rent is going up, utilities. And we have clientele, but it’s not coming fast enough.

KING: So more optimistic, less optimistic or not sure?

MCINTOSH: I’m less optimistic, I believe. But you never know from day to day. And also along with that, I’m an accountant and I have clients and their money isn’t coming in, which affects my money. I don’t no.

LEACH: Not so much optimistic but always hopeful, you know. It looks pretty bleak all the way around, but, you know, keep working, keep doing what you’ve got to do. We’re working on our MBAs and so hopefully that will be something that makes things more marketable and we can combine industries. And so, you know, not necessarily optimistic but always hopeful.

JELINEK: Concerned, concerned. I’m in the health care industry and I’ve have actually taken on a part-time job because the raises just aren’t there. So I’ve taken on a part-time job. I’ve got kids in college. My concern for them is are they going to have a job after this great college education? I have a son graduating Saturday in the design industry. Who knows what’s going to happen?

KING: So, we have an African-American president. That’s history. A city has had problems time to time with race relations. Are they better, are they worse, did it make no difference at all?

LEACH: I think people are more happy or a little more -- a little less stressful -- strained, and so I think relations are a little less strained because everyone is in this hopeful mood.

MCINTOSH: I definitely believe that we’re more visible to other people, other groups, but at the same time, I’m not going to say that racial sense is gone because we now have Obama. People discriminate just not on race. I see gender discrimination. I see homophobia.

JELINEK: I don’t think having an African-American president versus a white president -- I don’t think it makes a difference one way or another. People are just frustrated. They’re angry. I don’t think it makes a difference what color you are. If you’re moving ahead and this person isn’t, they’re just angry. There’s just anger everywhere.

KING: How many of you are mothers? Three mothers at the table. This is Mother’s Day weekend. What are you doing Mother’s Day to celebrate? Or who takes care of you on Mother’s Day maybe is the better question.

LEACH: I was going to say, we’ll see what the children have in mind. Just spending time with family. Nothing special.

MCINTOSH: Same thing. I’ll be spending time with her and the rest of our family at the house. Not going out. Don’t want to fight the crowds.

JELINEK: We’ve had two birthdays this week, so we’re doing two birthday parties, Mother’s Day and a college graduation on Sunday. So we’re doing the big party in the back yard. Mimosas, you know.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Happy Mother’s Day to the ladies and our thanks, as well, to the fabulous folks at Pam’s Diner for treating us to great conversation and a fabulous breakfast.

If you’d like to know more about what we learned this week in California, my column featuring two courageous women struggling to raise their kids without a place to call home. You can find that on CNNPolitics.com.

Next on STATE OF THE UNION, right back here to Washington, D.C. Three of CNN’s best reporters join me to analyze all the news from the Sunday talk shows. Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: I’m John King and this is STATE OF THE UNION. Here are stories breaking this Sunday morning.

Hundreds of thousand of Pakistanis are on the move fleeing a region where army forces are cracking down hard on Taliban militants. The military lifted a curfew for several hours today allowing civilians to escape. Pakistani officials say as many as 200 militants were killed over the past 24 hours.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in Baghdad on a one-day visit to Iraq. She met with Iraqi lawmakers and called for greater intelligence cooperation between the United States and Iraq. Pelosi is also meeting with senior U.S. officials and U.S. troops.

Pope Benedict is in Jordan as part of a visit to the Middle East. After celebrating mass today in Amman, he traveled to the banks of the Jordan River and blessed churches on the spot where many believe John the Baptist first blessed Jesus. That and more ahead on STATE OF THE UNION.

Live picture of the White House there on this Mother’s Day in Washington. And joining me here in studio, senior White House correspondent Ed Henry. That’s his office you just saw. Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr and foreign affairs correspondent Jill Dougherty. Thanks all for coming in.

Let’s start with the major challenge. We spent so much time in the first 100 plus days talking about the economy and health care and domestic issues. But this past week, the president spent a lot of time with the president of Afghanistan, the president of Pakistan. And one of the questions you all know well, the administration is faced, is the government of Pakistan stable enough with the Taliban insurgency? President Zardari out this morning answering questions, that question was put to him. Can your government survive? Here’s his answer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRES. ASIF ALI ZARDARI, PAKISTAN: We have a threat, yes. Is the state of Pakistan going to collapse? No. We have 180 million people. Their population is much more than the insurgents are, but we do have a problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: A problem. But he says he’s going to survive. Ed, how much faith does President Obama and his team have in President Zardari, or are they trying to do their business through the Pakistani military?

ED HENRY, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: President Bush had and President Musharraf, this president trying to break -- support Musharraf at all costs when he was president, during the Bush days. It’s very interesting when we were pressing Robert Gibbs this week, Jill was with us and saw it at the White House, about how much are you behind Pakistan and how much are you behind Afghanistan.

Robert Gibbs would say things like we support the democratically elected governments of those countries. They’re very careful, this administration, not to get too close to President Zardari in Pakistan or President Karzai in Afghanistan. That’s by design. They don’t want to get too close to them. They don’t know what the future holds in either country. KING: So Barbara, how does that complicate things if you’re the pentagon? Are you dealing with civilian leadership in Pakistan or are you just going all through the military?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: That’s the problem. You have two sides in Pakistan. You have Musharraf, at least you have one guy. He might have been a strong man, but you can deal with one guy. Now they don’t know who to deal with.

STARR: Day to day, it shifts. And the Pentagon’s problem is they have put all their eggs in the basket of General Ashfaq Kayani, the head of the Pakistani Army, the current guy who basically runs the Pakistani military.

And if this strategy that he’s got, which is putting hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes to find the Taliban, if that doesn’t work, it’s going to get very, very tough.

KING: And so, Jill, it was not long ago that Secretary of State Clinton was telling Congress, you know, we don’t is have a lot of faith this these guys, we’re not sure we can trust them. This week she said a new beginning, they seem to be back on track. Is that for public show or do they truly believe there’s been a turnaround?

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I don’t think it can change in two weeks. I was looking at that mortal threat to the welfare and security of the united states and the world. Those are the words of Hillary Clinton coming out just a couple of weeks ago. Now, how can it shift to the point they say, hey, he’s doing a pretty good job? I mean, I think what they’re trying to do is convince Pakistan that the Taliban are an existential threat to the existence of Pakistan.

And it is not clear from anybody there at that point that they really believe that. They are still focused on India, and that’s the problem. There troops are over protecting against the threat from India that they think will happen. But the U.S. believes is a threat from Pakistan that’s going to get them from within. So, you have to change the mind-set.

KING: We have spent seven-plus years in this country asking one question at times -- where is bin Laden? Since 9/11. The president of Pakistan was asked this question in an interview this morning on NBC, and this has been a frustrating one as we all know from the White House perspective, the State Department perspective, the military perspective, where is bin Laden? President Zardari says he may not be worth searching for.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRES. ASIF ALI ZARDARI, PAKISTAN: I’ve said before that I don’t think he’s alive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You believe that.

I have a strong feeling, and I also have reason to believe that because I’ve asked my counterparts in the American intelligence agencies and they haven’t heard of him in seven years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That’s not consistent, Barbara, with when you ask U.S. military officials. They say they have a hard time locating him but they still believe he’s alive up in those hills somewhere.

STARR: This is pretty convenient for the Pakistani leader to say this. The best guess of the United States, the best intelligence is he’s alive, he’s in Pakistan, he’s in that frontier region, hasn’t moved around much in recent years, hasn’t been any real credible intelligence. But Pakistan’s never going to admit he’s there. Even when they find him, somehow he’ll be found somewhere else, perhaps, for public consumption. But the best information is he’s there.

HENRY: When you take a step back from all of this, beyond the pressure on the ground in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, the war on terror broadly, there’s pressure from this president with fellow Democrats on the Hill. This week, David Obey, a very senior Democrat, holds the purse strings saying basically, this president has a year in Afghanistan before we start maybe cutting off money. Now some people think there’s some bluster there and that’s not really going to happen. But clearly there’s pressure within the president’s own party about sending more troops to Afghanistan, funding all of this, as he’s winding down the war in Iraq.

STARR: Political pressure to do that. At the same time, the security situation is just simply not getting any better. If you talk to some senior military officials they will tell you both in Afghanistan and Pakistan they have to effect some sort of positive change in six months. They feel the clock ticking.

KING: And Jill, this is one of the fascinating Washington parlor games but it has enormous world consequences in that when you have Secretary Clinton, no shrinking violet, she brings in Dick Holbrooke to be the special envoy to Pakistani, not a shy guy. There’s a big question, can all these egos get along, not to mention all the guys who work at the White House? How is it going so far? You’re the one who sees it behind the curtain.

DOUGHERTY: Remember just not too long ago we were talking about a team of rivals and can they all work together. And so far there haven’t been any big blowups but it’s early. They’re still putting together that strategy. And now here’s kind of the crunch. They’ve gotten the strategy out on Afghanistan, Af-Pak strategy, and they’ve gotten the key people together and now the key people have to go and do something. And are they actually going to deliver?

And all of this is happening in the midst of enormous threats to the Pakistani government, the Taliban moving, et cetera, so it’s not clear that there might not be fissures opening up in among those people as we go along and see what they think should work is actually working.

KING: Much more to talk about with our three correspondents. We will be right back in a moment. We’ll take a short break from serious news, yes , we have a little more serious news but then a little break, we’re get your take on last night’s star-studded press dinner.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We’re back with CNN’s Ed Henry, Barbara Starr and Jill Dougherty. Let’s turn this whole debate - we were talking about terror overseas. There’s a home element of it in the sense the president decided to close down Guantanamo Bay. And even some Democrats, you mentioned David Obey before the break, a lot of them are saying he put the cart before the horse and now you’re going to close Guantanamo Bay without first having a plan in place, where are those people going to go, many of them suspected terrorists?

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was out this morning on television and he essentially made that point that maybe the president should have thought twice before closing Gitmo.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: Some talk on the part of administration about putting them many the United States. I think that’s going to be a tough sell. I don’t know a single congressional district in this country that’s going to want to say, gee, great, they’re sending us 20 al Qaeda terrorists.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: On that point, the administration, as much as it likes to dispute Dick Cheney , can’t because you have Democrats standing up saying, whoa.

HENRY: Exactly. Not in my back yard. Nobody wants these 240 or so detainees from Gitmo dumped into the United States. They also have to deal with the policies of what kind of trials will they have. And I understand there was a very quiet high-level meeting Thursday night in the Situation Room at the White House. Top level officials trying to figure out about detainees policy because if you remember, the first week, in addition to closing down Gitmo, the president also ordered they were going to suspend all the Bush military tribunals.

Now being told they’re maybe going back to and going back to the military tribunals with some changes to give the detainees some rights. They are going to say that’s a compromise, that’s an improvement but you’re going to have the Dick Cheneys of the world saying we told you so, the tribunal system was not so bad, you need to deal with these bad actors. And you’ve got the left, the ACLU already coming out and saying, why are you bringing back what they believe is a flawed, what they believe a flawed military trial system?

And so they are sort of caught in between as they try to govern. Because the first week it was popular to come out with an executive order. Now it’s a lot harder, what do you do with these detainees?

DOUGHERTY: And you know, John, there’s another part of it, which is, let’s say they don’t come to the United States. They are talking to the Europeans and other allies about having them go there.

DOUGHERTY: But I’ve been talking with some diplomats from that area and they’re saying, look, we’d want to know details, who are these people? How many people? And they have to go through each case. It’s not like they can en masse shift them, you know, any place.

They have to go through each individual case. And that takes time.

KING: Any buzz at the Pentagon that maybe Gitmo might be open past this one year in the executive order?

STARR: Well, the silence is deafening, of course, because they are figuring that this is just not going to be that easy.

And of course, you know, they have returned a lot of detainees to their so-called home countries. Right now one the biggest insurgent leaders in southern Afghanistan is a man who spent time in Gitmo who was released in December 2007 and is back in the battlefield and he’s now topping the list of the guys they want to get again.

KING: Well, a sober remark like that makes it hard for me to make this next segue. I’m going to go from that very sober footnote there to, let’s laugh a little bit. We were at this dinner a little bit, it’s the annual White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner. And we always see whether the president can deliver a funny speech.

This president has made some mistakes when he has tried to joke in the past. But he was very funny last night, including a reference to his formal rival, now secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. Let’s listen to President Obama.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Which brings me to another thing that has changed in this new warmer, fuzzier White House...

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: ... and that’s my relationship with Hillary. You know, we had been rivals during the campaign but these days we could not be closer. In fact, the second she got back from Mexico, she pulled me into a hug and gave me a big kiss...

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: ... told me I had better get down there myself.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: There was a time in the campaign where I might believe that.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: What do you think?

DOUGHERTY: You know, as I was going into the dinner, one -- a person from, let’s say, that -- from the State Department, said, yes, you know, there is going to be a line about Hillary and Mexico. And I thought, whoa.

But even the line, “my relationship with Hillary,” gets a laugh. But so far, you know, I guess you’d have to say, they are getting along OK. She’s over there all the time meeting with the president and vice president, and so far no fireworks.

KING: Kumbaya?

STARR: You know, well, this is the one year time of year I get to not be about combat boots and M-16s, you know?

(LAUGHTER)

KING: Right, and rifles.

STARR: Get out the black dress and the high heels. I want to say, I think it was all about the fashion. I mean, how many of us three hours earlier where were wearing our T-shirts and flip-flops? The president set a new fashion standard for the entire Washington scene. No longer the little black bow tie with the tuxedo. This was the very cool, dark tie look.

HENRY: What were you wearing, which designer?

STARR: Well...

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

STARR: It was whatever was zipped up in the closet. And it looked really good.

KING: Ed Henry on fashion.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

STARR: ... me on fashion. HENRY: I thought when the president joked about Sasha and Malia are grounded because you can’t take air force one for a joy ride to Manhattan, that was a pretty good joke.

KING: That’s the one way to make fun of yourself and make fun of your mess-ups...

HENRY: Yes.

KING: ... is a good way to get by in Washington. Ed Henry, Barbara Starr, Jill Dougherty, thanks for coming in. Have a great day.

And up next, homeless and undocumented, one family’s struggle to make ends meet in this brutal economy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Without a doubt, one of the impacts of this recession is an increase in many big cities in homelessness. Let’s look at a demographic map and look at this, the brighter the state, the higher the problem with homelessness.

You see California, bright, probably not a surprise in some ways. It’s the nation’s largest state, not unexpected, it would have the most unemployment -- homeless, excuse me. Seventy-three thousand people on any given night in L.A. County are said to be homeless.

Twenty to 43 percent are in families headed by a single mother. And this is a growing problem. And look at this, this is the impact of the recession, more than four in 10 of the adult homeless were employed within the last year.

We told you earlier this morning about a working mother dealing with the challenge of raising her son being homeless. Now we want to introduce you to a woman with three children and a very different issue.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING (voice-over): It is an aging motel in a North Hollywood neighborhood that has seen better days. For Dina Acevedo and her three daughters, this tiny space is home for now.

DINA ACEVEDO, HOMELESS MOTHER: I’m homeless because we cannot afford for an apartment. We don’t have any place to live. I was living in a violent domestic relationship.

KING: The child support payments cover the costs. And she gets help with food from her church. If she could find work, she could afford a bigger place, but Dina Acevedo is in the United States illegally.

ACEVEDO: They request all of the time the right papers to work. It’s very hard for me. I’m used all the time to feeling overwhelmed, desperated (ph), because my girls deserve, you know, another lifestyle.

KING: Dina applied for legal status years ago, but was told her paperwork was lost. So she is waiting again, told it will take at least a year, also waiting for low-income housing.

ACEVEDO: They say I’m on a waiting list and I’m always on a waiting list and I don’t have any resort.

KING: So she tries to make this feel as much at home as possible. Macaroni and cheese lunch cooked in a kitchen shared by other guests, posters lining the walls of the cramped room, and in the tiny bathroom, two little surprises.

(on camera): Now this is Sleepy?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

KING: And this is Kimberly?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

KING: What is turtle in Spanish?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tortuga.

KING: Tortuga?

(voice-over): By next Mother’s Day, she hopes to have her work visa, and a bigger, better place for the girls.

ACEVEDO: I want one day to go to college because I don’t want that they have the problems that I have in my life. And I came to this country thinking a better life. If I cannot do it for me, I want to do for them, because they deserve it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Happy Mother’s Day to Dina and hello to those three remarkable young girls, and their cute turtles.

We would like to welcome back our international viewers to this STATE OF THE REPORT for this Sunday, May 10th.

President Obama meets with the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan, says he’s getting promising signs from both about their commitment to fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban. But are they up to the job? And what is the plan for U.S. troops in the region? We’ll talk with the man in charge of the U.S. military effort, General David Petraeus.

KING: Mixed economic signals this week as the overall unemployment rate went up, but the pace of job losses slowed down. Are the Obama administration’s efforts to pump up the economy starting to have an impact? Democratic Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee are here to discuss that and much more.

And she’s a mother and a wife serving in Iraq. On this Mother’s Day, U.S. Marine Corps Staff Sergeant Brandy Ovanek gets the last word. All head on this hour of STATE OF THE UNION.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Sunday, Mother’s Day here in Washington, D.C. President Obama met this week at the White House with the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan, reiterating the U.S. goal to help disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaida and its allies in the region.

But while Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari both pledged their full cooperation in the fight, there are deep concerns at the White House and in Congress about whether their governments are capable, capable of defeating the militants.

I spoke a short time ago with the man in charge of the U.S. military efforts in the region and the head of the U.S. Central Command, General David Petraeus.

General Petraeus, welcome back to “State of the Union.” I want to start with the offensive under way by the Pakistani military in Pakistan. It took a long time for you to convince Pakistan to get about this. And I’m starting at the map so I can pull out and show our viewers the area we’re talking about, the Swat district up here, right in here.

Just a basic question for you, sir. This offensive has been under way for quite a bit of time now. How effective is it?

PETRAEUS: Well, first of all, let me say, I’m not sure I accept the characterization that you said. This is Pakistan’s offensive, and it was galvanized by Taliban action, certainly not by American rhetoric or encouragement.

What has happened in this case is that the actions of the Taliban in breaking the agreement that was reached for Swat, and then moving into other districts of the Northwest Frontier province, these have served as a catalyst, really, for all of Pakistan. And you now see all of the Pakistani political leaders, including opposition figures, you see the Pakistani people and you see the Pakistani military determined to reverse this trend and to deal with the Taliban threat, ultimately, in Swat Valley.

KING: And how effective do you think it is being -- and let me ask in the context of -- this is a military offensive. They are going in there and bombing and pushing them out and attacking them, but I would not say this is out of the Petraeus counterinsurgency playbook. So do you worry at all that these gains will be short-term, not lasting?

PETRAEUS: Well, the true test in counterinsurgency -- and I can tell you that in our dialogue with Pakistani leaders this past week, there is a clear recognition of the concept of counterinsurgency operations, of employing all the tools of government, a whole of government approach. And over the past year, for example, there have been a number of actions that reflect the kind of, if you will, learning and adapting that our own forces have taken -- gone through in recent years as they have carried out operations in Bajaur and Mohmand and so forth.

And this will be the challenge, I think, is to bring all of the assets of the government of Pakistan to bear to help their military as it goes in and conducts operations, which inevitably already have displaced citizens, and certainly will displace more of them over time.

KING: When you were here, sir, with Ambassador Holbrooke a few weeks back, both of you spoke openly about the trust deficit between the United States and the Pakistani government and the Pakistani military that has played out in recent years. After the conversations of the past week, how much of that has been repaired and still how much of it do you have?

PETRAEUS: Well, I think the conversations here were quite productive and positive. In fact, I think most participants assessed after the conduct of the trilateral meetings that not just the rhetoric, but even the substance exceeded expectations. So I think they’re very helpful.

I think they were truly unprecedented in the way that some of the individuals on either side had never even met each other before, and then we had good bilateral conversations with each of the leaders and their delegations as well.

KING: As this focus now is on the Taliban, give me your assessment of Al Qaida. It has moved, essentially, its headquarters from Afghanistan into Pakistan. With all the focus on the Taliban right now, is this allowing Al Qaida a chance to regroup? And let me ask it in this context. If Al Qaida in Afghanistan was at a 10 in its operational capability on 9/11, how would you rate Al Qaida on that same scale now, as it is based in Pakistan?

PETRAEUS: I don’t want to get into that kind of numerical ranking, but I think it’s worth going back and looking at the history, of course. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, we expelled the Taliban and Al Qaida and the other elements of the so-called syndicate of extremists that had found sanctuaries and safe havens in Afghanistan.

They eventually relocated into the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and some of the other areas of the border regions.

But I think it’s very important to note that those organizations, Al Qaida in particular, has sustained some very serious losses over the course of the last six to 10 months or so, and there is a considerable concern among those leaders because of the losses that they have sustained.

KING: I want you to listen to something that the Afghanistan president, Hamid Karzai, told our Wolf Blitzer a couple of days ago, when he put the question to him, are there still Al Qaida in your country? Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Are you saying there’s no Al Qaida in Afghanistan right now?

HAMID KARZAI, PRESIDENT OF AFGHANISTAN: No Al Qaida based in Afghanistan.

BLITZER: So who are you fighting against?

KARZAI: That’s the thing, that’s why we say that the war on terrorism is not in the Afghan villages. That it’s in the sanctuaries, it’s in the financial support system to them, it’s in the training grounds. And it’s beyond Afghan borders. That has now been established by the U.S. administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: No Al Qaida at all in Afghanistan. Is that an exaggeration, General Petraeus, or is that true?

PETRAEUS: No, I would agree with that assessment. Certainly, Al Qaida and its affiliates. Again, remember that this is, as I mentioned earlier, a syndicate of extremist organizations, some of which are truly transnational extremists. In other words, don’t just conduct attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan and India, but even throughout the rest of the world, as we saw in the U.K. a couple of years ago. They do come in and out of Afghanistan, but the Al Qaida -- precise Al Qaida, if you will -- is not based, per se, in Afghanistan, although its elements and certainly its affiliates -- Baitullah Mehsud’s group, commander Nazir Khaqani (ph) network and others, certainly do have enclaves and sanctuaries in certain parts of eastern Afghanistan. And then the Afghan Taliban, of course, has a number of districts in which it has its fighters and its shadow government, if you will, even.

But I think, no, I think that’s an accurate assessment, and that the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan -- that very, very mountainous, rugged terrain just east of the Afghan border and in the western part of Pakistan -- is the locus of the leadership of these organizations, although they do, again, go into Afghanistan, certainly, and conduct operations against our troops, and have tried, certainly, to threaten all the way to Kabul at various times.

KING: President Karzai was quite adamant in that interview with Wolf that he wants the air strikes to stop. He believes the air strikes are not taking out terrorist elements, and instead are killing civilians in his country and fomenting anti-American sentiment. Will the air strikes stop?

PETRAEUS: Well, he and I had a good conversation about this yesterday, actually, John. I thought it was important to discuss this with him. I heard that interview. There is no question, and we have all agreed for some time -- and General McKiernan, in fact, put out tactical guidance to this end, as did the Central Command headquarters -- that we have to be very, very sensitive that our tactical actions, our tactical employment in battles and so forth of close air support and other enablers does not undermine our strategic goals and objectives.

And we reaffirmed that in our conversation yesterday. We’ll certainly relook this yet again in the wake of this latest incident, although as the joint press release that was put out by Afghan and U.S. authorities in Afghanistan after the initial investigation of the latest situation in Farah province in western Afghanistan affirmed that Taliban bears enormous blame for this latest incident by apparently forcing civilians to stay in houses from which they were engaging our forces with heavy-fire RPGs, and quite effective fire, as the term is used.

KING: General David Petraeus, thank you for your time this morning, sir, and best of luck to you.

PETRAEUS: Good to be with you, John. Thanks.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: The assessment of General Petraeus there on the situation in Pakistan and over in Afghanistan. But what do members of Congress think of this administration’s approach to the problem? We’ll talk with two senators who met with the presidents of both Afghanistan and Pakistan up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: In addition to President Obama, the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan met with members of Congress, including a luncheon with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. To of them join us now. Democratic Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania who joins us from Boston this morning and Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee here with us in our studio.

And gentlemen, you just heard General Petraeus on the program. That is as optimistic as I’ve heard him, especially about Pakistan, in some time. You were both at the luncheon with the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan and after that luncheon, Senator Corker, you said this to the “Washington Post”. My guess is that they left the room with a lot less support than they came into the room with. So you’re not nearly as up beat as General Petraeus?

CORKER: Look, General Petraeus is a folk hero in our state and I’m one of his great fans and he talks, I listen. He was in the same meeting and there was just an air of smugness, flippancy when serious questions were asked. I asked what our mission in Afghanistan ought to be and I thought President Karzai’s response was a nonresponse. And when I pushed him further he basically said, look, this is your mission, which made me feel that our partnership there was not quite I think what Americans would like to see.

So my guess is that you’re going to say some probing by the Senate and Congress and I think we’re going to want to see - we want to see this mission articulated. I think the weakness right now is, what does it mean to make Afghanistan a place that is not a safe haven for al Qaeda, especially when you hear General Petraeus talk about the fact that al Qaeda is actually in Pakistan, which is what we all know.

KING: And how about that, Senator Casey, just a simple question. First, the challenge is enormous, but do you trust -- are these the two leaders to get the job done? Or are they too weak or just too unwilling to do what it takes?

CASEY: Well, John, I was in the same meeting and some of the concerns that Bob raises are very well founded because it may go back to that old line I guess from President Reagan, trust but verify. And the only way we can verify is to continually evaluate what the Pakistani Army and their military forces are doing to push back the Taliban and to defeat them. If they achieve that goal over time, then I think the trust that we must have will be a lot more solid than it is now. So there’s a lot to play out here. But one of the real challenges in the near term is not just the military engagement but this refugee crisis, which seems to be spreading across parts of Pakistan because of the military conflict. But we have to continually evaluate the representations that they make and see the evidence of their progress against the Taliban.

KING: One of the representations made while in this country from President Zardari of Pakistan was how he needs more money and he needs it now. Let’s listen to President Zardari.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASIF ALI ZARDARI, PAKISTANI PRESIDENT: I’m thankful for the support that I got, for the people of America to give their tax dollars to us but I need more support.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Senator Corker, grateful for American tax dollars. They want $10 billion more. That’s what the administration is asking for for Pakistan over the next five years.

Do they deserve that money given the track record, if you go back through the Bush years and the Musharraf years, billions of dollars sent to Pakistan and pretty hard to account for it?

CORKER: Well, I think -- Look, the fact is that we are going to have to support Pakistan. I know one of the things that they are going to begin doing is billing us from their military what they are doing against counterinsurgencies there. The fact is that we find ourselves -- and this is one of the questions I have. How big is our footprint going to end up being? We’re in Iraq now and we’re seeing some problems as we begin to draw down.

We’re in Afghanistan. Certainly there have been concerns about our relationship with the army and the ISI in Pakistan itself. Where is that going? But at the end of the day, we’re going to be in a position as a country to have to support Pakistan in some way and in large ways. And we’re going to have to figure out a way, though, to verify, as you mentioned earlier, that what our money is doing is actually furthering a cause that we all believe in. That obviously has been less than the case in the past.

KING: Senator Casey, how weak is the U.S. hand here? There’s a great sensitivity to putting U.S. boots on the ground in Pakistan. We know it occasionally happens with Special Forces but the military doesn’t like to talk about it.

You have the drones going in there up in the northern region of the country. But we’re just sending money to Pakistan and hoping, hoping that they do what is necessary inside their country. Pretty weak hand?

CASEY: Well, no, I think we have a strong hand for a couple of reasons, John. One is, I think President Obama has set forth a strategy which you can clearly articulate in the line that you just used in the lead up to this interview where you talked about President Obama focusing on the trip from al Qaeda to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda. It’s very important we’re clear about that being the objective. But this can’t just be military help on our part or the military campaign by the Pakistani Army. This has to be a comprehensive effort, including the legislation that has passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and should pass the whole Senate and the Congress, the Kerry-Lugar bill, which provides economic aid and other aid for development. That’s critically important here if this is going to be -- We cannot just have a war in Pakistan. You have to begin to build up the country itself so they can govern effectively even as they fight the Taliban.

If we do that, I think it’s a great investment in our national security to provide the kind of economic aid. But as Bob Corker said, you have to be able to follow the dollars better than we have and better than the Pakistani government has allowed us to do in previous efforts to provide economic aid.

KING: Senators Casey and Corker, I want you both to stand by, when we come back we’ll get some insights into political issues including the party switch of Arlen Specter , one of the top GOP senators. We’ll be back with Senators Casey and Corker right after the break.

KING: We’re back with Democratic Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee.

Senator Corker, to you first on the economy. You’re on the Banking Committee. The administration put out the stress test last week and they think this is potentially a turning point, that most banks are in pretty good shape, some banks need a little bit more help in the capital department, but they don’t think more taxpayer money.

Are they right? Have we turned a corner in the financial sector?

CORKER: Well, there are glimmers of hope. I met with Treasury and the Fed the evening they put these out. We obviously are going to want to get behind the data a little bit.

But, look, I think it was a positive step. I know that it’s being pooh-poohed by many. But there will possibly be additional government dollars. Now I think that hasn’t fully been said. And I think that what we have got to be concerned about as we move into the future is not causing TARP to be codified so that it’s there forever.

And that’s one of the things the treasury secretary has asked for as a resolution ability down the road. So hopefully not much in the way of government dollars. It looks like -- I mean, for instance, GMAC looks like a definite for about $11 billion in need in the very near future.

But hopefully either through converting to common equity or many of the private offerings that were very successful this week, we’re going to see a real difference in our financial institutions and I actually -- I’m feeling better about it. I really am.

KING: Feeling better, from Senator Corker.

Senator Casey, you represent, of course, one of the big industrial states, one of the hardest-hit states in this recession, I want your sense. When you have a week where the unemployment rate goes up, it is now approaching 9 percent, but people cheer the fact that the economy lost fewer jobs last month than the month before, still more than half a million jobs lost last month.

When you go home to Scranton, are the businesses and the blue collar workers, are they telling you we’ve hit bottom, or do they still see it getting worse before better?

CASEY: Well, John, on the good news front, we’re hearing from business people and small business people, especially, that some -- a lot of inventory, I should say, is moving off the shelves, that’s a good sign.

But when we describe, we use language like the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator. That gives no hope and doesn’t reflect the reality that so many people are living through. If you lose a job or your home or your hopes and your dreams, these economic statistics don’t mean much.

So we have a long way to go. And I think we have to continually focus on the job numbers.

KING: I want to talk politics for a minute with both of our senators. As I do so, I’m going to get up and walk over to the wall. But also, show you the front page of the cover of this week’s TIME magazine, “Endanger Species,” it says of the Republican Party.

That’s your party, Senator Corker, and as we discuss it, I just want to play this little time line through here to go through what has happened. This is -- goes back 17 years to 1992. And you can see the line here. The red is the Republicans. The Republicans in the minority here. Minority here. Minority in the governorships in 1992.

Then, of course, came the big Republican sweep in 1994. The Republicans took the majority in the House, the majority in the Senate, up to 19 governorships at that point. This was the Republican heyday, just after 1994.

Fast forward to 2000. George W. Bush wins the White House, and Republicans pick up at the governor level. Parity, 50/50 in the Senate. A smaller majority for Republicans in the House at that point after 2000.

And let’s forward now to where we are in 2009. Look at this, a much smaller -- Republicans now back in the minority in the House, back in the minority with just 40 Senate seats, 22 Republican governors now across the country.

So as I come back, Senator Corker, just like to ask you this question. You know, I’ve been covering politics for 25 years. Usually when we use the term “circular firing squad,” it has been about Senator Casey’s party. The Democrats have not handled their struggles very well over the years.

But it seems Republicans now are in this internal war, pointing at each other when the party needs to be rebuilding. You’re a former mayor, not just a United States senator. What’s the way back?

CORKER: Well, I think that, look, we’ve been the party of common sense and sound judgment, I think, in most years in the past. I may offend some folks, but I think a lot of people, even though they may disagree with Republicans, have always looked at us to act as grown- ups as it relates to things like fiscal issues and other kinds of things.

I think we’ve lost that to some degree. We certainly, I think, need to lead by solving problems in these common-sense ways. And I think that we cannot just be against -- although I am concerned about the overreach that’s taking place right now on many issues.

And certainly, look, I’m a deal guy. I want to see good things happen, but part of our job is to help keep bad things from happening.

But again, we’ve got to create alternatives. We’ve got to talk with the people. I saw, John, during the General Motors-Chrysler debate, if you will, the American people will respond overwhelmingly to good common sense, to talking about issues as they are.

And while many people feel they’re in the wilderness today because of this economic stress, I believe that if we as Republicans can walk them through and show them the way that we can regain our majority -- so, look, this is not as much fun as it was two weeks ago when we at least had 41, but I think that will change.

And certainly we all want this president to be successful. It’s important for our country, but helping him be successful might be enlightening in some ways of policy that hopefully will take our country ahead in a positive way and not a negative way.

KING: Well, Senator Casey, the latest Democratic vote is now Arlen Specter , the former Republican. He is now a Democrat with you from the state of Pennsylvania. The president is behind him, the vice president is behind him, the Senate majority leader is behind him, your Democratic governor is behind him.

There are other Democrats, though, who are outraged about this. Congressman Joe Sestak was right here in the studio last week. He is considering a primary challenge against Arlen Specter , and he says, what’s going on here?

Barack Obama promised to change politics as usual, to stop bowing to the establishment. And he says, here’s a guy, who, since becoming a Democrat, has voted against the Obama budget and said he wants Republican Norm Coleman seated in Minnesota in that disputed Senate seat.

Is Arlen Specter a Democrat?

CASEY: John, I think he is, but as you know, in our party, we have a lot of diversity, a lot of different points of view. But, John, this is a process. This will play out over time. We have a primary for this Senate seat next May, May of 2010.

KING: And should the...

CASEY: A lot of time between now and then.

KING: In a primary -- excuse me for interrupting, Senator, but in a primary, should President Obama, Vice President Biden, Senate Majority Leader Reid, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the governor of Pennsylvania be saying, stay out, we’ll help this guy raise money, we’re going to beat you, we have all the powers that be are now behind Arlen Specter , who has been a Democrat for a week? CASEY: Well, there will be expressions of support for Senator Specter, but I don’t think anyone in our party should ever dictate to a candidate. That’s really up to that candidate, to run or not run.

But I think in this case, it may not seem it now, it may seem a little divided now, but there will be -- I think there’ll be consensus. Because the objective here by 2011 is to have a Democratic senator in that seat.

But the prime objective today, tomorrow, and for the next several years is to help President Obama.

KING: Incredibly diplomatic there from Senator Casey. He’s auditioning for secretary of state if the administration goes on, a little bit here.

(CROSSTALK)

CORKER: That’s right, there you go.

KING: Let me ask you a question in closing. We’re out of time, but one of the Republicans out quite frequently, to the surprise of many, has been the former vice president. He came in here, Dick Cheney , about six weeks ago and said President Obama is making the American people less safe. He has been on the radio this past week getting involved in a debate within your party about what next, and he’ll be back out today.

Is Dick Cheney being so visible helpful or hurtful?

CORKER: I think it’s important for everybody who has the ability to communicate ideas to be involved. I don’t really give editorial comments about whether people are being positive or negative.

Look, Arlen -- the change there -- I’ll get back to that -- certainly was a little bit of a solar plexus blow. To say that it wasn’t, it was. But I don’t think it had anything to do with the Republican Party.

He was very transparent about the fact that on Friday he met with this pollster. His pollster told him he could not win as a Republican, so on Monday, he came in and told Mitch he was going to be a Democrat. Now, I like Arlen fine.

But let me just say, John, after 30 years of service, if you see me -- I hope that’s not the case for me, but after 30 years of service, if you see me taking a poll and switching parties, give me a call, if you will.

KING: We need to end it on that, Senator Bob Corker and Senator Bob Casey . Gentlemen, thanks both for coming in. I guess that experience on the Foreign Relations Committee makes you very diplomatic. Thank you both.

And as we just heard from Senator Corker, a lot of advice for the beleaguered Republican Party these days. We’ll talk about the GOP’s effort to rebound with CNN political contributors Mary Matalin and Hilary Rosen. That’s up next, stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Joining us now to hear their unique political insights, Republican strategist and CNN political contributor Mary Matalin who is in New Orleans this morning. With me here in Washington, CNN Democratic political contributor, Hilary Rosen. Happy Mother’s Day to both of you, ladies. Welcome.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Mary, I want to start with you. If you look at the Sunday talk show landscape this morning, you’ll see John McCain , Newt Gingrich, and your friend and old boss, Dick Cheney . And as we showed in our last segment, the cover of Time magazine this week is “Endangered Species.” As you know, on the left, they’re having a field day with the Sunday lineup, saying, great, if that’s the face of the Republican Party, more of it. Let’s have more to it, specifically to the point of the former vice president.

You know the debate he has stirred up over the past several weeks, beginning right here on “State of the Union.” Helpful or hurtful for the Republican Party for Dick Cheney to be out there so much?

MATALIN: Well, if you consider the -- as I do, as most conservative do -- that Republicanism and conservativism are not necessarily synonymous, that when Republicans aspire and ascend is when they go back to what they do best, which is radical reform and being a party of ideas, as they did post-’64, as they did post-’92.

When you have the people who best exemplify and represent those ideas getting (ph) and articulating them, like Newt Gingrich and Vice President Cheney, then that’s a good thing.

You’ll note whenever the Democrats attack Dick Cheney for being out or what he’s saying, they never attack the ideas. There’s never an answer for what he’s speaking about, it’s always just a personal attack.

Specifically, and I’m sure he’s speaking even as we speak now about how really damaging and dangerous it was for this president to release the legal memos on the EITs, on the enhanced interrogation techniques.

Very dangerous, very bad precedent and will come back to haunt this president.

So rather than have an argument about that, there’s a personal attack on Dick Cheney , which means there’s no argument against the ideas, which goes to what the Republicans need to do, which is to quit being an echo as Goldwater said, really the godfather of the conservatives and present a clear choice.

KING: Do you want to jump in on that one? Are they personal attacks or will you take on the ideas?

ROSEN; I think Mary’s probably the best spokesperson the Republicans have right now, but the attacks on Dick Cheney have been fairly specific. I mean he, after all, I think came on to this network and said that he thinks that the president is making this country less safe.

So the responses back have been about where Americans feel that we have been less safe and that the more vulnerable and that President Obama, as we see from the polls, has been addressing that. And in fact, Americans now feel more safe under this president than they did over the last several years. I find that poll fairly remarkable.

KING: I want to shift our focus. Hilary and I, Mary, you’re in New Orleans, safely out of the Beltway. Hilary and I were at this annual event in Washington last night, it’s the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. It was meant to have fun. The president came and he’s a good performer.

ROSEN: We missed you, Mary.

MATALIN: I didn’t miss you guys, sorry.

KING: The entertainment was Wanda Sykes, the very funny comedian. And she was very funny, and very pointed in her humor, but then she reached a point where many think she crossed the line. I want you to listen to Wanda Sykes last night and I want both of your reactions.

She’s talking here about Rush Limbaugh and his statements that he would like Obama’s administration, which he calls liberal socialism, to fail. Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WANDA SYKES, COMEDIAN: To me, that’s treason. He’s not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You know, you might want to look into this. I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker, but he just so strung out on Oxycontin, he missed his flight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Hilary Rosen, I know you’re not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, but was that over the line?

ROSEN: You know, Rush Limbaugh gets by on theater, and when anyone holds him accountable for his words, when he says things like “I want this administration to fail and I’m proud of it,” when he makes money of politicians, his defense is always, “Listen, you know, I’m as much entertainment as I am substance.” Wanda Sykes, hitting right back in entertainment. I think it’s fair game.

KING: Fair game to call Rush Limbaugh the 20th hijacker, Mary?

MATALIN: Well, I rest my case. It’s a perfect example and it epitomizes what I just said about -- not that it’s Wanda Sykes’ responsibility or within her capacity to make an argument against what her Rush Limbaugh talks about every day, which is the essence of conservatism, she attacks him personally. So it’s just part of what the paradigm is when you confront conservative ideas. Just like the Democrats -- let me go back to the torture thing. Torture, this is not torture. What the enhanced interrogation techniques were, were legal, they were limited, they were used on water boarding, which has become -- completely blown out of context.

It was used on three people, which Nancy Pelosi knew about, she at least knew about Abu Zubaydah, which led us to KSM, which led us to thwart all those second wave attacks, which saved lives. So much of what made us safe, was classified, is now coming out in a way that is going to make us less safe in the future. So rather than take on those arguments, we call Rush Limbaugh a drug addict.

KING: I’m going to call time-out here, because we’re over time here. I could spend all day with two of my favorite ladies and favorite moms.

KING: but we’re going to have to call it quits for today. But we will have this conversation I suspect many times in the weeks ahead, Hilary Rosen and Mary Matalin, thanks much for coming in this morning.

And don’t forget coming up right here at 1:00 p.m. Eastern, FAREED ZAKARIA GPS, takes a comprehensive look as always at international affairs with world leaders, policy experts and journalists. This week, Fareed has an exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DALAI LAMA: Out of desperation, out of hatred, out of anger, out of frustration violence took place. So therefore, violence does not come from sky, violence does not come from guns alone. Ultimately it (inaudible) motivation, emotion. So unless we tackle emotion, destructive emotion, we cannot stop violence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: More of that fascinating conversation just ahead. Stay tuned for FAREED ZAKARIA GPS coming up at the top of the hour right here on CNN. Up next, a very special guest joins us all the way from the battlefield this Mother’s Day with a message from her two young children back home. You won’t want to miss this. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: I’m John King and this is STATE OF THE UNION. Here are some stories breaking this Sunday morning.

Hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis are on the move, fleeing a region where Army forces say they are cracking down hard on Taliban militants. The military lifted a curfew for several hours today allowing those civilians to escape. Pakistani officials say as many as 200 militants were killed in a 24 hour period.

Pope Benedict is in Jordan as part of a visit to the Middle East. After celebrating mass in Amman, Jordan this morning, he traveled to the banks of the Jordan River and blessed churches on the spot where many Christians believe John the Baptist first baptized Jesus.

Cool, damp water is helping tame a wildfire in Santa Barbara, California that has burned nearly 9,000 acres. Evacuation orders have now been lifted and residents are now returning home. Firefighters say the blaze is about 40% contained. It has destroyed or damaged nearly 80 homes and buildings. Those are the headlines on STATE OF THE UNION.

A shot of the capitol there on this Mother’s Day, Sunday, here in Washington, DC. Twenty three newsmakers, analysts and reporters were out on the Sunday morning talk shows today. But only one gets the last word.

That honor today, a very special treat goes to Marine Corps Staff Sergeant Brandy Ovanek. She’s on duty in Iraq on this Mother’s Day. Since she joins us now from Iraq, staff sergeant, let me start by saying Happy Mother’s Day to you.

SSG BRANDY OVANEK, USMC: Thank you, sir.

KING: You don’t have to call me sir. You can call me John. That would be just fine. Let me ask you a question we put to the generals all the time. You’re serving in Iraq now. By next Mother’s Day, most U.S. combat forces including you, staff sergeant, are supposed to be back home here in the United States. The big question, are the Iraqi Army and security forces up to the challenge of replacing U.S. troops as you begin to draw down. The generals say increasingly the answer is yes. Do you agree?

OVANEK: Yes, sir, I do. I definitely do.

KING: And how do you see it there?

OVANEK: I’m sorry?

KING: And what evidence of that do you see while you’re there serving in Iraq?

OVANEK: I still can’t understand you.

KING: I’m sorry you can’t hear me. Let me shift gears, actually. I know you can’t be with your children because you’re serving your army overseas. Your children Maggie and Parker would have very much liked to make you breakfast at home. We do know that they made you a card. I’m going to show it on the screen here and we can bring it up, “Happy Mother’s Day, wishing you a very happy mother’s day, remember it’s the little things in life that matter. We love you mommy and cannot wait for your return. Missing you, always, your family, Chris, Maggie and Parker.”

I’m wondering if you have a Mother’s Day message to your family back home.

OVANEK: Well, I just want to thank them for the cards and I definitely miss them as much as they seem to be missing me and also just a Happy Mother’s Day to my mother and family in Johnstown, Pennsylvania as well.

KING: Well, we know your children and husband miss you very much and the reason we know that is because we have them standing by on the line and we want to give them an opportunity to say to you what they might have said to you at breakfast had you been home. Come on in guys.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, Happy Mother’s Day.

OVANEK: Thank you, dear.

MAGGIE OVANEK, BRANDY’S DAUGHTER: Happy Mother’s Day mama.

OVANEK: Is that Parker or Maggie?

M. OVANEK: It’s Maggie.

OVANEK: Hi, Maggie, thank you. Thank you for the card.

M. OVANEK: You’re welcome.

KING: Is Parker with us?

M. OVANEK: Yes, he is.

KING: Now, tell me guys, what would you have made your mom for breakfast if she were home?

M. OVANEK: Probably a couple of pancakes with berries on the top.

KING: Pancakes with berries on the top. I bet you can’t get those in Iraq, can you, staff sergeant?

OVANEK: No, sir.

KING: Tell me, we’re having a nice moment here and I’m glad to have it. You’re one of the new face of the United States military. More and more women and more and more mothers serving overseas. How hard is the challenge?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Happy mother’s day, mom.

OVANEK: It’s hard but it’s -- thank you, buddy. It’s definitely a challenge but we’ve been preparing for it. We had enough preparation for the deployment. It definitely wasn’t a surprise that the hand over to the husband for the duration of my deployment was an easy transition.

KING: And tell me in this new day of better communications, including the communication we’re enjoying right now with your husband and children on the line, is it easier to communicate with them on a regular basis as opposed to, say, five or 10 years ago in.

OVANEK: Oh, definitely. It’s much easier. A few years ago when I deployed, I was lucky if I talked to my children -- at the time, just my daughter, once every two to three weeks. And now I could call or e-mail every day if I wanted to. It makes it much easier.

KING: We have about a minute time left. I’m going to do the right thing and just be quiet. I want your family to jump in and take the last bit of time we have and just have a bit of conversation and say hi to mom.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, sweetie.

OVANEK: Thank you, John.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hold on. Here’s Parker.

OVANEK: OK.

PARKER OVANEK, BRANDY’S SON: Happy Mother’s Day.

OVANEK: Hello, Parker.

P. OVANEK: Hi.

OVANEK: Thank you, buddy.

P. OVANEK: You’re welcome.

B. OVANEK: You would have made me breakfast this morning, huh?

P. OVANEK: Yeah.

KING: So Parker and Maggie, tell mom what you’re going to do today on Mother’s Day.

B. OVANEK: What would you have made me?

P. OVANEK: We’re going to make pancakes with berries on top.

B. OVANEK: You better call your grandma’s.

P. OVANEK: And a hot cup of coffee.

B. OVANEK: I love you guys.

M. OVANEK: Love you.

KING: You have a few more seconds left, staff sergeant. Anything else you want to say to your children or your mother or anybody back home state side?

B. OVANEK: Just that I love everybody and I miss them and can’t wait to see everybody.

KING: All right. Staff Sergeant Brandy Ovanek serving us in Iraq. We thank you for your time on this Mother’s Day. We hope -- we know the technology doesn’t always work perfectly but we hope getting a quick chance to say hello to your husband and children made your day a little bit brighter overseas and we wish you the best and best of luck in the weeks and months ahead.

B. OVANEK: OK, John, thank you very much.

KING: Thank you, you take care.

And on this Mother’s Day, we return from one remarkable mother to another. When we come back, we’ll take you out to Los Angeles to meet one woman who is doing everything she can for her son. You’ll see her struggles up close next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) KING: We’ve spent a lot of time in our travels out of Washington looking at how the recession has increased unemployment. The brighter the state on the map here, the higher the unemployment rate. Another impact is homelessness. The brighter the state, again, the higher the rate. Homelessness also on the rise in a bad economy. This week, we went to Los Angeles. I want to show you one statistic in the middle here -- 20 percent to 43 percent, the data is a little shaky, but 20- 43 percent of homeless are in families headed by a single mother.

It is a remarkable statistic and you might think all of these single mothers have been thrown out of work. Not all. Some are still in the workforce, but without a roof over their head.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KING (voice-over): Up early to beat the L.A. traffic to get Jacob to school on time and then to the office. Ruth Martinez is a working mother and something else you would never guess.

RUTH MARTINEZ, HOMELESS: We went to the movies to go see the movie “The Soloist” and there’s a lady sitting next to us and a very nice lady and I turn to my son and I go, little does she know that we’re homeless. She thinks of us just like regular people. Little does she know that we have curfews and after the movie, we have to run to the car to get back by curfew.

KING: Curfew because Ruth and Jacob live here in the family wing of the Los Angeles homeless shelter.

R. MARTINEZ: This is our room.

KING: Their tiny room comes with strict rules. No TV, no lights on after 10 p.m., but no complaints from a grateful Ruth Martinez.

So tell me about the first few days.

R. MARTINEZ: Here?

KING: No, before that.

R. MARTINEZ: Well, we were living in my car. And a couple people at my job knew what was happening and they tried to help but it was easier to say, oh, I hear what you’re going through, uh-huh, and they can get in their car and go to their house. But they don’t know what it is to pick up your son and say, wow, where am I going to go now?

KING: Her husband had lost his job and took off. Ruth and Jacob were evicted after falling behind on the rent, living in her car afraid to ask for help.

R. MARTINEZ: It’s just crazy. I was embarrassed because a Hispanic Latina does not ask for help. The way I was raised, you put your pride to the side and do what you have to do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am not feeling uncomfortable. RUDY SALINAS, PATH DIR. OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH: Would you be open to the idea or the possibility, not right now, but in the future, maybe staying with us so you have a safe place to sleep at night?

KING: Rudy Salinas sees it every day, the changing face of homelessness.

SALINAS: Recently, I have noticed in certain communities in L.A. County, an increase in the number of women with children, women with kids below the age of 5 that are struggling for the same resources that a 40-year-old man may be trying to go through so they have somewhere to sleep at night. In my eight years of doing this, I never came across as many people who told us that they have been homeless before.

KING: Some have just lost their jobs. Others like Ruth Martinez are still working but have been evicted after falling behind on the rent or because their landlord faced foreclosure. Salinas works for PATH, People Assisting the Homeless, which runs the shelter where Ruth finally found a room and where she will celebrate Mother’s Day.

KING: What are you going to do for her on Mother’s Day?

JACOB MARTINEZ, HOMELESS: Make her something.

KING: What are you going to make her? It’s on Sunday, you know.

Residents can stay six months. If they have jobs, they are required to set aside money, build up enough for a rental property. Ruth is saving, but makes an exception because of her new understanding of what it’s like to be homeless.

R. MARTINEZ: When I get off that freeway, I see a gentleman there every time. Whatever I have on me, if I have a couple of dollars, I give it to him. Even though I’m homeless, I’d rather give my last few dollars to a person who needs it more because I’ve been there.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Happy Mother’s Day to Ruth Martinez and Jacob. I bet she loved the flower. We’ll be here again next Sunday and every Sunday at 9 a.m. Eastern for the first and last word in Sunday talk. If you missed any part of our program, tune it tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern. We’ll showcase the best of today’s STATE OF THE UNION. Until then, I’m John King in Washington. Have a great Sunday. Happy Mother’s Day to all of the moms out there. For our international viewers, “African Voices” is next. For everyone else, “Fareed Zakaria GPS” starts right now.

END