tv CNN Newsroom CNN August 9, 2009 5:00pm-6:00pm EDT
this is gps, the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. we have a special program for you today. i spent some time with hillary clinton on her longest trip as secretary of state through africa. and in nairobi, the capital of kenya, i sat down with her for a wide ranging conversation on everything from iran to her relationship with barack obama. and, yes, i did ask her what her husband was up to in north korea. >> you famously now compared north korea to an unruly
teenager, demanding attention and you said i'm not going to give them that kind of attention. but didn't your husband do precisely that, give them the attention they sought with this extraordinarily high level visit, they were demanding attention and he gave it to them. >> hillary clinton continues to fascinate, even in her role as america's chief diplomat. and there is a good reason for it. it is extremely rare to find the chief political rival of a candidate has been offered a high post in his cabinet. that might be a feature of the european political system, but in america, it is rare. in fact, one probably has to go back 150 years to find a parallel. and the parallel is quite striking. then the republican party's front runner from the state of new york, a seasoned politician with much experience, was william henry seward. but the party chose to pass over him in favor of a one-term congressman from illinois, with
the reputation for soaring rhetoric and idealism, a man named abraham lincoln. lincoln then goes and appoints seward his secretary of state. so also the seasoned hillary lost out to a newcomer from illinois and obama appointed her secretary of state. but almost everything else is different today. the secretary of state was once the unrivaled architect of american foreign policy, but now he or she competes with the secretary of defense, the national security adviser, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and others who make up the far flung levels of america's imperial administration. the state department was once across the street from the white house. but as the white house staff grew, the department moved in the 1950s into its own building, perhaps aptly named foggy bottom. dean arch son said distance wouldn't matter much since the secretary was bound to be the chief adviser to the president. it didn't turn out to be true and over the last 40 years,
often the secretary of state has been something of a figure head, while the national security adviser has become the personal strategist and chief diplomat of the president. when henry kissinger became secretary of state, he found the juan w one way to end that rivalry was for one person to occupy both positions. hillary clinton is different, isn't she? she's still an enormously popular figure in the democratic figure, still one of the most admired americans both at home and abroad, and still a woman of formidable talent and drive. can she use all that to carve out a role and what distinctive mark does she want to leave in her position as secretary of state? what is her vision for the world? these are some of the questions i asked her in nairobi, kenya. let's get started.
>> madam secretary, thank you for taking time out of this very hectic schedule to spend with us. >> thank you fareed. thank you for coming to nairobi for this opportunity. >> it is my pleasure. north korea, tell us a little bit more about it. so president clinton comes back, he spends three hours talking to the leader of north korea, kim jong-il what was his impression? >> we're going to get a full debriefing which we really haven't had a chance to get. >> you haven't had the chance to speak to him? >> i did. i spoke to him on the phone, but i have this policy that i never talk about what i talk to my husband about, fareed. obviously what we're hoping is that maybe without it being part of the mission in any way, the
fact that this was done will perhaps lead the north koreans to recognize that they can have a positive relationship with us. i mean, remember, when i first came up to japan and south korea and china, right out of the box, secretary of state, i said, look, we have to get back to the full and verifiable denuclearization of the peninsula. we want to take steps to move toward normalization with north korea. we have no designs on north korea. we're not in any way intending to threaten north korea in an offensive manner. our concern is what they do internally that then threatened our allies and our partners and eventually us. it is not a good feeling to see them exporting nuclear technology as they have or to continue to build up their own
capacity. so we have reached out to the north koreans, made it very clear that we wanted to create that kind of engagement, and they not only rejected it, but they began to take these provocative actions which resulted in the entire international community, most importantly china saying, wait, you can't do this. >> but the bill clinton mission was unorthodox. here you have a former president, going on what appeared to be a state visit from the way in which he was greeted, being received by north korea's top nuclear negotiator. >> this, as you know, came from the families. this was a message that laura and euna were given by the north koreans, which they passed on to their families, and former vice president gore. >> naming him specifically -- >> naming him specifically. and then they passed it on obviously as they should to the
rest of us. and, you know it was not anything bill was interested in, seeking or even contemplating, but, of course, when vice president gore called and when our administration evaluated it, and began to brief him, he said, look, if you think it is the right thing to do and if you think i should do it of course i'll do it. it is a private humanitarian mission. it was not in any way an official government mission. >> john bolton, the former u.n. ambassador -- should i even go on? >> no, you really shouldn't. >> he said this is rewarding hostage taking. they effectively have taken hostages -- >> it is something that, you know, it is absolutely not rewarding them. it is not in any way responding to specific demands.
it is a recognition that certain countries that i think are pale beyond the rule of law hold people and subject them to long prison terms that are absolutely unfair and unwarranted. and maybe it is the fact i have a daughter, but i believed that if we could bring these young women home, we should bring them home. it had nothing to do with our policy and you mention somebody who, if president obama, you know, walked on water, he would say he couldn't swim. it is just not -- it is not something that i think is relevant to what we're trying to do. >> speaking of hard negotiations, the unusual circumstances of your becoming secretary of state -- >> unusual is an understated way of saying it. >> no way around talking about the partnership or this relationship with barack obama
because it is very unusual in the american political context to have the chief rival of a presidential candidate then become part of his cabinet and people have often referred to the experience of abraham lincoln picking william henry seward. >> i think that in many ways the policies that president obama and i talked about during the campaign were maybe difference in degree, not kind. we have a world view that says america should be leading by example, not the -- i think my husband said actually, not the example of our power but the power of our example that we want to convey. and so when the president asked know consider this, i was personally very surprised. and i became more surprised when accounts of the campaign came out and said he had been thinking about it for some time.
but i also believed that what i brought to the job, the real commitment that i had to being not just effective, but being part of a team that is effective, which the president knows, we served in the senate together, has really worked out better than anybody could have predicted. i think our personal relationship has certainly deepened and broadened over the course of the last six and a half months, the time we spend together, the difficult problems that we wrestle with, but also the team, bob gates and i, jim jones and i, others who work with us, are really open and henry kissinger said to me he was very surprised. he was the first administration he could remember where he talked to me and then he talked to somebody in the white house and got the same story. and it is because we really try to hash out problems in private.
we really understand the significance of the responsibilities that we shoulder, at a time of great peril and promise in american history. and the president is a disciplined, decisive interrogator in the meetings that we have. >> uche watched two white houses up close. what would you say is the principle difference in the way bill clinton ran the white house and the way barack obama runs the white house? >> i think both of them bring just enormous intelligence to the job. i know bill much better, but i have seen in president obama as well, you know, just an intelligence that is so compelling to, you know, struggle with difficult issues that are put before you. i think that the time in which bill served was so different from the time in which president
obama is serving. and in the white house, i think, you know, bill is very constantly seeking out information, you know, always trying to figure out where to end up and he does it in a very public way. what do you think, fareed? tell me that. i think president obama is very clear about the process that he wants to lead to his decision. i think obviously my husband made a lot of great decisions for our country and i think that president obama is doing the same. >> do you worry, though, that with the president who is very interested in foreign policy, as president obama is, with a national security staff, which has many of his old campaign aids on it, that inevitably power will move more closely to the white house and policy will be made there. >> i don't worry about that for a couple of reasons. first of all, because i'm not exactly a shrinking violet and my opinions are not only sought
but listened to and i appreciate that very much. and obviously we do our homework in the state department so when we tee up something, we can both explain it and defend it. i have a great team, jim steinberg, jack louvre, sharyl mills and everybody on the political side and then these extremely professional foreign service and civil service people. we are the implementers. there is no doubt about that. the white house cannot implement policy. but the partnership between the white house, the state department, the defense department and occasionally other intelligence departments, both dni and cia and others coming in, you know, is truly a team effort. and i think that the white house, in a complicated world with a government as big as ours has to coordinate. that is one of its principle roles. and i think the nsc is really
growing into an understanding of how best to fulfill its role. it cannot implement. it cannot execute. and you need very good solid relationships with the rest of the government to make sure that your policies and your -- the direction you want to set are actually followed up on. so when it comes to making policy, i think that we have had such a seamless ongoing dialogue about everything, that i, you know, i've been around washington long enough, fortunately, to know that there will always be people that want to take credit wherever they are or who want to try to take advantage over somebody's disadvantage. there has been so little of that and instead it is a very serious professional operation. . and it is a sign of weakness. it demonstrates, i think, better than any of us could ever say that this iranian leadership is afraid of their own people.
we're shopping for car insurance, and our friends said we should start here. good friends -- we compare our progressive direct rates, apples to apples, against other top companies, to help you get the best price. how do you do that? with a touch of this button. can i try that? [ chuckles ] wow! good luck getting your remote back. it's all right -- i love this channel. shopping less and saving more. now, that's progressive. call or click today.
on iran, there are a number of people, as you know, who argue that the president and you were too slow to condemn what seems to be fraudulent elections too slow to offer support to people on the ground, because you wanted to preserve the action of negotiating with iran. can you really negotiate with iran at this point? i understand in general
negotiations are part of the regime, but practically speaking right now, with ahmadinejad having been inaugurated in a very disputed atmosphere, wouldn't you be legitimizing him? >> we didn't want to get through the legitimate protests of the iranian people and the leadership. we knew if we stepped in too soon, too hard, the attention might very well shift and the leadership would try to use us to unify the country against the protestors. and that was -- it was a hard judgment call, but i think we, in retrospect, handled it pretty well. behind the scenes we were doing a lot. as you know, our young people in the state department kept going despite the fact they had planned for a technical shutdown. we were doing a lot to really empower the protestors without getting in the way.
and we're continuing to speak out and support the opposition. on the question of engagement, that has been the president's policy. we have made it clear, we have communicated in a number of ways to the iranian leadership, but we are under no illusions, we were under no illusions before the elections. that we can get the kind of engagement that we are seeking. the president said, look, we can take stock of this. if there is a response, it needs to be on a fast track. we can't keep the window open forever, but we are not waiting for someone in iran to say let's talk, we are working with our allies to make the case that we need to have prepared a very robust set of sanctions that we can get the international community to sign off on, the way we did with north korea. we're also looking at an ince
incentive package. we want to be able to say, here's what's in it for you if you get back into the good graces with the international community, on your nuclear program, you take appropriate safeguards regarding any kind of civil nuclear program. >> i have to ask you a question of a special interest. newsweek reporter bahari has now been arrested and is leading what can only be called a show trial. what is your reaction to that? >> i am just appalled at the treatment that mr. bahari and others are receiving. it is a show trial, there's no doubt about it, and it has caught up journalists and clerics and former elected officials and what was the government before the elections, and it is a sign of weakness. it demonstrates better than any of us could ever say that the iranian leadership is afraid of their own people and afraid of the truth and the facts coming out. we've expressed our concern
about mr. bahari's confinement and now the trial. as you know, he's a canadian, and we have certainly told the government of canada that we would be willing to do whatever is appropriate. they have thanked us for that, thanked us for our concern. they believe they should take the lead on that and we're supporting them. >> let me ask you about afghanistan. it's a little confusing, i think, for americans to understand where we are. it seems there was an afghanistan strategic review. the president made clear he was sending troops. but also, there seems, from a lot of body language, the final troops, secretary gates said it would be a hard sell to send any more troops. now we have a new commander in the field, some talk of perhaps needing more troops, secretary gates said maybe i'm open to it. all this happening against the backdrop of the worst month of u.s. casualties in afghanistan.
why are the casualties rising and is sending more troops in these circumstances sending more troops into a black hole? >> the strategic review on afghanistan which set forth an approach that we're following made it clear that we needed to integrate military and civilian assets and try to build up the afghan national army and an afghan police force as quickly as possible. what we're finding is that that is the key. you know, if you read the accounts of what our marines and soldiers are encountering, it's tough fighting. they're really taking it to the taliban in areas that have been largely uncontested. >> so you think this is a little like the surge in iraq, that once you start engaging the enemy, perhaps this might even
be a sign of success? >> there are certainly military experts and analysts who believe that, who are explaining to me and to others that what we're seeing is tragic and the loss of life is something that i deeply regret. i mean, nobody is more anxious than the president and i are for us to be successful and to be able to send our young men and women home. but not being on the sidelines, moving out of the comfort zone, remember that british and nato forces have also suffered their greatest losses, is a kind of combat challenge that the taliban has been able to avoid up until now. but no decisions have been made about the military side of our strategy. there is a lot of discussion going on, and what i like about the president in the white house
and the team that we have is we're always asking them, what are we doing? could we do it better? what are the costs? what are the consequences? so there's been no decision, but i think it's important to the american people to know that we have our best commanders, we have our best civilian team, we have our embassy headed by a former general who served in afghanistan but really gets the civilian component of this, to other ambassadors that are there to run our aid program and to work on the political dynamics inside of afghanistan. we're trying to make sure there is as free and fair an election that can be held on august 20. once there is a winner of this election, we have some very hard asks about what we expect from the government of afghanistan. first and foremost is helping us expedite the training and then take over that responsibility.
>> the current administration in afghanistan, being a useful partner both in terms of trying to do an action and getting it done, or could one potentially see a change in administration in afghanistan is a good thing? >> we're actively impartial in what's going on in afghanistan in terms of the election. i think it surprised people this has turned into a real election. there are campaign rallies, radio and television advertising. i think the incumbent, as incumbents do, has an advantage, but various campaigns are being run by several contestants. so we're just going to do everything we can and make sure the election is fair, and once there is a winner, we will work. now, the previous years of the term of president karzai has been mixed. in some areas we've made a lot of progress and have had a very good relationship. in other areas, it needs
we'll get back to my one on one with secretary clinton in just a moment. but first, something i want to show you from a town hall meeting the secretary of state held at the university of nairobi. i was the moderator. there was deep, insightful questions from the audience about america's relations with the world and whether our policies toward africa are working, some of which we'll bring you next week. then there was one question from me, which some might say was less deep and insightful. this is a news piece i saw while preparing for the town hall, and it involves a very attractive young woman. a kenyan city councilman says he offered bill clinton 40 goats and 20 cows for his daughter's hand in marriage five years ago. he is still awaiting an answer, and i thought on this occasion,
you know, mrs. clinton, if you think about it -- if you think in the current global economic client where asset values have gone down, your stock portfolio is probably down, your husband has had to do a little government work, take time off from the private sector, it's not a bad offer. >> well, my daughter is her own person. she's very independent, so i will convey this very kind offer. >> i've been here for a few days and nobody has offered me any goats or cows. we'll be right back. >> and i'm actually cautiously optimistic that we will be able to tee up negotiations.
when you think about all you can do in an all-wheel-drive subaru... you'll find there is a lot to love. that's why we created the subaru a lot to love event. where you can get a great deal on any new 2009 subaru. and see theee really is a lot to love. hurry in and lease a 2009 impreza for $179 ppr month. now through august 31st.
you and the president have both communicated to the government of israel that you do not want any more settlements. you were very clear in your statement, you said no exceptions. yet the government in israel seems to be making an exception. do you intend to in any way tend to enforce that view that the united states has to ensure the government of israel doesn't do what you don't want to do, which is expand the settlements on the west bank? >> we're in the middle of very intense negotiations, and i think both israel and the united states is working in a position of friendship, a durable partnership, a commitment by the united states to the security of israel, which is absolutely imperative and non-negotiable. but there are steps we would like to see all the parties take in order to maximize the chances for success of the negotiations to reach a comprehensive peace
that results in a two-state solution. there are areas where senator mitchell is hammering out the details with the israelis and the palestinians with arab countries, and i'm actually cautiously optimistic that we will be able to tee up negotiations. now, there is no guarantee. these are very difficult issues to resolve. but i think that starting with prime minister netanyahu's important speech where he accepted the two-state solution and laid out -- >> but placed conditions on it that the palestinians -- >> both sides do that. that's politics. that's negotiations. i mean, people are likely to end up in a place that makes neither of them happy, and then the rest of us can say, well, that's probably a good outcome. but they start from maximalist positions. that's where people begin.
>> relations with israel has been tricky. i give you one example. you extend the prospect of a nuclear umbrella to israel and potentially other countries in the gulf in the iranian nuclear program. the response from the israeli government was to criticize you, was to say you were giving in your accepting the iranian nuclear program. were you surprised by their response? >> i think they misunderstood what i was saying. i said defense umbrella. i didn't specify what kind of defensive measures might be available to those in the region. but i clearly was sending a message to iran, and we've obviously explained that to our friends in israel, but the message was to make clear to whoever is making decisions in iran these days, particularly about something as important as their nuclear weapons potential, that if they believed that this would give them a more secure
position, a greater capacity to influence results, to intimidate their neighbors, to expand the reach of their idealogy, they were mistaken. that there was no chance in the world that even if they were to obtain that, and it was obviously prefaced and meant in that way because our position remains the same. we do not intend to accept nuclear weapons by iran. we think that is unacceptable. but for the sake of argument and for the sake of their calculus, if that is among their objectives, they need to think again. because they will render their position less secure, they will trigger an arms race in the region, and they will certainly
put greater pressure on the united states to extend a defense umbrella in order to hem in and contain them. so i just wanted to be sure that they were thinking like we were thinking, and i think the israeli response, you know, only looked at the fact that, oh, my gosh, well, does that mean you're changing your policy, that now it's somehow acceptable? no, of course not. we think this influences the thinking inside iran. >> you just got through a bilateral with china, a strategic and economic set of meetings. do you believe that china is now assured that the united states is managing its fiscal house well, the concerns they have publicly made several times about their fears of an american deficit, management of the dollar? in those discussions, did you get a sense that they're breathing a sigh of relief? >> i think it is fair to say
that they are somewhat reassured. i think secretary geithner and larry summers, the economic team, have done an excellent job of keeping the chinese informed about the steps that we were taking in our government. i think the recent signs of stabilizing in our own economy have been reassuring. obviously, we are not out of the woods yet and neither are they, but it is fair to say that the -- in my view, the very large stimulus that both of our countries took, ours in dollar terms bigger than theirs, but as a percentage of their economy, quite significant for them, have really helped to get the global economic engines at least beginning to turn on. the problem, of course, is that both of us may well have been,
prior to this recession, on unsustainable pathways. we could not continue to spend the way we spent on an individual level or government level, and now, of course, our deficit is even greater which the president has said is going to be addressed. they have an export-driven approach, but at some point they're going to have to stimulate internal demand. so -- >> did they make any assurances they were going to do that? right now the government is spending, the chinese government, not the chinese consumer. >> that's right. they are taking some steps toward creating what we would call a safety net, some kind of health insurance program, some kind of security type program, because you have to render people secure if you expect them to spend. otherwise they have to keep their own money under the mattress or in the bank so they can draw on it as they need it. and american consumers spent in a way that kept the global economy afloat for years now.
if you think of the global economy before the recession, it was like an inverted triangle resting on the shoulders of the american consumer. but i think spending habits at least in the short term within our country are not going to be what they were before. so it is in everyone's interest that some of the developing economies do more to generate internal demand. so we face our challenges. i think we have gotten through this first period better than many had expected. we still have, you know, some choppy water ahead, but the president's view is that we inherited this terrible crisis. the fiscal state has been stabilized, but now we have to determine which direction we go, and i certainly believe we have to go in the direction of lowering our deficit, reforming some of our entitlement programs, encouraging more exporting of our economy, which means investing in our
manufacturing sector, which is part of what i hope comes from the stimulus bill and the investment in clean energy. so there's a lot to be done, but i think the chinese are breathing a little easier. >> speaking of hard negotiations, what message would you have to the senate democrats who seem to be holding up the passage of a comprehensive health care bill, or are they amending it in ways that are useful and productive? >> well, actually, i think that it's a very healthy process that's going on. they are having to hammer out all of their differences, and there are serious differences in viewpoint, for example. but what the president has said, and what i believe is the right approach is that this can't be put off any longer. back in '93 and '94 when i was on the front lines of taking all the incoming fire on this issue, people didn't really accept in their gut that we had to do this. they kept thinking there is
another way out of this, and it's not that bad, and we'll try, you know, managed care and we'll try more hmos, we'll try all of that. and now all these years later, we realize that we have some fundamental problems with our existing system that has to be addressed. so i actually believe that at the end of the day with all of this negotiation and back and forth, we're going to come up with something. my hope is that it's going to be meaningful enough to make a difference, to make a difference on the cost side, which is the paramount issue for people like us who have insurance. how do we keep affording it and making sure it's of high quality? assurances that we're going to do on the public side, the medicaid and medicare programs are not going to undermine those programs in ways they can't deliver cost-effective quality care, getting people insured and moving as rapidly as possible
toward universal care, changing the delivery system and the incentives so that we actually figure out ways to reward prevention, pay for prevention. in '93, for example, fareed, a man became a friend of mine but i didn't know him at the time, dean ornish, he came to see me, he said i have proof -- >> this is a man who -- >> man who did a lot of work on vascular health. he said, i have proof that diet, exercise is just as effective as medical plans in lowering the overall threat of heart disease. he said, but i can't get medicare to pay for someone going to an exercise class or to pay for a nutritionist to come to their house and talk to them. well, we worked and worked on that all through the time my husband was president, and finally sometime during the bush administration, the centers for medicare and medicaid, cms,
said, okay, fine, we'll begin to pay for this. well, it shouldn't be that hard. we're more than happy to pay for a pill or pay for a procedure. how do we change behaviors? how do we convince the medical establishment to do that? there is just a lot that needs to be at least included even if we can't get to the finish line right away. >> you're passionate about this. do you ever wish you were back in the white house running? >> i feel like i gave my blood, sweat and tears, and i think we, despite all of the difficulties of that effort, we got people thinking. and we helped further the debate. it was, you know, disappointing that we didn't get it all done, but we got the children's health insurance program done, we got portable insurance. we got some things accomplished in the '90s and actually under the bush administration some changes were made so that the government said to hospitals, we're not going to pay for never events.
people shouldn't get bedsores, people should be given an aspirin if they come in and shots. things that are really required. so we made progress, but the problem is we never got to a critical mass of progress, and that's what i'm hoping to see now. >> madam secretary, thank you so much. >> good to talk to you. >> a pleasure. and now, with the cash for clunkers program, a great deal gets even better. let us recycle your older vehicle and you could qualify for an additional $3500 or $4500 cash back on a new, more fuel-efficient chevy. your chevy dealer has more eligible models to choose from. more than ford, toyota, or honda. now get an '09 silverado for under twenty eight-five after all offers. and get it for even less if you qualify for cash for clunkers program. go to chevy.com for details.
you hungry? yeah. me too. (door crashes in) (broadview alarm) (gasp and scream) go! go! go! go! go! go! (phone rings) hello? this is mark with broadview security. is everything okay? no. someone just tried to break in. i'm sending help right now. thank you. (announcer) brink's home security is now broadview security. call now to install the standard system for just $99. the proven technology of a broadview security system delivers rapid response from highly trained professionals, 24 hours a day. call now to get the $99 installation, plus a second keypad installed free. and, you could save up to 20% on your homeowner's insurance. call now - and get the system installed for just $99. broadview security for yop- home or business - the next generation of brink's home security. call now.
now for our what in the world segment. it's the web site of the former president of iran, and it declares the ongoing trials of some 100 iranian opposition figures, journalists to be show trials. it is the latest in an ever escalating series of charges made against the regime. i can safely say his charge is true, because my friend and colleague, bahari, is on trial.
he is a "newsweek" reporter and an award winning documentary filmmaker. he appeared's guest on this program. he was arrested in tehran on june 21st. in the six weeks since then, he has had no access to a lawyer and he is not being able to see his family. has not been able to see his family. and over the weekend, he quote confessed unquote saying western media helped cause the chaos after ahmadinejad's disputed election. it is a lie. he obviously knows it's a lie, and the iranian government knows it's a lie. after all, it's a lie that they, those in power in iran, forced him to speak, and that is what a show trial is all about. it is a phrase usually connected with joseph stalin, the ruthless soviet dictator. in the late 1930s, stalin tried 50 odd men in mass trials for crimes against the state. sound familiar? in fact, the similarities between the soviet trials of 70 years ago and the iranian trials of today is striking. large rooms filled with row upon
row upon row of men, in the front, full of rows of the accused, many looking weary, downtrodden, many in the front, former key government officials who helped build the revolutionary regime only now to see it put them on trial. and when their time comes to take the stand, they confess, saying whatever the regime wants them to, hoping that it means they will be treated less harshly, hoping that one day they might be able to be free, hoping to see their families again. in the soviet case, those hopes were never realized, the iranian government still has time to change or else it will be remembered in history solely for its horrific use of totalitarian tactics, an example of modern day stalinism. it should release him and all its other political prisoners immediately. and we'll be right back. mr. evans? this is janice from onstar.
i have received an automatic signal you've been in a front-end crash. do you need help? yeah. i'll contact emergency services and stay with you. you okay? yeah. onstar. standard for one year on 14 chevy models. my name is chef michael. and my dog bai@íy and i love to hang out in the kitchen... so she can watch me cook. you just love the aromas of beef tenderloin...
and, ooh, rotisserie chicken. yes, you do. [ barks ] yeah. you're so special, you deserve a very special dog food. [ woman ] introducing chef michael's canine creations. the deliciously different way to serve up your love at mealtime. chef-inspired. dog-desired. chef michael's canine creations. some people like to pretend... a flood could never happen to them... and that their homeowners insurance... protects them. it doesn't. stop pretending. it can happen to you. protect your home with flood insurance. call the number on your screen... for your free brochure.
i think i'll go with the preferred package. good choice. only meineke lets you choose the brake service that's right for you. and save 50% on pads and shoes. meineke. now, our question of the week. last week i asked you to cast an imaginary vote in afghanistan's upcoming presidential election. i interviewed the two chief rivals to president hamid karzai, one time finance minister and the former foreign
minister. i asked you to choose among the three. the clear winner with abdulla abdullah a close second. the real election takes place august 20th with complete results not expected until september. now for this week, i want to know, how do you think hillary clinton is doing as secretary of state? give her a grade and tell me why you think she deserves it. and as always, i'd like to recommend a book. having just come from africa, i wanted to recommend a book on the topic and this being summer, i thought a somewhat lighter book than usual. this one is actually a classic. out of africa, a vivid memoir of life in colonial africa, you probably saw the great movie "out of africa," it won seven academy awards. it's a short story, a short read, but a great read. also, how closely have you been following the world? test yourself, try our weekly
quiz, the fareed challenge on cnn.com/gps. thank you for being part of my program this week, and i will see you next week. . let us recycle your older vehicle, and you could qualify for an additional $3500 or $4500 cash back... on top of all other offers.. on a new, more fuel efficient chevy. your chevy dealer has more eligible models to choose from - more than ford, toyota, or honda. so save gas... and money... now during the chevy open house. go to chevy.com for details. hi, may i help you? yes, i hear progressive has lots of discounts on car insurance. can i get in on that? are you a safe driver? yes. discount! do you own a home? yes. discount! are you going to buy online? yes! discount! isn't getting discounts great? yes! there's no discount for agreeing with me. yeah, i got carried away. happens to me all the time.
fear for all, it's a state of town hall meetings these days and doesn't show any signs of letting up. now a new campaign to fight back. south of the border, the president on his way to mexico as we speak. are illegal drugs on the agenda? our michael ware shows us why they should be. bringing down the house, an overseas typhoon releases a torrent. will anything be left standing? and lottery for life, a family auctioning off their home, selling lottery tickets in hopes of saving a little boy's life all right now in the news. good evening, everyone, i'm don lemon. we begin with the furious debate over health care reform growing more unhealthy by the day. across the country, we are witnessing town hall meetings on health care