Dr. James Zogby

Viewpoint with James Zogby: January 22, 2009 Episode

Posted on Monday January 26, 2009

Partial Transcript:

James Zogby: I'm Jim Zogby and welcome to "Viewpoint." Tuesday Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. An estimated crowd of 1.8 million witnessed the historic event, it was his inaugural speech that was the focus of so much
attention. He talked about unity, responsibility, and sacrifice and touched on the challenges ahead. Calling them the work of remaking America. On tonight's program we're going look at some of the challenges facing his administration and talk about the speech. I'll talk to David Sanger, Chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times about the range of global issues that Obama is inheriting and we will turn our attention to the middle east and the challenges the President faces in achieving a lasting peace in the region. We will do that with a foreign policy expert but first a look at President Obama's inauguration from an historical perspective. Joining me to talk about that is my first guest is a professor of history at American university. Here in Washington, D.C. where his areas of scholarship include the American presidency. Frequent commentator on the U.S. and overseas broadcast stations. The author of six books, including “The Keys to the White House. A sure-fire guide to predicting the next President.” And I might add that Alan joined me on a show early in the
campaign in which he said that the keys pointed in Obama's direction. You were right again.
Seven elections in a row. Not a bad record.

Allan Lichtman: Not a bad record.

James Zogby: Thank you very much for joining us. I want to talk about the speech if we can. There was no -- not what your country can do for you. There were no lines in it like the Kennedy line or the Roosevelt line. But what did you make of the speech? How would you rate it overall?

Allan Lichtman: There were no great lines as you say. They will be talking about 30 years from now. And it wasn't really a great rallying speech. There weren't nearly as many applause lines as those two million people gathered in front of him might have anticipated. It was a very somber speech. It was really very much of an historical sermon, not a speech designed to get a lot of applause. And it was a very meaty speech. We can talk about this later. It was built upon deeply on American history and drew on Presidents from Washington to Reagan. I would rate it as a very good speech. A speech that was adequate for the occasion. And I think it was a truly great and historic occasion. But I don't think it's a speech that will ascend into the Cosmos of one of the very greatest speeches in all of American history.

James Zogby: I should get out the point. It was not ask for what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. That was the Kennedy line. I didn't quite get it out of there. And there is no line in that that will be quoted for the next several decades. But there was an infusion of history in it.

Allan Lichtman: Absolutely.

James Zogby: And what I found interesting, actually from the beginning of his presidential campaign, but certainly as he began in Philadelphia, working his way down, this sense of history. We kind of see in Obama a running history seminar on American value, on lessons from the struggle for freedom and the expansion of that freedom from Lincoln all the way up to king and beyond, including the women's movement and the labor movement and the civil rights movement, etc. Is this unique in presidential campaigns? And in his presidential addresses that we get this much history, this redefinition if you will of American patriotism?

Allan Lichtman: It really is unique. And it's very appropriate given the historic nature of the Obama election and the Obama presidency. The day before, of course, we celebrated Martin Luther King Day. And Martin Luther king said freedom for the negro. And that was the term they used in those days. Is essential if we are all to be free. That Americans can never be free unless the negro is free. So the realization in part of Martin Luther king's dream with the election of an African-American is a liberation for every American. And a celebration of a history which really has been one of unity, in diversity. Americans have become ever more diverse over time. And yet as Obama so eloquently pointed out, we are still unified by the great principles that bind us together as a people. After the Obama election as President, it is certainly a lot easier to conceive of the election of a Latino President, a woman President, a Jewish President, a Muslim President. And indeed I thought one of the striking features of the Obama speech was the outreach to the Muslim world.

James Zogby: There were almost two million people there. And it was watched by a huge audience nationally. On the note of history here, a speech watched the same extent as Reagan's speech in 1981. And as Roosevelt's speech in the height of the depression. He at one point in the campaign got himself IN A bit of a brew with the Clintons when speaking to the Des Moines register, he talked about the need for a transformational presidency and cited Roosevelt and cited Reagan as examples of that. It's a similar period right now of depression, not just on the economic level but almost in the national psyche.

Allan Lichtman: That's exactly right. This really is very comparable to 1980 when Ronald Reagan came in. He was citing the misery index in double digits. When he asked, are you better off than you were four years ago? Most Hearns had a resounding no. Americans had a resounding no. And we had to deal with an aggressive Soviet Union and international Communist movement. So too Obama takes office with great domestic and foreign challenges. Different ones but no less severe. When Ronald Reagan came in he introduced the modern conservative era. That notwithstanding Bill Clinton, has really dominated American politics for nearly 30 years. 2008 now represents one of those rare pivot points in American history. One of those turnings of the political cycle. The conservative era has come to an end. And Barack Obama now has an historic opportunity, like Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt, to put his stamp on an entirely new era of American politics. It's not guaranteed that he'll do that. Nothing is chiseled in stone in advance. But he has that chance to be a transformational President. And to rebuild elements of the Roosevelt coalition. Roosevelt won every single southern state and every one of his elections and Obama for the first time in a long time wins three southern states. Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. Rebuilding elements of the coalition that sustained the Democrats for decades.

James Zogby: One thing to confuse viewers and certainly some viewers here at home was the oath of office.

Allan Lichtman: Yes.

James Zogby: Chief justice Roberts mixed up the language a bit.

Allan Lichtman:Correct.

James Zogby: And President then elect, not yet President Obama, got a little flustered there. They redid it. But there was an argument by some in the White House that just to silence critics, do it over again. And they did it the next day in the oval office. Without cameras there but with audio just to be able to show he did it. Was it necessary? Was it legally, constitutionally necessary to retake the oath? Or was it just simply a smart political thing to do?

Allan Lichtman: There is an ambiguity in the constitution that I think made it very prudent to redo the oath. On the one hand the 20th amendment says the term of the former President ends on noon on January 20. But article two of the constitution also says that you before the execution of your office, you must take the following oath. Didn't get the oath exactly right. It's not without precedent to retake the oath. I think this was prudent because you don't want to give mischief makers an opening. There were mischief makers who charged that he wasn't a natural-born U.S. citizen. You don't want mischief makers making a point that he really isn't President because he didn't get the oath right. It was the right thing and smart thing to do.

James Zogby: There's a quote that I want to put up and actually do a soundtrack from the quote itself. From the speech. There were many, I think, important parts of the speech. But this is one that was interesting. You talked about outreach to the Muslim world. But this is actually a statement about America. And let's put it up.

Video of President Barack Obama: For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, to the a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims. Jews and Hindus. And nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture. Drawn from every end of this earth. And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united we cannot help but believe that the old hatred shall someday pass, that the lines of tribes shall soon dissolve, that as the world grows smaller our common humanity shall reveal itself, and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

James Zogby: Talk about that for a bit.

Allan Lichtman: That's a truly remarkable line. Because on the one hand he's saying, look, we are a diverse nation of many faiths, many races. Those of no faith at all. But that has not always led to peace and tranquility within the land. That our diversity has produced a civil war. It has produced segregation. It has produced racial and religious discrimination. But on the other hand, by adhering to the great principles of the founding of the country, we have in fact come through all that. We have been stronger. And he is pointing the way not only to a stronger America that's united in its diversity and that tolerates and draws strength from all these different traditions but to the fact that the world has to come to grips with the same thing. That the world, like America, is not always living easy with its diversity. But if we are all to have a secure future, not only Americans but the world must take strength from its diversity and come to grips with it.

James Zogby: Let's get you out there in the conversation if you want to give us a call. The number overseas is 0012028425056. If you're calling from here in the U.S., it's 1-800-528-2090. You had a piece written before the inauguration where you laid out you what thought were the four challenges facing Barack Obama. You said he had to strike early.

Allan Lichtman: Correct.

James Zogby: You said he had to bring people with him.

Allan Lichtman: Yes.

James Zogby: He had to think big. And then you cautioned against governing from the center.

Allan Lichtman: Correct.

James Zogby: You called the center in what I think will be a memorable line, the graveyard of mediocre Presidents. There are those cautioning Barack Obama to govern from the center. He certainly has reached across the aisle. What exactly did you mean that he should avoid governing from the center and what -- talk about the thinking big together with that notion of governing not from the center.

Allan Lichtman: When I say don't govern from the center, I don't mean reintroducing the rancorous partisanship of the last eight years. And I certainly don't mean petty partisanship.
Rather, I mean if you are to be a transformational President, a great President like a Franklin Roosevelt or a Ronald Reagan, you got to redefine the center of American politics. And in effect, bring the center to you and that takes big, bold thinking. Social security act. The Wagner act that established rights for labor. The civilian conservation corps. That employed young people. The works progress administration that put millions to work. The Tennessee valley authority that brought cheap power to a depressed area. None of these were centrist ideas. Centrist ideas. Based on the conventional wisdom of the time when Franklin Roosevelt entered office. And yet they became centrist ideas over time. They redefined the center of American politics. Just as Ronald Reagan--Ronald Reagan did with his foundational tax cuts and deregulation of key industries. He too thought big and bold and redefined the whole conversation and the whole center of American politics. Those are the Presidents who have established enduring political eras who we remember -- eras who we remember. We don't remember William Howard Tafts or Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush who governed from the center who we remember as moving the country dramatically forward and introduced new political eras. That's what I caution against. I am not saying be a rancorous partisan. You can bring people with you into the center of American politics. The new center. The redefined center.

James Zogby: Two questions before we get to our calls. One is on this issue of partisanship, he addressed in his remarks this question of what he called the petty partisanship. The old feuds of the past. IN A generational way and it struck me about our generation, Vietnam generation, the agree to which we are -- the degree to which we are plagued by that.

Allan Lichtman: We're steeped in it.

James Zogby: And every President we've had, whether Clinton or Bush, we've had two from our generation and candidates from our generation in addition to that, Kerry and Gore, have been part of that ongoing debate. And to some extent now we've skipped over that generation. We went from the old guard to now a generation that knew nothing of that. Is that an important transformation in and of itself? That our generation is in effect said we can't govern effectively because we are too much a part of the problems of the past?

Allan Lichtman: I think that's absolutely right. Barack Obama does represent a generation that is a bit clean of some of these rancorous partisan disputes that really have marked American politics. Certainly since the Nixon era. Right up to the present. The new generation does have an opportunity to achieve a new departure. And Barack Obama himself is kind of a transcendent figure. He's not just a politics. He's a combination politician, rack star, -- rock star, and icon. He is Abraham Lincoln meets American idol meets Muhammad Ali and that's something brand new in American politics and isn't petty and can bring a lot of people into being interested in politics again and interested IN A way that isn't petty and partisan.

James Zogby: There's so many other questions I want to ask you but one last one. The question of striking early. I am not a historian like you. But I want you to look at the first two days in office. It seems that there have been a lot of initiatives taken in two days. Is this big or is this just expected?

Allan Lichtman: No. It's very big. And it is reminiscent of Franklin Roosevelt who not only passed 15 major bills in his first 100 days but used the executive powers of the President to issue executive orders to do things like close the banks and get us off of the gold standard. Barack Obama has used those executive powers. He's already issued a draft executive order on closing Guantanamo bay. Stopping the prosecutions. He has appointed. And you and I talked about a what a positive step it is, George Mitchell as special envoy and issued new orders on abortion rights. It's incredible what you can do with the powers of the presidency.

James Zogby: Let's go to Canada for our first call. Caller.

Caller: Hello.

James Zogby: Yes. Your question.

Caller: My question is about -- I was watching yesterday, not the day before yesterday, when Mr. Obama was talking about, the are relationship between American political and the abick community or the muss -- the Arabic community or the Muslim community. And what kind of relation will it snb and what kind – what does Obama think about -- the region, the war in Iraq and the war in Gaza? He's not going to do something about it, about stopping the war
right now.

James Zogby: We're going to get to that in our second and third guests. But he's asking about whether or not there's going to be something dramatic or something changing about the relationship with the Arab and Muslim world. That was in the speech.

Allan Lichtman: It's already changed with the appointment of George Mitchell, I believe. And the new attention focused on resolving the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I also understand the first foreign leader he called was Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian authority. That's an extraordinary statement, I think, plus he seems to be moving with his national security team to get us out of the war in Iraq. Which I think is another very important step that goes beyond symbolism.

James Zogby: Let's go to Illinois for a call. Caller.

Caller: Hello.

James Zogby: Yes your question.

Caller: Yes. I'm asking about the fact that I've heard President Obama's chief of staff has dual citizenship, American-Israeli. And I'm curious what they think -- will Obama really get any other valid opinions on the Palestinian side because of that? And is it really valid.

James Zogby: Stay on the phone. Are you with me yet?

Caller: Yeah.

James Zogby: OK. Rahm Emanuel doesn't have dual citizenship. I want to correct the record on that.

Caller: OK.

James Zogby: I've had some differences on him and his views in Congress but we need to be fair on the record. He is not an Israeli citizen and has not had dual citizenship. But your question about getting input. The national security team is fairly interesting.

Allan Lichtman: Yeah. The national security team is -- you got holdover from the Bush administration. Secretary of Defense, Gates. You have Hillary Clinton who's an extraordinary figure in her own right. With great knowledge, experience and stature. She can focus, I think, on Middle East policy IN A way that may free up Obama a bit to steer through the shoals of Congress and the economy. You have a general in another –

James Zogby: And an Arab American in George Mitchell.

David Sanger: The appointment of George Mitchell ought to gladden everyone
who believes we need a new approach to the middle east.

James Zogby: Let's go to Georgia.

Caller: Hello.

James Zogby: Hi.

Caller: My question is -- from the last caller, about the White House and -- the state department. Are they really going to be able to -- is Obama going to be evenhanded with the Palestinians? And when I saw the support of Israel, one of the influential senators was speaking on support of Israel. And next moment he was sitting next to all these nominees, especially Hillary Clinton. Our concern is that is he going to be -- he talks about the democracy and the justice and fairness and kindness. Is he going to be deceived when it comes to the Palestinians?

James Zogby: Let me take that for a moment. We will get into that in the next two guests. But the Middle East appointment, the appointment of middle east envoy is Dennis Mitchell and not George Ross. That's really important here. There was talk about Dennis Ross but the announcement today was very clear. George Mitchell is the special envoy for the Middle East. And don't know what dens Ross is going to be doing – what Dennis Ross is going to be doing but it's George Mitchell. We will talk more in the last segment. Let's go to Florida. Our last caller.

Caller: To change the subject, I want to ask the professor what he knows about President Obama's U.S.A. freedom corps that he's starting.

Allan Lichtman: Do you know about this?

David Sanger: I know a little bit it but not enough to talk about it in depth. Obama's point is there are many ways to serve the country. Not simply serving it in the military. But serving it in peaceful ways for those who don't want a career in the military. And apparently through his service corps, he's really opening up those opportunities. Which I think is a wonderful thing for young Americans. And again reminiscent of F.D.R. who opened up opportunities for young Americans in his first 100 days.

James Zogby: Will he have the support of Congress?

Allan Lichtman: Absolutely. Congress is like wall street. It operates on fear and greed. And right now, Obama has the support of the American people. Which means he will get the support of Congress. But things are not like they were during Roosevelt's era. There are too many big egos in Congress. Everybody wants to be on television. Wants to have news conferences. Wants to be a prim done a -- prima donna. He has to make sure those folks hammer through the best economic plan and other reform plans possible.

James Zogby: Al Lichtman, we will have you back after the first 100 days. When we come back "New York Times" chief correspondent David Sanger will talk about the global challenges facing the Obama administration and more -- facing the Obama administration and more of your calls.

BREAK

James Zogby: Welcome back to viewpoint. I'm Jim Zogby. My guest is -- next guest is David Sanger, chief senior correspondent for "The New York Times." And he's covered a range of issues including foreign policy, globalization, nuclear proliferation, Asian affairs and the Bush presidency. He's twice been on reporting teams and the times that have won the Pulitzer Prize. His new book is called the inheritance, the world Obama confronts. And the challenges to American power. It's an examination of the Bush Administration's legacy and how it has led to complex challenges facing the new President. Thanks for joining us.

David Sanger: Thanks. Great to be with you.

James Zogby: We've talked on this show for months now, since the election -- actually from before the election, of the world that George Bush leaves behind. And usually when we've talked, we've discussed the Afghanistan mess and the Iraq mess which is a mess despite the fact the surge is working, the five million refugees and internally displaced. And the danger of a renewed civil war at any point, etc. And Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, etc. You go beyond that into the problems that were sort of brewing under the surface if you will. While we were all focused there, we had other problems developing. And we want -- do you want to talk about that a little bit? That does create the landscape that this President has to confront.

David Sanger: We have been through a period of the politics of the great distraction. And what the inheritance is really about is navigating your way through those things beyond Iraq that were made worse because of Iraq or that were opportunities that were lost. And I think beyond the 4,000 casualties, the grievous injuries so many have suffered, one. Biggest problems for the United States -- one of the biggest problems for the United States is we let much bigger threats fester and let many opportunities slip by. Let me just pace you through a few. You mentioned one. Afghanistan. The inheritance takes you through on the record American ambassadors, American military commanders, American C.I.A. chiefs, in the region who talked about how resources were moved from Afghanistan to Iraq and now of course we're moving them back in. But it goes far beyond that. The Iranians realize that when we had 140,000 people in Iraq, they had 140,000 potential hostages or people to strike back at. They went ahead with their nuclear program because George Bush couldn't talk about it, bad intelligence on Iraq. North Korea harvested its fuel for nuclear weapons the very weeks that we were headed into Baghdad. And they've spent the past five years in the White House trying to get back material they lost track of in those very weeks. And china is a great example of a country that basically was a big winner of the Iraq war. They used our distraction to go around, sign up exclusive oil deals, spread influence not only of Asia but in Latin America and in Africa. Nothing they have Russ -- nefarious about that but we weren't in the game.

James Zogby: And Russia.

David Sanger: Russia is a little bit more of a complex case. Where I suspect that what you saw the Russians do was more a function of the rise in oil prices than it was of our great distraction. I'm not sure that that was necessarily stoppable. And not all of these problems are attributable to Iraq. Not all of them are attributable to George Bush. But what it is worth remembering is when they made the decision to go into Iraq, they thought it would be quick. It would be out in six months or a year. And the rest of the world would say look housts Saddam Hussein fell -- how fast Saddam Hussein fell.

James Zogby: He fell victim of the thinking of the project for new American century, the notion that a quick hit display of overwhelming force would not only project but establish American hegemony for the next century and show our adversaries that we were the number one.

David Sanger: But misunderstood -- the overwhelm force was at the beginning when you needed it was in the occupation.

James Zogby: But the result of it is we end up weaker. Less secure.

David Sanger: That's right. Because there was a possibility they never really seriously debated. Which is if you get bogged down, does that open an opportunity for your foes to do something else?

James Zogby: I want to look at some of the quotes from George Bush's farewell speech to the nation. Which I thought was rather remarkable. And pardon me. I'm going to be partisan here. I thought it was rather delusional in some ways. An effort to continue to project some themes that have been shown to be disproven. But we don't have the visual of it. But I want to put it up and ask you to comment on some of of the quotes. Good and evil are present in this world and between the two there can be no compromise. Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense and to advance the cause of peace. This view of the world that eschewed diplomacy and confronted evil, whether victor or advantage wished, got us into a lot of jams.

David Sanger: You could go into the world with that view. That there's good and evil and with the view that it's the American mission to go out and promote democracy and liberty. And yet not approach the issues the way George Bush did. So I don't have any problem with the mission that he set out. I think what -- I try to prove in the inheritances, didn't go about it in the right way. And what you can say about Iraq, Iraq, some people think was a good idea. Some people think was a bad idea and many people think was a good idea, badly executed. Well, the democratization process was also a good idea, George Bush is not the first President to have espoused it. Badly executed.

James Zogby: Here's another quote that is kind of a conflation --conflation of two different things. One is the mindset we -- the mindset we confronted the Soviet Union and the mixing of Christian and evangelical thinking with knee hoe conservative thinking. -- neo-conservative thinking. The battle of our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology and the other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of almighty God and that liberty and justice light the path to peace.

David Sanger: OK. Again, freedom and liberty, almighty God, straight out of the declaration. You know, no particular problem there. But he was back in that speech to doing something that he tried at varyius points in his presidency and gave up at various points in his presidency. Which was to describe our opponents as a single ideological system. You'll remember that he gave a few speeches three or four years ago where he discussed his -- slamo fascism – islamofascism like it was hit already's Germany, for example.

James Zogby: Or the headquarters of Iran spreading out around the world.

David Sanger: The problem with this and I try to pursue this in the internal discussions in the White House that I recount in "the inheritance" is that we are presenting our opponents here as a unified force. When in fact they're not. Al Qaeda has an ideology. The Palestinians and Israeli issue has its own set of dynamics. The insurgents who are trying to take over Pakistan are mostly trying to get control of territory. This is not a -- an idealogically unified group. And by describing them that way, it almost gives them more authority, unity, and makes them seem bigger than they really are. What a President might want to be thinking about doing in that case is actually separating out and dividing these groups. And that's what worked in Iraq. When the Sunnis got separated from the al Qaeda in Mesopotamia group.

James Zogby: And also his view of what we accomplished in Afghanistan and the other is a one-sentence, what we accomplished in Iraq, I'm going to put them up and ask for your comments about them. Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school. And then in Iraq, he says, Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship and sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

David Sanger: OK. Let's take Afghanistan first. We were very successful in the early days of Afghanistan. And we actually managed to snatch stalemate from the jaws of victory. As the times reported this morning, there are whole swaths of Afghanistan now where we are not present and the Taliban have come back in. And those girls are going to school in those parts of Afghanistan. It's simply not happening now. And that's part of the great distraction.
Iraq, a democracy in the heart of the middle east, it is -- it's also a very unstable demockragse -- democracy. That's fine. I would not doubt for a moment or take away from the President
for a moment that Iraq is today a much freer place than it was. At a huge cost but a much freer place. The question isn't in isolation. Is it freer? The question is was the cost in lost ground elsewhere in the world worth the gain in ground in one small country?

James Zogby: There's a quote from President Obama's inaugural address that I want to put up and I want you to comment on it. But first let me tell our viewers that if you want to get in the conversation, give us a call, if you're calling overseas it's 001-2028-42-5056. If you're calling from the U.S., 1-800-528-2090. This is a quote from President Obama that was done in the presence of George Bush and sort of a subtle, maybe not so subtle jab. But I thought was quite interesting. Let's put it up.

Video of President Barack Obama: As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our saist and our ideals. -- our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man. A charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world. And we will not give them up for Expedia yens sake. -- for expedience sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity and we are ready to lead once more.

James Zogby: As some of his first actions in office, he signs an executive order on torture. One on Guantanamo and another to redefine how we will deal with interrogation and trying individuals who are accused of terrorism. How -- is this a repudiation or is this -- some are not happy that it's -- that they say it hasn't gone far enough, but evaluate this if you will. Is it a transition for sure?

David Sanger: It is transition for sure. What I wrote in the times, the morning after, the paper the morning after the inauguration, was this was the greatest repudiation of a sitting President's policies since Franklin D. Roosevelt took the oath on the other set of steps, the other side of the capitol. In 1933, and basically derided the policies of her better Hoover. That was entirely on the economic side. Here, I think the phrase you want to look for was his one about expediency. What he was basically saying was we gave up our ideals because we let the ends justify the means. And he would have loved to have heard or understood what was going through President Bush's mind and vice president Cheney's mind --

James Zogby: The cameras all shifted to Bush. He looked a bit sullen.

David Sanger: Yeah. I was White House correspondent for six years. And I followed George Bush all around the country. There was never a moment when somebody who opposed his policies so broadly got a moment to speak in front of him. And when they did, on those rare occasions, he had a right of reply. At the inaugural address, he could only sit silently.

James Zogby: Let's go to U.K. for a call. Caller. Hello. Caller?

Caller: Hello?

James Zogby: Your question.

Caller: Yes. My question is contradiction, Obama's contradiction about Afghanistan and Iraq. About Afghanistan, he said -- one side he said we're going to bring peace to the world. The other side he said we're going to send more troops to Afghanistan. And he said we have to attack Pakistan. So when the attack -- he's going to kill more -- and the contradiction about Iraq, he said we're going to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I am from Iraq. If he leaves Iraq to Iraqis, he keeps general Robert Gates as -- and he said also, you know, as you know, Obama, he said to Iran

James Zogby: I understand the point. But I want to give David a chance to comment on both. Changing direction or not? Is the Afghanistan war going to heat up? And in fact in Iraq, is there going to be a change?

David Sanger: Let's take Afghanistan first. The Afghanistan conflict is definitely going to heat up. And I think the biggest risk and I think your caller accurately points this out, Barack Obama won the nomination by people who heard him say we're going get out of Iraq. And weren't listening as carefully when he said and we're going to go into Afghanistan. And a much bigger way. They're now discovering the Afghanistan part of the sentence. It's been there all along. They didn't fully understand it. Let's remember Afghanistan is where the 9-11 plotters met and trained. There's a much more direct American interest in making sure that Afghanistan is not yet again the sanctuary for terrorists than there ever was for Iraq which had no connection to 9-11. On the Pakistan points, the caller made, he's absolutely right. This is one of the toughest decisions that Barack Obama is going to have to make. And I pace people through it in "the inheritance." Is that President Bush issued orders last July to allow special forces and the C.I.A. to go over the border, even on the ground, into Pakistan, to chase down not only al Qaeda but other insurgent groups. The chapter that deals with this, it's got a headline, a quote from a previous senior administration official who was asking me a question, how do you invade an ally? And that's the question in Pakistan. How do you invade an ally? Because Pakistan was an ally on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and on Tuesdays and Thursdays, they were supporting the Taliban or at least elements of them were. And that's going to be the toughest problem and what did the President do on his second day in office? He appointed an -- in addition to a Mideast coordinator an Afghanistan and Pakistan coordinator. In Richard Holbrook.

James Zogby: Thank you so much for joining us. I would like to ask you about Holbrook but we're going to go to bill quant in Charlottesville who is waiting to talk about the Middle East. Thank you for joining us.

David Sanger: The Mideast problem and the Pakistan problem will be around for a while.

James Zogby: Thank you. I want to have you back and talk more about the book. Thank you for joining us. Next up is bill quant who's going to talk about the challenges facing Obama and the middle east and more of your calls. Don't go away.

BREAK

James Zogby: Welcome back to viewpoint of. I'm Jim Zogby. My guest is William Quandt, professor of politics at the university of Virginia. Where he specializes in American foreign policy in the Middle East and the Arab Israeli conflict. Former staff member of the national security council was heavily involved in the negotiations leading to the Camp David accords and Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. He joins us from the university of Virginia in Charlottesville, thank you so much for being us with, bill quant.

William Quandt: Nice to be with you.

James Zogby: Clearly one of the most difficult issues that this President is going to deal with is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And yet he didn't duck it. He promised during the campaign he would start from day one and he did with phone calls to all the leaders in the region. One. First charges he gave -- one of the first charges he gave to Hillary Clinton was Israeli-Palestinian peace and the appointment of George Mitchell. Talk if you will about the appointment of Mitchell and about the President's steps to date.

William Quandt: Well, I'm a little afraid of getting too enthusiastic, too early. But I must say it's a breath of fresh air to have a President who seems to mean seriously that the United States has to do more than just utter a few vague references about peace in the middle east and then turn his attention elsewhere. I think if we're lucky we're going to have a President who really understands this issue. And I think he may. And is willing to put some real American muscle behind not just inching the process forward. We've seen a lot of that in the past. But really bringing it to a conclusion. It’s not going to be -- it's not going to be easy. It's going to be politically controversial and we may not succeed. But I thought the fact he made the phone calls yesterday to Palestinian authority Presidents, Mahmoud Abbas, and called him first, if I understand correctly, which was symbolically interesting. He didn't have to do that but he seems to have reached out to him first and foremost. Not that -- I would imagine Mahmoud Abbas is a strong leader who necessarily deserves that much attention. But symbolically it was a gesture toward the Palestinian people. And he called the Jordanians and Egyptians and Israelis. He did not call the Saudis, which is interesting. That may or may not be deliberate. I thought the appointment of George Mitchell was a very, very good decision. Now, I don't know Mitchell personally. But this is a man who will not be pushed around by bureaucrats, by anyone else in the government who will report presumably directly to the President and the secretary of state. And who has some experience in the Middle East. And who was criticized yesterday by a -- from the A.D.L. for being too heavy handed. Thank God. I would like to have an American mediator who approaches this conflict with a sense of fairness. And if that is being used as a charge against him, in my book it's a charge in his favor.

James Zogby: I thought that was extraordinary. I saw the Abe Foxman quote, too. And I thought at first that it was something from the onion. A satiric comment. He's evenhanded and balanced and that concerns me. That's striking.

William Quandt: It is. It shows how much we've come, I guess.

James Zogby: I would like to get deeper into the weeds here. I was just at a luncheon with the E.U. representative here in Washington. And a group of European ambassadors. And they were outlining what they thought were the key first three steps, the first they said was what are you going to do about the blockade of Gaza and opening it up to commerce? That was mentioned actually by George Mitchell and the President himself. What are you going to do about settlements? That was not mentioned today. But it's obviously a key issue. And thirdly, what do you do about Hamas? And how do you move forward without Palestinian unity? Talk about those three. And if you think there are any other first steps missing, initial signs of things that have to be looked at as indicators of where we're going, add them two to the mix if you can.

William Quandt: Well, I think the three points you mentioned are all important. And IN A sense, they help prepare the ground for what I would hope would fairly quickly be a major shift of gears on the diplomatic side. Where we begin to tackle as a mediator and as a friend of both sides the final status issues. What you're talking about with the lifting the embargo and dealing -- the strangling of Gaza and lifting the siege, dealing with Hamas and stopping the settlements, are all kind of part of the broader atmosphere. They need to be addressed. They aren't necessarily issues that demand high level presidential engagement. And they shouldn't be the sum total of what we try to do. The happens issue does strike me as one where -- the Hamas issue does strike me as one where we have to take a deep breath and if we get engaged in peace making, can we just continue the way we have dealing only with a really pretty discredited Palestinian authority that has lost a good bit of its legitimacy, may not have much left at all? Or should we step back and change our attitude and say that for the sake of peace, we want to encourage Palestinians to bring about a degree of national unity so that negotiations with them will be viewed as legitimate in the eyes of most Palestinians. Right now, I'm not sure how much we could really get without some degree -- some substantial degree of national reconciliation. The Bush Administration opposed that. The Israelis typically opposed it. But I think coming out of this crisis, it would be a mistake for the United States to try to drive an even deeper wedge between the Palestinian authority and Hamas. It seems we should be more open minded and encourage the Egyptians, the Palestinians themselves, the Saudis and others to try to bring about circumstances that existed a few years ago. 2005, we had a national unity government for a brief period. And something like that. Probably is important and what we really need to do is remove our veto. We can't make it happen. But we can stop projecting to it. I think that's an important judgment and that is presidential. That's -- nobody else can make that judgment.

James Zogby: Let me -- I want to get callers into the conversation. If you're calling from overseas it's 001-202-842-5056. From here in the U.S. it's 800-528-2090. There is a quote from the inaugural address of President Obama that was very telling. An outreach to the Muslim world. But then as well a challenge that I want to play for you and ask for your comment. Let's hear President Obama's inaugural address.

Video of President Barack Obama: To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward. Based on mutual interest and mutual respect. For those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflicts or blame their society's ills on the west know your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who claim to power through corruption and deceit and the sty lensing of dissent know that you're on the wrong side of history. But that we will extend a hand, if you're willing to unclench your fist.

James Zogby: Bill, your comment on that.

William Quandt: Well, I liked particularly the first sentence where he reached out to the Muslim world and said that we're prepared for new approach based on mutual interest and mutual respect. I thought that was actually for a short pithy sentence, it was exactly the right tone. The concept of respect and dealing with people from that standpoint, it's universal that we should embrace. But particularly in that part of the world where there's so much perception that the United States has treated the Muslim world with kind of arrogance and contemptuous attitude. That was a nice touch. And I hope he means it very sincerely. I was intrigued by the latter formulation about we will reach out to you who have been governing with an iron fist if you will unclench that fist. It doesn't exactly tell you what he -- what the quid pro quo will be, how much liberalization is required before you get more engagement by the United States. And doesn't quite tell us whether he's really going to stop dealing with the dictatorial but friendly regimes in the Middle East. But it was an interesting formulation. But I actually attach more importance to the very first one where he -- I've talked about mutual interest and mutual respect. Because with a country like Iran, for example, which – where we have had very bad relations and Syria, those are words that will resonate with many, many people in those societies who would like a new relationship but think that the United States is only interested in asserting its power and dominating them.

James Zogby: Let's go to California for a call. Caller. Hello.

Caller: Hello.

James Zogby: Yes. Your question.

Caller: Yes. I'm talking about President Obama who can appoint freedom and democracy in the Middle East. And he's dealing with a Muslim dictatorship in the middle east, Abdullah in Jordan, Egypt, the dictatorship in the middle east, President Obama talking about freedom and democracy, and he's dealing with the dictatorship in the world, in Egypt, king Hussein in Jordan, and all this -- he gets crooks –

James Zogby: I'm going to stop you right there. A bit of high personal -- hyperbole I think. But I would like to get bill Quandt's comment.

William Quandt: We have regimes that are far from democratic. I wouldn't say that the regimes that were mentioned, Egypt and Jordan, are the worst by world standards. Certainly they're not. North Korea, they're not like Robert Mugabe. There are many worse regimes in the world. I do think American foreign policy always has to try to find some balance between the more idealistic temptation to say we want to cooperate with our friends, with democracies and encourage human rights. And those are genuine instincts. And where we can, we should be very serious about encouraging and promoting those values. But we also have to be realistic. We deal with a world that's imperfect. I was in government dealing with Anwar Sadat who was no Democrat. But I have no apologies for what we did with Sadat in terms of changing the U.S.-Egyptian relationship. It's been mutually advantageous and promoting peace between Israel and Egypt. Ultimately that was also good for Egypt. Good for Israel. Good for the United States. And hopefully will be good for the region. But we did that knowingly. In conversation with a man who was not democratic. Was that a mistake? Would we have been better off saying to the Egyptian people, we will do nothing to help you recover your territory, to respond to your overtures, to have a new relationship, until you've gotten rid of your authoritarian leader and have free democratic elections, democracy takes a long time. If it reaches Egypt, eventually, I hope it does, it will be an outgrowth of many of the developments that started 20 30r years ago when Egypt entered the peace process and entered the new kind of relationship that is possible. It will take time.

James Zogby: A quick call from the U.K. Caller. Hello.

Caller: Hello.

James Zogby: Your question.

Caller: Actually, just want to talk how Obama, but the perception in the U.S. Outside the U.S., Obama is more down to earth person and human. But Bush is seen as arrogant. Is that the way they are seen in the U.S.?

James Zogby: Bill, quick answer.

William Quandt: To say the least, yes. There's a tremendous amount of goodwill right now expressed toward President Obama. Including by people who did not vote for him. He has this unique moment -- this unique moment where 07% of the public wish him well and will support him -- 70% of the public wish him well and will support him. By the end of the Bush presidency he had lost a lot of the support he once had and many of his critics did view him as out of touch and arrogant and self-absorbed. We're IN A different era. Many of us have high hopes. Probably somewhat unrealistic about the new President. But he's off to a great start.

James Zogby: Bill Quandt, thank you so much for joining dause and I thank all of my -- for joining us and I thank all of my guests. I was occupied with inaugural activities for the last three days. And this show like many of the ones that have preceded it is actually the result of the incredible work of my producer, Deborah ackle and the great crew here at Reuters. Who just make it happen in such an easy way every week. I want to thank them and my guest, Allan Lichtman and for now this is Jim Zogby and we'll see you next week on "viewpoint."