the pregame chatter when i was at the fox news debated in orlando this week wasn't about the candidates, it was about the lavish spread put on by the co-sponsor of google. everything from shrimp on a stick to a smoothie bar to a guy mixing root beer floats. but the post-game chatter was about whether rick perry had blown. it "politico" going so far with their headline "texas toast?" at least it was a question mark. it was the ankors at cnn who peppered perry with difficult questions and tried to foment a fight with mitt romney. >> governor perry, governor romney has been hammering you on your idea of turning social security back to the states repeatedly. can you explain separately how 50 separate social security systems are supposed to work? >> how do you feel being criticized by a number of these other candidates on the stage for being too soft on immigration, sir? governor romney, the other day governor perry called romney care socialized medicine. >> governor romney, i hate to follow up here, but called governor perry unelectable based on his says. >> have the media decided to take perry down? joining us now here in washington, jennifer rubin, "washington post" blogger who writes "the right turn" column. in new york, david shuster, chief substitute anchor for "current tv's" "countdown with keith olbermann." and craig crawford, blogs at craigcrawford.com. no question he stumbled on the stage. is there any question that the media in general, even fox news, trying to ruin the governor of texas? >> look, the media lacks a focus on who won, who lost. for the media to write him off with the texas toast headline that you referred to in "politico" as insanity, there are a lot more debates. we're several months away from anybody talking about the iowa caucuses and how that process is going to work. for somebody to suggest that he's toast or to write off anybody or suggest that somebody is simpley -- is done is bizarre. i think it gets to one of the narratives that you talk good a long time. that is as the media tends to be so focused in the short term that they ignore the substance of what's from the debates. >> perry leading the polls. and jennifer rubin, those on your sides of the aisle apoplectic, one editorial says, "yikes," saying perry's performance is close to disqualifying. what explains the send of panic in the conservative pundit-ocracy? >> it's not just this devil rays, he's had two other debates -- this debate, he's had two other debates in which he did well in the first and poorly in the second. it's a series of these. there's a realization by people in the right side of the aisle that he has lacked spans in this contest. that he repeats the platitudes of what he's done in texas and gestures to texas but hasn't set forth any specifics. i think he would -- >> you would say the panic is justified? >> i would. and talking to people in the party operatives, people in florida where he lost badly in the straw poll on saturday -- >> hold on, a straw poll of 2,500 people. remember how we said the iowa straw poll was important because michele bachmann won it? i don't think so. >> if you're the front-runner and participate and try to win and lose, that's significant. we lost also badly in michigan. i think there's something to this. >> let me go to craig crawford, still on location in orlando. those fox anchors went not only after rick perry pretty hard but invited rick santorum and mitt romney to beat him up, as well. no wonder you get headlines the next day saying "perry under fire." >> yeah, what we've seen with the media on the flip side of what david said, rushing to write off candidates, i think it's crazy to name front-runners this early. i mean, look at the history of that. we've had people like howard dean and wesley clark named front-runners this early. hillary clinton, rudy giuliani, fred thompson, the list goes on. i don't know why we have to name front-runners so early. and this group here these last three days in talking to these delegates, howard, they are soft on perry and romney. that's what led the way for cain. they are very much taken aback by what they see as governor perry's liberal views on treating illegal immigrants. they are underwhelmed by romney's, what they see as his techno carr technocratic style and are tired of the bickering -- >> i want to bring this back to the media experience. david shuster, you worked at fox a long time ago. it's a news network with a lot of conservative anchors, obviously -- >> i still have friends there, too. >> conservative hosts, i should say, not anchors. isn't this the third debate where the fox moderators, megyn kelly, asked tough questions of the candidates? >> look, they did ask some tough questions. but there were also questions, howard, that were frankly incredibly silly and stupid. for megyn to ask mitt romney, oh, are you going to call president obama socialist, too, or for bret barrett to say, wait a second, how are you going to turn this country around, candidates, you have 30 seconds, i mean, it is not that simple. to the extent that journalists -- yes, they did ask some sharp questions, but for journalists it seemed they ran out of time. they were throwing things up there -- >> what's wrong with seeing whether romney would take the bait and pander to the right by using the "s" word, socialism, against president obama? >> the better way to enlighten people and voters is to say what do you view as socialism, as opposed to saying do you agree with a conservative label that may or may not apply. they could have asked specifics about what is your view about socialism and then how much of that is president obama's? likewise, instead of saying, how are you going to turn the country around in 30 seconds, why don't you ask a specific question like what's the most important thing that you can do to turn the country around. instead they suggest, this is all simplistic, problems can be solved simply. it contributes to the dumbing down of the electorate. and for all of the smart questions that fox asks, there were also pretty stupid ones at that debate. >> all right. now -- >> howard, my -- my favorite debate ever was the california debate with arnold schwarzenegger and all the crowd when they had no moderator. when the candidates just talked to each other, asked each other questions. >> you're going to put journalists out of work, craig. >> i don't like journalists as moderators to begin with. [ all talking at once ] >> let me ask you -- >> wait a second. if you're going to have journalists as moderators, pick people who have experience as politics. bret hume, there are folks at fox news who bring a certain level of sophistication to politics. when fox news goes to people who don't have much experience, haven't covered campaigns, the result is sometimes you have inane questions that come out and, frankly, waste everybody's time. >> i didn't think there were that many inane questions. and chris wallace certainly has experience covering milk. before i go to you, jennifer, the youtube searches, google, did that add to the debate, or it was a distraction? >> it certainly brought the most provocative moment of all when the gay soldier asked a question on video. and the crowd reacted. and we've been talking about it ever since. i actually think some of those questions, if they're carefully chosen, are -- they're more from the heart. they're from the grassroots. those are the kinds of questions i actually liked best. i don't like journalists as moderators in these things. one technical thing i liked about the last couple of debates is letting the crowd react. i don't like seeing journalists constantly admonishing the crowd to shut up and that's one reason these have been more entertaining debates is they've just opened up the spigot to let the audience be part of the show. >> for those who didn't see it, stephen hill is the gay soldier who appeared on youtube and talked about how he had to keep his sexuality private because he didn't want to lose his job. the crowd booed. it was not a credible moment. i'm surprised none of the anchors and the media generally haven't made more of that. as there was a booing at the cnn debate when wolf blitzer asked a question about a -- what would you do if somebody didn't have health insurance, died in an emergency room, the crowd cheered. the crowds can do whatever they want. i think some of this behavior should not go unremarked by those of us in the news business. i want to turn to you, jennifer -- >> yeah, let me -- >> go ahead. >> what about the candidates? i mean, the candidates saw this crowd booing a soldier. i can't believe none of them stood up to the mob -- >> let me respond to that actually. it wasn't the entire crowd. there were about two or three people. and i think just as the media perhaps shouldn't ignore it, they shouldn't elkage rate it and make -- exaggerate it and make it seem as though the entire room was booing. they weren't. >> you have been blogging about chris christie, governor of new jersey. maybe he's going to reconsider, maybe he's going to get in. this is a guy who said on numerous occasions, he doesn't feel ready to run for president. what does he have to do, commit suicide, to convince you people in the press that he's not running for president? isn't this kind of a media fantasy you're indulging? >> no, he's changing his mind. this is based on real reporting. i've spoken to people within the christie campaign. they are no longer denying it. they're no longer using the "suicide" line. >> he's not going to kill himself? >> he's not going to kill himself. he may run. i'm told he doesn't have a mitch daniels problem, a wife who's not supportive. he is talking to real people. that's donors, that's policy thinkers within the republican party. this is a reconsideration. it's real. he has seen the meltdown of rick perry. he has seen a lack of specificity in terms of bold reforms, and he is now reconsidering that maybe i am the best that the republican party has. >> what is it -- i have half a minute here. where journalists and columnists are always pining for somebody who's not in the race to get into the race. let me stick with jennifer. >> right. i think part of that -- [ all talking at once ] >> let me stick with jennifer, please. >> thank you. >> go ahead. >> i think there's two things. one, this reflects in large part what we're hearing from members of the party. so i think it's not the press that's always pining. i think constituents, voters are always pining for the perfect candidate, the man in the white horse. >> conservative columnists love chris christie. >> well, they do. i'm sure when he enters, there will be criticism of him, too. they'll probably be looking for someone else. i think it's human nature. i think there's something else -- >> some of them love jeb bush, some of them love sarah palin. we're talking about people not in the race. that benefits people whether it's chris christie, sarah palin, it suggests the mainstream republicans the current field is inadequate. that helps somebody who wants to get in late. >> to be continued. david shuster, craig crawford, jennifer rubin, thanks for joining us. when we come back, the book the white house has been trying to discredit. author ron us suskind. whether it can be done safely and responsibly. at exxonmobil we know the answer is yes. when we design any well, the groundwater's protected by multiple layers of steel and cement. most wells are over a mile and a half deep so there's a tremendous amount of protective rock between the fracking operation and the groundwater. natural gas is critical to our future. at exxonmobil we recognize the challenges and how important it is to do this right. ron suskind had all kinds of cooperation from the white house for his book on the administration. talks from top advisers and nearly an hour from the president himself. turns out the obama team doesn't much like the book and has pushed back hard, which some top officials denied the book quote them as saying. >> what we know is that very simple things, facts that could be ascertained, dates, titles, statistics, quotes, are wrong in this book. i think that -- in fact, one passage seems to be lifted almost entirely from wikipedia in the book. that analysis is wrong. tim geithner, who lived it, just told you that it bears no resemblance to the reality he lived. >> the book is, "confidence men: wall street and washington and the president." welcome. you spent a couple of years on this book. you had cooperation, access. and now the white house has mounted this campaign -- there's no other word -- this campaign against you. this must tick you off. >> the fact of the matter is, howie, when the book was completed through this summer, i got a sense that the reaction would be different than what it might have been in the spring. when we were coming at the end of the reporting after the interview with the president and the final areas of reporting, the president was sort of riding a very strong wave. i think the white house felt good about many of these disclosures being in a part of the presidenty that they viewed as over. that the president had evolved and moved past it. that's what he says strongly. >> then things got worse -- >> that looked like a false spring quickly by the end of the book. what i did at the finish of the book, as i've pointed out, is i went back to everybody again and again to say, look, this is what the book says next to your name. let's talk about it so you understand and you're ready for that. and frankly, the white house knew everything that was in the book prior to publication. >> there is a lot of reporting in this book. you talked to a lot of people. you have internal memos. when the white house press secretary stands up and says you're plagiarizing a passage, that is a concerted effort to discredit you. >> yeah. i've had a lot of pushback. sometimes we get a lot of pushback when the books come out. they've pulled back a curtain on something that heretofore has not been revealed. bob woodward has had examples, others, as well. i during the bush era on all three books, certainly the first book which really was similar to this in pulling back the curtain of the bush administration, they were vigorous. if you recall, they filed a frivolous federal investigation against me and paul o'neil, which of course dissolved a few months later. >> you're used to this. but hasn't the obama team succeeded in this respect -- when your book first came out, the headlines were about dysfunctional administration, president -- inexperienced president not ready to govern, and women in the white house felt that they were being given short shift. now all of the stories and interviews and i guess we're doing it here about the credibility of ron suskind. so was this a tactic to make you the issue? >> i think that as people read the book, they're often surprised to say this is not sensational. this is very well sourced. it's complete. it's credible, and in the book, there are long passages of responses from the key actors to all of the major disclosures. that was part of the idea of making the book complete as a text in and of itself. i think much of the attacks, they came prior to the book being in people's hands. now that it is in people's hands, that's turning. >> does it disappoint you that some of the chris simple of people in this administration has been so personal toward you? >> you know, you know as well as anybody it's a tough town. many of the folks who were praising me mightily during the bush era, these are the most definitive works on george bush, this is the historical record, now are doing their best to struggle really to discredit those books and discredit this book. >> are you suggesting it's ideological that some people who were liberals are perfectly happy to have you go after president bush and not so happy to have you go after barack obama? >> certainly many commentators have pointed that out, not just me. i think that's part of the way this works. when they look at this president, i think that this book will help people on balance get involved in a more thorough analysis of how we got here. this is a difficult time for everyone in america. we're feeling enormous pressure, is america in a decline. this economic nightmare is growing, it seems, and i think the point of the book is to look at that clearly so we can have a more fulfilling and more productive discussion, and i think that's already happening. >> let's get into the details. most of the attention has turned on anita dunn, former white house communications director, because of a fairly explosive thing you quote her as saying, that the white house would be in court for hostile workplace in terms of the attitudes toward women. you actually played a tape of your interview with anita dunn for a "washington post" reporter. here's the full quote -- >> yes. >> "i remember one i told valerie," valerie jarrett, white house official, "if it weren't for the president, this place would be a court for hostile workplace." in the book you took out the six words, "if it weren't for the president" which teams to me to change the meaning of what anita dunn said. >> i said and the "washington post" has reported that that was at anita dunn's request. at the end of the process, i called back anita, as i said, i called back all the key sources. i talked to her about the quote. she was vigorous in saying, "this is the way i think this is the quote -- this quote is most appropriate as to what i believed." the issue about the president per se is one that i said, anita, i never was sure had i meant by that. if it's a hostile workplace and the president is not involved, as you and others have said, what difference would it make if he were there or not, she says, you're right, that doesn't make send. the point -- >> whether she asked you to or not, taking those six words out really changes the impact of what she is saying. why didn't you as an author give us a full quote so we can make up our minds? >> well, the fact is, howie, that with a quote like that, you press the subject. and you say, is this what you really mean. and if so, how and if not, why not, so that they can stand up and take ownership of this quote when the lights come up. this was something i did for anita dunn. and this is the quote that she accepted, to say this is what i truly believe. the core of the quote about it being a hostile workplace does not change. her point was that i said it in present tense in the spring. looking back, this is true to what i believe, that's how the quote appear in the book. >> she continues to be unhappy with your rendering of it. >> i think that issue is settled. >> christina romo, adviser, talking about the white house staff, how the boys, so to speak, treated the women. "i felt like a piece of meat after some of the meetings." now saying i can't imagine saying that. >> christina and i talked for many, many hours. she said many, many thing. when the first call came, i simply don't think she remembered. i talked to her later. she didn't remember saying that. she said, "i can't imagine saying that." christina said many, many things that were in line with that quote or in many cases even more dramatic than that quote. but again, this is part of the pushpack that's happening where the white house is calling everybody and saying, are you loyal to the president, certainly say something now which in some ways kicks up dust about this book that we feel hurts him. >> you're making a serious allegation. you're saying that some of these former officials are disputing what they said to you because they're under pressure from the obama white house, not because they disagree with your rendering of events. >> in a moment like this when the president is seen under attack by a book in which they are a main cha