they are voting on trust. how many people for them is trust a key question? for donald trump it is somebody it is someone who has views on multiple things including signature policies, moving a lot on the question of muslim integration. do you find that change in position worse than hers? i want to ask a question you might find in this book. with most reporters you know rather than spend the evening with -- with a rather spend the evening on donald trump or hillary clinton? it depends on the question -- john: it depends on the question. charlie: let's say people are reflecting.

it is not a policy dinner. [speaking simultaneously] charlie: i am not asking that. it is not a deception of policy. it is let's get together and talk about what is going on in 2016. who would be more interested, more provocative and different than the public might assume? john: i don't know -- it depends, provocative, donald trump. but different than the public, private, -- charlie: i am saying the most interesting. john: i don't know. you can imagine both being interesting. charlie: but you talked about this. john: in part. they talkhat stories about, it is mainly about stories. john: what this is about is stories which happened in the public. these are turning points in the

campaign, the country. canhe other question, you remember them being fascinating, saying they were opening up. donald trump had experience deals, dealing with -- real estate in new york is a complicated and strange thing. hillary clinton has seen with extraordinary amount -- charlie: it is clearly her. john: if you care about history and want to have an honest conversation, think about where -- this istic party not the hillary clinton party. in a private dinner -- i guess that is true. trade.ain things like it is in the interest of the .ampaign to ally she would know the contours of

that change really well, having run -- she has been running for the last nine years. what is the country life in 2008, how is it different now? her advisers say she was one of the ones who recognized the sanders thread. she did not, as observers say, he is not a real threat -- she took it seriously. so some people found him attractive. if she was speaking honestly about history and politics, that would be fascinating. charlie: what role does [indiscernible] what conversations they might be having. is, he is herhe closest adviser, who knows her and where she comes from and where her heart is on these issues, but i don't think he plays the role -- you know, i think the campaign is separate from him. i don't see any clattering around him this time.

[speaking simultaneously] 2016, the campinas is much more orderly than 2008. -- the campaign is much more orderly. the candidate has had stumbles, but nothing much where there has been talk about infighting in the brass. charlie: it was a learning experience. they look at 2001 and 2012. john: in the cut and thrust of the campaign, when things are going badly where we seem to have had a pretty good path to the nomination, you have a lot of infighting with clinton, those who have known them over the years from the outside lobbying in advice. you could imagine being more dysfunctional than it has been. the candidate has had plenty of challenges, that hillary clinton has presented to her own campaign. the day-to-day operations have

been smooth. charlie: you said she is not a big campaigner. john: she is. barack obama has said she is not good. charlie: what does that mean? doesn't like the avenue and flow flow oframa -- ebb and the drama? john: when you watch bill clinton give a speech -- obama used to talk about it at the jazz performance where there is a call and response. there is a reading of the room, and then there is preacher mode, and then professor mode. joining in the us is yes him for politics -- everything am i heard from hillary clinton, she gets enjoyment talking about policy, talking about the stuff you don't talk about at a rally so much. thathe rally stuff is, and

political commerce is more difficult for her. it does not give her the joy, talking about policies would. listen say this because to her talk about them. look at the depth of her policies. we don't have that in political campaigns much. a lot of campaigns don't go to that level. charlie: how do you measure her camp engine speech -- her convention speech? b, b-? john: by hillary clinton standards, it was probably b+. maybe a-. it was not -- she had a tough set of acts to follow. charlie: she had a certain presence in the way she delivered. with no donald, that sort of thing. also -- it wass

not a bad speech. there were some speeches that -- as asly, that were performance, that were better. best of obama was the that, do you believe that? john: people are looking at hillary clinton differently. offyet her speech text off every-- ticked box. if you look at the four-day message, hers was, she touched everyone they were trying to touch. anytime you want a speech, it can feel dense and kind of blocky. it had a movement to it you would not expect with the speech doing that much work. joy givewhat does this you? is -- it isy of it the same with you, what is going

on in the country. it is a chance for big national conversation. the joy is having that conversation and figuring out how to -- because of the end is people who are frustrated their company is not going the right direction -- country is not going the right direction. so it is a mystery. you are handing for clues. when you find something that is real, that is enjoyable. as with the writing focuses about. now i see how people have their fears and hopes invested in a person, and i see that person responding to them, and the big mystery is, is donald trump in a speech that was not soaring, they called it the look at nick's in 1968 speech, nixon not known as a great orator. it had lift. he talked about the lift of a drying dream. trump did not have that, but there are ways where it may not matter. we may be at a time where the kind of speech trump gave is a

better speech even though it is not flowery. charlie: how much of that was in the themes of -- the next and speech? 1968,the line order of there was a couple of things. the anti-elite, that was part of the whole republican message. donald trump cares about people on the worksite, that is a very common message from george wallace. the feeling about america being off track because the elite let it there, that is the same message. the feeling that the candidate is saying what he believes, and we have run into a society where nobody says what they believe, and people suffer because nobody speaks up. this candidate is doing it because he shares the irritation with, and you can fill in the blank. when you talk about law and phrases stealing from wallace, who had beaten him

online order in the beginning of 1968 -- charlie: finding relevance not only in the south but also chicago. humphrey, it is fascinating, you look at what humphrey did to block wallace with blue-collar voters. you said you think he is for the working man? look at his record in alabama, thousands of dollars less. he had been a union buster, which is what clinton is doing with trump. for you, look at how he treated his workers. charlie: but is what she has to do, go to his face and make inroads. she may very well be able to. she may easily win because the movement is larger than we all imagine. the discontent is deeper and wider than we know. if he is going to win, that has to be a reality. isn: we know the discontent big, but the question is if you

can final this into the electoral process. if he could get all the people -- charlie: can she come in and steal some of that by casting, reflecting on who he is, and at the same time being able to overcome whatever the resistance is to her? john: yes, yes, i think that is right. overcoming resistance to her is hard. charlie: it has built up over years. john: it has built up over years, and there is more -- it is harder once a person has an opinion of you in the subject of a campaign to convey trust. campaigns are chopped up, given in speeches. how do you convey that? so if you are trying to attack donald trump, somebody learns a piece of news about donald trump producing an ad with his name on it, that could change their mind. what about your honesty?

that has to happen more over time, -- charlie: and over some kind of different exposure. john: hurricane paine -- the campaign does not offer that right now. social media tops things up. so it is easier for the clinton campaign to take donald trump down than anything else. if someone was a wise political strategist and have the ability to tell donald trump away his they take ability to tweet? would they take twitter away from him? john: i think they probably would. what he needs is message discipline. he needs to stop getting in to fights -- yeah. charlie: the khan family. john: that was not on twitter. charlie: but he could not stop, and that is why he employed

twitter, that is always what he does. he goes beyond what has been said. he cannot resist. and he thinks he is misunderstood. where he thinks he is understood. john: after four days of the democrats killing the ground and preparing for people to see him as lacking the temperament for the job, his actions fall into that preprepared territory. and you have mitch mcconnell said he was not a viable candidate because he lacks discipline. and marco rubio said a version of the same thing, a couple of months ago. he said whether he can show he can occupy the office on questions of national security that he will have to deal with. the temperament question is one everybody is watching for. and twitter, while it thrills people who love him, it runs into problems on temperament. he needs to do is

not thrilled the people who love him. it seems to me, if he said, i shot people on fifth avenue, they still love him. needs to expand his group. he can do it with blue-collar workers, and college-educated publicans who are leaning left. charlie: they talk a lot more. poll.they are in the cbs hillary clinton is increasing her lead with that group. that is where republicans traditionally always win. to the book,g back this is acknowledgments. first my wife and, who has not only read this book but also 27es me better in the last years with putting up with my writing. dan, you tood cannot imagine what a joy it is to come out from behind a desk and join your world. your questions are my favorite things in the world.

what are their questions? john: their questions are the simple ones. they are 12 and 14. 14 soon, in a matter of days. are simple about the world and how you treat people and why somebody is doing how are we supposed to ,ehave when something happens and it is a beginner's mind, looking at all of this stuff a fresh, which is great. when you get down in the narrow fight of something, you forget people are still coming to this a new, and all of those original -- and gets you thinking about those things. thatie: why do you think is so important? steve jobs said you have to look at things with a fresh eye. you cannot be hampered by all of the other stuff we gather in a lifetime. there are things you have to look at with fresh eyes and is just the beginning. you are hinting with a fresh can

of paint. john: because you can't ignore those questions or you don't want to, you have to wrestle also with things you accept as wisdom that ate so. -- ain't so. charlie: only a 14-year-old can explain. what were you in search of? john: at first it was the race. had we seen a pattern, and if we see a pattern, what can we expect next? if we can't see what is next, it tells us it is new, and what does that tells us? peopleer stories are with high stakes made a choice, and they paid off or it was a failure. charlie: these are public choices in the pursuit of power. and how do people in pursuing power, when they give

up what is inside them, how does the public react? if you look at the election of 1824, one of the people we don't talk a lot about -- people look at donald -- andrew jackson is a demagogue. we hear that in politics today. you heard jackson say, don't let choices be determined by a group of elites. we hear that from donald trump and bernie sanders as well. so you see these things coming up again and again. charlie: conventions chains and political parties change. next time out, it will be different. 1968, 1972 was different. john: so are we in a moment of radical change, or how big is what we are going through right now? charlie: is it radical and transformative? john: there is a research matter -- some of these stories start

out on broadcast. i have a fantastic researcher in --torian, he would sound me send me mountains of papers from 1824, old pdfs of newspapers i would read as i was covering this campaign. and the books, you can get them digitally. you can carry them around. in the old days, you could not. charlie: does this election remind you of any particular election odor john: 1968. 1954 -- he was a surprise. people liked his plainspoken nest. charlie: but race was a part of this. is it a part of that? john: it was. 1964 -- charlie: different from black, white? john: i don't know. charlie: or does it come from the same feel?

john: it comes from economic feels. and what is different with it -- you can be fearful your job will be replaced and not be thinking about race. when donald trump talks about immigration, people are thinking about race. you get people thinking about race and their jobs being replaced, they are all a part of a coalition. onetricky thing is labeling as a racist move because they are worried their jobs are getting replaced. so that has been true of the republican party since wallace. somebody appeals to line order, including democrats appeal to line order, sometimes sending a signal. charlie: hillary clinton believes in line order. john: when a talk about useators in the cities and look loaded language like that, people hear an attempt to play on white fears about african-american inner-city. they are very volatile and quite

dangerous. but not everybody is fearing for their safety, has a racial-based fear. so the mixing of all of that is what makes these issues so difficult. ♪

♪ charlie: do you believe that saysd trump means what he or simply says what he says

because most of all he cares about winning and power and everything, the end justifies the means? john: i think that is mostly right. the terms of the victory, obviously you know, how he gets there is only go shovel. negotiate -- is all negotiable. negotiation comes back again and again. and what constrains him are the facts that certain decisions make the end result untenable. he will not say something that will lose him support of all of -- areas charlie: who does he really admire? john: he would say his dad. charlie: beyond them. their mother, you would say that is obvious.

when she talks about her mother, it is self-serving. john: it is the first level. anytime you talk about your family and a political speech, it isn't self-serving. what you want to do as you know better than anyone is kind that, what is really behind that. what would your mother tell you before you left the house? or when you came home from college? getting at the story. the emotionalism is there, but get at what is really there, not presented facing forward. that is true of all politics. charlie:/i was reading about normandy recently and how those young kids died. searing thing of mothers protecting meaning of life. what you want to know donald trump's relationship with his dad was really like and his kids, those are both things used

in the public relations fear. but what they really were like -- charlie: what does excellence mean? hillary clinton too. au look at and say, that is -- ity i admire because is one thing to debate or maybe it is all true that to win is excellence of winning, equality, a sense of doing the thing that matters. talk about some of these stories in here. i have been fascinated by this marathon. hamlet if ever there was a hamlet in american politics. on the tarmac. john: and decides at the last minute he cannot do it, which gives bill clinton -- charlie: he decided at the last moment -- was he always going to say no odor john: the plane is on the tarmac.

charlie: he decided not to do it, but not that he always -- he did not know himself. i mean, why did he not do it? because of failure, because of -- john: that is the eternal question with bodo, whether he could not take that final leap in what could have been a failure against george bush, who at the time was quite popular. nobody would think it was a short -- smart move to run george bush? charlie:charlie: what do we learn from this? the power of words. there are politicians who have great power in campaigns that never win, but they are never the nominee. we heard the ending for governor .uomo the power of those words.

they live on. people never nominated. .ame with ted kennedy played the dream, shall never dry -- live. look back at, i don't know, but you can imagine them looking back at bernie sanders, elizabeth warren who said 18 years past. cuomo, some people never get the nomination. and if people think there is no way we will win against this president,'s and he does not jump in the race, bill clinton does jump in the race and ends up winning. charlie: there were people that knew him and said he is going for vice president. people -- andr this is somebody who ended up in the cabin. others that he was destined to and he wast obviously a risk taker. why not?

bill bradley would technology should have run. kennedy told what obama, run now, run as fast as you can or as soon as you can because you cannot wait. chris christie, the same deal. probably should have run in 2012. so now that jet kennedy is saying the same thing when he was the losing vice presidential nominee -- yeah. so it is 2016, and charles barkley says, slow down a little bit. truman said the same thing. he said i got to go now, or they will come get me. so i would not say he started it all, but after jackson loses in in4, he is running for 1828 1825. we think him starting early is a modern thing. charlie: ronald reagan ran four times. john: beginning the campaign you -- as you and the last one. charlie: and ted cruz.

john: running from the republican convention in -- charlie: taking a stand because if things go bad for donald trump you can say, i saw this coming on, and i could've stopped it. i took a great risk. john: there was a parallel with what rockefeller was trying to atin 1964 when he booed the convention for goldwater. rockefeller could have, he did have his money -- moment again. he had that stand in 1964 where ted cruz got the same kind of reception. charlie: that he would come back in 1968. john: they did not see that conservative direction they moved in. that did not -- charlie: what are your stories in whistle top from the founding fathers? -- whistlestop from the founding fathers? jefferson -- john: jefferson against adams,

and aaron burr goes into the house and takes 36 ballots. what i end up writing about is this guy james calendar, the first attack dog who nobody really knows about because history has not been kind to him. but in the press, the battles were in the press. it was the golden age of the american press. they were vicious to each other. they were fighting about and being so vicious about was the direction of the country. this was real. these were men who believed in these ideas. they thought they got it from the whole experimental lapse. this was not just a twitter war. these people were deeply engaged in the set of ideas. charlie: [indiscernible] john: they were big decisions. charlie: about federalism and things. yes, do we support france, do we support england, a country we have just broken off from? charlie: all that stuff in

hamilton. john: and calendar, who was working for jefferson, who says the fighting in the press, it is so untidy, keeps funding it. then calendar turns against him after jefferson wins and is the first to disclose jefferson had an affair with sally hemmings, his slave. they are the first sex scandals in america. charlie: was hamilton someone that people like? john: he was very good. [speaking simultaneously] you seem to be someone who was so ambitious that some people said i am not -- john: that is right. in the musical, there are a few of those throwaway lines. you know, who is this guy speaking for six hours? he won't shut up. there is that line where burr says, talks about the federal

register papers and says hamilton worked 51 -- i can remember, but he is irritated by the constant and also in vs. the fullthat line hamilton, he trading, show up, constantly going, always in your face, which is what made him so impressive. charlie: always observing his ambitions because he was chief of staff at the center of the action to george washington. he knew he needed at all filled experience for the political career that he wanted. john: right, the glory that he wanted. part of itt's assume also was the patriot he believed that the best way to serve, not just about what this will do. he genuinely believed in patriotism. genuinely believed that he to make ae it all,

sacrifice. john: right, right. is easy, living is harder. another rate line george washington said in the musical, which is the opposite of wholehearted this, there is something harder. so we could keep going for an hour. charlie: i will take one more in the campaign against gravity -- governing. john: mayor cuomo gave that quote. so thinking of rhetorical presidencies, 1948, truman is a disaster on the stump. we talk about hillary clinton, truman was horrible. he would just read, show people the top of his head, so they hatched a scheme to have him start speaking off-the-cuff, as they called it. he starts learning to speak to

people, goes on the whistlestop our, three of them, thousands along the country. researchers telling them in each county he is going to, so he knows about the town. he gets down off the back of a train and counts teeth in the horses mouth and nose how old the horse is. everybody is shocked the president of the united states knows how to do this. he was not political. he was not a good orator. he was not good at campaigning, grinding it out stop by stop. biggest what are the differences between bill clinton and barack obama. bill clinton does not make as recent speeches who we are as america -- aspiration speeches. think whatout i brings governing to the idea of explaining -- he explains it as we now know, the great explainer. obama is in some sense more poetic and with the view.

it as if he is looking at himself do it. he is amused by the fact wiki knows what he is doing. john: you mean obama? yeah. charlie: clinton takes a delight and saying, if you believe in then yous, this, should vote the other guy. but on the other hand, if you want the better part of your soul, you should vote for me. when i made that case for hillary clinton, she is a change maker, that is his argument, required following him down the lane, change does not happen by magic, here is a history of this in her life. if you want changed -- he was trying to make a different argument for change. i am wondering how much will that work in politics anymore. new people go to a rally and look for an argument or go to a rally and look for a huzzah?

this is not passionate for hillary clinton. as bill clinton did in his speech, it is more fun -- charlie: a passionate argument, that is not we are, barack obama. that is not we are, talking example,ebody -- for muslims entering the country. that is not who we are as americans. look at us and think about what we stand for, what are our values. this person is not who we are. i am america. that you can have passion is not shutting out people who are coming in. barack obama gave passionate speeches that did not have argument. they are, we are all in it together. not red or blue as an argument anymore -- that is my point. charlie: clinton is aspiration but -- obama is more inspiration

, clinton is explaining policies. here is an interesting thing which brings us back to where we began. this is president obama today, really interesting, i think. the notion of where we are seeing the relation of things coming down on donald trump's head, they will make little mayerence in the past or reach some kind of precipitating and saytallizing force there was a moment in which he was defined and never could sleep. if you can see the future, you are better than i am, but here it is. president obama: the republican nominee is unfit to serve as president. week.hat the last he keeps on -- i have said it for the last week. he keeps on proving it. he does not appear to have basic knowledge around critical issues in europe and the middle east,

in asia. means he is woefully unprepared to do this job. this is not just my opinion. i think what has been repeatedng is the denunciations of his statements by leading republicans. having to repeatedly say, in very strong terms, what , whys said is unacceptable are you still endorsing him? this is a situation where he has an episodic -- this is not a situation where he has an episodic gaff. this is daily and weekly where they are distancing themselves from statements he is making. there has to be a point at which you say, this is not somebody that i can support for president of the united states. charlie: i have seen that, not

as dramatic. it is dangerous, all of those things. has that in a part of what we have said all along, which is because it is the moment, we are noticing -- is this part of the standard rhetoric, this person believes in the wrong thing, all these other things rather than, he does not have the quality of character or mind to be in that office? it is not somebody you want to do, as she said, be baited by a tweet. john: this campaign has always been unfit versus not trustworthy. it has always been, clinton people want to make him see unfit, and then him on trustworthy. ♪ ?c+sv

♪ i think people care deeply in america about character. and trust is about character. it has to do the not so much with behavior and personality. temperament. john: well, but i don't know. this is what we are finding out. when people think of trust, we think of them in the oval office, making tough decisions. charlie: trust them to tell me the truth, trust them to be transparent about government? john: yeah. the fitness argument has always

been, and the trump people acknowledge -- acknowledgment, there has been challenged. charlie: in terms of character. there have been a lot of times we have found people who we believed did a lot of very good things as a public leader, but we did not have a huge appreciation of them or approval of their character? [speaking simultaneously] john: if you look at fdr's private character, people would find him -- charlie: philandering. i am talking about other kinds of things. [speaking simultaneously] so, let's talk about honesty. you think of honesty being central to the presidency, the apocryphal story of washington, , do not tell a lie, honest abe so honest that was his central characteristic, fdr used honesty.

charlie: what he did in terms of trying to get through the emancipation proclamation was ended slavery. john: and letting to people on opposing sides think you are on their side. not honesty. you think i am with you -- charlie: doing things that were right to the line. well i think we can both agree that honesty is a quality in presidents that some of the great ones have not shown it, and they have been successful when they have not always been honest. charlie: bob gates has said to me and to others that the one quality all the best president he worked for had or knew about was [indiscernible] that reagan, he included reagan and eisenhower and roosevelt. always had it temperament.

he made that point. john: when president obama said george herbert walker bush is on the great underestimated presidents, he also had that temperament. the question is, what do you mean by it. there is a different amount of qualities, cool under pressure, not knowing what you don't know, having the flexibility to uphold to opposing ideas in your head at the same time. [speaking simultaneously] john: and keats, they all grab that at one time or another. what constitutes temperament, and that changes over time as we assess these presidents. charlie: this was the promotional material for your book. this tells the stories of reporters rehashing at the bar. each one adding an unknown tidbit or short-handed reference cuomo'ss in the tank,

plane to new hampshire, reagan seizing a reporter. they are not just junkies, they are used stories full of junk back. before theilures microphone, and the crackup of long planned strategies. forgotten stories of the bruising campaigns of the 19th century, showing the most modern elements of the presidential campaign were born before the roads were paved and electric lights that the convention hall. i repeat all of that in the sense, you set out to look for those stories through all of these books. when did you do that? john: [laughter] i was trying to keep up with you. it started 25 years ago in a bookstore. charlie: it began 25 years ago? john: yeah, there was a whole

bookshop of teddy white books. and then you by the gary books. buy, boys on the bus, jewels with cover books, jack your mom's books, and then you collect them through the years. always what i am doing is try to figure out what is going on in the current campaign by looking back at history. as you are reading, you get animated by the adventure you paid for. charlie: what is i think, what makes this really great meeting, it is that politics is about the stakes are so high. it is about power. it is about the capacity to make a decision to send men and women into harm's way. it is a capacity to have in your hands the destiny to influence a destiny of your country. something we have written about and talked about for so long. it is accumulative experience of

so many amazing stories and people, all of that that makes it the largest play, even though it is not a play, in the world. we are the most powerful country, the most admired in the not although we have things to like. it.have to go out and win you have to win it day in and day out. it is not like -- eisenhower had the advantage where he had a unique experience. they have people that need to set their sights on it. and jet kennedy, ronald reagan, bill clinton, say this is what i want. i want my chance. john: it is absolutely the story of personal drive and achievement. and they are aware the public comes in, where are the attached to the candidate. charlie: they are the deciders. john: what are they wanting for

their country? campaigns are to feel control over their country a little bit. what do they want control over, and what is it that appeals to them. charlie: what kind of country do they want us to be john:? john:when you have speakers of the conventions referring back to the words written by those founders, the continuity each campaign can bring with the american experience, going back to first principles, this is what we are and what we believe in, it is the beginning like gathering the family around the table and saying, you have gotten off course. let's go back to first principles. and then there is debate about what those first principles are. liberty and equality and what they mean in the current context. you would not have those conversations during a regular day, so a campaign is everybody to the table, or it should. charlie: it is the story of 50 states. although -- sometimes it is only the

story of 12 states. charlie: the expression of the will. in the end it is 10% of the people. 40% know who they want to vote. they will vote for republicans, 40% will be democrats. it is in the middle those that will decide the election. john: there are more than the last few elections with the disappointment of the candidates on both sides. charlie: what is the answer to the question, is this a transformative election, or is it too soon john:? wen:i think if donald -- know the transformation has happened on the republican side. the republican party is undergoing a transformation. if donald trump wins or loses, if he wins, it is going through a -- transformation. there are republicans were no longer find comfort in their party. if donald trump loses, if he loses, there are plenty of republicans who will seize the

first movers advantage to define what the new party means. but a lot of people will say, you undermined him, that is not my party. and that transformation is big. dickerson, my friend and someone i depend on to help me understand politics. my congratulations to john dickerson. john: thank you, charlie. ♪

mark: i am mark halperin. john: i am john heilemann. john: and with all due respect to donald trump's campaign that everything in his campaign is hunky-dory, there is someone you might want to call. >> reince priebus is unhappy now. >> incredibly upset with trump. >> quote apoplectic. >> apoplectic. >> quote apoplectic. >> apoplectic. >> apoplectic. >> well, you know, a couple of things bother me. ♪ john: happy apocalypse now, or at least apo