democratic all of their lives, john kennedy was a candidate, ronald reagan got 73% of their votes. . .

and then what do you take from the focus group to put into your polls that strike you why didn't i think of that or the way the express' it? the way im trying to tell the tutors of the way they informed the polls a? >> guest: the issues are different things. frequently when i started in a country i haven't worked before and just like here the politicians are fighting each other, they have strong views and think they know everything and so, one thing i will do is a focus group open-ended, let people talk and almost enviably people will listen and say i can consider that, it opens up

people's mind is to discover people are much more open minded about these issues and they haven't locked in preformed the way political class's login wasilla part of it is opening the process at the beginning to think afresh about it. but sometimes it's a way of getting leaders in touch. nelson mandela came out of prison, 27 years in prison. they were involved in negotiations, adding three and half years into negotiations would reading the constitution. when i reported to him people were saying you folks are out of touch, you are hanging out, you know, with the wealthy white people. you've gone over to the other side. you are losing touch with people. nelson mandela's first reaction was 27 years in jail we can be a little patient about the negotiations to form a constitution. it took a lot longer for us to do a constitution in america

what he planned to a focus group and listened to people and got it immediately. and two things, it sped up the negotiations also spent more time going after reporting to people what was happening, bringing more people into the process of what was happening. so it impacted him when he saw how out of touch they work. >> host: so politicians have this capacity -- this is one thing you and i share there is honor and purpose, politicians are complex people. we tend to attribute to their complex complexities, nefarious motives and what not. but there is much purpose. i don't know why you would even get in the business in any country if there wasn't an element of purpose. but speaking of mandela and london and u.k., you've done all these international campaigns, james dawes them, life on them, and james and i have done them

together, we all -- you spoke to the universality of the windel of focus groups and being responsive to them. the universe of reality of what is the fight, whenever we talk to anybody about doing national campaigns they are not awe struck but dumfounded why do you going place you can't understand the language, but there is greater universe of -- universality. there's only one way to tell a story. talk about the elements of campaigning then we will talk about the impediments, cultural impediments that i am sure cause -- >> guest: there's lots of impediments. and language, the first language is to have simultaneous for translation and things like that but still, it's not quite the same so you always have the local partners who are natives and work with research

organizations that are from the country so there is always a collaboration that's ever americans coming in and displeasing what's happening in the country. but, you know, again, any campaign has to have a successful campaign. has to be focused -- >> there is that kind of operative modifier. >> guest: in my view the strong successful campaigns, you know, pose a clear choice and in the title of this book is dispatches from the war. the war room was the famous nefarious clinton campaign -- >> host: never duplicated. >> guest: but all these campaigns had words, but it's what war -- very different in character, but there is a common need to get everybody on the same page, a common understanding, communicating quickly, sharing information with each other, you know, in

real time. this is not a bureaucracy. campaigns have to move fast. information moves fast. that is what baala war room means. >> host: can we take a step back? the war room has become so ubiquitous in the conversation that we forget it was your introduction of it in the 1992 campaign was a new paradigm. i like to think that any campaign i've worked in was sharing of the information that may be because the level i was working. but you guys did a couple of things, what people tend to think of the war is one you described. rapid response, which is unique. no argument gone on done. and think about this today. we had our biggest piece of technological equipment was a fax, you could reach 100 people with one button. the cell phones work 20 pounds and you need to strolls and the

guy that lost had to carry the cell phone. that's one. >> guest: pagers. >> host: my god, i'm having a bad flashbacks. so you did rapid response and a time there was no technological capacity and no present technological capacity to do it. but also this is a good lesson because you advise ngos and corporations and all that. my husband is sort of famous for saying this and he probably stolen from you as he is famous for stealing most things. why wouldn't you want everybody from the secretary to the candidate to know the strategy is the strategy is a secret than the people are not -- >> guest: there are big differences. first, you have campaigns. i've been involved in campaigns in mexico, and which you have divided power centers. separate media, separate communication. the war room is a decision to centralize to read a lot of campaigns are reluctant to centralize. people lose power when you

centralize but it's a measure of a campaign's willingness to form a war room. winners tell the history, as, you know, when you win your the smartest and your ideas are the smartest. i'm sure if you had won in '92 we would be talking about your war room or your form of the war room. because that all of these leaders i write about won for the elections in tumultuous times, political crisis, obviously south africa has a point of transformation. so these were tumultuous times and, you know, so they were defining elections and the impact the other elections, so we had the war room in little rock but in that room was the chief adviser for tony blair who observed the war room -- >> host: by the way being in little rock was a big change, getting out of the epicenter. if people wanted to know -- the

press wanted to know what was going on they would have to go down -- >> guest: bill clinton's judgment and one of the smartest things he did. we all hated it but it changed us. brought us all together. you constantly are discussing, sharing, keeping the focus. we came to the end of that election in the last week he put up ads attacking us on a failed governor of a small state and should arkansas barron state. >> host: we did. we went to every state. hopscotch the body man on the plane and went to every state. >> guest: bill clinton wanted to respond to those as we said no. what's the fight about? the want the fight about experience. we won the fight about change in the economy. we are going to put up on the air and at schools all the nobel laureate saying our economic plan creates 8 million jobs and is the best thing for america and we are going to put everything behind the added that talks about our economic plan and we are not going to respond.

no, you had to hold him down. he wanted to defend his virtue. we did groups and research but in the end of about at the end what's the site about, can we stay on our definition of the fight? we did polling to track that show it was working by not responding -- polls are an important piece by the way but it was around a central project of the is keeping control of the fight is about. >> host: so you're bringing up -- i love when candidates are forced, they're has to be brave somebody -- people understand the role of somebody in the campaign even if it is to get everybody to move push's together or stand up to the candidate. most people think they're better campaign managers. it's like being your own lawyer, being your own campaign manager is disastrous tataris the instance you have to get in their face and then there's the instance of, and we both experienced this, looking at the

war polls seeing all this stuff and even if you are not arguing against or for something they say i don't care what the polls shows which becomes a badge of honor that there is some quality these leaders have and some responsibility obligation, and it's not blinders although the other side would call it that. they know where they want to go and they believe in it and had to stand up to this data and i don't want to use examples because i know where you are going with it but that kind of takes something -- where does that come from? you've worked with all these phenomenal leaders. i don't necessarily agree on everything but there is some quality that is not present and mere mortals most of the time. >> guest: mandela is kind of in his own place, but they all -- and they are all complicated. you know, these are not simple minded people.

the house, as you will see in the book, conflicting purposes. sometimes after the time of can pan it aligns itself with consultants but other times particularly when they are in government there's a range of things they carry about that conflict with what consultants want and what the political project was that brought them to the election. the end up in a different place as they govern the that's because they are complicated. the also more ambitious and focused and competitive and sometimes they have highs and lows. some of them -- they are different. tony blair never gets angry. you know, even, even tempered. but nelson mandela can get very huffy and stubborn at points. he is a great listener, but once he decides what ought to happen, incredibly stubborn. now they are all different but they are clearly have qualities

that haven't been merged ahead of everybody else who was there at that time. with tony blair there were other people because gordon brown, other people who might have been leaders at the time, but there is a special intensity and purpose. >> host: you know, i think there is also this, which is that is and learn level, that is god-given. this is another thing i think is lower level but not to the extent that they do as well as god-given and that's communicate. you might give them the words but they make the delivery. we just saw tony james and some where we saw prime minister blair, and i said at this event help people at the bush 43 white house, whenever a prime minister is going to speak we would all shut down and watch him. he was so many flaws and eloquent, and he was so found the right words, the right sentences, the write paragraphs

and he could do it spontaneously not just of a teleprompter not that it's a negative thing been discussed but including the short story. we went to see him once at ten downing when our kids were little and his dad was having as we did, a late life baby and tim downing assumes to be and you talk in the book it's not as grand as we would imagine it to be. so we are in his little office and then our then infant baby, emma has a diaper adventure and we are choking that it's so smylie. everybody's choking up. his kids are grown and he doesn't have a baby so what is he going to think and james paltrow is is in some way. i can't remember. he says that's the beautiful thing about children. they are so unpretentious.

always could go right into the -- as nelson mandela and house bill clinton who to me i still think he's a better politician than barack obama. i'm not trying to make comparisons, but what i am making the point on is with all the tools you give them, with all the frame work, with all the testing and a manipulative way what is the best way to say it? they -- it's something else they bring. >> look tony blair was very articulate. and he also had i right in the book he had an underlying religious faith which was central will was driving his purpose. it led to a kind of chaotic politics within britain because britain is so uncomfortable with the notion of religious faith and expressed publicly. and so it wasn't something he could actually give voice to on

till the miami 11 when he was able to then speak about the kind of fundamentalist right and wrong, you know, the fundamental threat facing the space societies. and she was able to speak in religious terms and found his voice and that is when you particularly dealt with in the post-9/11 period and in the iraq period. but, you know, he listened to advice. , i write about this in the book because we actually come apart. largely on how to deal with iraq and george bush in his third election because i argued that he has to show distance, some independents which i suggested by the way with on climate change and that he has to show some new learning of iraq. you can't go to the electorate again, having been to iraq, given what happened with the intelligence without showing some learning. and i did the research and i

showed the root forward and i also gave him the notes prior to him giving the session address in washington. but he ignored it all and said he couldn't go there and he says his view was a was in britain's interest to be aligned in this way and he wasn't going to go there. eventually i think he paid a price in the election. he won but only 36% of the vote and historically low turnout and that is what he believed. >> host: and that is why we love him and sometimes you just as you were saying earlier in a different context about barack obama giving things space to play themselves out that is what happened. now people don't look as this favorably on the outcome of iraq when it now appears to be successful. okay, i will tiptoe back from doing any discussion here. let's talk about one of my

personal heroes -- i don't mean necessarily politically and i don't mean not politically but a person of this conversation, he is a huge pivotal war hero. talk about what the campaign so much but barack obama, the man who is still around in is really politics. >> guest: mo barak, the foreign minister and the unity government. we will see what happens with that government. it's challenging. right now in israel. but he is unique. i right here i learned more from him than the other leaders. i have enormous respect for mandela and learned more from barak than any others because he is unbelievably brave. nobody -- i don't know any political leaders and i include in that tony blair and bill clinton and others what he had

gone into these negotiations dealing with palestinians or even syria which he barely had a government and every time he took this latest step towards doing this the government almost failed and so he went into -- the approval ratings were about as low as president bush's approval ratings at the time of the iraq war at the low point when he went to negotiate the future of the country and there are not that many people that have the political courage. he knew that when it was over either he had to call elections and referendum or a essentially give up at the end of the process so he was way out on a limb. he was a soldier decorated, willing to take great risks. he believed would never we showed in the polls, he did a lot of polling because he knew he had to bring the people, he faced early election, but we never polled for the purpose of

reflecting. it was simply how can we get to the argument people will support this kind of big and total agreement that's unprecedented? what is the strongest argument for getting their? it is all about how to get their. he also would talk about what it was like. he trained with the french military. >> host: show some of his war heroics because there is little opportunity in this country and in large democracies in general to have a kind of military, that kind of military background and our present day. these are not -- he wasn't a soldier, he was a flat out -- >> guest: under the elite commando units and now there's a history in israel of people in the military move into major political positions. you know, rabin was chief of

staff but before he was chief of staff he was the head of the elite commando unit and he personally went into lebanon beirut to take out the terrorists who had assassinated by israeli athletes and how munich. he went and had dressed as a woman and participated in that operation and was overseeing the rescue, the hostages and so he also went on -- he personally is very brave and so when you meet with him i know james carville would say i know he skilled people with his hands. >> host: james would say my hands? >> guest: you look at someone

differently who has that level and he's been that a brief for his country and his people. who comes to this, so it really does -- you step back and think of things differently. we are not talking about prescription drug coverage for seniors. the issues are different in israel but also the leaders frequently come out of experience but he would talk about pulling and he was trained, he went with the french to the alps and says what i learned is it was impossible to do what you did through the alps and and winter and get from one to the other but he says the way you do with it is each step you reduce your risk as long as you know you are going to a bold solution so like you use pulling to reduce your risk of the small steps so that you are able to make the big step and so for him it was just a tool he used as he

had a vision of where he wanted to go and he wanted to move the public and as i said i learned more from him and the most important piece being jerusalem because what i said in the book is i had polling at two-thirds that said we can't divide jerusalem. we had focus groups where people were emotional like supporting the head from the body to divide jerusalem and then he moved the majority to support so i write in the book if i can't believe my own poll on jerusalem which of my poles should i believe? so one has to be humble about the findings. certainly be very careful before you ever tell a bold leader that they can't do something they think they need to do. >> especially with those hands. before we've run out of time, nelson mandela, very moving. in your life there's a wonderful picture in here of viewers at

this election which we will put up later but talk about because it's another example of a leader coming from an experienced unfathomable as a barak to anyone else in the world. >> host: well, first of all he always felt on worthy -- not always but as i first met him i said how do i deserve to have this, what do i say to somebody that's been in jail for 27 years? and when you discover is he is immensely gracious and, humble at the first meeting he's making sure people were serving his coffee. it was a big meeting leisure on, big conference, big formative decisions being made right before the vote is counted. he -- i am looking around and he is serving coffee and tea for

everybody around the table so there is this big figure also when i met with him i met and presented tough results by presented at his house and he was playing with his grand children before he would take the time to talk with us he was dealing with his grandchildren so he is a human being. you know, focused on kids and so that is the kind of backdrop and he's interested and remember some things that you said. i worked for the media person who wanted to sign the back of his child's picture so they could look at that picture and know that he does there with mandela during the debate preparation but, so obviously a special pleader. the picture we talked about here is a final rally as the banner of better life for all. and for me it is probably the biggest in terms of people reading the book and understanding you know, what a

difference a campaign can make or certainly the polling and how you listen to people. when we started the slogan of the campaign was a better life for all. i'm sorry, the slogan was now is the time. now is the time was the slogan. that's reasonable. he had the apartheid regime, ending racial domination having your first race election, blacks are able to this paid for the first time. now, now is the time seems reasonable enough as a slogan but what we found when we did focus groups and listened to people what now is the time meant as blacks are going to take over the government and over the seats of power. it's about black power. and in the context of africa it's like every place else, first-time space election and finally after colonialization blacks will be in power. we found out in the group's one

was about blacks so that meant lots of other groups, asians, mixed groups, whites not supporting because in part because of the slogan. but also it was about power not about what you were going to do once he were in power. and when we changed the slogan to a better life for all, that was inclusive but also it wasn't just about power, not just about the past. and i presented to mandela and i said you know what, we are singing, and i felt a little bit uncomfortable saying it as an american, i said we can't have an election about apartheid. here the anc has been fighting apartheid all these decades. he's been in jail 27 years for fighting apartheid and by saying who and i to say to him that you can't have an election about apartheid? i'm saying this because i'm listening to people, listening

to the vast mass of africans who say we don't want this apartheid. we want to be about what is the change you are going to bring, what is going to be better about our lives? it isn't enough for blacks just to be in power. we need life to be better. and more inclusive. so he got it bought and he listened and became the voice of lecturing everybody else to move to this new place. >> host: i love these stories. i had to grit my teeth and through some of the book. you are a liberal it is clear. we disagree on lots of things but i think in you have in this book, stan, show the honor and purpose of politics can be before we've run out of time to questions or one question with a minute to go is there any republican you admire at a current listing republican you see some of these things? >> i was going to say you but

now we are talking about a leader. >> host: and nasiriyah and you have to agree with him or her, just is their anybody -- >> guest: i'm very scared to even under this because i will get in trouble on this but i think reagan brought qualities of leadership, had a big -- he was elected of 1980 and if i was writing this from the conservative point of view it would be hard to not have read in as one of the pieces in the election be a form of election where the -- you know, when you look at the primary, not barak, bought barak with a "c," barack obama, reagan had a different election than bill clinton. >> host: that is a good place to close. i want all republicans out there concerned about reagan nostalgia to hear it from the