mccain. people were shocked when it happened and that the time the mccain campaign said she had been on the list under consideration for a long time she received as much background check so-called vetting as any of the other people john mccain considered part of their skepticism about that at the time but is so much we are right in game change the political journalism parade moved on. there were other things to cover, sarah palin's incredible speech so this is one case where we went back to say what was the truth? the truth is that she was brought into the game of consideration as mccain's running mate very late, after their main focus, joe lieberman fell apart as an option. they needed a game-changing pickens lieberman was a game-changing picc of some sort and palin was another. in the space of less than two days look into sarah palin's background, not by

making a phone call or interviewing anybody, but simply by doing on-line searches, because they needed to keep it secret. looking at the process by which john mccain picked a virtual stranger as his running mate was something that we thought that a lot of attention. guest: there is a ton of stuff out in the book that we thought would have gotten a lot of attention. i will give you three examples. one of them is a macro story. in the wake of the campaign, one of the pieces of conventional wisdom that was compounded by the obama operation, the question of race was something that they did not really think about. it was not factored into the decision to run, it was a non- issue. that was one of th they didn't talk about it internally during the campaign. it was a ma issue. that is one of the things they said over and over after his election and throughout "game

change," we talk about how much they were in fact obsessed with race as a political factor. we talk about how in the campaign against mccain that produced ad after ad in expectation internally produced fake ads that they thought were the kind of adds the became campaign was going to run against them the would be racially frayed and how they would respond that it was topic a of the obama campaign. that's interesting and i will do to more quickly -- >> host: before you do let me show the viewers that part of the book you talk about that. duse the cash poor mccain campaign was coming up with negative ads on the fly scribblings groups in effect on the backs of napkins' iran the spots without ever testing than the well heeled obamas were running a stealthy high-tech lab to discover which attacks the most dangerous and develop responses. >> guest: right and i will stay with that because you stayed with it. it was fascinating. they produced dozens and dozens of spots and also to look at the ads to prepare to respond and

also produce dozens of other spots that would deal with the problem the question of when would obama's alleged connections to the muslim, when would that be something they mccann campaign started pushing. they didn't in the book reports that is true with the obama campaign constantly tried to respond and we have an anecdote in the book they tried at one point the obama campaign to produce an ad that would take care of the questions about his race, a legend muslim and lack of patriotism all in one ad and we tell the story humorously in the book of, when he reads the script of this ridiculous at supposed to kind of knocked on all of these he reads the script and says this is too much. i can't see this this is a kind of silly ad. i would say to other things quickly. one is we of a strong chapter of the economic crisis and financial crisis which is incredible reporting i believe about what happened in the white house meeting that george bush held with john mccain and

barack obama. it's hardly been mentioned in the coverage and i think it's interesting and shows how unprepared mccain was and how well prepared obama was, the republican aide in the meeting says as he listened to obama takeover of the meeting effectively it seemed if you closed your eyes you would believe this was the president of the united states, george bush or mccain and we have a very interesting story about david and maureen dowd and how a devastating call maureen dowd wrote in the early part of the nomination fight how that came to be and how this mischievous dyad between the famous hollywood mogul and "new york times" columnist, held the dealt one of the first severe blows to the notion of clinton's inevitability. >> host: let's dig in to that more, mark halperin what john was talking about about marlene doud's call, there's a back story she was trying to write the column before she finally got him to agree to do it. >> guest: she was and as john said it's an interesting case of

to not only prominent people but laconic people, the most prominent "new york times" columnists really of our time in many ways and then david, this incredibly influential hollywood figure. he's a part of green merckx strausbaugh works with steven spielberg and jeffrey katzenberg were supporters of the clintons. david stated the lincoln bedroom but he, like so many prominent liberals including in hollywood turned against the clintons. he was unhappy with president clinton's choice of pardons at the end of the second term, granting a part that david had lobbied for, pardoning marc rich, the fugitive finance year. so he turned on the clintons and felt that they were it not actually corrupt they were morally bankrupt. he loved obama and saw him speak at the democratic convention in 2004 and reached out and started a relationship with him and when

maureen dowd heard david speak at the 92nd street y of new york and get a question about the clintons and hilary's chances david geffen was tough on hillary and maureen dowd in the audience was struck not just by hal david geffen was in his pocket and the clintons morality of the audience reaction here they are in new york the state hillary clinton represented the audience seemed very enthusiastic about the notion of criticism of hillary clinton. so, over the course of a long period of time as you suggested or the doud is lobbying david geffen to take what he said, implied that to her in an interview and by coincidence she's in california on the night before david geffen is going to host a major fund-raiser for barack obama. she convinces him to do the interview -- >> host: what year is this? >> guest: 2007. this is a critical period because barack obama has gotten in the race. he's created a lot of excitement

and in communities that are vitally important if you're trying to become the democratic nominee for president hollywood, new york, liberal circles where hillary was trying to sort of not let obama rise up as a major competitor to her. so for david geffen to agree to host a fund-raiser we reported the book was a blow to the clintons. they were desperate to overshadow because it showed the hollywood support key in the democratic party wouldn't be monolithic and again maureen dowd convinces david geffen to do the interview. the next light her column goes on the web, again by coincidence, both broglie and marty belvoir of this fund-raiser and david geffen's house and he knows the article was going to run. he printed and takes it to obama and shows him and says this might cause some trouble and obama said trouble for you because it wasn't going to cause trouble for obama and as it plays out we reported the book it was even worse for the clintons than they felt.

this is the first time a lot of issues of bill clinton's chief of personal life whether they were old politics or to lose with the truth was laid out and the one to punch ladle by david geffen is the pillar of the hollywood establishment via the maureen dowd column was devastating in public for the clintons and personally behind the scenes even more devastating because of all represented. >> host: and bring to turn this over to the viewers because insure people are eager to ask their questions. blundell tennessee, sylvia democratic schley your first, go ahead. >> caller: i saw you all on another show and you are talking about bill and hillary were upset during the iowa caucuses that the obama campion. what i heard and read as they were upset because the obama campaign dustin lots of young people from illinois with the help of a.c.o.r.n..

they blocked up the caucuses and locked out of the hillary voters. >> guest: the caller is right with the clintons believe. to the letter that is what we reported the book is that hillary had been worried about this possibility for a while. she had been concerned the caucuses were losing the there was a chance that because obama was the home state senator from illinois that this could happen. we report in the look of the mind of the iowa caucuses when hillary comes in third she and the president, former president clinton are in their hotel suite and as angry as these have ever seen them. they thought they'd been told by their closest allies they would either finish first or close second and she finishes far off a third. they are incredibly upset and the former president clinton starts going on about the fact that all these people come to dread 39,000 people showed up, no one expected that was double the amount of showed up with the previous iowa caucus of 2004.

it was incomprehensible to him that many could show but the caucasus and he sees on the notion that this cheating had occurred and buses were brought from illinois with young voters as the culberson is an equal on to that notion long after in fact we report in the book that after -- five days after the new hampshire primary he suggested to hillary she actually raised this question in a debate and said the caucasus, the outcome of the caucasus should be invalidated because obama has done this. president clinton was suggesting to this that they should hire lawyers and challenge the results of the iowa caucus. i think we cannot know with any certainty whether that is true but i would say we spoke to many of the clintons on your staff, people who have long experience in on your politics and are loyal to the clintons and none of them believe the charges true. they said that as upset as the clintons were they were looking for an excuse for her poor performance and would have every reason to believe it was true and all of them think the iowa

caucuses best all of them believe it is a false charge. >> host: georgia on the independent life. amy, good morning. i'm going to remind you to turn to television down. all right? i'm going to move on, and put you on hold. mount clemens michigan on the republican line. good morning. >> caller: hello, how are you? >> host: dewey while. >> caller: i will admittedly say i haven't read the book but the to fellows so connected to the campaign and everybody involved in all the candidates i want to know why it is that the most important pieces of all these people, clintons, obama, mccain, how everything was sealed it and the most important aspects never came out and the democrats were protected down to every minuscule little what

ever. but when it came to mccain and sarah palin and how they attacked her and went after her for her clothes and the eating habits but yet when it comes to not only reporting any of the policies or beliefs or alleged dustin that obama was going to go for which he is to me now not having his thesis, and akron and say he's so smart and intelligent and sarah palin is unqualified when she had been elected starting in the school system would ever municipal mayor to governor and she said so stupid and irresponsible but she had held all these offices -- >> host: atingua got the point. mark halperin? >> guest: we knew that one of the challenge is writing the book about politics in this day and age is a lot of our political discourse through the media and politics have become partisan and we were trying to write a book and hope we did

that is not partisan because there's stuff in here not report that the democrats but there is a lot not report about the republicans. we are heartened by the fact the book has received praise from people on the left and right. shawn hannity said nice things about the book as did ed schultz and i think the strength of the book and extend it has is we've reported everything we could find we thought was germane to telling the story about both parties, the candidates in both parties without fear or favor and with an eye towards history and eliminating what happened not covering things up. there has been a concern i will say quickly that why wasn't the stuff reported in real time. people are not going to be forthcoming the way they were with us in the heat of the campaign. they are too busy and there is too much at stake. we went to the people after the nomination fights and after the general election when the memories were fresh but they were willing to cooperate. the interest of the project and

its importance for history. second, it's hard to piece together if you don't have the time as we did over the long period of time from 300 interviews with more than 200 people in both parties, long interviews able to sit down and piece this together. the realities of daily journalism particularly those with the internet and cable there's no way to do that in daily journalism, you've got to do it as more of a historical work. >> host: have you heard from sources you talk to for this book and got in reaction force sources without actually specifics of who they are? >> guest: we have and as mark says, we both have talked to a lot of people for the book. as mark cited the figures. most of these people were people we have, one or the other or both had long relationships. we've been covering politics close to 20 years each and the relationships we have with the sources was the basis on which the book was built. if we hadn't had such strong relationships i don't think that we could have done what we did, and we have been heartened also

by the response which has been uniformly positive. people have sent many notes of congratulation about the book. i think that again as far as we can tell from what we've heard and we haven't heard from everybody that an awful lot of people, people feel as though we've gotten the story right and in a way that they think is both fair, accurate and good for history in this since we capture things in the campaign and how these people lived through the campaign and what changed them and there are strengths and weaknesses that affect the way they waged a campaign that are important for people who are going to be looking back many years to come to understand what actually happened. >> host: a nei on the independent line. good morning. >> caller: sorry about that. you know, i am an independent. i used to be a democrat and when this last election with barack obama kay brown come i ended up dropping the party completely. what i was looking for at the

time was a candidate that would represent the country well, and i know for a fact the fact the media was there boosting obama like the way they did for bush which they actually did do seems to be the game play and for me whoever the media choose is to be the next president is going to be the next president and it is unfortunate because i did listen to barack obama a few times and he set about changing things in washington that he was a supporter of mayor richard daley which was one of the biggest crooks and politics to read if he couldn't beat chicago politics what made him think he would change washington?

>> host: john heilemann? >> guest: the role of the media in the elections is a huge and is one of the most interesting things reporting on this campaign is the fact that all of the campaign's field though the media was biased against them. they all feel as though as the caller says they look at the power of the media and feels they played this outside rule and somehow it is not fair to them. >> host: evin president obama's campaign felt that we? >> guest: whenever it was confronted with -- and i think that mark and i would agree president obama got a very favorable coverage in the course of the campaign it's not disputable but they felt as though all the questions on things like reverend wright they felt they were subjected to s tough the media scrutiny as any candidate of history and in many cases they thought the things which they were hit like the rezko incident and things like that that those were not germane. they were constantly, the media was focused on trivialities and

things that were not stories rather than focusing with the candidate wanted to say about health care policy and economic policy so i think it is a perennial complaint and as far as i can see the media is equal opportunity in the kind of reverse it puts the candidates through and it doesn't surprise me as mark said in a partisan environment people feel the media chooses sides but it's a topic that isn't going to go away for that reason because as the media and political culture get partisan complaints will escalate. >> host: darryl of new jersey, guinn. >> caller: good morning, marc, john. a couple of things. one is i've seen you guys on other shows and one of the things fascinating to me is that the country seems to be in this sort of like state of the dissidents. barack obama is the incompetent

unprepared and unqualified to be president, john mccain is the of longtime politician with experience and based on what you guys said this morning to me is the exact opposite -- the reverse is true. barack obama seems to be hope and change and all that but he seems to be a very savvy politician, a brilliant strategic thinker and well-prepared and understands the issues, and yet all of the buzz right now about sarah palin who mostly speaks her vocabulary is mostly most leavitt and i haven't heard her say anything of substance in terms of public policy from the time she started running up until now so i'm just amazed -- aren't you amazed the country is so enamored with sarah palin, who lacks intellectual curiosity, she lacks depth and is mostly back

to miss -- >> host: mark? >> guest: i have to disagree with the caller there. with respect to the call and many other local and he sees the world in a very particular way and there's millions of americans who see it his way the there's millions of americans who think that barack obama was a flawed as a candidate and is a horrible precedent and sarah palin as our salvation. i think part of what we tried to do in writing "game change" was to rise above what has become the dominant feature of the political discourse which is again in a lot of political books and cable television and the web to say i have a point of view about the world. i hit the democrats or the republicans and everything i say or write is going to be geared towards reinforcing that point and trying to spread. we said we wanted to write a book of the real story that happened in this exciting campaign with bigger than life characters and not make a partisan book and again, as i

said before we had very positive feedback we are heartened by from people left and right to sit i may disagree with barack obama's policies but i was glad to be able to read how he experienced the campaign and get inside what he's really like it the same with sarah palin and that's the kind of book we set out to right. we didn't write for the reason i'm about to see as a potential benefit by it has the benefit which is we do both feel that our country's discourse has become too partisan. that is not good for government or politics, it's not good for the future of the country and we hope that people will think about politics in a different way. more about the drama and a trillion to drain from the partisanship that dominates a lot of the calls and a lot of discourse. >> host: on the mccain strategy approach to the campaign you both white wherever mccain was, whenever he was saying, whoever was listening, that was the campaign. the rest was noise.

as far as mccain was concerned he could win with a roster of defense, if you need to press appearances and sheaf of airplane tickets. >> guest: it is an early part of the book we write that in terms of the republican race and is talking about how mccain in the early planning phases of his campaign you have an operation that was all the people around and looked back at the campaign when he ran this renegade outside the campaign and they say we lost. we were crushed by the bush machine in 2000. we don't want that campaign again. a were campinas positioned to be the front-runner for the race and we should build the campaign that's like that three we should build on the bush model and a big campaign and raise a ton of money and have a huge operation across the country and be formidable and scare everybody away. the problem was mccain was totally psychologically ill suited to that kind of campaign and as his organization billed itself that we his attitude was why do i need all of this? he didn't want to make

fund-raising calls would get into the race as early as they wanted. we have seen the book with his top strategist saying to him we are the front-runners, we have to act like the front runner. we can't like to the correct the person you are naturally which is to be this sort of maverick to use his favorite term, that kind of candidate and the mismatch between the kind of operation they aspire to build and to the kind of thing mccain was personally with doing created what turned up to be an emulation for his campaign. his campaign over the course of 2007 in the first six months the campaign is broke, it is lagging in the polls, he's miserable. he's firing his top staff. the meltdown that nearly killed him politically not personally is about the mismatch and in fact where mccain is the strong guest is once he gets rid of all these people it's like to see him emerge in that when everybody looked at him and what he's dead now they are writing him off mccain was actually

happier, he was more comfortable driving around the country basically in a metaphorically speaking be doubled car carrying his own bags and going out and kind of flying by the seat of his pants. i would say when you come back around to the general election again where you don't have the choice, you can't run that kind of campaign it comes back to fight him again because he thinks of himself happily as a guerrilla candidate and throughout the campaign is a mismatch between handle, in terms of organization and finance and muscular strength across the country ends up being a huge disadvantage among many other disadvantages the was the big problem and it is, you know -- it goes to the core of one of the things the book is about is this is why in some sense the personal, the stuff about the human drama of the campaign it matters enormously because it tells you a lot about mccain's political fortune. you can't understand them without understanding his psychology and how he looked at the art and combat of politics and it's in all of that you can

see what i am school for over the course of the campaign. >> guest: can i say one thing? you know, we've been honored and pleased by the attention the book has gotten and we've done the other interviews before this one. this is literally the first time we had the chance to discuss this topic in the part of the 2008 campaigns for people who've seen stuff about the book and think well i know everything in the book already, we love the quote that thing you just read about mccain and sheaf of airplane tickets because it does define a huge part of the mentality of the republican nominee so i just say there's more stories we won't get to talk about today but some people have the impression they've learned everything that's in the book. we think there's more in the people would be interested in which you just talked about. >> nancy on the republican line. >> caller: yes, when president obama rim, he was more to the center of the democratic party

and that's what i voted for. i voted for obama because i thought he was more to the center of the democratic party, now the left. he has since become ward left and center and that has made me disheartened. i turned from democrat to republican. i'm going to start voting republican. i'm going to vote more for the people who are of my values and my type of ideas about this country and how it should be run because i think our country is out of whack. we are spending too much, the deficit is too high. it is to many people unemployed and i think obama isn't concentrating with the problems are in the country. he's concentrating on his ideas. >> host: marrec halperin? >> host: >> caller: what was the name of the call or? i would call her nancy ak fifa

ducks elrod's worst nightmare. this was the kind of voter sympathy that voted for what about the white house political at pfizer like david axelrod have to be worried about to say not just for the midterm elections and the president's potential re-election but having political support in the country to pass the agenda in the short term. he has done the things most dangerous for any politician, lost control for a large segment of his public image how he is being perceived to be the reality is as we should during the campaign he was very skillful being what george bush successfully did was in a sense all things to all people, liberals could see in his rhetoric and parts of his agenda someone who would come to the white house and enact a liberal agenda. healthcare is a great example. what has moved through congress is very similar. there are policy differences that are not insignificant but the thrust and expense is similar to what he ran on the people shouldn't be surprised on a range of issues that he is more liberal the same time one

of the gifts durham, had since he entered public life is ability to speak as a unifying figure to give the people the sense that he wants to work eckert stealing and solve problems and a bipartisan way that as it has turned out partly by trees and partly by circumstances with economic crisis in particular has led to governing in a partisan way than i thought he would do and i think the and he intended to result has been in part to a lead the callers like that, citizens like that and part of the challenge he faces now is to finish the health care bill that's been defined as a liberal flame right we were not and move to a agenda that addresses jobs and deficit reduction at the same type. the state of the union and budget are going to be opportunities the white house hopes to win back the calls like that. >> host: defender the state of the union will be wednesday january 27th next week. steve on the independent line. good morning. >> caller: thanks for taking my call.

i want to say to the host and i don't know your name i apologize you to call earlier for someone challenging the i guess and i'd just wondering what might agreed thing for c-span2 do that, and empirical study of the length of calls and which won they come in just for informational purposes the would be great. but to go more to the point i have not read the book but i think the campion -- we've become so divisive in this country with two parties. bui think hillary clinton has shown herself to be a gracious loser obviously in the campaign but also a hard-working woman. she is just sort of notice to the grindstone. i'm the secretary of state and i am going to do the best job i can possibly do for the country regardless of party. i think during the campaign obama was such a wonderful

speaker and is such a wonderful speaker that he was able to carry the election without a lot of substance. i'm a supporter of his but at the same type you have to govern and not just be elected. >> host: john heilemann, the backroom of hillary clinton during the campaign. >> guest: we somewhat fancifully at the beginning of the book talk about how silvery and obama relationship is a love story which i think it's counter intuitive and one of the things mark and i were surprised to learn is how much of a fan hillary clinton was of barack obama before either got in the race. we report about her when he ran for the senate into this effort hosting fundraisers and chicago and bill clinton appearing at a fund-raiser in 2004 and her talking apply rubbly about him saying there's a superstore in chicago. she was the kind of candidate. her husband wanted to support the democratic party, this very intelligent african-american candidate she thought of as the future of the party and with obama comes to washington he seeks her out and six or council

because he's already a superstar in an unusual way for a freshman senator because of his speech at the convention in 2004 and the heavy bond where she sees him as a potential man t. and he sees her as a mentor. there's a lovely detail in the book about how he gave her a picture of his daughters and his wife and she kept that on her senate office displayed until the day she left the senate to. obviously huge amount of conflict and bitterness that unfolded when the index up head-to-head in the nomination fight but in the end after all the bitterness of the race turned out and all of her anchor which is documented in the book and a lot of a vivid detail, the extraordinary series of events that lead her to eventually accept the job of the secretary of state we have at the end of the book and she has this rather incredible coming together in the late night phone call after he offered her the job and she has turned it down she decided she doesn't want the job. everyone in her life is trying

to get her to the job. her husband thinks would be great, rahm emanuel, joe biden, she finally decides on what we did take the job and she calls obama to take her to become -- stila she's not going to take the job and they have this late night phone call where the two of them -- she tells him why she doesn't want the job and he accept this those are all good reasons to doubt on the job, she's burdened with debt, tired, wants to go home, she thinks her husband will be a difficult distraction negative takes the job and he said i understand but i need you to do this job. the economic crisis is going to be huge and consume a large part of the first term and i need someone at the state department who is competent and understands foreign policy into his hand i don't have to hold. your country needs you and i need you to be a success as president and after everything that happened between them in this epic art of the relationship it's an extraordinary moment because the moment she kind of had met her husband can be a problem, something she's never done through the campaign. every time bill clinton has done

anything considered politically detrimental she defends him to even the closest allies she never says -- should our tax any other side other delicious to loyal. now she's not disloyal but is that meeting affordability she sees in her husband. obama, the most self-contained and self possessed person who doesn't express need, does not express he needs anyone, he's the kind of guy, but self-sufficient politician turns to her and admits he needs her to be a success and it's in that moment a bond, the first seeds of the relationship of trust they feel they can work together. he tells her he wants her to sleep on it and not to say no and she wakes up the next morning and decides to take the job and i think the caller is right for performance this year of his term as the secretary of state demonstrated all of the things best about hillary clinton. she's been an invaluable led by sir and has worked incredibly hard representing america and around the world and by all

indications from mark's reporting come am i reporting and other people, their relationship is as solid of any cabinet secretary to the president. they are on good terms and this speaks well for her patriotism and devotion to the country and ability to put past pain and bitterness aside for a higher calling. >> host: wharton pennsylvania frankie on the line for democrats. colquitt morning. i have a simple question to ask the gentleman. what kind of impact do you think this will have on people running again and people who want to work for them when seems like if you write a book like this -- i don't understand why these people talk to you and say some of the things they say about the candidates and i think it would be hard to get anybody to work for you again and so hard for the candidates to have to be so careful what they should say and

do we in the private and just the question if i could ask what kind of affect do you think the book will have? thank you three >> host: before you answer that, howard wrote in his column yesterday in the "washington post" perhaps president obama's character is unusually consistent with the portrait may also reflect the eight to the contract aids on the campaign had little dirt tradition even less incentive since many of them are now running the country. i want to add that to her comments. >> guest: there's a lot. let me try to address part of it. as john said earlier in almost every case as we were doing the many interviews for the book we were dealing not with strangers but with people we had a very positive and strong working relationships with over decades so in the process we explain to them in great detail what we were doing. we explain the kind of book it was and the terms on which we were speaking and history is important. one of the things we've learned at what times to our panic is as

time passes people's memory gets worse. there are not a lot of memos, so there is an oral history here that if we hadn't stepped in and done these interviews when we did i think a lot of it would have been lost. people have said the notion we rely on people with axes to grind. i have to tell you, john might feel differently i can't remember more than five interviews at most in which the people we were interviewing clearly were trying to spin the story, trying to reflect a point of view. they were in almost every instance very purely cooperating with us and telling the story because they knew we were writing what we hoped would be considered the series' history of an important moment in american history. that process yielded a lot of stories and we were able to overtime and taking time merge together. there isn't a single quote on quote controversy story line in the book on which we base of people exclusively with people

who could have been said to have an ax to grind. we always went to supporters, more sympathetic to a candidate or spouse and said this is what we were told by others what do you think? and there were almost no instances where the merging of those accounts from the quote on quote to sites require judgment on our part. the store is lined up. >> guest: i would add one thing to the comment there that you read. he says i believe the quote is there's the unusual consistency between barack obama's public image and reality and i think that is true and one of the things the book demonstrates is that -- in some cases there's a wide divergence between public image and reality but the story of john edwards and elizabeth edwards is a dramatic example in the book where the gap between what the public saw and what they wanted the public to see and how they were in private is a cosmic kind of gap. obama's the gap between the public image and private reality is of all the major candidates was the most narrow and i think it is part of the reason why he

turned out to be a strong candidate and part of the reason why he won because they spent very little time in the obama campaign having to manage the problem of here's what we are trying to tell the public but here's what is going on. that was for all the other campaigns there was enormous amount of time and effort that was devoted by the staff to try to bridge the gap and massage the differences. the obama campaign was able to focus to a larger extent getting done what it needed to get done because there wasn't that large a gap. now with that said we show as i talked before about the race example we show plenty of the examples where the obama public image was and what was going on behind the scenes and we laid that out but i do think it's important and an important reason why he was successful in the campaign compared to the rivals because the gap was narrower. >> guest: if i could see another thing that's been said about the book is we don't have very much about barack obama or we don't show anything about barack obama that is less flattering. i urge people to read the book

were interested. there's a number of moments in the campaign where behind the scenes it was in crisis. there were questions whether the strategy was working and one prominent instance you see barack obama and "game change" saying we are staying the course. we chose this strategy, we chose the tactics to back it up this is the right thing we are reaffirming the there is another instance in the book leader he decides he's not getting enough advice from a broad circle of people. one of the things we report in the book is this group of three men, david axelrod, david gibbs and david plus, the chief campaign strategist and spokesman, who have almost a stranglehold on the advice that gets to barack obama, very influential and this is a constant tension in the campaign where other people including michelle obama would occasionally say when things are going brad debate combat there needs to be broad circle and there's a scene leader in the process from the time when it's clear barack obama will probably be hillary clinton but it's where he was going to lead into the general election where he

makes a decision to change course where he expands the circle. he starts at the conference with his advisers run buy not one of the three so-called suits but by anita done who becomes the white house communications director. so there is a proportion of barack obama here and again it's not all flattering. it is a true story of what happened and people have said there isn't much about barack obama or the stuff about barack obama is written by the sources who are the winners and therefore it's not as full portrait as the others. >> host: on barack obama's strategy, john heilemann, early on when he decides to bring anita dunn into the fold and the strategy she takes up by running the fund and speeches he's giving a around the country helping raise money for other candidates that exchange the strategy she comes up with for e-mail addresses. >> guest: this is in the early 2006, late 2005 period. barack obama mccaul politicians have a pact called hope fond,

and obama invited, interviewed negative kenneda dunn to hire the pack. he was an extraordinarily unusual candidate in this respect. even before obama was elected national office when he was still a candidate for the senate in 2004 he was able to raise money for other centers. so clear once he got the nomination he was going to win by a landslide, sitting senators. upon arriving, obama was this unprecedented fund-raising draw apart from hillary clinton and in some ways in excess of her he could go around the country to the red states and purple states obviously the blue states and turnout huge crowds and i mean mark and i at the time we were following this we knew obama was traveling and that he was raising money but i don't think until we report in the book we had a clear sense and we start talking to people, claire mccaskill who would tell the stories about obama coming to campaign in 2006 and they would have to when he would come to

st. louis they would get an overflow because not only did the of the fund raiser for the 2,000 or 3,000 people who were going to pay money they also need a separate room for 10,000 or 15,000 people because everybody wanted to see this guy. his fund-raising ability was at the core when we talk about the democratic establishment sickly behind him that was part of, they could see the political appeal. the was the way he demonstrated he was someone who could be a serious candidate. anita dunn in some sense along with david plus, who was initiating a similar strategy for the deval patrick of massachusetts, they started to think about how this could be capitalized on to build what became the grassroots army so people would come to obama defense and ask for e-mail addresses and that was the beginning of building a database for the help fund the eventually became the database that eventually built into this massive on line army that obama exploited in the 2008 campaign and it became the core of what became the fund-raising machine as we all know we use the

internet in a totally novel way in 2008 to build this machine that's unprecedented in the history of american politics. anita dunn and the decisions made it a hope fund were the seeds of the development which obviously made obama credible and gave him a huge advantage going forward against hillary clinton and john mccain. >> host: california marie on the republican line. >> caller: yes, i get a kick out of the last opponents. they try to call them down as they see a threat and they are all for women's rights until sarah palin came along and was attracting even the left comedians like bill mark. they have to get after her all the time and she has had more managerial experience the and obama by far. she's been a governor, mayor, had 80% approval rating in alaska and if einstein came back and ran as a republican they would call him dog. that is how they try to be

little their opponents and it's really quite funny when you come down to it. europe does this or that. well, europe is made up of different countries with their own culture and switzerland is in your band not part of the e.u. -- >> host: we will leave it that. one thing she said about sarah palin and the coverage of sarah palin in the book. the caller talked about alaska. sarah palin from your reporting was consumed with how she was being perceived and alaska during the election. >> guest: she was. one of the challenges writing about sarah palin was she had never been much involved in the national politics as the governor of alaska. very few people in the national political or media life had dealings with sarah palin so it was unusual because normally the topic -- people in washington and journalism circles know sarah palin was new support of our challenge was to talk to these national operatives on the mccain campaign and other people around sarah palin who were literally to this day

amongst the only people that we know who have had exposure behind the scenes to see what she's like men she's not on tv getting a speech. they met the advisers, but never met her. she was a stranger to them and they were asked to talk in arizona before he meets with her and to talk about with the job is great to be like if they offer the position. one of the things they discuss the debt might on the eve of john mccain's selection was the importance of her understanding even though she would remain as a sitting governor of alaska she needed to understand her focus needed to be on the national campaign. she was basically an appendage of the campaign and she would probably not get back to alaska unless there was a natural disaster and she needed to be focused not on her home state needs pond the national ticket and sprint to the election day. from the senior point she did not live up to that. as you said she and her husband

were consumed with what was and 80% approval rating slipping to something less than that. they were consumed when todd palin would go back to alaska and the campaign danilo were 48. he would see absence of mccain palin brard science in alaska, no television advertising because alaska with sarah palin on the ticket was secure for mccain. they spent inordinate amount of time complaining to the campaign staff not enough was done in alaska. sarah palin had a good relationship with the local media in alaska from the sarah palin plight of u.s. wheat right turn on her. she wasn't allowed to talk to reporters like a lot of governors. she would defend her mobile phone number to the reporters who covered her and talk of a regular basis and it ended when she was put on the national ticket so this all the dynamic was bad for them. from mccain's campaign point of view there was a time and she said she understood that before she was that was in one of the

many causes of tension between the sarah palin and the campaign. >> host: data on the dependent line. >> caller: good morning. my political of the addition of florida i'm on my election card identified as no party affiliation because independent is classified as a party. here's the way i vote over the years. when a politician preaches that will fear that is a maximum for me and i will not vote for him. i will not vote for politicians that move into their districts just to run. two examples, if i was a president of new york i wouldn't have voted because she moved in and began florida even though he graduated fort myers high school he moved back into the district to run for his father's office and many voters in southwest florida voted, they felt they were voting for his father and they were upset when they realized it was a tabulation they voted for the sun.

i was upset be disabled veteran when george w. bush didn't produce -- >> host: but me jump in because we are running out of time with these authors. what is the question or comment? >> caller: i was leading into my question. this is a question i started asking my friends about voter fraud. which of the three largest cities in the u.s. had a reputation whether deserved or not for having corrupt elections? host guinn not sure they can answer that. even if he wanted to get stabbed? >> caller: never be wrong pt cities in louisiana and new jersey. [laughter] >> host: let me get to some criticism if i can from howard's colin yesterday he says deep background means you can describe someone's thinking or reconstruct verbatim by a look when you're writing about events involving that person. as an author who used the technique i don't think it entitles you to directly quote

with someone said to you which puts it on the record and several other journalists have said they agree as well. he's referring to the quote that came out at first about what harry reid said in private about barack obama. john heilemann would want to take that? >> guest: id authors node we refer to the notion we conducted on deep background and then we say in a shorthand way what that meant which was basically held he writes in the peace. the authors note isn't completed the since it doesn't have a thorough description of all the conversations we had with our sources which we had with every source we talked to. we were talking great detail about the interview we were about to conduct would be used in the book and we would go through a speech. there was direct will script the might as well have been when we would lead them through. this is how the interview is going to go this is what we can use and this is what is going to work. i can say there is no case in

which the way that we explain what we are going to do in the end that we didn't live up to that agreement with any source we talked to for the book and it is i think the important people understand that the background as many people have written isn't a concept that is etched in stone. every journalist has rules of the road and the rules of growth we've laid out work rules we stuck to in every other instance. >> host: you don't think there is concrete on the record of the record deep eckert? >> guest: there isn't. you can read journalists with new ones describe different things let me emphasize the point john need. we didn't violate the agreement with anybody we made to become bet for interviewing the book. in journalism generally between a reporter and sources' where the terms are not defined but they are assumed this commonality or whether the terms are determined on the fly we meticulously carefully in every exchange we had in every interview we did we went through

the project and we didn't violate them with anyone we talked to for the buck. twist your next focal fort lauderdale, melvin on the democrats' line. >> caller: es i have more of a comment. if the couple people indicated barack obama wasn't living up to campaign promises. my main point is i just want to [inaudible] a lot of people talk about the concern about the spending. i don't think they realize when ronald reagan took office in 1980 the deficit was 980 billion. when george bush sr. left office it was 405 trillion. clinton left a surplus and when george bush the last president left the deficit was 10.9 trillion when obama took over. i think it is now 12 trillion. why did the democrats get blamed for a spending when it's

actually republicans who greeted deficits and the democrats never seem to even address that issue and continue to demonize for this spending and republicans [inaudible] >> host: some of this is played out in the special election in massachusetts about democrats being spenders and raising taxes and you have state senator scott brown running the campaign heading into today's election. i was wondering if you could compare your notes from hill the request to's campaign and the staff first she had and to the reports i saw in the newspapers this morning that hillary clinton's staff from new england is helping fund martha's campaign on the ground. >> guest: mark might know more than i do because i know very little. we've been so busy with the but i don't know the details going

on. a understand the dynamics going on. certainly it is the case that republicans have historically traditionally and successfully many cases wanted to paint the democrats as the tax-and-spend party and they've been relentless doing that in the course of this last year. they've been very successful so far in having done that and in massachusetts it seems to be playing out to the point you have a situation where martha isn't getting the kind of support she would expect in the the same time much more importantly she's lost having a hard time getting the number of independent voters she would need to are obsessed the tax and spending and the deficit. on the questions of the staffing i can't answer i don't know. >> host: do you want to weigh in? >> guest: one of the most dramatic and human moments in the book or series of moments as the clintons attend to get ted kennedy to endorse hillary for president over barack obama and the frustration and anger both clinton's fault they thought they had a bond with the family,

they'd gone sailing. president clinton regularly with top people angry and frustrated he was he'd done so much for the family as president and they seem to be drifting towards obama to read hillary clinton and bill clinton have incredible political support in massachusetts and i think the saddest moment was super tuesday despite the fact senator kennedy had endorsed barack obama hillary was able to win massachusetts. some of her field operatives who worked in new hampshire are now as i understand working for the democratic nominee. they probably should have been there sooner and i think most people watching the race closely believe that their involvement is being done at the last minute very quickly and they would be too little and too late if i may use the cliche. >> host: pittsburgh, go ahead. >> caller: was wondering if you could talk about mitt romney, between his public image and his relationship with john mccain and mike huckabee.

>> for a variety of reasons we didn't spend as much time because it lacked a lot of the trauma that the race had. however there's interesting material in the book of mitt romney. and to the call for specific questions i think there is one striking example of the disparity vision and the public image and private really in the case of mitt romney which is his public image if anything was defined as a competent ceo character. he was an arch capitalist in addition to the governor of massachusetts of course but the notion that he was a pragmatic businessman like he could run the government as if it were a board room. >> guest: the decisis captain of the industry. >> guest: what you see throughout the coverage in the book of romney is that his staff was constantly frustrated the fact he was indecisive and he couldn't decide on things as elemental as picking a campaign slogan to read this discussion went on for months and months

and the never came up with a slogan because romney was constantly seeking more advice and the consultant site dominated. he would constantly ask for more input and was taking more and more data and the deluge of the data panel by stem from making decisions and for a lot of people love him they were stunned by that the disparity between that decisiveness the salles. his relationship with either candidates was a portable and we have some quite vivid details of the book, john mccain and mike huckabee and how much of the republican candidates disliked mitt romney and saw him as a prima donna. he wouldn't have to sneak up on in the same room as the rest of the candidates and there is a colorful scene in the book that involves the republican candidate's standing at the urinal doing their business before a debate mocking romney behind his back as they regularly did until he walked into the room and overheard them and a kind of interest hush falls under the group three

>> host: we are waiting for a briefing on haiti to get under way at the pentagon and will watch that quickly mark halperin, can you tell the difference between what people saw it rudy giuliani on the campaign trail versus private? >> guest: another fascinating story and i want to reinforce his the book is about politics in the sense we write about presidential candidates and their spouses but the goal was to write about the personality as john said the drama of the campaign. we joke all the time we knew we had an interesting set of characters that when you're writing about the campaign rudy giuliani is the seventh was interesting candidate. rudy giuliani's image for the country and republican voters was a tough guy who cleaned up new york city and stood up to the terrorists after line -- 9/11 it wasn't a tiger wood was a pussycat. he would never speak out against the negative ads and when he was shown at the negative ads and mailings going against him he would laugh and say those

aarsele. in debates when he was challenged by his opponents were questioners he would laugh. he never should toughness or convert to win. it is essential in politics and ran counter to his image to think someone earlier talked with the cognitive dissidence. it was cognitive dissidence for a lot of people. his inability to define himself and reinforce his greatest strength in his image of being tough was a part of the downfall. the person who can best in this was john mccain. they were friends since back when giuliani was still mayor and when mccain started to fall and the question was who is when to rise up mccain was never worried about his friend rudy giuliani and his aides would say why not and he would say 30 giuliani is ready giuliani and he meant he knew him well lead to know things required to get the republican nomination or not inside of him. >> host: mark halperin, john

heilemann. thank you. >> mark halperin is editor-at-large for "time" magazine and the co-author of the way to win, taking the white house in 2008 with john harris. john heilemann is the national political correspondent and columnist for the new york magazine. he's the former staff writer for the new yorker, a lawyer and economist. he's also the author of pride before the fall. for more information, visit time.com and newyorker.com. ..