work as a, including the two of us, is where own in for the money, otherwise we wouldn't get funded. there's a very interesting and very good book available called merchants of doubt, that, in fact, it is precisely the other way around. some of the people are now leaving the charge against climate science used to be leading the charge against tobacco.

>> the reward structure, as you know, you agreed with what it's not by herd mentality. thanks for your -- yeah? >> [inaudible] >> it's a wonderful book, and it really fills on the dots what i was eluding to, and how the deny to campaign climate change is a longer term, ongoing relations campaign by vested interests to,

looking to discredit science in the challenges of interests, challenging interests. looks like you have another question. >> looks like the united states made -- why is it like that when another industrialized country agree upon the facts both regard to the conservative versus liberals impacting true lives. how is that different? >> it's interesting. what you said i would have agreed with just a few years ago, but it's no longer true. by and large, there's been a lot of resistance in moving from fossil fuels on countries that essentially built their economies. it's a coal state. that's how a generation made their livelihoods on coal. it's understanding there's talk about moving away from that.

i understand that why, you know, the fear we're going to take away the jobs, and we can't do that. we have to transition into new -- make sure there's jobs available to replace the ones that are disappearing. there's such history of relicense in our country and australia, and those are two countries with the latest resistance. over the past few years, it's early moved back ward rather than forward. under steven harper, the current prime minister, they pulled out. they have gone in the wrong direction. they've not just moved in the right direction, but they've actually gone back ward. i was up in canada a week ago, toronto, talking to, you know, people up there, talking to some of the, you know, to the media, and it's amazing because they are seeing there what we saw

about five years ago in the u.s. where government and scientists are not allowed to talk to media in canada if their work is on climate research or they have to have minders present and have to get approval to talk to media outlets so there's censorship of science taking place which has an eerie correspondence. what happened in the previous administration here where i had, you know, good friends. at nasa and noaa, they were not allowed to talk to meet ya about research in climate change, and when calls came in to be nasa or public relations, they would find scientists within the organize nation that this a contrarian view on climate change. that's happening in canada. canada is now dealing with the issue of the tar sands and the

mining of the tar sands which will be almost certainly destructive to the environment, but also add to the fossil fuel emissions, and what i'm told is happened is that many of the same players who were sort of fighting efforts to deal, you know, to sign on to, you know, to pass legislation to live in the u.s., they have moved north, and they are actually pulling the same agenda in canada, and so unfortunately, we're actually seeing the problem spread to -- in this case, it's spread across the border to the north, and what i can tell you is that there is something about us in the u.s. and australia, we have this rugged individualist ethos in our culture, and we don't

like to be told what to do, and dealing with the problem tell people that, hey, scientists and people who want to pass carbon limits are trying to take your personal freedom. that has resonance, although i think it's opposite. if we stay on the course we're on, there's less freedom. there's food and water threats, national secret threats rise. in a way, our liberty is threatened by the impacts of climate change. that has resonance with people in the u.s.. it's difference in canada. the same tactics are used now with our, you know, our neighbor to the north, they meeting fierce resistance, and we talked to the people, and they are outraged at what's happening with what the prime minister is

doing. there's no need for these actions at all, but they do have control of the government right now, so it will be interesting how that plays out in the next election. i know the people that i've met just -- and i literally happened to come across, and maybe i just, you know, i'm not talking to the right people, of course, but i couldn't find anybody who is happy with the end of the current policy, energy policy, and so, you know, this is something that's still unfolding. like i said, you know, i'm hopeful that americans continue to see the impacts of climate change now unfolding with their very own eyes. they'll hold policymakers accountable for representing their interests. maybe there's going to be a shift in the policy debate. that'll play out in the next few years. should we stop it there then? okay.

thanks, everybody. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [applause] >> thank you, andrea, my dear friend, for all the work you put in this. thank you for the introduction. thank you for putting this

together, rick young, thank you for this, and of course to the boise state university political science alumni networks. i understand it's a network. it's not an association. thank you to the owner of this wonderful bookstore. rediscovered books. this is a bookstore, marvelous independent bookstore here in boise. you should stop by. thanks to the folks on c-span and those who will watch. it's a great pleasure to be here on c-span. i'll talk about how past presidential campaigns have shaped the 2012 campaign and give a speculation on how the next will change the picture for the history of the united states, and i'm going to begin for about 20 minutes and then open it up to questions. i'll begin with a bold picture which is on november6, 2012, that's most certainly going to be a winner and a loser.

the bold prediction is this. we may not know for several decades who was which. it's not always clear. sometimes the winner has about no impact on american history. they are non-entities, but often time the losing candidate adds big impact on political history, changes dynamics in many ways. i was an unsuccessful political candidate myself. i ran for congress in wyoming in 1998. i was a democratic nominee, a republican state. you sit there and you go, wow, that was tough. i asked my families and friends. and complete stranger, the time, money, talents, i let them down. i remember udall's famous quote that said, members have spoken.

you think that way, and it's like goldwater after losing in 1964 saying i still believe america's a great country anybody can grow up to be president but me. you worry about what's happening, but you think about, did i make a difference? did i have an impact? maybe a congressional race was minimal. i feel like i movedded the ball forward a little bit, and at the presidential level, obviously, there's greater insight, and it loses our very important. first off, behaviors. losing campaigns are far more dynamic and prophetic. how do they make democracy work? you may have noticed on election night that losers always get to speak first. on the network, they declare who the winner they think is, and

then we wait for an hour who is declared an hour to speak, and the won -- one that won can't speak until the loser gave his speech. the fact is the election is not over when the winner speaks, but when the loser concedes defeat. if he says i was frauded, you can imagine what happens because we've seen that happen around the world all the time. a lot of countries, people don't abide by the results of the election that you see. there's riots and civil wars. in 2008, we had a pretty tense presidential campaign, emotional as well in 2008 between the first african-american president and kerry campaign. there were 1600 people there.

there were deaths in mongol ya and liberia. in 2007, legislated president of france, there were riots with 80 # policemen injured, 60 cases of arson, and people arrested. we're fortunate in united states not to have violence after a presidential election. they come out and say i'm disappointed, but i accept the results and it's time for our country to unify around the winner and move forward. they have to do that because winners only govern when the position can begin. i refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the winner. how can anything get done? there's gridlock and chaos. one of the messages in the book is that i do worry we're getting to a point where there's so much polarization, i feel we're going to lose this.

there's still a relatively young dpok. there's so many ethic groups, regional differences, and so i think our democracy in america is from jimg -- fragile, and it's important we keep these traditions, keep it unified, a legitimate government, govern, do the basic elements of governing, and we'll come back the next election time and beat them. if we lose that, i feel we're going to see a terrible, terrible problem in the election cycle. i mentioned last time how there's more impact of winners and losers are more prophetic than the winners.

the winners can be stuck in the policies of the past. i argue every major program in our political systems were first. it takes awhile for something new to gain public acceptance. it's radical and difficult to absorb. by the way, things they bring in more, they bring in different types in the political process. maybe it's the young, minorities, women. they bring in -- the coalition, how the parties are organized. >> what are the demographics,

and so a losing campaign sometimes has to be very bold to get people's attention. they have to talk about issues nobody talks about or they bring on a running mate, for example, john mccain brought sarah palin on the campaign ticket. the campaign manager went to mccain saying we need a game changer to win this thing or we'll lose. they went for the long path and picked governor palin, and that did, in fact, generate excitement for awhile in that campaign. the other thing is, you know, if you've won, you're fat and happy. you think, gee, i got a winning message. i've done well. i don't need to change anything. a loser, if you've lost, you have to have introspection saying what did we do wrong and what can we do better the next time? we retool, and think about remodeling your house. if you make app addition, you to to knock down walls and then

rebuild. that's what happened. i'll give a few ideas how losing campaigns have shaped the very basics of our political system and move on to this campaign and move on to the recent presidential candidates. there's three candidates from the 19th century are not remembered well or misunderstood, but, in fact, help shape the basic fundmental nature of the politics. they determine where we have a two-party political system in the united states. why the parties are the republicans and why the parties are the democrats and why one part conservative and why the other slib rail. i want 20 talk about henry clay. i'll tell you about him. henry clay is perhaps the greatest american never to have become president. there's ben frng lain, alexander hamilton and george marshall are great too, i vote for henry clay. he was the greatest legislator

in american history. he was important in the house of representatives and the u.s. senate. he was legislated speaker of the house as a freshman on the first ballot before he took the oath of office. that's how much his leadership qualities were recognized by his peers in the house, and then he took the speaker's job, preachesly pretty much ceremony, and he transformed it into what we know today. the speaker of the house is the second most powerful person behind the president. it was not that way until speaker did that. he said the speaker should decide what legislators get on what committee, what's heard, when we debate the bills. he transformed and formed the -- transformed the office of speaker. he was a passionate man with a lot of leadership abilities. when e started in life, he was a

jeffersonian republican. he said which government governs best governs least. the federalists, the founding fathers didn't want political parties in the system. there's nothing in the constitution about political parties, let alone two of them. it's something that could have developed organically, and it was from a river riots between hamilton and jefferson. one believed in government and the other in minimalist. he was one more than anyone else to involve us in the war of 1812. he led the war hawks who thought it was outrageous that the britishs captured seamen and had them serve in the british navy. we don't study this in history a lot, because it's minor and considered an absolute disaster. we lost the war, and we were lucky the british were pre-audiotaped with napolian.

clay realized the reason we lost the war essentially is america didn't have the right industrial capacity. we got our weapons from overseas. british blockaded our ports. we didn't have a common currency or national bank, no way to get credit to fight the british, and then we were on the home court, but there was such terrible infrastructure, you couldn't move troops around the country. came out of the war of 1812 that we needed a stronger national government, and he developed the american system. the american system was a fairly brilliant idea where he was trying to get support in every part of the country, and so he proposed high tariffs to strengthen northern manufacturing. he had the idea you take the money from the tariffs to build cams, roads, and ways to get from the north and south and had

a national bank for a common currency and the united states credit. the american system was the first venture to capture the hamiltonian tradition and move it forward. by that time, like i said, the federalists fell out of favor, and they advocated for succession in the war of 1812. there was a brief time for a generation where america was under the jeffersonian republicans. it might have stayed that way except clay butted heads with jackson. they were both from the west. jackson kentucky, and clay tennessee. president jackson, do you have regrets in life? yes, i never shot henry clay. for his part, henry clay never understood jackson's popularity. he never say i can never understand how killing 2500 englishmen qualifies anyone for the complicated duties of the

chief ma jest riots. they were natural rivalries. jackson blamed clay for his wife's death. you think campaigns are nasty now, read about the one in 1824 and 28. they accused clay of being a local visitor, and adams was accused of being a pimp for the czar of russia, and they claimed that jackson's mother was a prostitute, and that, of course, he was living in sin because he married his wife. they were on the frontier, took awhile for papers to get processed, married her before she was divorced from the first husband. they called her horrible names, and she died suddenly, and jackson blamed clay. they were bloat running as -- both running as over--

jeffersonian parties. the vote was split. it went to the u.s. house of representatives where clay was speaker, but clay has a bad luck and bad judgment finishing four out of four. he was not one of the three names to be forwarded for consideration. people said, well, clay's speaker. whoever he backs, he's president. backs jackson, adams, or crawforward. i can't vote for crawford, and so he made adams president. adams made clay secretary of state. they said there was a club. he sold out his vote to be secretary of state. now, reason i'm telling you this is what happened out of this is that jackson, of course, immediately started running against adams and clay, and so clay realized that jackson was

going to be a formidable opponent. he thought the only way to beat jackson was to organize, and so he did things never done in america before. he said we need a county committee, a committee in every county to organize against andrew jackson, and then we need people there to help form a committee at every state level, state committees and a national committee. we have to have a platform to have other candidates run under. we need newspapers to raise money to put advertising in the newspaper, and so what you have the gipping of the political party as we know it today, and it was all based on andrew jackson. after he -- jackson defeated clay, and then clay lost to jackson, and at that point, clay decided to call the organization the wig party. we have the first separate party from the jeffersonian republicans now known as the democrats. you have the democratic party and the wig party, and it's

based upon rivalry between jackson and clay. clay was never president, ran three times, forged tremendous compromises to avoid civil war, but his greatest legacy is he created the two party system we have today. it could have gone a different way if someone was less skilled. we could have had little parties like europe, but clay's genius was created this big tent, broad based party called the wig to be involved into the republican party, and that's why we have a two party system because of the losing campaign. now, why is there still a democratic and republican party? there's another man imto talk about, steven douglas. we know him as the guy who debated lincoln and lincoln beat him for president. what good was he? must not have been a great guy. douglas is complicated, known as the little giant, and he was a lifelong rival of lincoln. they both dated mary todd, mary

todd was intent on marrying the president, and she married lincoln. turns out, she knew what she was doing. douglas was an interesting guy. he was against -- in the great debates, douglas' great issue was he wanted to expand west, build railroads. he didn't care about slavery, but he wanted america to be together to generate growth and prosperity in the united states. slavery became the debate of the day, and douglas stepped in it when he wanted to settle the west, how to settle the west and get the southern and northern states behind it. the best way to contain slavery is popular sovereignty. everybody votes if they want to be slave os free. this upsets the apple cart. there was carefully forged compromises by clay that banned slavery in the northern territories but not in the south. they wanted to appease the

south. nothing's wrong with slavery, it's in the institution. let people decide if they want it in their particular state. it caused such a fire storm that lincoln retired from politics. he didn't think he'd run again. he was home in springfield building up the law practice, and this kansas-nebraska agent inspired him to run. they are great debates in the senate that people think lincoln won the deals. they payment president in their respective parties. douglas was a favorite to the democrats, but by this time, the south decided to succeed, and douglas was not who they wanted. the south, the fire eaters in the south, decided they had to

destroy the democratic party because the democratic party was one of the few national institutions holding the country together. the methodists and baptists split north and south. they were very anxious to destroy the democratic party and move forward. they decided to succeed whether douglas or lincoln won. douglas new he was not going to win. he decided not to campaign for himself, but spent an entire campaign campaigns against succession. he went in virginia, north carolina, and he said, mr. lincoln's going to win, but that's no republican for the south to so seed. you have no right. we are one nation. the southerners say you can say that in virginia and north carolina, we dare you to go south. he did. he went to georgia, alabama, mississippi, new orleans, and he was pelted with fruit and rocks and he traveled through 23 states.

imagine what it would have been like in 1860 to travel to 22 states to campaign in two short months. he drove himself relentlessly. of course, he lost. tried one more time to compromise. he said, no, we're leaving, can't live under republican rule. there was a legend, and i think it's true that during lincoln's address, douglas was there, holding the big hat, and every time lincoln said something, he would say, that's right, he's telling the truth. lincoln had a harder line wanting to call up 75,000 men of rereceivers. no, call up 200,000 reserves. you need to convert them or hang them in 48 hours. they took the aggressive stand. at that point in time, the northern democratic party did not know how to reagent to succession. they didn't know if this was a

republican problem. president buchanan said, well, i'd love for the country to stay together, let the south go in peace. douglas said no, we have to keep the country together. he then began to campaign in the north to encourage democrats to be loyal to the union and support lincoln and republicans on war policies. we can disagree on other things, we we have to support the union. so i think it's very important aspect of the civil war that's underappreciated. had there been a fifth column in the north, had they been disloyal and not supportive, the war would have gone a different way. he ensured they were loyal to the union. the republicans had a thing. not every democrat's a trader, but every trader's a democratic. they had what they called waving the bloody shirt. jefferson, davis, and everybody else were democrats, but because of douglas, the democratic party survived the war, and there's all the evidence that democrats

enlistedded in the union cause in the north at the same level of republican, and so the union carried the day, and in large part whoas of what douglas did because i can't get elected, and i have to help lincoln. he's not appreciated for that, and that's why he's great. we still have a democratic party because of that. why do we have a liberal and conservative party? then we'll get to the question and answer. democratic party under jefferson was the party that did not like the government. they've been that way the entire 19th century. one election overnight they changed because of william jennings brian. this is how politics are unpredictable. he only served two terms in congress from nebraska. out of office in 1896, he was only 36 # years old, but he was a brilliant orator, traveling the united states all the time giving speeches. this is the populist movement where people were suffering

under the country, and thane wanted the government to regulate railroads and the financial interest and provide relief to the terrible depression hitting the country. brian knew this. he actually believed and told his friends i'm going to the democratic convention to be the nominee. they said, you're crazy. nobody knows who you are. again, just an amazing thing. he was a brilliant speaker. went to the national convention, and it's considered the most thrilling moment. they had a debate over whether there should be an open money supply because there was tremendous deflation in the country at that time. there was no money in circulation. for example, in the state of arkansas, if you took all the money in circulation in 1896, paper and coin, it amounted to like $5 per person. there was no money. they were chicken bartering and that thing to make the economy work. he was an advocate of generating

supply and help people to do that. he worked his way to the foreman to debate in the political convention. somebody said, you know, this is really a great opportunity for you. he said, don't worry, you won't be disappointed. he had a great voice. they said his voice projected for six city blocks. he got up there, giving a speech, chicago auditorium, 10,000 people there, most speakers couldn't be heard in the back row, and here's a young man, hand some, gets up the stair, and gives a spiech on the free coinage of silver. you shall not press down upon the brow of labor of this crown of thorns, and he spread his legs like chris on the cross, and you shall now crucify mankind on a cross of gold. he held this pose, and the place

was quiet, and then people went nuts, screaming, hollering, crying says we're going to win. brian had a long list of reforms beside recon age of silver. he wanted an income tax, a federal reserve board, wanted women to have the right to vote, prohibition, he wanted to regulate the railroads. extremely radical program, and it was so radical that the 1896 campaign is still the most expensive presidential campaign in history because big business was terrified of this presidency. they hiredded 10,000 people to go out and professional speak against william in the election. they speck out notes this people's paychecks saying we find out you vote for william, and if you're firedded, and if he wins on wednesday, don't come to work because we'll be closed. he ran a hell of a campaign. he came close to winning, but

the democrats went from being conservatives to a liberal progressive party that they are today. now, two other folks that also more recently who generated political change, barry goldwater, and, in fact, some here might have voted for him. i had a goldwater button in second grade it was. my parents gave it to me. he transformed the republican party into the conservative party. under eisenhower and the bearer before that, republicans were a fairly moderate party. it was an accommodation with the welfare state, couldn't repeal social security. they didn't want to. we have to slow the growth of government. goldwater said extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. he transformed the party as well. i'm going to wrap it you up it ,

but george mcgovern, lost in a land slide. truly got wiped out. if you picked up a newspaper in 1964, the headline would have been goldwater discredits conservatism. it is dead because of barry gold water, and in 1972, it was the same of mcgovern that the liberal movement was dead and things were discredited. of course, neither was true. 16 years after goldwater, reagan running the most conservative campaign in decades was elected president, and also in 1972, mcgovern created a new coalition of democrats around minorities, women, the young, highly educated activists, and voters, and president obama won in 2008. women, young, minorities, activist voters, and so mcgovern took longer, but it showed how the campaigns change, but you may not know results for decades. let's talk about the ethos this

this year's campaign, and in my book, i don't write about anybody who was president and lost, it's just about guys who didn't get to become president. if president obama loses, my book does not change. i'm not going to worry about president obama, but other republican loses i'll do an epilogue. let's talk about how the past campaign. we have this fascination with the businessmen, going to nominate donald trump and herman cain? what's that about? it goes back to ross perot. nobody thought businessmen would make great presidents. perot said i should be president. it's that simple. did well, captured imagination, and people thought for the last 20 # years, you know, we need a ceo to turn the country around. that's one of the things. rick perry had a few whoops

moments, but he said i was a terrible student in texas a&m. why would they brag about having a bad academic record? that's back to the 1952 campaign. whether stevenson was too smart for the president talking over the heads. the republicans almost self-consciously ran a low brow campaign. i mean, when eisenhower ran, he'd say something like status quo and say, excuse me, i'm not the educated candidate. i shouldn't talk like that. somehow the democrats are the elite intellectual party, and the republicans have this middle class sensibility started in 1952. certainly in mitt romney's case, you have a couple old campaigns. the al smith campaign, first roman catholic, and mitt romney may be the first latter-day saint mormon to be legislated for president. romney does not like to talk

about religion and either did al smith. it's uncomforten to talk about -- uncomfortable to talk about religion. let's move on. religion is a qualifying factor so al myth had to talk. i'm not opposed because he's a catholic, but i don't like the fact he's from new york and for prohibition. when you look at the numbers and do the polling, people were uncomfortable. look at the numbers this year, mitt romney is losing votes. people are uncomfortable vote r for a mormon. he'll have to give a speech to address the issue and acquaint people with mormonism. we're running out of time, but it's interesting that nobody is getting an edge in the republican race hardly. you know, one week romney's up, then newt gingrich. that's mcgovern's fault.

he's infliewpsing one of the most conservative republican races in history. it was in 1968 he led the reform commission to how the way they were selected. they wanted primaries, and fewer caucuses, and so it worked well for the democrats, and so they did all of the reforms and made this system much more open, and the republicans decided to do the same. one of the things insisted on and what republicans adopted is no more winner take on primary. we need proportioned delegates. we want a long process and people to be treated fairly. that's why romney can't get the leg up. he has to share right now with newt gingrich and rick santorum. he's somehow impacting it.

tom duey lost first to residencies vet in 44 and truman in 48. what's it like? it reminds me of the man who went to the irish wake, got drunk and passedded out. woke up, found alive, why am i in a coffin, and if i'm dead, why do i have to go to the bathroom? i don't know what it means, but i think it relates to losing candidates. i appreciate your time tonight. thank you. [applause] >> scott, you have a question. it's personal. who is your almost champion moping almost presidents? >> i get that question a lot. i talked about clay, and i didn't know much about clay when i started writing, and i missed the bat. tom duey was an interesting character. he started out as a district

attorney, and he was the model for hollywood films with betty davis because he was putting the bad guys away. dutch schulz, and whoever was going to kill tom would get $50,000 from the mob. going in 1940, he was the leading republican candidate as a 36-year-old district attorney. he was a 24 #-year-old district attorney. he became governor of new york, ran in 1940, governor of new york, active in successful govern of new york, created the state university of new york, the first expressway system. new york had fewer problems after world war ii more than anyone else. he was a brilliant, decent man and odds on favor to beat truman in 1948. most of the things truman accomplished was in his first time. he was very unpopular in 1948,

people thought he was, and that duey was a shoe-in. there's a myth he didn't do much to win, just played it safe. that's actually not true. he was just in the as outrageous as truman, and it's a thrilling story, and i like truman too, but he landed unfair blows comparing the republicans to the nazis. that didn't sit well with anybody in 1948. that created bitterness. he did win because people were excited about the underdog, but it set to tone for the country that was bad, and duey's manager skills would have made him a great president. i was impressed with him, and truman did a lot of great things, but the second term was a disaster, and we would have been better off with duey. >> we have another question. how will the republican convention go if romney does not have enough delegates in your opinion? >> interesting question. we have not had a completely wide open convince since 1952

when the democrats picked stevenson, not running for president, but gave an up spiring welcoming address to the delegates, they insisted he was the nominee. they picked eisenhower over taft. the on other times they were in doubt was 1976 with reagan challenging ford. so close, it was not decided until the week of the convention, and then, of course, 1980, there was a chance kennedy might have overcame carter in the democratic convention. if we have this again because of the delegate situation, it's hard to say. we don't 1 the pour brokers we used to. all the openness means there's no -- anybody's in control. back in 1952, there was party leaders and bosses who could control the delegations saying, okay, everybody from missouri, idaho, wyoming, this is how we are vote. you vote this way, and if you don't, you'll lose your job. we don't have a system like that

anymore. this will be utter chaos. it may be similar to the 1924 democratic convention which timely nominated john w. davis on the 103 ballot leading will rogers to quit. people in the future, kids will sit on grandpa's knee asking what you did in the big war. i didn't do that, but i survived the 1924 convention. it will be cay chaotic. nobody to run the show, a lot of dealing and wheeling and it will be ugly, but fascinating if you like politics. >> modern day losers are treated by media as real losers rather than respectable candidates. what are your thoughts on that? >> good question. there's a chapter that talks a little about that, and i think a couple things. it's not always been that way. there was a time when, clay name nateed three times, jennings ran

three times. they were not identified as loser because of losing an election. there was a book called "born losers" about the notion of failure in business. failure used to be considered just an incident. it's one of those things that happened. i had a business, but it failed, but then over time, failure has become an identity, it becomes how you are #, he's a loser, he's a failure. nobody talked like that 200 years ago labeling failures and losers, but they do now. part of that, again, is the changing of culture. it's talked about the industrial revolution and the commercial revolution changing how we vieww things based on a farm economy. television changed a lot. that gives you an image of failure to go with your failure. john kerry talking this thing about i voted for it before it voted against it. there's an image to go with the

sense of failure that makes it difficult for people to look at now and not think of those things. when people lose today, they don't get to be nominees again. wea nominee has not got a nomination again since 1968. they don't get a chance to speak at the next national convention because people are afraid the failure will hurt the campaign. they are kept away. i also compare it to how famous at leets, buckner let the ball go through his legs in the 1986 world series, and that's all people remember them buy. when they fail at the highest level, that's all they are remembered by. all these men had outstanding careers, but they are just remembered for being the losers. >> i was wondering how much cree dance to do you give to the

theory or thought that hedgehogs are better at winning the election and that the big thinkers on the other hand are much better at actually becoming leadership ability in -- when they are actually president? >> rephrase that one more time. >> well, there was a story that came out recently comparing the hedgehogs to the, what you might call the big thinkers that are more flexible and less -- not the io dee logs that hedgehogs are associated with. the hedgehogs are focused and better at winning election, and the others do much better when they are actually president, the big thinkers, more flexible. >> i get what you are saying. a couple responses to that. sometimes i think the hedgehogs

in being more aggressive with their ideas are partisan, sort of like you said, scare people, and this goes back to my theory that we have a fragile democracy that we don't want -- sometimes our elections are about trivial things, and that's deliberate. if you think about the civil war over a very important issue called slavery, and it tore the country apart. i think sometimes we try to avoid issues that are just too sensitive. let's take abortion today where people have such strong emotion, and you got folks on both sides, very strongly, sort of in the middle, and if you focus too much on devicive issue that help you win a primary because people share your view, but it unsettles the public. if we talk about this, nothing gets done. let's talk about stuff we can agree on. people who talk about two issues that are devicive, especially talking in passionate terms, scare people off, and people

worry the country will fall apart and divide. if i was going to have comparison this year, rick sanotrur is like george mcgovern. he'd hate that comparison i know. here's why. mcgovern's issue was the war, and mcgovern talked about the war in a way that made people uncomfortable giving a speech in the senate saying this chamber reeks of blood, and every man here is responsible for the death of 40,000 american boys. nobody likes to hear that thing. he talked about war crimes, and people who might have agreed with him that the war was a mistake and had to get out, i don't trust this guy, he's too radical. same with senator is santorum. people agree with him on abortion and contraception and pornography is not a good thing, but how senator santorum talks about it in such strong terms cares people when he said i read kennedy's speech on separation

of church and state and made me want to throw up. that doesn't sound presidential. if you're too moralistic it frightens people because they -- think they are issues that coapt be resolved. lincoln said problem with douglas doesn't see ego as a human being. he said you're right. you can't solve world issues in a political theater. it's about what's possible in politics. the american people say moral issues are just too scary, never resolve them, and let's stay off those kinds of issues. >> how do you think that senator mccain's running mate choice -- let me start over. how will mccain's running mate choice for vice president change how future vice presidents are selected? >> i think first of all probably more vetting. i think there was, again, if you

go back to how governor palin was selected. she was very exciting. i met her a few times. she's very charming, a real political comer, but she was picked too soon. she was not properly vetted, and they were not sure how she'd react. i thought the hbo movie was fairly fair as was the book saying here's a poor woman, happy being the governor of alaska, and then she's in the national media, taken away from her family, the newborn child, which must have been hard, makes mistakes, and you're subject to ridicule at the national level. she withdrew, became bitter and angry about the campaign and at the media and regime -- general public. in the future, it's a warning that it's nice to be exciting for momentum, but you need to know more about the people. you hear talk about marco rubio. same thing, young, attractive, dynamic, you --

but i don't think we know much about him. it's port he be fully vetted. that's a problem with the republican battle going on for so long is that if you can wrap up the nomination early, you can think about these things. the biggest disaster in vice presidential history was poor george mcgovern. he 4 not locked up the nomination before the convention because it was challenged. the mcgovern campaign was pre-occupied fighting a challenge in the california delegate selection and it was not resolved until wednesday of the con vens itself, and the vice presidential nomination was due thursday. he had last than 24 hours. they were exhausted. there was a meeting the morning of thursday, put the name before the convention at 4 p.m.. so they have 40 names to start with on the list, 40 names. part of the problem was mcgovern was sure he'd get teddy kennedy.

he didn't give an answer. put him off. that wasted hours. timely then he tried another, and he tried nelson and other people, and everybody said, well, no, can't do it. an hour to go. they picked up the name of tom, and eagleson, smart guy, senator from missouri, catholic, good with labor. they call him up 15 minutes before. eagleson, want to be vice president? yeah, i'd love it. anything to know about you? no, i'm fine. of course, they put the name forward, and the problem was there were things wrong with him. had mental health issues and electric shock therapy. that was a big problem when it came out. he had already thought about dropping eagle from the ticket, and he said i'm behind him 1,000%. of course, then when he did drop

him a few days later, he looked like a liar and all sorts of things. vetting is important, and i think that i'm sure romney or santorum or newt gingrich want to have as much time as they can to think about it. >> last couple elections we've seen the rise of the super packs and their influence. how do you see that influencing romney's race? >> now we are getting out of the book, but that's okay. >> sorry. >> maybe some other people saw this, but i think somebody said the super packs outspent the campaigns 5-to-1 or 6-to-1. the campaigns are not ran by the campaigns. what people think about them, it's what the super packs say about them. we wink and nod, but it's changing american politics, and it will be interesting to see if the supreme court revisits the citizens united case that allowed that. if i'm the campaign manager, i'm

happy for the $10 million check, that's great, but if i'm not controlling the message, i just don't know how i'd feel. ive been a campaign manager and candidate. what people know about me, i have no control about must be a frightening proposition. that will be interesting to see how that changes american politics. a couple more questions before we wrap up? yes, sir. >> [inaudible] after the defeat in 1924, and it was brown versus board of education in 1954. >> you have a great historical knowledge. that's something about davis in the bang. i -- in the back. i picked the ones with the contemporary politics, and before i get to davis, people say why don't you have wilke in there was he was an important losing candidate as well and he's credited with making sure

the united states was prepared for world war ii because republicans did not wants the land lease agent to go through. he was asked to go to britain and come back and tell the american people as to why it's important to gave aide and comfort, and the congress was about ready to end the draft, and the draft extension passed by two votes. that was due to wilke. he change the history, but not politics. i did do essays on everybody in the een. there's short sketches, a thousand words a piece, on everybody nominated and who lost. i go into davis' career. he probably is america's greatest lawyer. that's what his mo is. he's argued more cases before the u.s. supreme court more than any other attorney. he was the lugeing attorney in the -- losing attorney in the brown versus board of education case.

the other attorney in brown versus board of attorney was another named thurgood marshall. who is your idol as an attorney? john w. davis. how would he try the case? that's what i tried to do. it's ironic he becomes a supreme court justice and wins that case. thank you. there's so many interesting men who, you know, so obscure. who heard of louis cass? father of mental anguish. father of michigan. he created the university of michigan, created their public school system, a great naturalist. considered america's leading expert on native americans, and he was honored, and so he was -- they are all interesting character, and it's a shame they are forgotten, and i hope if my book doesn't do anything else,

but encourages people to look more at these people because they provide wonderful examples how politics should be. sometimes again, better than the winners. they are honorable men, very interesting thoughts issue and also i'd encourage you if you get the book to look at the essays baa there's other -- because there's other books i recommend to learn about the people. i enjoyed spending four years with these guys. i'm defensive about them now. i want to advocate on their behalf because they are great people, and they are all deserving of a better place in history than they got. yes, sir? >> who will be the next great loser for the presidency? [laughter] >> well, hard to say. that's the thing. you don't know. again, if you look at the 64 and the 72 campaign, you said, goldwater was a disaster, mcgovern was a disaster, but they are the most influential in history.