somebody's car and got a fight. and it prevents them from employment and feed their family. from those, i hope you can connect with the community. you're right, people can connect with. they can find ways to give it back. a lot has to do with ignorance. i want to thank for your time today. do you want to mention the book one last time. >> "a question of freedom; a memoir of learning, survival, and coming of age in prison." it's a excellent book. it's a memoir of learning coming of age and survival in prison. "a question of freedom; a memoir of learning, survival, and coming of age in prison." thank you. we appreciate it. >>

were her thoughts on the current study gender politics in america. but the focus on professional careers and employment. she contends that women have gained little supprt in their professional lives despite the fact they comprised 60% of college graduates and 50% of medical and law students. this is about an hour. >> i'd like to start out by recognizing my present husband john hennessy. [applause] i was lucky on both counts. but, you know, let me first say a ord about this bookstore. i don't think i have to exaggerate one bit when i say this is the best bookstore in the state of vermont and i don't say this every bookstore. [applause]

your presence here tonight also shows the loyalty that people have to the written word of paper, and bookstores like this are only going to survive if we continue to patronize them as you do here tonight. and i confess i have an ipad but i still like to hold a book in my hand and feel the pages, so i think the book is going to survive as the result ofplaces. you might ask why did i write this book? i've been asked recently -- maybe it's because -- shy see this out loud, other people print it any way 78 and people say why don't you just take it easy? you've been governor, you've done other stuff, and some little flame inside me refuses

to go out and i still want to get engaged and use my voice to foster change. what i found when i wrote politics of power and did a lot of speaking and i found that i was often asked a question especially the younger women how did you do it? you had four children, you have a family, you had a full-time career, and there's never an easy answer to that question because it is such a personal thing the best answer i could give is i did it in stages. my kids don't remember now but i was home for 12 years with brownies and chocolate chip cookies and all that stuff. but then as i children got older i got more and more engaged in politics. what surprises me is this was a

big question in the 60's. how do we do it? the women's movement told us you can do it all, but maybe not at the same time. maybe not as easy as we are professing. so in a way i discovered that this generation is facing the same issues in a slightly different way even though we have made tremendous progress from the time when i had young children. women now in the workforce in equal numbers, women are educated. 60% of undergraduates are female. what we haven't done is we haven't adjusted how the society is structured to that revolution that has transformed the family.

we are still acting like norman rockwell's saturday evening post covers where the perfect family had daddy going out the door holding a briefcase wearing a tie, and mommy sat or stood in the doorway waving goodbye wearing a pinafore, does anybody remember a ton for? and perfect children on each side of her. and that photograph or that painting now applies to about 20% of the population and probably for just a page of their lives. the new family portrait which has both parents were a single parent walking out the door is the new portrait but we have kind of a sentimental attitude

that those days were perfect and those days should probably exist whereas they don't. i started reading the beginning of the book. five of us were meeting for lunch and reminiscing about the women's movement. i was never one of those angry white man once said i'm still angry i blurted. mauney reaction surprised both me and my friends. where did that come from? a source i hadn't talked before. upon reflection i realize i'm not angry enough to carry a placard on the streets in front of the nation's capital. i wrote this before i spoke at not appear to weeks ago. [laughter]

as i did in my thirties i vouch for women's rights, but now in my seventies i am still dissatisfied with the status quo and harbor a passion for change. old age allows me the luxury of being impatient. there is not so much time left and it permits me to say what i think. to be demanding, and best of all to imagine a different world where there are two gender equality is with the home and the political agreement. why in your? what i expect? i expected the movement of the 1970's would give me a good answer to the question my students regularly asked. how do you manage to have a family and career? i expected and affordable child care would be widely available and paid family leave would be

dull that equal pay for equal work would be a reality. i did not expect that women would still make 77 cents for every dollar that men earn a. i expected that one-third of the commerce governors state legislatures of this would be female. i did not expect that in 2010 that number would be 17 per cent of the congress in the united states would be tied at 69th place in the percentage of women in parliament in the 78 countries one half of corporate board members would be when and i did not expect to see that proportion against that 17 per cent. i expected that high percentage of the fortune 500 companies would be led by men and women i did not expect the figure to be 3%. a the acts against women would

be condemned and sharply reduced. i did not express that a female journalist would be sexually abused in the middle of the square and then blamed for bringing in on herself as well logan at cbs news experienced in february, 2011. i expected tharoe v wade would remain level of the land. i did not expect that it would be the tv corroded state by state. i expected by the year 2011 grand mothers like myself would be able to tell their grandchildren how it used to be long ago when families had to figure out for themselves how to be both wage earners and caregivers. some changes occur though i hadn't expected and could not have imagined that women would comprise nearly 60% of college undergraduates that women would comprise half of the medical and law students that they would enter and record numbers and

with the traditional family supported by further would be overtaken by the wage earner families. that is the good news. the bad news is many women that have careers that we never could have imagined are still flummox and most age-old problems have to have a job and take care of the children, the elderly, the sec and the disabled. until we find a way to sort out how to share these responsibilities between spouses, parkas, employers and the government, gender equality will remain an elusive goal. so, that is the research that i undertook to find out both why the united states is different from the rest of the world and how we can bring about change. the book has only been about ten

days or two weeks. how many people do not know how different we are from the rest of the world. then take paid maternity leave. the united states, as you know, had the first bill bill clinton signed into law with unpaid family and medical leave, and it is considered a huge achievement in the united states. but it's a little unrealistic because when a family has a new tv or whether somebody is sick, that is expensive and they have to be for food, clothing, and that is the first time in the world to give up your paycheck. so unpaid family leave, as good as it is, is not adequate. the united states is in very strange company when it comes to not having paid maternity leave.

many countries now have maternity and paternity because dads want to stay home. they don't want to be like the previous generation of madmen who left early in the morning also did a lot of drinking in between. [laughter] but left early in the morning, came back out when the kids were asleep in time for a bedtime story. so they want to be different dads, this generation, as do the mothers. and of course the most important time in a child's life is the first weeks and months, so crucial for the baby and mom and dad to bond who's with us not having paid family leave? it's somalia, probably new

guinea countries we are not aligned with. just about every country has some form of not complete pay but a form of paid family leave. there were doing business in saudi arabia, where as you know, they can't legally get behind the car even in saudi arabia to strive to work you are guaranteed paid maternity leave without risking being fired for leaving work we are the real out players in the united states. what do we really need to make families stronger? you know the title of the book is the new feminist agenda as i did a lot and i do have a few

debates with the publisher whether it should be called the feminist agenda. i do better with "the new york times" after all but it's feminism that we are talking about. we are talking about men being engaged and the elderly being engaged because the elderly could benefit from workplace flexibility from unpaid medical leave. paid medical leave for the elderly would work in two ways. working parents or working daughter or elderly person if the mother or the grandmother suddenly needs medical assistance she could come home and provided she could take her to the doctor and nei be prevented the institutional was asian down the road a lot of elderly people don't want to leave the workplace or can't

afford to leave the workplace. and if they have flexibility, if they knew they could take time off if something happened, they would save the work force and we would have valuable skilled employees that we need so badly today. ..

with work place flexibility, you could work it out. some people work it out now. mostly people to have super good passes to work for very good count may send people at the pace gal who loves to power frankly to negotiate. people in the lower wage scale do not have that power. i've been told is somebody for flexibility and he said you cannot flexibility. you're fired. as cruel as that. if we had worked place flexibility, you'd retain talent. i had a long interview and i first met with general named james wall who was h.r. director of the accounting and financial term. from a business disc, he became

an advocate of these policies. why? he found out it was in talent. he recruited people from this is true. he recruited the best in what they could get, equal number of men and women. at the time people were ready to be on the tears for the top level of management. suddenly the number of women was 17, 15%. they began to realize you put all this money into training these people and releasing them. so they spent two or three years analyzing and changing the culture is, cheney policies to retain talent. and he has placed in an retaining good employee at three to five times the salary. the biggest opponent, i'm sorry

to say, of these policies made a post on a family at the time is people like the chamber of commerce and the large business community because they immediately say this is going to cost so much money. this is antibusiness and in case you haven't noticed, whether it be wall street or main street or the family. one of the things we have to do is encourage to james wall of this country and the employers that do use these policies and note that this does not damage or weaken the bottom line amex business much more profitable, much more capable of retaining talent. even with today's unemployment rate, i'm always surprised to read there's lots of jobs that

are not being filled. because they can't find a talented capable people fulfilling. we shortchange ourselves or don't recognize policies like x ability, policies like family leave make a huge difference in retaining a talented workforce there was a desolate need. in addition to flexibility, i would put childcare very high on that list. people ask often and it's a fair question, should i send my child to child care or not. it's childcare good or bad for children? in world war ii it was considered very good for children because women were needed in the countries.

sometime after the wait was not considered so good for children because the man were coming home to take the jobs that women have held. part of that is social expect tatian at the time, the large part is quality. poor childcare. the good childcare can be very good for children. but we don't have a real high standard in this country for child care. but guesstimates it? 100%. the best childcare provider in the united states of america is the department of defense. the department of defense once had no quality child care. and then they discovered, you know, they couldn't recruit people. they could retain them. as you know in the last 10 years with two wars going on, more

women were in the military, are in the military and more people had children and quality child care became the question of national security. and that is where we are today. they are the gold standard of subsidized with a pay scale depending on your income and every childcare sponsored by the military meets national standards. in vermont i think it's about 8% that meet national standards. it's really important. the other factor that may have influenced the military and is important for us to consider is that there was a study of mississippi just a few years ago that revealed that 75% -- 75%, excuse me, of the people who

wanted to sign up to serve their country were rejected. and they were rejected currently for physical reasons while they were illiterate. they did know how to rewrite. they did not social skills, did no qualifications to serve their country. how does that relate to it? it relates in the sense that the early years, especially recent brain studie have revealed from zero to five are the critical years in brain development. and if you cannot good care in those crucial years, your chances of making it as a contributing citizen, there've been some longitudinal studies over a 40 year period, of four children who went through high quality child care center's.

as with head start, we've always assumed that the effect was short term. you know, the test scores may go up for a couple years and then they go to regular school and don't get the same enrichment and may fall back. wow, what these studies have driven us we should not all advocate as stories, which i call cognitive skills. we should look at other schools entre skills called noncognitive skills like attention span, the and the ability to be sociable and communicate and make some 40 years later these skills were retained. and how do we know that? slightly lower incarceration rates mean slightly higher employment, slightly better relationships. so it pays to invest in those early years. the one time this kind surely an

education was the g.i. bill of rights. as we look back on the history of the g.i. bill, it was very controversial. it was a huge investment. there are lots of skeptics, a lot of people thought why should we educate these young men? college buddies and lv dysfunction and ordinary people were capable of. well, investment in the g.i. bill has resulted in the development of the american middle class. that is now a common assessment and if we had not made that investment, we wouldn't be here today. well, i would argue that investment in early childhood, and good childcae, good prenatal care, and good kindergarten afterschool care what device the same rate or similar rates of return because we are paying a very high price

for it now for neglect team families and a quick and children. now, i'm not proud of the statistic and i'm sure you're not either. the united states is the highest child poverty rate of any industrialized country. we hover around 20%. not the best countries as you may surmise are the scandinavian countries. they're probably raised at 3%, 4%, nothing higher than 5%. even france, austria, don't go above 5%. what about this child poverty rate. these children are given a blow before they even start. and if we could prevent that, when i spoke about this yesterday they said this these are the 3% poverty rate.

we don't seem to be embarrassed by the 20% poverty rate. this kind of investment is absolutely essential for national security and for economic security. again, if we are to really compete in the world, we cannot simply engage in the social darwinism only paying attention to the survival of the fittest and let the rest fend for themselves because they pay for it. and one of the questions is how do we do this? how do we create change? especially a time that we had very divisive politics, when government, at least on one side of the aisle is sympathetic to get out of all the social programs. recently the house passed the republican budget cuts the

things we have. food stamps, pat start, ing into absolutely the wrong direction. hopefully the senate will restore much of that. we can't know for sure. so how do we operate a and the present political climate? well, for one thing, like it or not we don't seem to like it very much as evidenced by the health care debate, we can look at other countries. we don't have to invent the wheel. they do it. and it's not just the scandinavian countries. as countries like great britain and australia. both of these countries called the right to request. it was scofflaw. if you're an employee to work four days a week inside a five work at home by 4:00, you can ask your employer for

flexibility. he or she does not have to give it to you, but you have to have a discussion and you cannot get fired or threatened for asking. and if you cannot negotiate it and you can come up with something different that leisure is the employer goes to a tribunal. does this first opposed it? now they seem to like it because the philosophy appears to be that if this employee works part-time for a couple years, she's going to come back to work full-time. not only banned, you have extremely grateful loyal and productive employees as a result. somebody understands the rest of your life and doesn't treat you like just a card in the wheel, you're going to work. i suspect parents and especially mothers are going to look around. what is the best place to work for? not because of the salary, but because of what are their policies in regards to families? for no other countries are doing it. what is interesting to me and

misinformation. we all know we have multinational global companies. when these companies do business in france, 90% of the population uses a. in sweden, even in austria or switzerland, the country has to play by the rules of those countries. that means, are they going to pull out because they have to play by the rules? no, they seem to make a profit even though they have policies like family leave, flexibility and farmers subsidized air quality child care. so it obviously doesn't affect their bottom line abroad. those in other countries get these benefits. why shouldn't americans get the same benefits.

this is a tough time, but you know there's never a good time. maybe when things are back is the best time to make noise. and not let the outside -- i would call it anti-family though they might not. this is an anti-family policy to deprive families of the ability to be both loving caregivers for their children and providers in the subsidized, stable way. you know, i never thought i'd be giving a speech like i did a

couple years protecting access to affordable contraception. that was back in the 1930s. we have to hold our energy, but we also have to move forward the same time. so it suddenly dawned on me the other day, that progress, unlike most is not a straight line. youknow, it has started a country road with them bound senate and trumps. and one of those times that progress will be restored.

but it's not going to do so without voices raised. and one of the issues i've been proselytizing on ever since those first select it to office is that we need more women in politics. burbank number two in the country, percentage of women in the legislature. we can be proud of that or the rest of the country is not with death and certainly not in the congress as you have just been reminded us. do you have to ask yourself the question. if there were more than in the congress, but a table of four or five men decide contraception have a nice raise. if you're not at the table, you're on the menu.

last night so we have to have a seat at the table. they have to be part of the discussion. as alan massena likes the judiciary, the conversation when actual changes other than our president. you remind them of a few things about your real-life experiences , words violence against women are having to find childcare. you know, reality is not just an abstract idea into the discussion. and yes, men have supported these issues and some will continue to do so, but nothing like the power of personal story. the statistics are important. research is important, but we have to tell her stories and we have to tell them out loud so other people can hear. now, these conversations about who's going to pick up the children at daycare, who's going to talk to the bodice about

being able to go home early to make a doctors appointment, these conversations take place all the time in the area. we know they do. they take place in the watercooler. they take place in supermarkets, this book were, and the café. but they haven't been part of the public political agenda. so my suggestion is we have to put it on the public agenda. we have to ask politicians these questions. what is your position on childcare? what is your position on subsidized child care, on flexibility, starting with maternity but should be family and medical leave. and not be afraid to ask him to put them on the spot. that's what happened in other countries. it was the women's women who lead it in terms that reagan had

a and a way that did in the 70s. not just recently. and it was conservatives who raise these issues. i would love to make a suggestion to republicans that if you propose a family-friendly work of john the, if you say i'm going to fight for quality child care, women wouldn't want to ask you, say yes, yes, this is a winner politically. and people just don't recognize that as such because they are afraid, to some extent, of the other side and because the issue has been framed in a particular way and we have to reframe it as real family policies and support strong families.

so let me conclude by reading it -- let me just add one thing for the conclusion. especially former politicians. and now, my last book i asked the question, what enables a person to get up, take action on an issue, whether it's running for office or attending a meeting or rally or writing a letter. what moves you from being a passive observer to an actively engaged citizen? and ask you to visualize the reacts. the first is something called debbie mahfouz, whether it's black abyss replayed on your

blog or whether it's the republican budget -- i just happen to mention that. [laughter] or whether it's a prolonged war in afghanistan and iraq. and you move into the second box and use something called imagination. that you can imagine the world a little bit diferent than it is now. some people don't allow themselves to do that. but you can imagine good child care, happy families. you know, there's always tension occurred as a policies between working families. but you can imagine that were swedish. and then you move to the third box. and what do you have there? anger, op denies them in the last five, anger, imagination and the last box's optimism.

you know, they say pessimists are usually right. the op this change the world. and i discussion coming down here with you has been is we really need a fourth box. and that boxes you got to take action. after you've gone through that past, we can't just sit quietly and wait for things to change. and i read you the beginning of my last chapter, which means you really don't have to read the book. [laughter] this is the endgame. patience, silent, the characteristics that one woman prays in the past have to be satisfied if women and their families want to achieve the future. we must match that the words

family values and redefine non-as the work families policies necessary to sustain strong families. we may not have settled on the perfect catch words to describe the 21st century working families needs, but we know what we must do o create change. the word revolution is once again appropriate. we have to organize, mobilize an advocate with the fierce passion at all levels from the grassroots to the states to washington, east to west, north and south, leaving no constituency or person unattached. the well-being of the family must become a critical national concern that unites all constituencies, men, women, children, liberal, moderate and conservative. i got carried away here. the poor, middle-class, elderly,

disabled, employers, employees, the nation's economic security and moral integrity are at risk. it is trying to ring the alarm bells and beat the drums to awaken the country up from its dormant state. we, the richest, the most compassionate nation on earth has the ability to respond to the call for action, to succeed we have to jettison some brief firm believes, one that we can't afford the family policies impede job growth, that the family is solely a private domain. inside, we must embrace these beliefs, that the cost of that nation of inaction is greater than the cost of action, that investment in family work policies fosters economic growth, that we might share the

investment for children, grandchildren and the nation. it is time to strengthen the institution that all americans of every political persuasion of value most in the family. we cannot wait for the perfect moment. now is the right time. thank you. [applause] >> thank y very much. [applause] >> i think there's a maker for. for questions, comments, solution. [laughter] [inaudible]

>> thanks. have a very good excuse. i'm not born in the united states. >> we are a very divisive nation. the first order of business has to be getting beyond the divisiveness that is they are today in washington d.c. how do we do that? >> you're absolutely right. it's sad that mr. murdoch and richard lugar ran on the platform of non-compromise and he won. but that reflects the majority today. i suspect it doesn't really. i think people do not like the status quo. we'll know better after this election if that's true. i think most americans would like to get things done and he can't accomplish anything if one side constantly fights with the other. the art of politics, we use an

old-fashioned slaves. that's what we do and remarks. and that used to be true in congress. lugar and many we should be considered a hero because it wasn't democrats in the nuclear arms treaty. the public has to speak up and say we hate this kind of thing. the power of money in politics. the super packs, that is how they do is purchase negative ads. and until we find a way to reverse the citizens united decision is going to be very hard to stop the super packs. but again, the public has to speak up. with or without money, i still believe that individual voice

made could have an impact that we cannot let money when democracy or ruin democracy. interesting thing happened in massachusetts. if they can stick with it, both scott brown and elizabeth warren said they would take no super pack money. if more candidates did that, i think that's a compromise between republican and democrat. if more people would do that, i think we would move in a different direction. yes. there is the question. >> you mentioned that we need to speak out. there is a movement that entails the less used way of a constitutional amendment to the dictation that we started within

the states that we force the states to go to congress and then turn it back. what is your projection i'm not happening? >> well, i know that two versions of a constitutional amendment. ernie sanders is supporting one and the other groups are supporting the other. i think lula made a constitutional amendment to change citizens united. but that takes a long time to amend the constitution. i think we should work on not, but simultaneously see if we can get for informal agreement to step the court orations of people, which is quite bizarre when you think about it. and just the imbalance. there's always going to be money in politics, but it is the overwhelming of the negative side, the fund date of this

negative side that is distorting the field and not give it people a fair chance. but you know, this election may tell us that thing in terms not only of the president the bird who was selected and whether people will reject some of the negative politics. there is an vident that negative politics works, but it may get to a point where people are just plain disgusted and said not going going to buy that anymore. i see a couple heads nodding which is a sign of hope. the young women that they are. >> there's a really vicious circle between women and children in poverty and the 77 cents $2 for a man makes. and i am wondering if you'd been at the forest to get the equal rights amendment passed, if that might help break the cycle down a little bit and how we could go

forward with that. >> that's a good question. equal rights amendment was one of the issues that brought me into politics because it was a hot issue in the oven these. and we thought that the amendment to the constitution, which is very simple should be no discrimination on the basis of sex. i believe those were the exact words. it later became intertwined with abortion, with anti-phyllis schlafly made a huge campaign effort against it and it got pretty confused and did not ratify a state amendment. we did vote for the federal amendment, even though it ever had that states to ratify. it's a fair question, but i don't have that much faith in it. first of all, i think it would be a hard spot to get going. but i do believe the question

you raise about the impact on women, especially poor women of inequality is huge. you know, the best way to reduce the childhood poverty rate is to enable women to earn enough in it to support their children. this is very important elements of welfare that are important, but if we can enable the woman or that couple to earn enough money that they would dramatically change things. you know, i just got a tweet. i am tweeting, that told me that in switzerland most recently they did a study that women and men are paid equally in switzerland. i don't know if they used the same measurements as we do, but that surprised me. in switzerland women don't get the votes until 1971 and get his

got a strong women's movement. now why do we still have 77 fact that? there's a number of reasons. it is not always true. it is true often women are part-time or they take time off. but even when you measure apples to apples, college professors, will come to work insane hours, same job, 87 were sent, women get the 100 or send them mcat. so one of the curious, if you will, to narrow that gap was revealed to me by the recent report -- state-by-state report of the pay gap. vermont, by the way, was the number one state. the number one area was washing to d.c. think about it. why would washington have the narrowest pay gap? government.

if you work for the government, your salary is public information. a lot of companies do not even allow people to talk about what the person at the next desk to them is earning. that was the case for lilly ledbetter. have you heard of the famous case? for those of you who haven't heard it, worked for the tire and rubber company for 20 years in a supervisory on the floor someone go to a letter in bad you didn't know this, but you're making significantly less than the guys who had the same job. so she sued guccione her case in the court, brought to the supreme court. the supreme court turned it down and said, you didn't file a case after 180 days, which was the rule. of course she didn't know until 20 years later and is

cumulative. so the first bell that barack obama sign in to was the lilly let other fair pay act. so if you don't know, you can't challenge anybody. and so i think some might help you create dio for more employers who write the public information analysis sometimes women, studies have shown, don't negotiate as well or it's tough salary and creases for promotion. and sometimes we may even have to train people. or something that holds you back. of course sometimes you can't ask for a raise because you are afraid you might get fired if you ask and you can't afford that risk because your job is so essential. often you can and you simply undervalued yourselves and your power to ask for the race. men generally are better at that. i was a long answer.

sorry. [inaudible] >> about what you are getting paid. who in the world ever put that in part this? what kind of employee would ever do that? >> well, they don't want to pay people to much. they want to keep salaries under control. that's all you can surmise. >> there's got to be away. >> that's a good question. it may be dangerous to do so. i mean, unions have fought that. unions are quite weak today, the most unionized workplaces probably allow that. gas, and the back. >> code like to thank you for this talk and for reclaiming

that means feminist which has been slandered for many years and to show why a surprise designation and it is and what a lot of gram-negative connotation are about. but it really is protecting families and protect environment to thank you for putting that together in writing this book. >> well, thank you for saying that. [applause] >> you're making them much easier for me to give it to. gas, and the back. >> having child care and work bases is really affect you for the employee as well as the child. do you see any changes coming down in terms of supporting employers and encouraging more of that? >> that is another good question. right after i select the governor, i held a conference.

on site childcare and the work place. the gentleman from boston, hijack was dyed red shoes and on-site childcare. i thought this is such a great idea. everyone's going to do it. well, not everybody does it. first of all, it's not easy. it does state capital investment. we have a lot of rules and regulations, most of which are necessary. the question raises an interesting point. we could have some fast-track process thatould make it easier for employers to do it, especially for small business. it's very hard to do, but there's other things they can do. for example, king arthur bakery provides spots in the neighboring childcare center. a lot o places do referrals. but the truth is, especially for

babies, it is very, very hard to find childcare, i was talking to someone the day before yesterday who said they have application for like 30 spaces. some people say even before you get pregnant, when you think about getting pregnant, you have to sign your baby up for childcare because it's so hard to do. but we could do more and i think state government at shirley could be more helpful. and you know, quality is related to what we pay child care workers. the vehicle might smell and friends certified child care providers. they are treated like teachers. they have to have a degree. soever and sends their kids there. is just not for the, low in come. it's thing to do rather than sending your kid it's like why

not two. i'm not the french and how they distance them elves, but that's another matter. the fact that childcare is available to all we've always had this debate in the country they choose and that it to the most needy and we usually do because we don't have enough money. but that has been negative effect, created a very vulnerable and small constituency. if we could make childcare quality accessible child care universal like we do social security, you could never take it away. you know, if you have this huge coming out of cons, but middle upper income constituency, that the long-range goal. but it's good to keep that in mind. idea back

>> i don't think so. they just recently established a women's restroom they are. near the house of representatives. i think we have a ways to go. [laughter] they had one before, but you had to walk a mile to get there. two more questions. >> i just wanted to say that you're such an inspiration to me personally and to so many women and a sense, both the women, as a citizen on so many levels. but i was curious if there were any particular women right now for you that you find is an inspiration not this time. >> that's a very good question. i do admire the women in the congress. they are pushing these issues. i greatly admire and i'm sure

hillary clinton -- she really is doing an incredible job. you know, something interesting i thought. when she ran for pesident four years ago, she got a lot of negative because she was vicious. she was torn between -- he was criticized at one point for being too soft. and then when she was capable of being commander-in-chief she was to test. and remember she had no a motion. and when she sort of walled up with tears in new hampshire shortly before the primary i looked at the blogosphere and some people said at last the ice maiden has mounted. and others said she can't be commander-in-chief, she's too emotional. now though, i think it's like 24% negative. she's the most popular woman in america, possibly the world.

so i think she has changed the asp orations in the sense of possibility for women all over the world. >> well, i think maybe we have one more question. >> i just want to thank you for coming in to pick up on what she said about social conscience and experience and your second box of imagination. i mean from each of us -- i need to imagine a different place. when you talk about experience, i imagine the size men around a table discussing contraception and thinking, high when they have no experience at all, they never have had to ask. the result of conception. anyway, shape or form, personally experienced that.

and also the experience of health care with everyone in congress has held care. and i think the experience different people have. my question -- i don't believe the question. how do we do that? how do we get the divisiveness out of the equation when there're people, maybe not to mention this state, who feel completely differely from the way i feel about women -- >> is a good question. i think we have to not only be good for the sins of iran, was to be good citizens of this country and realize we assert privileges and really responsive government in this country, where he know our leaders. and the special interests don't have as much power. there's still some power, but

not like in the rest of the country. so we have to work on it on a national level as well. you know, your mentioning of these three or four men sitting around a table and deciding about contraception reminds me of the story i heard in washington this week and i think i have the courage to tell it. it seems that a republican congressman was asked, how does this contraception issue working for you? i mean, in terms of being opposed to contraception? the guy looked a little uncomfortable. he said well, it not that great. we we've discovered that sex is popular. [laughter] [applause] >> for more information, visit the author's website, trained to eat out of work.

>> one of the largest publishers in america is harpercollins were pleased to be joined at book expo america by one of the senior editors. we want to introduce you to build strong, editor at harpercollins. what does that mean we say you're an editor editor? >> it means we acquired the books the publishing house is going to publish his event manuscript to print. the shepherd them through. the authors advocate within the house announces advocate to be out there. >> do you start with the original idea as well? >> in some cases you do, but no cases i on the nonfiction. so it's a little different. a lot comes up with an idea and proposal and then you go from there. in the case of desperate sounds, this is actually my idea. desperate sounds of a book about the sons of liberty, which are

prerevolutionary workgroup that were sort of our original occupiers. they decided that they were going to make life miserable and head home. so it starts at the albany riot 1765 and coleman is in the tea and then the revolution. the mets were some of the leaders of the desperate son? >> well, paul revere. some of them became iconic. sam adams, his brother. and some of them you've never heard of. but what i think is good is that stand in front author is a narrative of history and connect to defend. and got all the way to the colonies and put it into narrative form. >> what did you get this idea? >> i read an article. someone said what is the insurgency movement in iraq? who are these guys? is that somebody might look at our history because the sons of liberty were americans surgeons

at the time. i thought his sentiments on a book on this? nobody really has. it gets mentioned elsewhere, but he just developed. so i went looking for an author and found one that was a very popular historian. he is not an academic historian, but he's a great writer and sage ysidro, who were these guys and what happened? that worked out nicely. >> was another book you can or cannot for the fall? >> another book, biography of alamosa mauled, who was an odd arrow and chief of naval operations from 72 next 74. he commanded the brown water navy and vieam and was promoted to be chief of naval operations and is regarded by some as the most dynamic naval officer after an i others as the renegade. he was the man who integrated the navy against the old guard

was one of the most racist branches of the u.s. military and he integrated in her of women in else. it was regarded as a hero. and i think the triumph here, it's interesting because the author first met admiral zumwalt what he was interviewing him a c-span series on viet tom because he was influential and had a falling out with kissinger, nixon in the late so they -- when retired, larry approached about doing a biography. the papers were locked up for years, but they came out in the field and now we come out with that in the fall and i think it's great. the sort of footnote is a year from now, one of the destroyers, the new model destroyers will be named after his the mall and watched that. >> well, we've been talking with bill sean, editor at harper

collins. another editor is adam bellow. very briefly, can you give us your career in publishing? >> i'm strictly nonfiction editor for 25 years. what i'm particularly known for dennis publishing books by political conservatives. we started by doing that with free press. i've published books by people remember. they were a liberal education. i've published books by david brock, charles murray, jonah goldberg and i've been doing that for a very long time. i started out doing it, no one else was doing it. >> i like to be contrarian. i like to be the only person doing something. but it turned into a successful business and now tears for him to and mainstream publishing to put up conservative books, including the one i went to

harpercollins. >> what are some of the books he went to tell us coming out this fall you been working on? >> those coming out in the fall, the first one i would mention is about as charles kessler called i am the change, barack obama and the crisis of liberalism. as you can imagine it's a bit poetical year. every conservative intellectual who is capable of publishing a book has one in the works and my list is as much as possible a serious one. intellectually serious. although because of the fact the left in the right each have their own sphere of media discussion, it's difficult to get a real controversy going. it was easier in the old days when there was one media platform and everyone had to fight for it. now we have our own. it has some benefit in that it has enlarged the market for books by conservative writers

but it means we have to be smarter if we want liberals to read her books and pay attention. charles kessler is one of the smartest guys i've known on the right and i've known him for 20 years. he's a professor at claremont college and the publisher and chief editor of the claremont review of books, which is the conservative answer to the new york review of books. this is a book that stems from -- grows out of an article published called the three ways of liberalism. i asked him if you would like to expand into a book, to frame it as a study of barack obama's intellectual roots as a liberal. one of the things notable about kessler's book, aside from its high intellectual level and it scathing wit is the fact that kessler takes obama seriously as an intellectual, political thinker. this is as you can imagine

unusual for a targeted. most of them call barack obama names. kessler rpo's obama's misunderstood. he is really the air of three previous waves of political liberalism are progressive is an. all of which are concentrated in his mentality. there is the first wave launched at woodrow wilson, second by franklin roosevelt and third by lyndon johnson and a fourth wave come a 60s era again and the politics page. obama is trying to unify all of these somewhat conflict game philosophical premises. naturally as having a hard time with it. what i like about the book in particular is kessler reads obama speeches, interviews, writing, press conference is based on that obama himself has said. it is a guide from the

conservative point of view to what obama thinks and believes. >> what else do you have coming out? >> another book we are excited about is called the constitution, with a the thunderous that of whites till matters. as most of us know, there's been a long-standing debate in this country about how closely, how literally one should read the constitution. in the last couple of years with the rest of the tea party, this has become a political issue. used to be something debated in law schools, but is now sent pain with real-world consequences to the fact that when nancy pelosi heard that conservatives are challenging constitutionality of the individual health care mandate, all she could say was, are you serious? she simply couldn't believe anyone would take the constitution literally. this stems from a doctrine that has arisen in liberal law

faculties called the living constitution, theidea which is a centrally old, that the constitution is antiquated document and we far progressed beyond it and it needs to be a dated and work can be a tv td can simply be ignored. and this is obviously not the point of view of the right wing. adam freedman, the author of the book has the distinction, which i love, of being the rare commentator on legal and constitutional affairs who can write, who was entertaining as well as being very sharp and pointed. the book is a delight to read. i actually increases the launch of basic career as a neo -- someone on this whole level of the jeffrey toobin -- i see adam freedman had missed it if you can't career. >> where's the bass?

>> he's in new york. he is a columnist for ricochet.com, which is a good everyday website that publishes very smart and good writers. i expect adam freedman to have a good career. >> was this an idea he had to pursue about? >> many of these books i would have to say are a product of a collaboration for an author will come with an idea. it's very difficult to have ideas for writers. it is not like you're a magazine editor. you say about 400 berzon expediters they cannot pay you whatever. you want someone to write a book you give them an idea they have to live with for a couple years. although if any editors like you suggest ideas, turned out in practice to be not such a great idea. in this case, adam freedman knew exactly what he wanted to do. >> finally, mr. bellow, you mentioned you like to be a

contrarian. do you come from a conservative background? >> a simple question to answer. then they put it this way. a mother was a red diaper baby, raised as a communist in new york city. so to her -- i grew up in the 60s, so i'm very much a product of that era. one of the things i would observe is that no published three generations of conservative writers. each one is different. each generation very much mark by the culture, the temper of the culture of which they grew up. i have to say i'm a product of my time in that respect, but also the son of a well-known novelist. a classic neoconservative jury. started out in the 1930s and like many jewish leftists, and began to move to the right when

the crimes of communism or undeniable and because of the concern about the security of israel and in general had this -- let me say this, didn't take the 60s very well. it was something that he thought of as an attempt in 25 years of western civilization, which nominated english speakers had absorbed and used in his development as a writer. so he thought there is some value in it. in the 70s and 80s, he began to break ranks with the liberal new york establishment. and so growing up i had in him a poweul of somebody who is independent and was not afraid to challenge the reigning consensus of whatever was. although i have to say he would be i