the demographic changes for the 1980s. this is about 20 minutes. >> the book is called barack obama's america have new conceptions of race, family and religion end of the reagan era. catholic university professor john kenneth white is the author. professor, let's begin. tell us about the cover of the book. >> i had not been to do with the cover, but it works so well for the book because it is the photographs of people who attended obama rallies in 2008 and you have a mixture of coming in now, white, black, hispanic, you name it. there's even a couple of pictures and their of al gore and you have to really search for that. but it describes i think visually the changes in the

democracy of the united states that led to barack obama's election. .. and sho forth. and i think americans understand the changes taking place in the country are here to stay. but for some americans can creates discomfort because there is a sense of loss.

a loss of a 1950's america. a loss of a time when rules were clear about marriage, family and work. just even on that work side of it. the loss of control americans have. and what i mean by that is in the 50's and 60's you work for a company for 25 years and got the gold watch when you reer retire. and now we have americans going from one job to another and the changes create discomfort. >> host: what about on liberal side? where is the discomfort there? >> guest: there is not a

discomfort when you come to gay marriage and stuff. although, when the book was done in 2008-2009, he wasn't a supporter of gay marriage and avoided the subject up until 2012. that is receding. there is unease about the nature of the family in the united states with kids being brought up by single moms and dads and grandparents. i think there is a longing for stability in relationships. i don't sense that there is a discomfort in terms of saying these relationships are wrong. i think there is discomfort on the conservative side of it. but there is unease as we

grapple with the changes >> you write there are similar things between obama and reagan's election. >> there are. ronald reagan's election showed a major change in politics. reagan emphasised family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom and put the democrats on the defense. 1-4 democrats voted for reagan. his election began a republican ascension or commences a republican administration. it was about i am young, i am poor, i am white mid-age

suburban americans gravitating to reagan who wanted the restration of order. and obama understood that. obama wrote once it was an appeal for order. he noted he had seen the military basis in hawaii and he thought it was an essential part of reagan's appeal. he is quite right. what happened now, when i was a teenager there was a book called the "real majority" and it was the young, poor and black. and i grew up thinking that is the real majority to the united states. that is the electorate that elects president. that real majority today is the

real minority. white middle income, middle class is a real minority in the politics as the demographic changes have taken place. so the old rules about politics and how you elect presidents and what you need to do to win elections and who is going to be part of the new majority has been upended now by obama's election and the shift in democracy in the country point to that. that old book "the old majority" had a saying tomography is destiny and i think it is true then and true today. >> host: what do you see now

politically? >> guest: the big ones deal with race. whites will be a minority in the united states by 2050 some think maybe as soon as 2042. but in the lifetime of my daughter who is 16. she will be living in america and will be a my mor -- minority and that is true in the -- public schools. hispanics will be a third of the american electorate by 2030. and when you look at the elections of 2008 and 2012, he see the shifts coming into play. hispanics were 10% of the

eelectr electora electorate. and that is a big jump. 40% -- the white number percent is going down and both of the numbers in 2008 and 2012 were the lowest ever when recorded in the exit poles. and in 2016, we may find 70% of the electorate is white. we can go to california, texas, florida is another one where majority minority states and we can project that out and see more and more how our country is changing. when you change that, it changes how we think about race. way back in the '60's and '70's

race was white or black. now when we think of race it is a slippery slope. newt gingrich was a leader in changing federal form so that people could lift more than one race on a form -- list -- and in the 2010 census people could list more than one race. there were 19 different categories in the census. so how people define themselves and what race is has become a slippery slope in american politics. >> host: republican candidates tend to win the majority of the white vote and lose big time with the african-americans and hispanics. >> guest: right. this is a lesson the

republicans -- i am frustrated. if you talk to former rnc chair's like ken melman. he has said repeatedly that the republican parties relies on white voters to win and they don't have enough white voters to win. their problem is not white voters sitting at home and not coming out and voting republican. their problem is reaching out to non-whites and the numbers, especially among hispanics and african-americans have been disastrous for the republican party, particularly among hispanics. romney got 27% of the vote in 2012. that is a disaster and down from the percentage mccain got in 2008. and the republican party has to do a couple of key things it

seems to me. one is they have to deal with the immigration issues. they have to deal with it in a way that is off the table so they can come to hispanic votes and talk about economic growth, low taxes, starting a business, talk to them about the american dream, but if you convey to voters you don't like them, and some said you ought to go back on the bus from where you came and we are not going to take up the issue. i think that is a huge mistake in politics. so i don't view hispanics as out of the reach of the republicans, i think it is the republican party that has done a job of

pushing hispanics away and saying we don't need them in order to win. they do need hispanics to win. same thing with african-americans. there hasn't been a consistent outreach that says we have a message for african-americans and we will communicate that on a daily basis. jack kemp is a good example of one that says we need to do this and i will try to do this persistently and regularly but that is not being done. >> host: professor white, do you see periods in history similar to today? >> guest: early 1920's we had more immigrants than ever before. but since 1965, that number of

immigrants has vastly exceeded what we think of as the great immigration. what happened in 1924 is that a republican president, republican congress, passed legislation cutting off the flow of immigration from ireland and especially eastern/central/southern europe. that legislation passed, immigration slowed and republicans were seen as the anti-immigrant party. it can allow you to win in the short-term but it is long-term disaster for the party. it took a long time to make inroads against immigrants. they were able to do it in the 1940's and particularly the 1950's where the republicans were able to take low americans,

lithunians and say we have a message. we are an anti-communist party. that worked very well especially among immigrants that came from behind the iron curtain, for example, and still had relatives there. that is a big reason why kennedy was nominated in the 1960's to win back those voters. >> host: what the role of religion today in politics? >> guest: it is a revelation. what happened in the united states is important. on the religious side, i would say we are moving away from an institutional attachment to

religion. that is that we define ourselves as religious people by attending mass or synagogue or the church of your choice regularly. we have seen those numbers decline and be steady. occasional, there are increases in church attendance. there was one after 9/11 but it dropped off. i see it shifting from the church to the person. the person that says i can pray. a person that says i believe in god. we are still a very religious country and overwhelming belief in god, belief in heaven, believe in hell -- not as great as believe in heaven, but prevalent. belief in the power of prayer is another example. we are not secular in the sense

that religion isn't important, but individuals are setting the stage of the tone. and even in smaller groups within the catholic church in the last 20 years there has been a movement to have small faith communities and prayer groups where people come in and tell their story. i see that as a big shift. and it is way also from a kind of less dogmatic approach. in other words, where those in authority will say these are the rules and you have to obey them. it isn't so much that as it is where those in authority are saying to people come join our church for the following reasons, these are the things that you will get out of it, this is the community that you can belong to. one of the appeals of mega churches is they offer a o

one-stop shop. it is like come tell your story, we will not judge you, you can get baby sitting, here is a place where you can shop, send your kids to school and that sort of thing. i think that is an enormous appeal. the problem with religion and the discussion of it today is it tends to be character. where if you don't go to church on a regular bases you are a secular humanist and you don't believe in god or obey the rules. and those that don't go see those that do go as being too dogmatic. and both of these are wrong. the situation is more complicated than that. but it is a big shift in terms

of how religious institutions cope. and we have new religions coming into play. we have a dramatic rise of muslim americans equaling the number of jewish americans in the country according to the best data we have. we have other religions. we have more bud dhist. >> host: what do you teach >> guest: i teach political classes. no prizes. >> host: what is obama's america? >> guest: it is an american that is more diverse, it is an

american where the old nuclear structure has been torn apart and reassembled. it is an american that is still religious but the location of religion is much or centered in the person than the institution. >> kenneth white, his most recent book, "barack obama's america." thank you for joining us on booktv. >> catholic university professor michael kimmage talked about the "the conservative turn" and about the impact of lionel trilling and whittaker chambers on the conservative movement. this is part of your college series. >> host: professor michael

kimmage, who is lionel trilling? >> guest: he was the literary critic of the 1940s-1960s. he was born in poland and educated in new york and went to columbia university. he was a literary critic that one can hardly imagine today. he had the highest level of esteem from colleagues and full fellow scholars but engaged a large public. he was associated with the word liberalism in ways that was complicated. and that meant affiliation with the democrats. he was engaged in his career and

tried to argue for liberalism in literary and culture forms. >> host: what is the difference? >> guest: he never wrote about party politics or elections foreign policy. it was a sensibility, an attitude, a culture posture that started in the 19th century. it was a cast of mind, secular, highly invested in the life of the mind and books and plurist. >> host: who is whittaker

chambers? >> guest: he was a classmate of lionel trilling at columbia so they were friends and associates. he was born into a different world, though. his family was pra declining middle class family and he went to columbia university where he quickly entered into the radical political circles and joined the communist party and didn't graduate. in 1932, after publishing four stories was asked to rejoin as a spy for the soviet union. this he was until roughly 1937. with all kinds of disputes about who we knew and did he was affiliated with circles around

the washington, d.c. and friends are high-ranking government figures and people who worked in the state department. chambers broke with communist and became a christian and an anti-communist member. he is a star journalist and editor of the international news. as things heat up on matters after the second world war, he enters the public domain but accuses hess of being a communist. this becomes a major set court cases in the cold war. hess was more handsome but

seemed to be evasive and vague on many of the basic issues. chambers was rumpled, overweight, there were allegations of homosexuality in the air. so he felt to be a man on the margins. you can say chambers won the case and he went to jail and lost his government position and never to regain it. ch chambers gave this version of the case in the 1950's in a book he wrote that was like a bible for many that declared themselves conservative. he is an early instigator of the

conservative movement and died in 1961. his career is more important than lionel trilling politically speaking. >> host: did lionel trilling and whittaker chambers remain in contact and friends? >> guest: yes, even when whittaker chambers was a spy, they had lunch. after the early 1920's they were not really friends but in 1947, the moment his case is beginning, trilling published a novel and it is clear one of them is based on chambers. trilling uses it to show the

movement away from communism. the most interesting point is trilling sees a new conservative on the rise. trilling sees in 1947 this new conservative on the horizon. >> host: was lionel trilling a member of the communist party? >> guest: he was never a member, but he was emotional very infested in the political destiny of the soviet union. he didn't write anything or go to meetings for the communist party, but he felt an emotional

connection you can sense in the books he was writing. then there is a break and he is critical of the party and knows through a period of disillusionment. he is reluctant to endorse american involvement in the world war ii. he is deeply involved in the radical orbit but by 1942 it changed and by the end of the world war he is approaching establish. so the most important political progression he experienced. >> host: michael kimmage in your book titled the "the conservative turn" what do you mean by that?

>> guest: it is two-part cross and the first part is embodied in both books but it is deep engagement with communism. with the structure you can call the union and then there is a recoiling that you see all across the 1930's and happens in different ways. you can write about this only with the history of the left, but it felt among the most crucial consequences was an uptick in conservative broadly c construed. so a new kind of conserve is possible.

there is a need to rediscover western civilization. ... from the moment he deson accelerated from socialism til his death in 1975. never voted for a republican, and conservative as he could have been in sensibility and was often felt to be by his radical

critics in the '60s and '70s, he was never a political conservative outright. >> host: but he wasn't necessarily in favor by the left. >> guest: no. and especially as time went on, the seed of this conflict was planted already this the late 1940s when trilling has a young, precocious student at columbia university who's writing a lot of poetry and studying with the mast aer, with lionel trilling, and this is alan ginsburg who is corresponding with trilling, a warm relationship really, but the relationship would fall apart in the '50s as ginsburg became a voice for radical youth in ways that trilling felt he couldn't endorse. and vice versa, ginsburg was very, very suspicious of what trilling was and signified, and by the 1960s it was almost a battle between radical students on the one hand and not only trilling, but professors like trilling and on the campus of columbia university where trilling was a professor he symbolized the old guard.

he symbolized a commitment to high culture that was no longer in fashion, he symbolized a kind of political temperrizing in the eyes of the radical youth that was no longer accessible and also a kind of white male spirit that's a criticism that's levied throughout the 1970s and after after the 1970s as to who trilling was, a kind of unsustainable set of cultural commitments. so that's a crucial part of his, of the last chapter of his life. >> host: michael kimmage, why'd you write this book? where'd it come from? >> guest: began as a doctoral dissertation. it began when i read the novel, "the middle of the journey," and felt that it really captured something crucial about american political life. there are patterns in the book that link the various decades of the 20th century into something very organic. the liberal impulse, the radical impulse, the conservative impulse, they're all in this book, and the connection to chambers makes it all the more fascinating.

so i wanted to puzzle that out in the course of, in the course of my research. but i think beyond that what i wanted to do was write a book that a engages both a liberal and conservative audience, and that's why i feel the pairing of these two figures so useful. one is a significant figure on the left, is the other is an absolutely crucial figure on the right, and yet they're bound together in so many ways. they study at the same places, they read the same books, they're preoccupied by many of the same questions, and they often answer the questions simply despite the political differences between them, and that, to me, became the agenda of the book, to get the similarities across as much as anything else and through that to engage the various factions and fragments of our political culture. >> host: did conservativism change after world war ii? what was, what was american conservative thought in the 19th century, the early 20th century? >> guest: conservative thought

in the 1920s and '30s, you could say it was flag arement tear -- fragmentary, it was often rather unrealistic to look at it from the vantage point of the second half of the 20th century. there was a hope of returning to medieval times this american culture. you might associate that with figures like henry adams, a time to return to medieval catholicism. there was often a rage against technology and the modern city and the modern machine age. this you could associate with t.s. eliot, there's also a burgeoning libertarian movement, but it's not linked in material ways to these conservative sentiments. there's a reluctance prior to 19 45 of conservative intellectuals to translate their ideas into politics. to me, somebody like whitaker chambers is emblematic of that change. he was wonderfully trained by his years in the communist party to link ideas to movements, to

parties, to initiatives. and he brought that, he and others brought t that, that strategic way of thinking about politics to conservativism. and, for example, when he argues in the 1950 with william f. buckley jr. about politics, chambers says we have to use the republican party. neither of us likes it, we don't think that eisenhower's a conservative. there's a huge distance to travel before this becomes a real conservative party, but we have to use the means that are available to us, and we have to be pragmatic and realistic, and we have to work through the gradual mechanics of social change. that spirit is quite new. after goldwater, it's going to testimony be spirit of the conservative movement, and with reagan you could argue this becomes a kind of political fact in the larger, in the largeerer pollty and the larger culture. but the '40s and '50s when you see this transition, how does one be both conservative and strategic? that's a question. >> host: what do you teach at catholic university? >> guest: 20th century american history, a little bit of literature and a little bit of

great book stuff. >> guest: is this your first book this. >> >> guest: yes. >> host: michael kimmage is the author, here is the cover. >> is there a nonfiction author or book you'd like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv@cspan.org or tweet us at twitter.com/booktv. >> next from booktv's recent trip to tallahassee, florida, learn about the rare books and manuscripts from napoleon and the french revolution. >> the special collections room in this library, this is our main reading room where researchers come to interact with our materials. special collections and archives maintains an extensive rare book collection spanning back to manuscripts from the 1400s through 20th century publications. manuscript collections, like some of the material we'll see today from the napoleon collection, as well as southern business history, scientific

history, the contraction of -- the papers of paul durack, a nobel prize-winning physicist, as well as university history, our heritage protocol program documents the long history of florida state united states and its predecessor institutions. in about the early 1960s, the institute for napoleon and the french revolution was established here at fsu as a institute in the history department for the study of the french revolution and particularly the napoleonic wars. one of the first professors associated with that program is a gentleman by the name of dr. donald horwood, professor emeritus at fsu. he's a military historian. his specialty is the napoleonic era and through his research, his travels armed the world -- around the world, his connections with collectors, rare book dealers but also with

scholars, the french government, he began to work with the longtime director of fsu libraries, charles miller, and ten his predecessors to acquire books and other kinds of materials more this collection to help support the graduate research of master's students and ph.d. students in the institute t. and through this collaboration not only through sort of purchases arranged by dr. horwood that the library pursued, but also through donations dr. horwood has been a great donator of materials over the course of the last 50 years, we've amassed this collection of about 20,000 volumes. and we continue to collect. first example that i brought out from the collection, this is the description of -- [inaudible] my french is terrible. it's one of several volumes. these volumes were rebound,

published later in the 19th century. but what they document is napoleon's campaign in egypt and artists' rendering of the landscape of egypt, pyramids, architecture, architectural elements, elements of the high proinglies, egyptian pottery, maps and diagrams of the layouts of pyramids, of different historical sites around egypt. this was an era when there was no photography. this was a way to document and detail the things napoleon and his army were encountering. they were also a way to account for the riches of egypt that napoleon was hoping to bring back into france to the empire. and also used as points of study

for french architects and artists. this piece is one, another in a set from 1792 published during the french republic era about the history of louis xvi. so this is fisher french publication talking about the history of king louis and the start of the revolutionment this kind of material, again, gives us a perspective on how the contemporaries or how the people who lived during the period of the revolution were writing their own history, particularly in the period of the republic for the purposes of perhaps justifying the revolution and explaining to the people what occurred. we have many examples of contemporary newspaper publications. this is a set from 1807. these are important to the study, and they're important representations, again, of how -- what the activities of the empire were, the kinds of

things that were being reported. not only do they tell you about napoleon's activities or what was happening on the battlefield, but the kinds of things in terms of the expansion of the empire news that was occurring at the day, and you've got a imperial seal on the top of this one. i have another example of newspapers here. this is -- [speaking french] this particular volume comes from 1800. we have a run of this newspaper through, i believe, 1812, 1813. this is one of the primary newspapers during napoleon's time. i think one of the interesting things about this particular newspaper and how researchers are using this today, not only does it document through the activities of the army what was occurring in the empire, but you get a lot of colonial -- reports from the colonies on trade.

so what are, what commodities were worth at various points in time. so people are using this kind of newspaper to look at not just what was occurring in france, but what was happening in the club yang and haiti -- caribbean and haiti and in other colonial spaces. what i'm about to show you comes from the general pele clue sew papers. the general was an officer in napoleon's army. he worked closely with napoleon in the field, and one of the duties of a field officer would be to transcribe correspondence that was sent back and forth on the battlefield from napoleon to his generals and vice versa. this volume is a journal. it's a set of transcriptions from the european battlefield beginning in 1806 going through

1811, and you can see you've got a table of contents, hand transcribed documenting what each of the letters was about, who it was from, who it was to, the location. and then as you move further in, you have the actual transcriptions of the letters, again, documenting what the history of the correspondence is, the battlefield correspondence itself and then a signature from napoleon or from his general to confirm that this, indeed, was the official correspondence. some of your viewers may notice i'm not wearing white gloves today, as i can assure them that my hands are quite clean. as a part of our practice and sort of the evolution in handling paper, historical paper materials while white cotton gloves have been used and are certainly important to use with artifacts and photographs, if

you lose tactile sensation in your hands, it's easer is to tear pages. so nice clean hands and careful maneuvering of the pages are the recommendation today. as a part of the collection, the napoleon and french revolution collection, we have the published materials, we have original manuscript materials, and ten we also have a number -- and then we also have a number of artifacts and objects that relate to napoleon and to his military campaigns and biography. one of our most popular objects that -- and many people just come to see us for the novelty of this -- is the, is our copy of the napoleon death mask. at the time it was customary to create a death mask after

someone famous or powerful passed away even if they were in exile. it's a bit of a controversy over the napoleon death mask. there were, apparently, two masks created. the proenance and the argument over which one is authentic continue today. this is the copy of a mask that was said to be done by the contract at napoleon's -- doctor at napoleon's bedside and then lost or stolen for a period of time and recovered in the 19th century. we've looked at some representative pieces from later publications, drawings of egypt from contemporary publications from the time, manuscript materials as well as artifacts. special collections and archives at florida state university libraries are open to everyone. you don't need any special

permission to come interact with these materials or to do research, and we welcome students of all ages and all levels of experience. >> for more information on booktv's recent visit to tallahassee, florida, and the many other cities visited by our local content vehicles, go to c-span.org/local cop tent. local content. c-span2, providing live coverage of the senate floor proceedings and every weekend booktv, now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> now on booktv, amie parnes and jonathan allen speak about their biography of hillary clinton. in the book, the co-hours look at clinton's political career

since her primary defeat in 2008. after this hourlong politics and prose event, we'll bring you a book party for the authors. >> we're going to, we're going to read a little bit from the book. i just first wanted to say thank you to everyone who showed up. i see a lot of familiar faces. i'm from silver spring originally, so it's a big kick to be here because i've been sitting in the audience. i was telling folks earlier that i saw ted kennedy deliver the midnight ride of paul revere here many years ago,. [laughter] which was kind of school. so it's -- kind of cool. it's hard to make me really nervous, and i'm kind of nervous now, so thank you all for showing up, really appreciate it. [laughter] and i guess we're going to start with a reading so that we can get to questions as soon as possible. this is actually from the beginning of part two. chapter's title, "brook where you're planted." in the spring of 2009, obama's

vetting team gathered in white house council greg craig's corner office on the second floor of the west wing. in lunchtime sessions, the small set of senior aides typically shuffled through the paperwork of as many as 15 job candidates. on this day, one name conjured such sering memories that it stood out from the others. the west wing crew considered marshall, a staunch hillary loyalist, to be an enemy combatant. like many of women who surround hillary, she's graceful and down home gas city. a brunette with a chic, short haircut, the half croatian and half mexican marshall went way back with the clintons. marshall had been one of hillary's closest confidants in washington since becoming the youngest white house social secretary in memory following bill's 1992 campaign

whenhillly -- hillary entrusted marshall with running her political action committee at a time that some democrats feared she might make a final play for the nomination at the convention. the animosity ran so deep that hillary's face was bulletin board material in the obama scheduling office. they had all these unflattering pictures of

. >> the porn film actress who played the character actor in a video called finish. [inaudible] [laughter] marshall's problem was left lascivious than that but troubling all the same. she hadn't filed a tax return in 2005 or in 2006. she rectified to mission in the fall of 2008. around the time it became clear that hillary might take a job in the administration. as it turned out, marshall was

entitled to refunds in those years. still, tax issues had beset several obama nominees, including treasury secretary tim geithner and tom daschle, and the white house had little appetite for another storyline. >> as a betting attorney from the justice department read a three-page memo on marshall, jim messina and deputy communications direct canner dan pfeiffer grew visibly agitated. as did other obama campaign veterans around the room. by all rights, this job was a plum that should be going to an obama loyalist, not to marshall, and not if it meant defending yet another nominee against questions about imopper tax filings. pfeiffer in particular thought it was going to be a press problem at a time when we, when there had been -- when we had been through a lot of confirmation issues with daschle and geithner. they reacted viscerally, fuck no, she was a complete bitch during the campaign and worse.

marshall's combination of experience with white house level social planning and her closeness to hillary made her a natural selection for the job, but obama's aides didn't see it that way. no one in the room spoke up to defend her, not sean ken key who would have to get marshall confirmed by the senate, not personnel director nancy hogan, not ethics czar norm eisin, not greg craig who had been a study buddy of bill clinton and hulkly rodham in the days when bill can cooked up his mama's fried chicken to serve to guests debating the seatal war and the future counsel -- in the future first couple's apartment near yale law school. craig's alignment with obama had been major betrayal during the campaign. aides close to obama say it was less that they were against marshall, but they wanted -- and more that they wanted one of their trusted own in the high profile role. it was we should have our person, we need our person, said

one white house aide familiar with the discussion on marshall. it would have been the equivalent of the roles being reversed, if hillary was president and us cutting a deal that desiree rogers or valerie jarrett would be protocol officer, the aide said. when you think of it that way, it's like why would they ever want any of us traveling with them? >> the vetting process worked in such a way that by the time a job candidate reached the team in craig's office, he or she was the only hopeful under consideration. it was up or down on marshall. if obama rejected her, another candidate would wind up in the same way. publicly, the obama and clubton camps claimed that they had put the primary behind them, but here huddled in craig's offices where the bookcases were still empty and the only personal effect was a robert f. ken key

poster on the -- kennedy poster on wall, the truth poured out. the two sides didn't understand each other, they didn't like each other, and they doesn't trust each other. the president's awds didn't -- aides didn't have another candidate in mind, but they were certain they didn't want marshall. one by one each aide extended a fist with a thumb pointed down. but then messina, whose soft voice takes the edge off his often-profane slow cab, delivered some was news to the team. i glee, he said, but this is very clearly an hrc pick and needs to be raised with the president. typically, skirmishes were involved when one of the aides backed down rather than kick it up the command chain. of obama's team tried to draw a line on marshall. it was one of the rare occasions when a personnel fight ended up at obama's or door. this was a, quote, test case and a, quote, watershed moment in a brutal, months-long fight over

hillary's power to pick her team according to one of the vetters. marshall had another secret weapon in ann marchant who had worked as a special assistant to president clinton in the white house. hillary went to bat for marshall too. the white house team didn't fully appreciate the role of a chief protocol officer and what went into it, she thought. it wasn't just some glorified advance staffer or donor with little experience many washington. there's nobody better to do this job, hillary told obama. she's got the experience from the social office, she's got a great touch and feel for helping organize people, she'll be fabulous. hillary had also gone the rounds with the president's aides. no, i'm telling you this is the best person, she said. you will know that i am right after you've worked with her for a month. and hillary knew she held a trump card. the president told me i could pick the people in the state department, and this is my pick, she said, so let's move forward. [laughter]

and if you want to know how that turned out, you can either read the book or -- [laughter] a -- or search the state department archives for who turned out to be the chief protocol officer. [laughter] i think what we'd like to do is maybe talk for just a couple minutes about what we were aiming to do with this book and what we think you'll find in this book and then take your questions as much as possible. so, amie, maybe you want to start off with what we were aiming for. >> sure. well, i always say i actually wanted to call this book the phoenix because -- and our agent, bridget's, here, and she can attest to that. because i felt like hillary clinton had this phoenix-like quality. she always kind of plunges and then rises higher than ever. and so we thought of the story kind of as a comeback story. like i always say if i lost -- if i lost this campaign, i would still be in bed, basically. so how do you come back? and that was, basically, one narrative that we, we thought to

do. the other thing was how would she govern if she were president, who does she surround herself with. these were all questions that really intrigued us. >> and, i think, you know, we anticipated when we started this project which was the summer of 2012, really around the political conventions, that we would probably still be talking about hillary clinton at point and for a long time in the future. and we thought that it was important to give folks, as amie was saying, a sense of how she makes decisions, a sense of what the internal dynamics are like around her at big moments. and, you know, it's a hard thing to do. she's one of the most reported on people certainly in my lifetime, and so finding new information, getting inside the clinton operations -- and i say operations because there's a hillary clinton operation and a bill clinton operation and even when they agree on the sort of overall, you know, goal that they're aiming for, sometimes

there's conflict on tactics, or, you know, sets of people doing one thing, other sets of people doing another. so this is really a sort of an interesting set of dynamics to get inside. i hope that we achieved that. in terms of foreign policy, we talk a fair amount about foreign policy, but it's always through the lens of what it says about her decision making, what it says about how government in washington works, what it says about how the united states perceives itself and attempts to be perceived in the rest of the world. you know, this is not a, you know, a treatise on foreign policy by any stretch of the imagination. it is a political book, and the you're into politics, i think you'll, i think you'll like it whether you like her or you don't like her -- >> there's something in there for everyone. [laughter] >> or if you're one of the three americans that hasn't made your mind up. [laughter] in fact, i think i see one of them back there. so with that, i think we'd just

like to open it up to questions if anybody's got them. there's somebody at the mic right here. >> okay, there we go. so my name is carolyn, my late husband and i went to yale law school with the clintons. my question is, we saw hillary change her campaign in new hampshire and rejiggered it. unfortunately, not quite this time. not quite in time. how do you think being secretary of state, her first big administrative job, changed her or maybe it didn't change her, maybe it just reinforced things that, reinforced traits she already had? [inaudible conversations] >> oh, so i think that's a good question, how did it change her. you know, one of the things we heard from people who were around her said that they seemed to -- like, especially after a couple of years she seemed to be

a little liberated. that, you know, for so many years you're on a public stage and everything you say is constrained, and you're in a campaign, and everything you say is constrained. when your in the first -- you're in the first couple years of the administration and people think you hate the president or he hates you and there's tug-of-war between the camps, so there's a lot of tension and everything you say could be interpreted in a way other than what you would want. and i think what we heard from people toward the end which is when we started doing the book toward the end of her tenure, she felt a little bit more liberated, a little bit more comfortable just kind of going with her gut. and in public we saw a little bit of, you know, a hix of her having fun and maybe branding a little bit, dancing in south africa, you know, having fun with the techs for hillary stuff. there was a little bit of ease just on a person level. you know, from a -- on a personal level. from a sort of intellectual level or government level, this is somebody who understood how

the government worked, certainly intellectually, abstractly. had worked in the white house, had worked on legal services corporation in the '70s and, obviously, as a united states senator. but this was the first time she's managing a big bureaucracy. and i think she learned to let in some people who were outside the circle. i mean, it's still a pretty insular group that's closely around her, but one of the things -- and i think this is something she learned from the campaign and brought to the state department with her and i think there was a trend in this direction, we used as a metaphor the way she treated technology, you may have remembered barack obama was or very good with technology in the 2008 campaign, using social media for fundraising, organizing and basic communication. ..

and did i've been very crucial. and when his father was an academic to run the policy planning. what you saw was a willingness to address deficiencies in her operation by bringing new people in. that was something hard for her certainly on the campaign and i would argue one of the big things you could see over time is sort of opening up a little bit to new ideas and people. >> you brought up the new

hampshire moment. i think you guys will remember the moment where she cried a little bit. that was really hard for her to understand that people wanted to the bat of emotional side of her that they wanted her to embrace the fact she was a woman candidate. even at the end there was some discussion like how much do i embrace? how much do i address this issue about me being the first woman candidate? barack obama did that in a successful way. so i think if she runs in 2016 come easier do a little more of that. >> host: you even hear her say today young women going into public service who develops get micronized areas. that mindset to exist, even if she's learned to stop the not getting sometime on or around. clearly i was her experience coming out. any other questions?

>> i grew up in india where my prime minister in your president had the same tendencies. but the common thing i thought of growing up my question today would be this. i'll ask you a question. so imagine this, i'll ask you this. we are around the corner st. valentine's day newer single. [inaudible] >> to you because valentines day is around the corner and then you do that on tape day. my question is this, so does america really need a phenol president or does she really deserve it? >> well, she has to win it.

>> she has to win it. people try to romantic i say we won a seat belt than. so hillary is the right candidate. we have seen the package that comes with her. you know bosnia. you know benghazi. anyway, do we think she's the right candidate to run as a female and 2016? be like my job is to report on what they do, not what they should do. but i would say this, 155, 160 million in america. so far she's become the closest of those clearly has a base there. there's a lot of people to walk her to run. i at this point can't be another woman on the democratic side who looks poised to any democratic

primary. it might be difficult to run against her. i imagine there'd be some women who would vote for another woman candidate comes the men who would. so far, all 20 women senators have an cursor to that in a letter they signed earlier this year. so you've not got outside. maybe there's a governor. for 2016 on the democratic side, she seems to be the only one physician to do that. on the republican side to see daily from south carolina raining. when another republican i'd have thought about it. hope that not a terribly pop killer idea in this crowd. >> thank you. >> yet, of course. >> i'm not exactly sure chelsea situation, but my family thinks it's whole democratic primaries going to turn around whether hillary wants to be president or grandma. what do you think?

>> is for sure. some people say it becomes a grandma she's not going to do this. i think we have a swingset already at the white house. >> my mother would not particularly like this answer, but i do think being a mother is harder than being a grandmother in terms of time occupation. mom, thank you are babysitting the children often during this president be. >> secretary of state at the time and what tipped the balance favor of hillary? >> it's a great question. >> the president or senator at this time had been thinking about her for a while. he always had her in the back of his mind and when he raised it with his advisers like david axelrod, they all went what the, why appeared a lot of people want her to be vice president or

not wasn't going to happen. that was decided early on. so he felt it strongly. we tried to figure out when exactly he wanted her, thought about her, but we couldn't exactly figure that out. long before he won, and safe to say he thought she would make a really good secretary of state. he fought and fought to get here, which is interest in. >> is a lot almost when she first met with him when he offered her the job, she came up with their names for people to say i think it to be jim jones or tom donnellan. it should be back and forth between the two of them. he basically has to make a decision. the fact he went on for so long suggest. not just a big statement, but

she would somebody who could do the job. >> what was the big statement he was making? >> unit to recent secretaries of state who were women and not when albright and condoleezza rice. he cut about a team of rivals. yet half the democratic party in the democratic primary. i'm going to get myself in trouble here. but it helped to bring that senate democrats. when she went to work for him for the people who supported her want to see her do well see him do well. it's a shotgun wedding, but a very close one. >> if i could ask one more question. >> what is the major achievement of secretary of state? >> i think a lot of people pose that question to us in the last couple weeks.

she has a few -- number one, chivas' staunchest supporter on the coalition in libya on the afghans urge they win her back. he saw her as this talk could get behind him so i think even that she doesn't understand, she doesn't have this field she has her stamp on a lot of things. she was also involved in domestic policy. health care, for in this. she was really a huge supporter of getting it done in one particular cabinet meeting she said she saw what happened in her husband's administration. she said we have to rally around this. so their achievements both here and abroad. >> if you look up once you get in office you have two wars going on. the footprint of american foreign policy was a combat who

in 19 she elevated diplomacy and development as foreign policy pillars alongside defend in a way that allowed the united states to present a different side of it self. not just its enemies which is one thing, but also to its allies it had become somewhat upset with the way the united states is using its force abroad. one of the things you see in her time in obama's first term real elevation of america's perception come which matters in terms of putting together coalitions to stop genocide or force other countries to come to the table to talk about nuclear disarmament or whatever the case is. the application of smart powers a smaller thing in terms of the models they use. but you know, if you look at burma and republicans heard of scoffer that is an achievement. the united states used the

prospect of commerce at burma in addition to sanction to get the burmese to change their policies. generally speaking, we've seen republicans want to use a big hammer and sometimes democrats are more likely to use. it is really the application of oso parked there. >> in your view, slayer, election is a foregone conclusion. what could actually derail a second shot at the white house? to raise the question very simply, what kind of president would she be in your view and how she do with the surge of the left wing that we've seen in different cities and states? do you think she's aware of that and can incorporate that? >> now, she's not a foregone cuckoo conclusion.

i think she is aware -- he would have to be hiding under a rock to not view of the popular sentiment that has grown within the democratic party within the republican party over recent years. i don't think it is clear yet how that will affect her positioning. no, we see her giving speeches right now to equity firms and high finance to hate or dislike. ike.tionnaire about us. us. questionnaire about us. in terms of defense issues. she was a hot meal, national security council. unabashedly. if you were to look at the 2008 primary, obama had been against the war in iraq and she voted for the authorization of the war in iraq. within the democratic primary, it is better to have been in

obama's position and yet she still took the hawkish position, which the jazz something she feels on military issues. you want to address any of the other questions? >> nothing is inevitable. i think we learned in 2008 that nothing is inevitable. further in the coming months we explores among who could be a young upstart for someone more like a rock obama. cannot see this happening this time around. >> one of the thing she would try to do at the state department echoes the president the would be an absurd to try to incorporate both the government sector, public sector and the private sector into solving problems in the academic sector and nonprofit. there's a real believe at pieces of civil society need to come

together to solve problems. sometimes the consensusbuilding hopes the country move forward in a direction with cylinders hitting any direction people liken his head and sometimes to build consensus and joint direction that doesn't turn out to be the best direction. you see a lot of effort in consensus building at the state department she did a lot of outreach to business is to try to promote american foreign policy. you would see an effort it to do that. all presidents are limited by the situations and circumstances thereunder. we see that increasing the president unable to get congress to do anything. sometimes trying to circumvent them. who knows what happened, but i think it is sort of a poor belief you have to bring all the pieces together to move forward.

>> childhood friend. >> congratulations come you guys. excellent. can you discuss the hillary clinton presidency if that happens as it relates to diplomacy in the middle east given the involvement of the clintons and middle east politics specific to the palestinian negotiations. >> one thing that she will trump is the fact that she swept in their to actually help along with cease-fire and not was something she was nervous about. we have a moment in the book where she cobbled this together and that she gets on the plane with her aides and she like hasn't broken yet. that kind of gives you an idea of how fragile it was at the time. >> at the beginning of our administration she was largely frozen out of the middle east question. so she had picked george mitchell is to be basically the

u.s. ambassador of the middle east. the middle east up is really run out of the white house. so you know the israeli-palestinian issue is going to be resolved by the israelis and palestinians immunized this may play some secondary role in that. i would hesitate to guess how that all turns out. it's been a long time they've been fighting each other. i think she is mean enough effort particularly if new york senator representing a lot of jewish voters and donors to the treaty hawkish on israel. we talk about this in the book with iran sanctions. and msn access. the sanctions allowed from iran

and being in iran now. who knows whether that have been a good thing or bad thing, but i do think it's fair to judge because she was number charge of the state department and we don't have as much influence abroad as we think we do. >> thank you. >> i want you guys to put on your campaign reporter has for a second. >> icon. >> did you bring at? >> alex we should point out as a campaign reporter. >> and tommy what you think her biggest liability is heading into 26:00 p.m. either from her career -- there you go.

this doesn't count. heading into 2016 kindness throughout her career, her political career hillary is the candidate. we saw the issues crop up in two nay. did you guys get a sense for what seemed hillary thinks her biggest liability? >> obviously it is benghazi because they are already pointing attacks. they have this video romney was going to use. dirty telling you you're going to see it everywhere. there also trying to pin her to health care as we discussed a little while ago. it depends how well this turns out for president obama. if it doesn't turn out so well, you see the attack at saying what, she had her fingerprint doneness. she was pushing him to do this and they're going to maybe call it hillary care. i can just see it coming. those are two big things. >> she represents a challenge to herself as well.

we saw in 2007 at her tendencies , some of her lack of comfort about the cheery new hampshire, lack of comfort are embracing the things that appealed to a lot of voters that didn't want to embrace some of these things. in her concession speech. it isn't about being a woman. but she says i am a woman. this is an echo of sojourner truth that i think was something lacking in the campaign who would have been drawn to her, but were otherwise but though, didn't hear that message and didn't hear her running for her place in history in the way he was running for his face in his area. you know, it's hard to what type of the way obama day to let

people feel they are doing something historic and important to address it a little bit, but not focus on it. he did very well in that campaign. danger will be a tough thing to do. the other thing i wonder about being a challenge to first of is the ability to run the next campaign that of the last campaign. a lot of people we talked to talk about the last campaign will be eight years previous and things will have moved. society will have moved. in 1992, when they talked about a co-presidency, there is a lot of negative reaction to the idea of co-presidency. no hillary and bill clinton and anything beyers may be a little bit less of a concern about that. our society has seen some. she cried in new hampshire has a good thing. in this election any time back in 1985 that would have been

different. trying to figure out how to run the next campaign a set of the last one will be an important challenge for her. >> i do think also how they use former president could be a liability or it could be the biggest asset to her and that is obviously a very interesting thing to watch. if you can support his wife the way he supported president obama, i said this all along, she's got it made. she's going to go to the white house. but he's the guy from 2008, i don't know. >> to put bill clinton in the goldilocks story for a minute, 2000 al gore distanced himself from bill clinton a letter people think that was one of the reasons he lost the president the period in 2008, bill clinton was out there freelancing for the hillary clinton campaign. sometimes at great cost to the campaign. freeville was as bad as no bill. and then obama in 2012 season

very well as a surrogate. when out making speeches and rallies on a popular with the moderates come the convention speech he gave in 2012. republicans were watching that kind of throw in their sodas down or whatever because it was a good moment for obama. but he didn't do interviews. he was an out their off-the-cuff and that seemed to be the right measurement. whether that is something hillary clinton can do as effectively as the obama handlers did in terms of using bill clinton in ways that are positive and helpful in no ways that are negative. he hasn't been on the campaign trail for himself in many years. it's hard when you're not doing them all the time. that will be, i'll use the word again, a challenge for her. >> hello. so why don't you talk about how hillary really values loyalty

and the people around her are very loyal to hillary. given that she's like writing her own book in the presidential campaign is like pretty much a given, i was wondering if you encountered any oppositional difficulties getting people to talk freely even though you offered anonymity or gave anonymity and if so what that was like if you could talk about that. >> it's very tricky obviously because we are dealing with the clintons and mary very insular people with insular aides and staff. i think it was a really -- it was a difficult book to report because of that. what we did was we bombarded people said they had no choice but to participate. we spend hundreds and hundreds of e-mails to people saying hey, we are back in this book. can you participate in clinton's

press secretary was getting all kinds of requests every day. should we do this, should we not do this? >> started out with a hard yellow light, meaning we want restitution if you go talk to them, but were not encouraging you to. at the end is a soft feel like coming meaning go-ahead. no problem at all. and in some cases a green light. the clinton people arranged interviews the best particularly trying to type two state department officials. if i want to talk to them under secretary of state and i'm a reporter, the heart into a copy. you might have an opportunity to do it, but i can't just e-mail them under secretary of state and expect them to come talk to me. those officials in particular, it is necessary to get the blessing of the clip folks for those people to talk to us. it's a little bit of the king. it was diplomatic process in terms of they begin to trust us

a little bit as we went through the process more. they realistically didn't participate we would still write a book and would be the people who didn't care whether they were allowed to talk or not. that has something to do with it. they decided to participate because they thought we were attempting to do a worthwhile examination of an important period of time that life that most people expect will run for president of united dates. >> we talked to people -- it's not like they approved everyone. one of my favorite stories is jaw to narrate state department when they meet interviews dominated by without an income slowly been a couple of a passerby came out of there waving to them like hey, how are you? they had no idea we'd just come for me pretty big interview. >> we talked to long interviews come to see this in the book,

mock interviews darrell isa from the various republicans the hill who had been investigating her. people who are adversaries. people who don't agree with her politically on anything, but like working with her purse money. people who were disgruntled former campaign aides. people who thought the insularity at this date department at the top was too much. said there's a bit of everything and mary inc. but we didn't get the one thing nobody else has got so far as i can tell in terms of authors at everett batters really got access to all the levels of the clinton operation. >> observation, question. a tweety today feel the that comes to one day in d.c., -- [inaudible] >> thank you. now, serious question. obviously, hillary clinton is

one of the most known people and of course both of you being veteran reporters had you an idea. he do all this research and for each of you, what was the most surprising thing -- the most surprising take away, something he didn't expect was something that was different. most surprising take with? punic generating is the answer to this, but it was that she's really funny. it doesn't come through a thing. that is a problem for her in a way. people were always telling me when i covered her into that nate, she's got this really wicked sense of humor. just talk to her one time. of course we could talk to her. but everyone had a story about her and i think my favorite tori about her was to talk about this in the book, but the john favre story, which is john favreau is my neighbor i should say, that he was groping a cardboard

cutout of her in a cardboard cutout. >> it was a photograph on facebook at the "washington post" and he was groping with and everything. it turned into a d.c. miniscandal, one of those things would've been all over twitter had twittered anything back then. long story short, he's really worried he is going to lose his job. he sees young speechwriter, got this job at the white house come the really excited about it. this thing comes out, he's horrified by it. he was posted by high school friend of his on facebook. they're trying to figure out what to do. this is the first time the obama and clinton people had come together to figure out what to do. throughout these backroom sessions that conference calls, how do we handle this? long story short, his secretary calls him. she wasn't the secretary then, that she says i heard you were

groping -- she doesn't say that, but she says i haven't seen the picture but i hear my hair looks great. [laughter] that kind of gives you an idea of the personality that should shine through doesn't always shine through, but we might see a little more in 2050. >> what you think is? you think she can't show it? she shouldn't show it? why not do that in public? your theory. >> number one, that ties into what i was going to say surprises me, the sort of raw emotion. read each of the quotes attributed to her two or three times because they think what you will see is somebody who actually was on two things in her close circle in a very direct, decisive, sometimes emotional weight that you almost never is the publicly. i think that the price. you know, whether it's a

positive thing, feeling compassion for somebody who lost an aunt or uncle, whether it's a negative thing be bitter she had to waste her time kowtowing to superdelegates who didn't come to her side. you see in her own words emotions you just don't see from the public hillary clinton not often. i would encourage you to reduce quote two or three times because sometimes there's a level or second level that is revealing. do you want to handle the second part of the question? >> i don't know why she does that. i think i was one of the things she learned. she had a series of postmortem session dr. kim payne and was trying to figure out what happened, what went wrong. that was one of the things people told her that she was a little too buttoned up vb. >> are there any women over the age of 50 in the room who think

the best thing to do to get ahead in business or politics is to show emotion in the boardroom or the political battlefield? i think part of that is being in politics. i think part of it is taking shots over the years in being a little reflectively defend it. part of it is the generation she grew up in an understanding in order to get ahead with the guys you have to at least at the time put up a strong face. they are people who can speak to that better than we can. i'm putting my overlay on that, but i was a woman of her generation, the idea that being emotional and one of the public would get you ahead somehow his foreign or an anathema. [inaudible] >> what did you say or want to say in this book about john kerry and what you think she'll say in your next book?

[laughter] >> you look like weekend. now, here's the thing. he has taken on these huge issues and they are still obvious he would mr. reagan is the key was that the secretary of state. even partway through the book of the text is a nice of be the next secretary of state. part way through the reporting, barack obama asked hillary clinton to stay on the secretary of state for another year. you can find out how that turned out by reading the book. but i think john kerry is taking on some of these big issues. part of it is being the continuation of what was going on before it went tensions led arenas come to the table. he picks up on that. some of it is his own stuff. trying to get rid of chemical weapons there. his workmanlike effort in the

middle east to try to get something done there. he has taken big risks and we don't know how those are going to turn out. one thing that can be said about john kerry as he wants to make a mark while he's there. he wants to make the world a better place in his view. and i don't know how all of that's going to turn out and i don't know how it's going to work by comparison to hillary clinton's tenure at eight because we don't have the length of time to really judge that yet. but he's swinging for the fences. there is no doubt. >> yes, but hillary left the state department, there was a picture of her and the president having a good time in the back of the white house. my question is, is it a writing relationship now? and was it implied he is going to be campaigning for her as he

approaches the end of his tenure? and what kind of symbolic fact i would have on the campaign when you have the first african-american president assisting a probable or inevitable first female president and his bat is not set or not? >> it was twofold. [inaudible] >> i read an article where the republicans may ramp up some nasty gender related comments to highlight feminism. i was wondering if that going to have, for example, barack obama didn't want to talk about race at all. will that also be attributed to

hillary when it comes to females? >> i think that she will want to use her gender to her advantage and avoid where it becomes a pitfall. she's a politician. when the jeremiah wright's stuff came out, he did a speech on right like those the right thing to do at the moment. it's not remove these people entirely from political assessments. billy is said to her at cnn sureties try two. as far as support, i am not sure to see him come out and endorse a candidate in the democratic primary. what you are seeing now that is much more important is that big pieces within the obama machinery are starting to move into line behind her or grow up under her feet. so we see jim messina taking over priorities, u.s.a., it is now a clinton's sec for its

super pac by 2012 campaign manager and field organizers. i think you are going to daschle ultimately see that happen more and more. we talk about this scene with a top state department officials come out to dinner and drinks with some of the above ambassadors in 2009. from recent reporting obama fundraisers, big donors. matthew garson and don byard not running for office is people who would not have donated money to her and her entire life in 2012 started paying off her cam pain that is the clinton went on the campaign trail for barack obama. you see these two political organizations is much bigger than any particular endorsement. >> i should add the first question the state of their relationship, someone put it to

us his work friends. you would see the clintons schmoozing it up on saturday night. i think they felt like the obama skit helps them and vice versa. but i think the relationship kind of default over time. they didn't really like each other or trust each other at first and then they started to. my favorite quote of the book quite possibly as republicans talking about what it is like to work with her. they called it the stages of hillary. you go into it thinking i have to work with this woman and then you think you actually like her and you think she's wise and then you really enjoying the

whole experience. this is coming from a top republican. the night that's actually how he shuttlecock economy of "the new york times" described her book. you eventually get to the point we really like it. we will take waking up i began. thank you so much. really appreciate it. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> starting now, it took party for the publication of "hrc" by byie parnes and jonathan allen. amie parnes and jonathan allen. it is at the w. hotel is here in washington d.c. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> @john allenby's v. >> you are now in "washington journal." [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> nice to see you. >> thank you. thank you. just looking through the impacts. [inaudible conversations] >> that's all i worry about.

[inaudible] >> laureate, this is congressman jason ault meyer. lori is my boss. she threw the party. [inaudible conversations] >> you can see their author portals we see the geographic break down. new york, washington, miami, los

angeles. and i'm lots of clusters. north dakota will b will be liks in this capacity. [inaudible] >> kind laurier skiba senior executive editor for bloomberg news and c. bloomberg washington bureau. thank you also much for coming out here tonight to toast john allen in and amie parnes on their incredible achievement, the book "hrc: state secrets and the rebirth of hillary clinton." i know john and amy are very appreciative of your support.

[inaudible] that thank you for coming out. you can't cure quite sorry. john and amy will make some comments. there probably is no buddy more interesting in american political life that hillary clinton and she's inspired a great deal of curiosity. first lady senator presidential candidates secretaries day. john and amy have it all. i don't know how many of you know that's, the "hrc" hit the bestseller list. number three for nonfiction. [cheers and applause] a big hand for that. the book is absolutely terrific. burton will talk about amy. as many of you know, the burden is hired john a couple weeks before the book came out. it was my fastest and perhaps my

smartest tire ever. not many reporters do higher immediately went on the bestseller lists. it was easy to follow love with john. he is warm. he is funny and he completely won me over when i asked him why he decided to write a book about hillary. he told me that his mother who is here somewhere when he was growing up in the 70s had won a 59 cents. yet none of us can remember whose idea it was, but it stood for women in payee quality in the fact they were earning only 59 cents of every dollar a man earns. so that pretty much sold me on john. his boss, craig horton who is here somewhere about this part. in all fairness, john had a slightly slows her. pretty much right after we hired john, he disappeared and said i have to go on "meet the press,"

cnn, have a book signing, going out to california, have another reading. it's been a whirlwind tour. we are really looking forward to that, you get from jay carney. am looking forward to you really get all serious as we could you more excited about john at bloomberg. we are building the bureau. the was on a roll and john is going to hopelessly diatribe on top of a really talented staff we are to have. so we devote. we will have copies for you and that's on your way out. john and amy has kindly sign all of them for you. thank you for coming and showing off your support for this great book. now here is hugo. [applause] >> albeit very, very brief. i want to welcome you on behalf of the do you are here to congratulate aman sharma says.

it's a fabulous achievement they put together. for products on both beat reporters of the hill. a couple years ago she earned her start up in arlington, virginia and she's now join us in washington d.c. she's doing a fabulous job. grace versus in a real element the paper. john snow moniker is with us in 2005 in 2006 and has done obviously great work, which you already know. they are the star attraction. please, john and amy. [applause] speenine thank you. i just wanted to thank you all

for being here. it means a lot to us. for all of your support, we've%e been through a lot, as you know. we disappeared from the scene for about a year and a half to write this thing. we spent lots of night and weekends slaving away at night and day time at my apartment and john's house and we just wanted to thank you all for your support. i think this book i should it's really important. politics aside it is about a comeback story. i think republicans, democrats, everyone should rally around the because how do you get over something, have you come back, have you stay alive? that's very important. i hope you guys read it, like it and let us know. we like hearing from you guys. [applause] [inaudible] i think on behalf of both of us

i want to thank bloomberg and the hill for throwing this party. in particular, laurie hayes to just mention she hired me. thanks, laurie, i really appreciate that. i notice he said that i'll get to work. also, craig organist from bloomberg emeritus, webster who helped put this together in some of the folks on the hillside, hugo and key sack. i know i'm forgetting somebody important. thank you for all of you for putting this together. we see so many familiar faces in friends here. we really appreciate all of your support. we hope you're not too annoyed now the facebook and twitter updates. please drink and enjoy yourselves. again, we can just take thank you. they might ensue the out-of-town friends who traveled all the way

from new mexico and my mom who traveled. couldn't be possible without my mom. [applause] >> and my wife, stephanie. i totally forgot to say thank you. [cheers and applause] of course she was a little bit late because she was arranging a babysitter for the kids, which is not unusual. thank you, darling. i love you. >> toast to john and amy. [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we are doing seattle.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> it's bad enough if i get the chair when you're in the minority. [inaudible conversations] >> your agreeable enough. >> this one was very favorable. so we were thrilled at that. [inaudible] >> a little bit less favorable.

i didn't agree with everything, but i thought he was very thoughtful. >> people fight for those, just to have those. >> yeah, so i mean, i couldn't ask for anything better. [inaudible] >> settling in for a few hours. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] it was a good time.

found my >> super delegate number one. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

in the early 19th century. the board of county supervisors when there is only one county. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you so much for coming. i really appreciated. yes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> it's everyone. i love it. i was covering the 2000 election in miami. mom, you can reach them all. [inaudible conversations] socha mall was working for al gore in 2000 he took these pictures. that's from the year 2000. [inaudible conversations] i love this. isn't that a great?

is not hilarious quiet [inaudible conversations] teesside the oldest person that i've known. [inaudible conversations] becoming a man.

>> brad meltzer talks by a series of biographies for children. the latest release of their biographies of amelia earhart and abraham lincoln. mcafee said rosa parks and albert einstein will be out later this year. this is about 40 minutes. [applause] >> you know what i love is that before i got out here, they made all the little kids sit in the back. and finally cooler heads prevailed and simple for you guys up front. you have better seats nw