>> thank you all for these comments and insights. we have time for a few questions. if you raise your hand and wish to direct it to a particular member of the many, do so. >> thank you all for being here. i agree with all of you. my question though goes to the characterization of islam and islamic extremist. i remember very clearly on 9/11, or 9/12 when president bush said this is not an attack, we're not enemies of islam. we are only against a small percentage of islamic extremists. now, i know for a fact he didn't believe that, because the bush administration didn't act on that mythology. as a form diplomat i house it was pretty good tactical strategy at the very beginning

of what everyone knew would be a long war but as you pointed out, our current administration does believe, and there is an enormous pressure now toward the political correctness of that islam is a peaceful religion. i know something about the koran. you can fine peaceful mentions in it, but basically, as you say, islam and islamic terrorism feed on each other, and all you had to do was find the worldwide polls of september of 2001 that showed how many muslims around the world supported the attack on the united states. now, my question is, given all these years of political correctness, given the kinds of things that the yale muslim students association were saying in their fortunately

unsuccessful attempt to squash ali's appearance at yale, how long is it going to take? what will it take to convince the american people to understand where we're going? you mentioned it took 30 years after 1970, 40 years for americans to understand soviet communism. i don't think we can wait 40 years for americans to understand the true nature of islam and islamic extremism. what will it take? >> i think the distinction between islam and islamism might be a necessary fiction for political leaders, but it doesn't hold water. you're absolutely right. but i think the american public is far better informed than it was ten years ago.

i don't think they buy the administration's line about islam being a religion of peace. but how can we get them mobilized? how can we get successive administrations to wake up to this reality? i'm not certain. but i know that certainly within the republican party, they also don't buy into this idea of islam being a hijacked by minority of islamists. as michelle bachmann and others -- but also alan west, no longer in congress but he was a former house of representative but i have known, apart from people like me continuing to write books, giving talks, i have no great grand strategy for

it. >> i do think that you have to distinguish between islam and islamism or islamic extremism. i don't have the figures but there are obviously millions hundreds of millions of people who are islamic and who practice that faith peacefully. they may support terrorism but there is -- that is an important distinction to make. indonesia is the world's largest islamic democracy over 200 million people. certainly we can't ascribe these views to the majority of people living in that country. i think that's the case for many islamic countries around the world. i think we have to be careful in distinguishing between those who seek to use violence against civilians to enact their political agenda, islamists and the many, if not most, people who identify as muslims, and

don't support similar tactics. i don't think you can say that eave person who is a member of the muslim faith is a potential terrorist or -- >> i think also if you look at just the sheer numbers, if there are a bill muslim in the world and only one percent of them are sympathetic you're talking about a million people. but the answer to when do we wake up? my guess is it will be -- sorry? ten million. i'm thinking one percent. >> so pedantic. >> these math majors. i think one of two ways people well wake up one there will be another terrorist attack, which i think is likely. what kind who knows. but the other will be there's a 30-year war coming and it's going to be shate divorce the sunnies. the shize are iran, the puppet

government in baghdad what is left over iraq and the crescent going from tehran to damascus. that will be opposed to by isis and sunni -- various sunni groups radical sunni groups al qaeda,ing a nusra, isis and if there's 30-year war it will dawn on people in the rest of the world maybe there is something to both sides of the religion. i think most luckily wilt be another terrorist attack and that's inevitable. >> mark. >> thank you all for coming. so, i want to ask, i guess more theoretical question, and perhaps this is unhelpful but in framing the way conservatives are kind of split on this issue,

there seems to be a division among kind of a practical question of only considering foreign policy in a sense of what is going to be best for our nation. i think this is the more libertarian approach and also being concerned about setting the precedent of a super national kind of focus on human rights, being the main concern there versus seeing a moral obligation to carry forth the message of liberty to the world and to basically in our power and in our opportunity try to do good things for the international community the christians in syria, the people who are under authoritarian regimes. is it a serious tension that needs to be confronted within conservativism and how should we frame this issue? >> i'd love to answer that.

i think there's a civil war coming in the republican party for a conservative movement, and you expressed it very. we interventionist versus noninterventionist us. by way of example i've the chairman of the national -- cpac so this is a conference in late february in washington and i'm trying very hard to get people from all -- make a big tent so the people from the john mccain wing who will say we need to get involved, go back into iraq and we may need 20,000 troops in iraq to re rand paul wing that says not at all and everybody else in between. it's not an unusual debate. when i was in the reagan administration we had the same debate where it was do prow want to get involved in the middle east with american military forces or not want to get involved in those areas and maybe use neck warfare or other forms of pressure to get the result you want. it's a division that has always

been in the conservative movement. sometimes gets papered over when we don't have anyplace we're fighting over but now it will be a major and i think probably the major issue in the republican primaries because republicans agree on everything else cut taxes, less government, maybe there's disagreement on immigration. but the national security issue is the one there will be a very wide and raucous debate over it, because flash forward to a year from now iran will be a threshold nuclear state. the middle east will still be at war. who knows where we'll be in the middle of the war. there will be increased conflict in europe and i think james is absolutely right, estonia is next. so you'll see a very roiling world in the sense of conflict. >> i disagree this is going to be a big fight within the party. if you actually followed the statements of rand paul over the past year he has been all over the place. >> eis -- he is evolving.

but he quoted me so i think he is evolving correctly. >> the end of the day the republican party is the party of national security hawks and he realized that. if you followed his public statements on isis over literally the week they the first journalist was beheaded it was like night and day. he had to attune his views. he did a complete 180. now, personally, think rand paul is very similar to his father, in his world outlook, but he is a lot smarter and understanding that he can't let the free flag fly all the time because he wants to -- let the freak flag fly all the time because he wants to be president of the united states. this rand paul -- he hired some ostensibly mainstream advisers -- >> i worked with him. >> the former head of the international republican institute but i don't -- i really don't think most conservative republican primary voters are going to agree with what rand paul is presenting as

foreign policy. >> i disagree but -- >> we have time for one more question. >> thank you. i have a question for miss mcfarland. you mention you think that a problem likely in china's future growth is going to be the aging population. so do you think that there's a way to try to prevent that problem for tackle it while keeping in mind their population growth issues? >> i think china has some real -- the demographic thing is definite but they have fissures in their country, one between a more militaryic and stoking nationalism, and in china, the'll is gone, communism is gone as a religion. the religion since xi jinping has been get rich it's good to make money and that's slowing down. so there's no blew -- no glue holding them together except the

chip on the shoulder, we used to be great we're gravity again, why doesn't anybody recognize that? and you're starting to see it in territorial expansion. where they're headed is a place where they'll have a lot of internal domestic problems not just demographic or aging population but expansionism. the last time somebody in that part of the world tried that, japan. >> the other parts of the region east asia, southeast asia, asia at large we're week and couldn't challenge it but i don't think china does this without having real blowback from countries in the region who can militarize, nuclearize, or challenge the chinese. so my concern on the rising china, to prevent a rising china from being an aggressive rising china is more up to them than it is to us. >> we thank the panelists for these remarkable presentations. [applause]

>> just a quick note. for those who rsvp asked to the dinner and reception the investigation beginscast 30 to omni. thank you. [inaudible conversations] booktv is on twitter. follow to us get publishing news selling updates, author information, and to talk directly with authors during our live program. twitter.com/booktv. >> saturday, january 24th is national read-a-thon day. organizers have asked participants to pledge four hours to reading as part of a fundraiser for the national book foundation's educational program. throughout the past week,

booktv asked viewers on social media what they were reading. here are some of the responses. at she says she will be reading by things fall apart" and on our facebook page, sandy is reading "river of smoke." second in a trilogy about india during the british and chinese opium wars. trisha on facebook, potion she'll be reading "the strain" by chuck hoeing again. let us know what you're reading for national reed-a-thon day. and go to penguin random house.com for how to participate. 18995 oklahoma city was bombed. o.j. simpson was tried for murder. president clinton met monica lewinski in the white house and the international began to be widely used in the country. beginning now joseph campbell looks at the political and historical importance of that year. this is about 45 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the tv studio and another edition of inside immediate y. inside media is our weekly program where we talk with journalists, newsmakers and authors at issues and books. i'm your host, the senior program manager here at the museum. happy new year to everyone. we say adios and perhaps good riddan to a somewhat tumultuous 2014. we welcome 2015 with our

resolutions hopefully still intact and hope it will be a prosperous one. today we discuss a new book that takes us back in time 20 years, and reminds us that 1995 was an exceptional year. here to talk about the book is j. joseph campbell, all authorize of "19195 the year the future began." which looks back at five decisive and pivotal moments of 1995 made it's watershed year whose effects reverberate today. joe is a professor in the school of communications at american university. his last book, getting it wrong, was provocative media myth busting book which in 2010 won the society of professional journalists national award for research about journalism. he is the author of six books total, and has lectured at the library of congress national press club and the smithsonian

institution. i should also note joe is a dear friend of the -- he helped develop and right many of the museum's permanent exhibits. so please become back joe campbell. [applause] >> good to have you, joe, in the preface you write some watershed years are immediately obvious before the year is over. we take 1968 for example. i guess 2001. following the horrible day in september. but you take in -- you argue it's taken some time to recognize 1995 as a watershed year. first of all, how do you define a watershed year and how did you come to realize it was one of those years. >> a wintershed year is a pivotal moment in history, a hinge moment when you can really see in retrospect with some passage of time, some critical distance, how important that moment that particular time

that year if you will was and in many respects it has to have some lasting consequences, hat to reverberate through the years wife. argue that 1995 was both a watershed year a hinge moment that one could detect at the time as well as with the passage of 20 years now. the verdict in the of j. simpson trial in october of 1959 -- 1995 was a flash bubble moment. people remember where they were when they heard the verdict. similarly, with the bombing of the oklahoma city federal building, it was the worst, deadliest act of dork terrorism in u.s. history and people remember where they were whan that happened. a flash bulb moment. so people knew this would be a memorable year. >> host: when did it become clear to you it was one those of

years? were you researching another book? how did 1995 pop up. >> guest: in the research process you always think about the next project, the next book you're going to be working on, and in the back of my mind 1995 was that prospective project, a prospective topic to take on and to investigate in depth in on book-length depth. i remember ""newsweek" magazine" at the end of 1995 devoting its cover to what it called the year of the internet and explained why 1995 was the year of the internet and did so in hype are bowlic terms but nevertheless it stuck with me and was a back of the burner kind of ideas i kept in mind and when its time came up -- dewere angling for the publisher for the 20th 20th anniversary of 1995. i.e., 2015 to bring out the book now at the anniversary, and so it made sense in that regard too. but it was very much of a hinge

moment, watershed year, not only for the event is mentioned moment or two ago but because with the passage of time we can see how important the emergence of their by net was and you can define 1995 as a time when the internet took hold. it wasn't invented in 1959 by any means but it was the year in which people sort of became aware of it. mainstream americans became aware of it. not everybody was online but everyone kind of knew about it, heard about it. and was also the year, of course that clinton met lewinski, and only in retrospect that the effects of that scandal became clear and we're still living with some of the effects to this day. but the scandal took place or began to emerge if you will, a few years after 1995. so it had both effects. it was one of this flash bulb moment, year when you knew it would be a memorable year, but also with the passage of time was year in which the significance and importance of

the time became more obvious and more detailed. >> host: let get interest the events. we start with chapter one, which is the year of the internet. about the internet let's play a sound that might be familiar to many of you but maybe not all of you in this room. beep beep, beep beep, beep, beep. screeching. bleep, bleep, bleep. >> joe, can you explain that sound to people under 15 or 20 years old? >> guest: that's the digital handshake. the connection of a computer talking to the modem and making the connection to go online and that is how most americans made

their way online into the online world in the mid-and late 90s and into the 21 not century. >> host: what war the key things in 1959 that propelled the internet into the powerful media its today. >> guest: a discussion of a lot of media attention and a great deal of media hype even about the internet and what it could do and that helped propel the interest. and it also was a tomb in which many of the -- a time in which many of the mainstayed on the digital world, outfits and companies we recognize to this day as important and significant, had their start. amazon.com started selling books in july of 1995. almost no one noticed. almost no one realized there was this book seller out there but it has become this -- that dominates the online world in many respects. ebay had it start in 1995. the predecessor to craigslist began in 1995. it was also the year of

match.com government going, in 1995. so online dating and online relationships also began to take form. >> a great anecdote in the book jeff bezos stuffing books in packages to send to people and he wanted to buy knee pads, and someone said, i would don't you buy a packing desk, and that made a lot more sense. >> guest: the thought that was a tremendous idea and one of the greatest he heard that year. its suggests the primitive nature of the early online entities that have become so dominant and so important. >> host: i want to ask you -- we have a headline from a mercury news announcing the -- are you ready for the internet? how did the mainstream media treat the emergence of the internet? obviously the internet has not been a good thing for the newspapers nationwide, worldwide.

>> guest: that's right. there were actually two ways in which the internet was discussed and presented in main stream traditional media in the mid-90sened including the headline here, from the san jose mercury news inviting people to experiment and get online and see what the hype was all about. on the other hand a lot of media, particular live media leaders are were saying we dope think the internet is ever going to amount to much, never going to supplant traditional media. a lot of of people who were taking confidence in -- misplaced confidence turns out -- in the notion that the internet was small and the audiences for online news were so small it was not going to make a big difference. these included eminent news men and women including the likes of jean roberts of "the new york times." he was saying that, well blessedly, from a print standpoint, online audiences for news will remain very small, into the foreseeable future. he was right about 1995 when four percent of americans went

online with any kind of regularity to get their news but within a few years that number just shot up and as you say, devastating effects of the traditional and mainstream media. but the dominant reaction to the threat or challenge of the internet was one of typically one of confusion and also an inclination to pooh-pooh that threat to dismiss it. on the other hand there are some outlets including the san jose mercury news, who said this is how we do it. get online, the way to the internet. >> host: the second major event yukon nell the book is the tragic oklahoma city bombing in april of 1995. tell us where terrorism ranked in the national consciousness before the oklahoma city bombing. >> guest: a very interesting question. >> host: number one official many people now but what about then? >> guest: it was perhaps not the most dominant issue. the o.j. simpson trial, for

example, just obliterated everything in terms of media attention and media landscape in 1995. but the terrorism was a low level but a nagging concern. a couple years being of the oklahoma city bombing, less than that actually -- the first attack of the world trade center happened. and that really puts terrorism international terrorism, hon the front burner for many americans. also at that time the unibomber was still at large, and in 1995, his manifesto was released. he issued his manifesto and demanded that "the new york times" and the "washington post" publish that man fest to, and after a lot of hand-wringing they did in its entirety in a special section in the "washington post." so terrorism was on the table and domestic terrorism was perhaps less so, because the reaction to the oklahoma city bombing was such that most people immediately initially thought it was the work of

international terrorists, middle east terrorism was to blame in the first hours, the first day after the attack. it was a devastating attack. not only the deadliest single attack of domestic terrorism in the united states history, 168 people were killed, including 19 children. many of them in a daycare center in the murrah building, the federal building that was the target of the bombers, but it struck deep into the american heartland in a very surprising way. >> host: what was the biggest result change as a result of that attack. >> guest: one of the changes was it began to initiate restrictions in american life. preelmtive restrictions design -- preemptive restrictions. less than two months after the attack on oklahoma city, six weeks later the two-block

section in front of pennsylvania avenue was closed to vehicular traffic, and that was a direct and dramatic response to the threat to the prospective threat of domestic terrorism, truck bombs. they did not want the white house to become a target for domestic terrorism. so that block of pennsylvania avenue was shut off, and remains closed to this day. there's no chance it's ever going to be re-opened. the "washington post," the washington political figures were vehemently opposed to closing that section of pennsylvania avenue to vehicular traffic. the post was saying it never was closed during world war ii never closed during the war of 1812 when the british invaded and burned washington. and now we're going to close it because of the prospective threat of terrorism? and yet it was and the chance of if its being re-opened are slim to none. that was an example of a broader mentality that began to take

hold began to take sustain aftermath of the oklahoma city bombing. those restrictions, those limitations on american life become ever more pronounced and ever more apparent in the aftermath of 9/11 of course. but we can trace those restrictions to the oklahoma city bombing pretty clearly. >> host: we move to another major event which you mentioned but we can -- that's the famous mug shift o.j. simpson. and the trial, of course was -- the murder happened in 1994, of his ex-wife and goldman but the trial lasted almost all of 1995. and then in october, millions of americans gathered in front of their tvs to watch the verdict. i think productivity in the united states plummeted for that half hour. tell us how this -- why this ordeal fascinated us so much. >> guest: it had everything in a way. it had celebrity, mystery, it

had the severe crime, it had issues of race and sex to a degree. it had high-powered lawyers. simpson was a multimillionaire, former professional football player something of an actor in movies and he had the resources to organize and recruit a legal team that was -- allowed him and his case to go toe to toe with what the state could muster. the defense team was so effective in neutralizing the best evidence of the prosecution that the acquittal of of j. simpson was inevitable. when the verdict was announced in early october 1995 the country essentially shut down. people refused to get on flights until they knew what the verdict was. press conferences on capitol hill were closed.

>> jo lieberman -- >> then senator joe bieberman said not only would you not be here i wont be here either for the news conference he called at the appointed hour the hour that the judge, lance ito, set for the reading of the verdict. >> host: you mentioned that the judge by announcing the night before they would announce the verdict, that made it even more of flash bulb moment. >> guest: absolutely. had he requested the verdict be announced right away, as soon as it was reached i'm sure the reactions and the attention would have been far less than what it was but it became a flash bulb moment. people remember to this day of they're of that age 25 or older, remember where they were when it happened, and not only were they in front of tv sets but radios and even word of mouth. what is interesting, the internet was not a major source of news about the simpson verdict at that time. not a major source. maybe one of the last big events

in american history in which the internet didn't. >> host: i was at the "washington post" and the put out an extra bulldog edition, afternoon paper, which is very rare to do that but it's such a big story. >> guest: do you have that? >> host: we do. one last question on o.j. one thing you write is that another lasting contribution of the trial was the use of dna evidence and correctly handling dna evidence more importantly. >> guest: that's rightment the first time, the first prominent criminal trial in american history in which dna evidence figured prominent limit not the first time that dna evidence had been introduced into a criminal trial bit any means but the first time a prominent high-profile much-followed widely reported on trial, had this and it was -- it's interesting that some of the most tedious moments of the trial came during the presentation and discussion and

examination of the dna evidence. it was tedious. it just went on and on and on. but nonetheless it became one of the most lasting consequences of the simpson trial, because dna evidence -- it was -- main stream consciousness again. here is this wonderful technology that can be used to define or describe just how and whether a person is criminally guilty or not and you're right, the collection, the processing, the analysis of dna evidence was very sloppy very sloppily done during the investigation of the crimes in los angeles in 1994, and the prosecution presented this evidence, and the defense -- since his defense was able to tear it apart because it was so sloppily handled, sloppily gathered sloppily prepared and analyzed. and after the trial there was improvements made in the processing in the collection of

dna evidence so that's a lasting consequence. also had the effect, if i may of introducing the notion of the power of dna in a very -- it anticipated and perhaps even stimulated interest in csi type programs. and i think even television would be quite different today if not for dna as a final element. it's not the simpson's trial direct consequence but helped accelerate and stimulate the. >> i think csi has one or two spinoffs. >> guest: that's right. csi-type programming. >> host: we have microphone in the middle there. because we have c-span here today. they're going to be filming this. they're film it today and we'll air it later. i invite you to line up and ask some questions to joe. the mic is right behind us. i should also note that joe will be selling copies of the book

following the program and you can get a kind copy from joe. i you're using twitter use hash tag inside media the newseum. and in chapter four you revisit the u.s. brokered peace talks that brought an to end the vicious war in bosnia. certainly that was a complicated and a multifaceted conflict in the balkans that majority of americans were not even familiar with. but tell us why that is another pivotal event for you. >> guest: it was because of the -- well, first of all the u.s. brokered these negotiations and for the first -- the war went on for nearly three years in bosnia. it was vicious savage deadliest war in europe since the time of the nazis since the end of world war ii. the united states policy was to defer to the europeans in trying to resolve this conflict to bring it to a conclusion.

and that approach quite clearly failed. and with the massacre in bosnia in the summer in july of 1995 when 8,000 muslim boys and men were herded off and executed by bosnian serb paramilitary forces, when that happened, the worst atrocity in a terrible war, it became very clear to u.s. commentators, an li, foreign policy experts, and eventually the clinton administration, that something had to be done. u.s. had to move on this. that was a primary consideration and a primary reason the united states moved ahead and brokered a deal. it brought the presidents of bosnia and serbia and ceo asia to dayton -- croatia to dayton ohio, and kept them there for three weeks until they hammered out a deal, an agreement that

not only ended the war but preserved the bosnian state as an entity, within which there were two sort of fairly ridge ridge -- a serb-based republic and those lines remain to this day. a very rigid and someone ineffective solution but it was effect enough ending the war. also led to a sense of, if you will hubris in american foreign policy in the years after. it was clearly the first major foreign policy success of the clinton administration, and in the aftermath the united states foreign policy became more muscular, if you will even more aggressive willing to take on hot spots and in 1998, clinton orders the bombing of iraq to degrade and to downplay somewhat

the chemical weapons that saddam hussein was believed to have had in 1999, clinton ordered the bombing of serbia in the kosovo war to force the serbs to give up this rebellious province of kosovo and that kind of approach, to that muscular aggressive approach to foreign policy continued after 9/11 with the u.s. invasion in afghanistan and then the u.s.-led invasion of iraq in 2003. so this muscular approach to foreign policy took on great dimension, multiple dim mentions in the aftermath of dayton. >> host: you hear the phrase american exceptionalism. that was part -- >> guest: don't hear so it much these days. you certainly did in the january math of the dayton peace accord. clinton was invoking american exceptionalism as a justification for the united states to not only reach a conclusion, negotiate seattlement to the war and also

to send 20,000 troops to help police the peace agreement in boss knea. -- in bosnia. that was an unpopular move and americans thought three would be though pay for this, that u.s. forces would be drawn into into the bosnian conflict but didn't turn out that way. there will no u.s. casualties to hostile engagement in the peacekeeping function after they dayton peace accord. >> host: the last question on that. why dayton, ohio? why were the peace talks held there? >> guest: it's a great question. >> host: unlikely setting. >> guest: yet inspired arm. reminder to the participants the u.s. military might is blow announced. dayton aloudded the separate teams to ghettoing in a confined area, very safe area beyond the reach of the press, beyond the

press were kept beyond the gates of the air force base and also dayton was close enough to washington dc that if ranking u.s. officials needed to get there, such as the secretary of state, who did drop in from time to time, needed to get to dayton, he could in an hour. an hour's flight from d.c. so it was close enough yet far enoughway, -- far enough away. it was an inspired venue if unconventional. >> host: we are ready for questions. the questions are being taped for c-span so you'll be heard live. and i should actually end though, with the president clinton monica lewinski affair last put not least. the affair begannin' 1995 actually during the government shutdown, when the white house was understaffed and interns

were doing more administrative work. hough did that entire shift the discourse of american politics. >> guest: it led to the astonishing spectacle of the impeachment of a sitting u.s. president. the first time an elected u.s. president had been impeached. and brought to trial. the only other time this happened was in the 1860s when andrew johnson was impeached and tried but he was not elected president. he was abraham lincoln's vice president. clinton was elected twice, but he -- looking back, looking back 15 years or so it's hard to believe that this is the outcome of the scandal? clinton was accused of obstruction of justice, lying under oath perjury and those charges were pretty severe. and the way the case was

presented to congress and then tried in the senate really separated in a very clear way republicans and democrats. almost all republicans in congress in the house of representatives voted for impeaching the president and almost all democrats voted against it. that disparity, that cleavage showed up again in the senate vote to convict or acquit clinton and both votes on obstruction ofity charge and on the perjury charge neither of those won a majority. it was like 55-45 those partisan divisions or -- have continued to be pronounced and have continued to define the american political landscape. it would be a mistake to say it was because of the clinton lewinski scandal and the storms over impeachment that the political landscape in this done

is what is today bit it was certain lay contributing factor and continues to be a contributing factor and monica lewinski is in her early 40s and made clear she is not going to go completely away and is back in may had a lengthy article in vanity fair, a few months ago gave a speech her first public search -- public speech, so she is out here and her case, the clinton lewinski scandal, remains a point of interest of fascination even in the american political scene. >> host: i'll get political with you now, as we approach 2016 and a potential presidential candidate hillary clinton. will this become an issue in the race if she throws her hat in the ring? >> guest: it might. there are analysts of the political -- far more insight than i have but i think that it certainly might. it may come up tangentially. i can't see it being brought up

deliberately and aggressively in a debate say with her republican opponent, whoever that will be. but then again, we're assuming that hillary is running for president, and there is a school of thinking out there, including mike mccurry, who was bill clinton's press sect, who has doubts whether she will run for president. she is going to be, what 68? not all that old but it's -- >> host: a whole other show. >> i'm here in the newseum on weekends to hear john maynard to ask questions. an observation that supports your book and then i'll follow with a question you've say we. these things and at the time of the o.j. simpson verdict i was teaching in new jersey, predominantly african-american school but say about 75-25 in my classroom reflected that. and 0 we were watching it, and you talk just facially, i wish i had a picture of that. the reaction of the two

different groups to see that one student i remember ran out two of them ran out scream. ing for joy came back and apologized. and i wonder some day in history, after ferguson and all the things, if there won't be a trace back to that moment when the myth of post racial society was more revealed there. that's my observation. and i comment. all books have to end. you chose five. what would have been your sixth had you had one? >> guest: sixin' -- did you have one that you toyed with but said it didn't quite be as important as the other five. >> guest: very good question. the original pre pose sal for the book that i presented to the acquisition editor had a sixth chapter and that chapter would take a look at the first confirmed discovery of an