none of them well there is apiece of one that flunked. and the grade race relations and noncome up nobody comes up with the a either you write that you rate president clinton as a reigning champion. of diversity. he has had the most confirmed african-american staff cabinet. and marshals. judges. not judges but barack obama has now the reigning champion that one. and it is as far as marshals. and u.s. marshals. cabinet persons they have confirmed the positions they worked hard on diversity there. and when i say that they worked hard to do that and i give him the grade that i give him this. is good that he did that he

brought another group of people that were not at the table. the various administrations and americans throughout. in mass, he brought people to the table to help to make did he significants. maybe we did not get all of the things that we thought we wanted or needed but it was a at thatible that started this process. and he began. not just a picture. but the window dressing and he began substantive change that would trickle down into any other administration george bush had an african-american secretary of state and a national security adviser. and then a second african-american secretary of state at a time when the united states was engaged around the world and in trouble spots. did he get good points for that? great points for that he was as bill clinton says that. he said this during when president bush was president he said it last year. at this time last year that george bush did have the most diverse.

the republican administration. and it is interest that can it was a republican who put his man and woman of peace in the position that was african-american that was interesting and it took him to do that so it was the first administration wish you saw this type of prom nancy for the african-american. and then it followed suit. the obama administration with the attorney general. and this doesn't counter weight president bush as experience after katrina? is that racial? i don't think that president bush is being racist with the handling of katrina. is this the hurricane that of course affected so many minorities. minorities and the lower income people that were hurt by the storm in louisiana, and mississippi. particularly the 99th ward of new orleans. we saw people on rooftops that were begging for help.

and i think that even a president bill clinton for the book presidency of plaque and white says i do not think that george bush is a racist. but that his policies just did not help elevate people inspect poverty. now when we talk about katrina president bush got into a lot of trouble for the fact that he was caught up in the state right issues of katrina. states would have to deal with it. so that is what bogged him down because people felt disenfranchised from the government. because people did. and barack obama barack obama is the first probably not the last african-american that president that you would cover are i relayings are

just as high as those in bill clinton because of the first term because of the first term i am not going to say the inaction but he did not come out. and the second term. there is two different first term second term we will see more of the african-american president. who happens to be african-american he is comfortable in his skin now. he knows who he is and he is not a shamed of. and have to be strategic and a fight within the white house. and he was the president that did black farmer pay out. so tv the president that did that and at the same time. not necessarily are you

surprised that barack obama make a stronger case his first term. looking back who he was. i remember hearing from people that we do not want to am identify issues of race. and also that race and politics were always as president, and the issue was many of them felt that they would have to really walk the fine line anything that they did in this administration, that specifically targeted african-american that's he would hear from certain parties and groups. for any efforts that they tried to do. all right have you been in the white house through very, very exciting time. thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and your book here today and thank you ann compton.:.

what she says is the real reason for this. >> the government comes and says we have a deal for you. we will reunite you in the crystal city internment if you we will agree to go voluntarily

if the government decided they needed to be repatriated. the truth of the matter is the crystal city was humanely administered. but but the special board a vision for the department of state used it as roosevelt's primary prisoner exchange in the center of his present exchange program. >> sunday night at 8:00 o'clock eastern and specific on c-span q&a

>> use tell a story that has gotten a lot of attention. one you say the president was offended by what he took to be a racial undercurrent. called the place. very angry about it. how can those who weren't in the room assess which of you >> i don't know. there were five people standing around the president when he talked to governor romney in several of them have come forward and said the recollection was completely the same as mine the president got off the phone

and related the fact that governor romney had said we had really surprise them with the way we were able to get the vote out in places like cleveland in milwaukee. i was actually surprised at the reaction. i applaud the loyalty of governor romney's. i think he blew the thing out of portion. as i said said, i don't have any reason to believe that the president got off the phone and told the father for something that didn't happen people who don't pay

attention to the detail of the white house staff may not appreciate how do with thing it is for presidents to install a chief political advisor as a staffer. george hw bush did not put at water on the staff. bill clinton did not put take morris on the staff. this trend began with president bush who hired karl rove and president obama entrusted you. what does it say about our government that this trend is occurring? do you think it will continue? >> first of all, i want to distinguish my role to some degree. i don't pretend to understand exactly what his role was. i would describe my role as something more i can to what mike did for president reagan. someone who has been involved with the president and his message from the beginning of our

relationship in the senate race. i work very much with them on the message. policy. allowing communication i don't think that began with carl or with me. i think it goes back. so that's the role of play. what it says is that presidents want someone around who understands their message and understands them and can help represent that.of view to others so that they're is some message consistency. that reflects the values and

points that the president wants to make. >> pres. obama has had an unusually ambivalent, even unhappy relationship with the imperative of politics. and you write about that from the book. were you there to remind them that you don't get to govern. you govern. you had conflict of the need to listen to people like you better than the put him to follow more ideologically. he believes that more important things. the things that you think are important to advance the country. we often had conflicts about the need to have some of the techniques and conformity's of campaigns in his

presentation. a good example is just the discipline the value answer questions getting the message out front, keeping the answers short making sure that your punching through the.you want to punch through. he viewed interviews, town hall meetings as much more of a a discussion and that he wanted to answer thoroughly and often times he gets to the.seven minutes in. and i we will be a frustration. >> the book is subtitled my 40 years in politics. and one of the themes that runs through the book you rustle of the problem of the

ethical responsibilities of the campaign consultant. a competitor. they definitely use the tools of our trade to compel and i office a man who would prove himself thoroughly unsuited to it. what responsibilities do you think the consultant has? to extend beyond our to the candidate? what responsibilities if any do they have to the general public? >> first of all, i should say that the subhead that i wanted on the book that was too long for the book cover was how my idealism survive for years in politics. as you no, having read the book interest in politics goes back to when i was five years old a little committee which i grew up and really fired my imagination. my knew it seemed important talking about the future of the country, everyone was watching, and it just seemed

important. that was the beginning of it. i approach politics from that place. on the other hand you hired to help get someone elected. you know you try and choose carefully the people you work for. i confess hear and in the book that i didn't always choose right for globalists are doing the race then you -- your job is to get that person elected. you operate within certain ethical and moral parameters in doing so or should. you no when i left campaigns i became disillusioned with the candidate they're are those ambiguous situations where someone is less than you hoped but not so egregious that -- going to

walk away from it. whatever they were they were better than the alternative. that's our would motivate myself to go forward. >> what happens when that turns out not to be true? am thinking of an early campaign the longest-serving mayor in cleveland history. you deliver at the end of that quite a negative verdict on his mayorship. i did not keep in close touch with them after the election although i knew his long tenure didn't entirely break up with his promise. it was you that he 1st wrote just that a lot of the themes, hope and change in division immunity that we will appear in the obama campaign. governing is always more difficult than campaigning. in the end he would be tarnished by corruption charges.

of course of course cleveland is a city heading in the trouble even before michael white but he certainly plans much deeper. when you look back on that michael white is the man responsible and yet he owes to a great degree his career to you. >> well, 1st of all, i would put the emphasis on the word entirely. he did some things that were important. a lot of the iconic structures the roots and his efforts to bring those things and make them happen and did other things in cleveland that were quite positive. may have overstated his time there. there were problems involving one of his associates but i wouldn't be want to suggest either

cleveland's demise was his responsibility for any didn't do anything good. and, look i'm realistic about the fact that no one is all good or all bad all accomplished. that is not the way it is. i think she was an idealistic guy, not a perfect guy but he helped in some important things done for that city the city and inspired people in an important way. this not one of the campaigns i would say i was sorry that i did. i think he did important things for cleveland. >> this is is still in the pre- white house days. you rose you rose to be one of the most important if not the most important of the

democratic consultants in the state state of illinois. they're for a long amount of time and worked on many campaigns. illinois was pretty rough. suffered heavily. wasn't one of of the folks in the top three states and is now locked into this desperate pension situation. >> the pension situation, one of the reasons why the state pension system has filtered down in certain ways. has his own his own pension issues, trying to fight his way out of it. the state censored problems associated with the city's finances. >> but it's not just large economics.

>> they're are legacy problems. they are -- i can say the result of both republican administrations and democratic administrations making unaffordable deals with public employee unions to governors and went to prison and some irresponsibility particularly on the part of governor blagojevich is spending the state thousand rations without raising the revenue. >> one of your candidates and not at the end when he got into real trouble but at the beginning.

>> i worked for him when he ran for governor because i had concerns about what kind of governor he would be he asked me if i would work for him. i said why do you want to be governor you can help me figure that out. you shouldn't run run for governor and he shouldn't have. >> by lots of people, many of them client of yours. >> and many of them not. >> they govern you get them elected. you look back on the political choices, the state of illinois which he did so much to save, do you look back on that and say that was good work or look back and say i don't know that my talents. >> which of my client do you think were responsible. the governors want my clients the state legislative leaders were my clients. i worked for mayors of chicago and the two that i

worked for washington served briefly in the 80s and did a lot in terms of reforming the patronage politics of the city, breaking city, breaking down racial barriers and rich daley's who remade the face of the city in many ways and was considered a model mayor at the end they're were fiscal issues and perhaps he overcommitted in trying to do some of the things that he did most of the school problems for the mayor but i'm proud of working for those guys. i'm happy to respond if you have a particular politician using was responsible for the states problems but i'm kind of curious as to who that would be. >> i don't i don't think it's one person. is the handiwork of many. as one as one looks back on it, career in illinois politics, how does one to

fund the state in such a dire state. >> the other iconic candidate of mine was paul simon and i think was the essence of integrity. i'm proud of. i chose my my clients carefully. i knew the illinois political landscape very well, chose my candidates pretty carefully. >> do you think it's a fair stereotype or characterization the politics of illinois or chicago is less ethical? is that a slower orders that capture a genuine problem? >> i think they're has been corruption endemic to chicago politics for some time. i think that that institutionalized corruption corruption from the top is not the problem at times in

our history. we've had problems with corruption they're. you know one of the reasons why i'm so gravitated to barack obama was because he was on the reform side of the fight the 1st piece of legislation that he passed in the legislature was the 1st campaign finance reform bill that had been passed in illinois in a quarter of a century. paul simon may have been involved in the previous one what it did was make it illegal to take campaign contributions for your personal use until barack obama came along you could raise money and use it as your own personal income if you pay taxes on it and he ended the practice. so illinois and chicago have had their problems and then you have people who come

along and try to address them. as of those of the people i try to gravitate to. >> and you were disappointed. >> i don't know other than in the course of the campaign to make use of medicaid fraud. there's never a public finding of any kind. yes. he was an interesting person. he relished the process of making law and working across party lines to deal with a big question. he went back to the advent of medicare and was close to people in both parties,

including the 1st president bush, closely up to eight or nine presidents and loved it. on the on the other hand he got prosecuted for what i consider an unconscionable. to stuff caching and stamps for cash which may have been government issued stamps may have been the practice in the 1950s, but certainly the norm said change and he did not. so you know -- >> what is it? if it is true their something in chicago in illinois, what is it? is it the fact that it was a great transportation hub and so they're was money that flow through the did not belong to local people and could be siphoned off without feeling like you are taking from your constituents? is it the particular way that the ethnic politics -- >> i don't know what the sociology that led to some

of the corruption problems that have been endemic to illinois at times in our history. and i'm not willing to say the other states and localities in the country have an experienced some of the same. what i do think is that things are much different now in the city of in particular. we don't have a vast patronage machine that we once had. the mayor i have not heard any information about ron emanuel that he has done anything but further promote the interest of the city. so you so you no, this is a vestige of the past, but i think you do a disservice to the city to say this characterizes chicago today. there there are pockets of corruption in the city as they're are in others. i don't think it defines the city certainly not the city that i no today. >> one of the things that runs through this book is

like an artist or writer they're are themes that run through your campaign. the phrase i think it was originally change and hope before he improved a dope and change, middle class economics. and those are partly dealing with the issues of our time but there also seems to be your approach to things. they converge they converge on the work you did with president obama. how much of the obama campaign was waiting in your head for him and how much of it was brought to you by a? >> well, the real question is how is it that we came together? you know, i -- i have known barack obama for 20 some odd years. i was introduced in 1992 by a woman named betty lou salzman. and she had met him and

asked me to my met this most impressive young man. but why him? and she said, i think he he could be the 1st african-american president. this this is when he had just returned from law school, and i always say she knows how to spot a winner well in advance. but what i found when i sat down down with him was that we shared a sensibility. i was impressed by guy who would come back had been president of the harvard law review could have written his ticket and any corporation or law firm in the country and they're were all going after. he came back to chicago where he had been a committee organizer and it was clear to me that he was

someone who wanted to make a difference and make a difference a difference for the right reasons. he didn't view politics is a business. he viewed politics and public service is a calling. and so we became friends. in 2,002 when i became very disillusioned because i saw that would where that was going to get elected governor running what i considered to be a very cynical campaign very disillusioned and wondering whether i wanted to continue doing what i was doing. he called and had just lost a congressional race and had one more campaign in him and was going to run for senate. we hooked up around that race but we shared a lot of sensibilities about politics issues about an approach to politics. so i don't know you know whether -- i think it was a little of both what he brought to it and what i brought to it but it was a really productive partnership and really helped animate the message.

in my view when your building a campaign message if it's going to be successful it has to be authentic and built around who someone is. barack obama from the time that he was working as a committee organizer before he went to law school was someone who can a lot about how the economy worked and didn't work for large numbers of people and wanted to help impact on that and was someone who believe that politics was a noble a noble calling, someone who was more apt to summon people's hopes rather than there fears, someone who saw the change is something to embrace and steer other than something to fear. you know, he was a natural exponent of the message that

we ran on. it reflected who he was. weather elements of it in my previous campaign? yeah but in part because i i gravitated to those candidates. my tagline for paul simon was, isn't was isn't it time to believing in? because i do believe in this , hence the title of the book she. i believe the politics public service as a way to grab the real of history and turn it in a positive direction. obama share their view. i think it was a happy partnership between two people who shared sensibility. >> through much of your career migrate defining theme of american domestic politics is been the american middle class frustrated by the increasing difficulty of getting ahead in maintaining his position struggling with memories that things were different generation ago, 35 years or so after world war ii. if you continue to stay in your same position he got

better and better off. you did not have to be in a very special in order to get better off. >> and wages rose with the gdp. >> and now they really don't seem to and haven't been for a while. that has been the arena in which you play politics. advocacy politics. advocacy for the middle class has been one of your themes. there's a big article democratic leaning writer who hailed the emerging democratic majority in an important book published in the early part of the decade that inspired a lot of the obama thinking, a lot of the obama campaign think. he has just suggested that he may have oversold his argument and there is an emerging republican advantage based on the disillusionment of middle-class voters with the experience of the past six years.

this is not homework assignment. but if you heard these things how do you react to that? ?-question-mark i think that this issue of the oppression of wages the increasing golf between growth and wages and the struggles of the middle-class and those were trying to become middle class so economic mobility has been coursing through politics for decades and has created disenchantment against whomever the incumbent parties because it is a constant a constant theme in the function of forces larger than policy though they require some policy answers. it's a function of changes in the economy fast advancing technology globalization. we see we see

the same issues and other advanced economies. and so it has been a persistent theme in our politics and continues to be a challenge, and each succeeding party has borne some of the brunt of disenchantment about it. obama -- and obviously we just came through a massive economic crisis is that was in full fury when obama took office that helped exacerbate the problem even further and made the problem of disparity even greater. i think that if you ask the average person fighting for the middle class, class, and cares about the middle class and is has made the middle class the focus i think you

get a pretty healthy margin in favor. it's one of of the reasons why he won a fairly substantial reelection in 2012. governor romney get some points for economic literacy proficiency will but when it came to fighting for the middle class he lost overwhelmingly. so i don't know. i think it's a misplaced. to suggest that the republican party somehow will inherit the benefit of the disenchantment that disenchantment it was the republican party comes up with a compelling answer. what i do find interesting is we will the republican party generally was dismissive of arguments about the middle class inequality, economic mobility to all the republican candidates now are speaking to it which suggests what a powerful and pressing and enduring

problem with his. >> am looking here: i and i can't put it in front of you , but i we will share with you. this is a study by henry aaron from brookings in the early part of 2014. 2014. of course one of america's leading healthcare economist when economic distribution. they analyze the economic impact of the 1st obama administration and found the affordable care act and 1st great benefits on the poorest 20 percent of the american population and it confers and decide to compute you have to look at the value of the insurance guarantees that they run this with 45 different computations the thinning and how you look at it, the bottom 20 or 30 percent when

the top 70 or 80 percent lose the heaviest losses are actually in the middle to move out of the top. very few people will no these figures but it does explain a lot of the unhappiness we will look at other, the president's recent initiatives taxing the saving vehicles. four-year colleges and his big speech in kansas kansas, 2010 probably the most important economic speech of his presidency where he announced the strategy of public sector led growth. projects that will pay higher wages that will somehow trickle out to the rest of society.

you look at this and say is this a middle-class strategy or a strategy for the beneficiaries and providers of public services at the expense of the rest of society? and is that the cause of the recent political difficulties? it is a long question. >> it is a little off-topic but i'm i'm happy to address it. i have not seen the study that you are referring to, and to and i assume that it applies to the distribution of subsidies. >> and the guarantees and the taxes and the internal subsidies within the insurance market. i know you're at a disadvantage. and maybe you dispute the conclusions. >> i can't dispute the conclusions because i haven't seen the report. i came on here to discuss my book about the report, but report, but since i haven't seen it but me comment on what i no the ability of

people generally under there insurance plans because the affordable care act has as certain guarantees for people under the insurance plans to not have any. i no something about this. just coming back to my book for a 2nd i i dealt with the healthcare system and had a child with significant healthcare concerns. that is a tremendous sense of relief. i also dealt with the notion that i couldn't get another insurance policy because my child had a pre-existing condition. that is no longer a concern. applies to people up and down. the security of knowing you can get insurance at an

affordable rate if you lose your job or if your employer drops her insurance is a security that is important to everyone. so i can't comment on the economics that are imputed in the report because i haven't read it, but i am certain that the security that the affordable care act affords not just to the bottom 20 percent the people who have insurance is going to be important now and we will be important in the future. >> you are a believer. and you are a somatic thinker. you come up with these broad themes, and obviously they are tremendously powerful and resident. how do you reality check your beliefs? i no i am writing the music. they're are people across the way who are writing the

lyrics. this is a matter of my own conscientious belief as to the reality check of my music against there lyrics. >> look, my concern obviously is not just in the music but in the impact of the policies. i'm not an economist, but there are problems that i think are important that the president felt was important, the country felt was important, and the question was are those problems going to be addressed. addressed. one thing i would say is part of the role the president is to set forth these challenges set forth these problems and provoke debate and discussion. i see the republican party introducing five years later

an alternative to the affordable care act, act but they're is an acknowledgment that there were significant flaws in the system. we are having debate about this issue of viability of the middle class and the economy and what we can do to help secure a broader, inclusive prosperity. that's a step forward for this country and republicans and democrats are participating. participating. maybe they have different prescriptions. as the nature of democracy but at least we have -- immigration reform is another shot. i don't hear people suggesting to families the mainstream of american politicians and voters saying let's go back to where we were. part part of is identifying big challenges and moving the country forward and it

may propagate debate. i may be imperfections in the approach and they have to be perfected over time. they're may be alternative ideas, but at least your talking about the big challenges facing the country. but the obama campaign was about was to try and tackle some of these things. you may not like his prescription for health care, but you have to at least give him credit for taking it on because they're was no political calculus that provoked him to do that. in fact the political calculus was on the other side. in the book i write about this in my discussions about what the difficulties were in moving forward and yet he took then on, and i admire

him. he to get on because he felt that the healthcare system would implode if you didn't. this was something that was urged not just by the people who were concerned about the uninsured or underinsured by our budget people who felt if we didn't reform the health care system it would implode. he took on the political risk to do that. he took on the political risk to intervene, and that's another chapter for another story in the book to say the american auto industry at a time when it was on the verge of collapse. it was controversial then unpopular than. it is not unpopular now. people don't look back at that is a mistake because the auto industry has come roaring back. >> the book is obviously very personal. you talk about the pain in early life the challenges you face raising children you have some self-examination about whether you allow your ambition to damage. you pay generous tribute to your wife is spoke up and was not just you speak and i

salute. you give her great credit for accommodating and making a lot of sacrifices. at the same time it is genuinely a pretty impactful and circumspect enough circumspect book but every once in a while you lift the veil on some of the issues in the white house. those outside have heard them reverberate. the famous the famous stories about the tensions, the staffers that you worked with the president senatorial and earlier campaigns. i want to ask you, as you look back now, you tell the story that rahm emanuel in particular was very eager to get valerie jarrett and to the senate and was one of the things that led to the downfall of the cleavage largely in order to get her out of the white house because as you explained he feared that perhaps such an intimate friend of the president acting as a senior

advisor was a formula for trouble. there has been a lot of trouble. trouble. one of the most controversial members of the administration, although the administration internally has circulated. her magic her magic would have done credit to the court. was he wrong? >> i think he had legitimate concerns based upon his experience in the clinton administration's. if you're the manager it's hard to manage people on staff who have an independent personal relationship with the president, the 1st lady. i've said before, that before, that has its challenges. i we will say that they're is benefit in many presidents would say the same. there is benefit to having someone around you with whom you have long

history who is fundamentally loyal and is unquestionably in your corner and he has that relationship. relationship. they go back a long time. i understood his concern. he did work very hard to persuade valerie. the the senate seat that obama was giving up in order to become president. the end of the day was the president who wanted her in the white house. i have i have not heard him ever suggest that he regretted that decision. >> how has it been for subsequent? >> i think that every one of the chiefs of staff have

dealt with that relationship with there own way, but they all recognize the value that the president feels that valerie brings and work with her and with him to make it work. >> we are recording at a time when there is great controversy over a pending invitation to israeli prime minister netanyahu to address congress. the president has been very open about his approval of the invitation she the relationship has probably never been worse than it yesterday and the relationship has rarely been under more pressure than it has been today. you referred a couple of times to paul simon.

>> 1984. >> 84, sorry. he defeated republican named charles percy who had been a critic of israel, and one of the big themes of that election was you use the issue of was you use the issue of israel against charles percy and in favor of paul simon. what was the david axelrod of 1984, how would he analyze the crisis today? >> first of all, we didn't use the issue as a messaging issue at least as a macro messaging issue. it was a source of a lot of fundraising for senator simon is viewed by some of the organized jewish community is a stronger supporter of israel. and i told the story in that book after one of the leaders who is very central to the campaign offered to subsidize me in business, to put me in business as a consultant, was happy with the weight of the campaign

came out. i said -- i mean it was obviously a great offer to a young guy who had know other means to start a business she. i asked that if that meant if there were a republican or any candidate who is going on israel the bet on everything else i can work against that candidate. i opted out. i am uncomfortable with that kind of an arrangement where one issue issue, however important the issue is so dominant that is how someone is evaluated about in terms of the current situation i would dispute one thing. thing. there is know doubt they're has been friction between president obama and prime minister netanyahu, and i don't think that's news. it is important to note that

in terms of military assistance and other support for military to military cooperation this is far from a bad sign. the level of cooperation is as great or greater than it has ever been command people on both sides would say that. president obama believes and believe what i was there still believes, i'm sure that it's highly important to resolve the issue between palestinians and israel for the long-term security of israel as a jewish democratic state in the think at times he was frustrated because he felt that pres. netanyahu was more consumed by domestic political concerns that pushing the piece process forward and it created friction between them. >> a little more than friction. i mean,, has they're ever

been a presidential prime minister relationship as bad as this one? >> i don't know. i remember that he lost the prime minister should was before because of his poor relationship with president clinton. it's not knew for him to have a testy relationship with an american president. >> is different this time because he may win the prime minister should. >> he may, but it's close enough that this visit to the united states congress is very much a part of that campaign. he was looking for this visit and this event to try to help them in a way that had not been a campaign that was moving in the right direction and there is still great controversy about it because you are a student of the israeli press as i am. a tremendous amount of disquiet about what is happening to the relationship, and many israelis view his trip you as an needless provocation and a violation of the

nonpartisan relationship between the two countries. >> when that never got into the crisis that you mentioned with president clinton and 97 it damaged in that yahoo very much because israelis trusted him as a friend of israel. today a recent poll poll finds that 60 percent or more think that he will find any deal not regarded in that way. with the prime minister gets on bad terms with this president it doesn't hurt them in the same way. >> the polling i have have seen is that they're is a great deal of concern about the relationship between israel and the united states in part because of the actions of the prime minister. you know again we can share debate about this stuff. i i hope we can talk a little more about my book.

>> i think -- you know we no we're talking about the campaign. here's a question from your book. you talk a lot about your opposition to cynicism in your -- how you remain a believer in the best of politics. we are innocent -- we are in a cynical time and sometimes you use that as a political tool. i want to ask you a story. this is one thing i find disturbing. you work for the election of john street in 2,003. he found a bug in his office , and you mastermind a campaign and fbi by the you mastermind of the campaign to reelect him, use this bug you said that john ashcroft

and the attorney general was trying to pick the mayor of philadelphia. and philadelphia. and john street won in a landslide. the fbi investigation did continue. fifteen people were sent to prison on corruption charges. his brother went to prison on tax evasion charges and of course as you know the attorney general doesn't decide who the fbi investigates. >> first of all, 1st of all, a partisan race between a democrat or republican. the practice practice has been not to surface these investigations in the final weeks of an election. i think people around the justice department would tell you, if they were going to place a listening device in the office of a high public official that rises

to the level of the attorney general. never a prosecutor, never convicted of anything. it was a tremendous disservice to him for that story to surface a month before the election. >> but he -- >> it was going to be surfaced. it was going to be surfaced once the bug was found there was going to be serviced. and so my view of john street, a guy who was instrumental in saving the city financial disaster and partnership a guy as mayor to have fulfilled significant promises many of the things that were desperately needed in the

city. a battle as hard as i could, but it was his opponent who ended up in legal difficulties after the election and ended up having to pay $2 million things that he was involved in. the problem street was the one who never bound up under indictment or any sort of legal sanction. >> but his closest friend was the person being investigated died before he could be charged and probably would have been charged we don't know. >> like i said, street was never indicted, never convicted of anything. and his opponent had some legal problems. as probably not.