>> every saturday at 10:00 p.m. and sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern and you can watch all previous programs on our website, booktv.org. >> nancy: is next. speed one talk about timely. their new book just came out. tell us, we will we ever have a woman elected as president in the us? we will talk about if so, when and why does this really matter. fifty nations in the world have elected female leaders. >> americans like to think of ourselves as exceptional,

a model democracy for the world, but in this case we are exceptionally backwards. as you say, 50 nations have elected a woman to lead the. the list goes on. we are behind kosovo in pakistan. so as a woman who has written about politics for a couple decades now and mother of $2 i want to know why america had never elected a woman president. >> what is holding us back? it seems that almost 100 years since women have had the right to vote. why is it we don't have a woman as president? >> we will get to the history, as you said, but i think the obvious place people go for this is the double standard and sexism and reducing a lot of

outrageous attacks in this election about hillary clinton and against carly fiorini. outrageous but in many ways level. people get called out as soon as they do this. it is a little bit shocking that we have what i would call and about misogynist as the front runner of the republican party right now. he has made outrageous comments about women. so women know we experience sexism in every field in business, education, and that israel. and yet there is something really surprising, and it surprised me is much as anyone i was doing research, voters are not making their decisions based on gender bias. they are thinking about ideology and political party and issues and questions of

temperament when they decide who to vote for. they care much more about those things and they do about gender. although we still have a lot of sexism in the general culture it is not impacting the final account of the election. i kind of like to say sexism and elections is like a paper tiger, showing the toothless. >> get in the book you talk about the fact that candidates need to be warm and strong. other other things impacting this? >> so a lot of the way we perceive candidates is gender, of course. the research shows that there is a difference between how people perceive politicians, women in politics and women in business because there's a different relationship between voters and political leaders and there is between

abbas and an employee. and the research shows that this so-called double-blind that a fair to warm their week if there too strong we know what they are considered. it does not look like i still pertains in politics. people want a leader was relatable they feel understands the public they also want someone who will stand up. so the study show that women who are both tough and warm actually get kind of a boost in favorability ratings with voters. voters do not like candidates who are angry and we get to the general election will see how this plays out because there is

so much anger in the electric. >> we will go through history, but if it is not sexism then why haven't we seen a woman president? >> obviously for at least 130 years of our history, like 200 and was sexism, legal gender discrimination. what is is america's elections are pretty unique in comparison to the wall. the real problem is incumbency. so few offices opened that it is hard even when women when elections, it is hard to change the ratio. and another part of it is what political scientists call the gatekeepers. in some ways what we saw

with the oscars. a group of people who have been in power for a long time, predominantly men and predominantly white. congress in 1960 was 95 percent white male. in the history of the united states about 12,000 men have serving congress and 308 women. so we have a resistance at the gatekeeper level which is partly to do with gender but people wanting to hold positions of power that they have had. >> it is a legacy. >> we are currently disadvantaged because there has been this gendered way of viewing politics for hundreds of years. what can we do? it seems to be something

that we will have a long way to go. >> great question. as you know, in countries around the world they have decided that they need to take positive action to get a more deserve -- diverse and representative government. many of the things they do are off the table, particularly whether it's in corporate boards or legislatures. so i think what we have seen -- i guess this is going to the recent history. we have had women looking at this impregnable wall, keeping the library cozy and comfortable inside congress and the white house and seeing how will we chip away they start fundraising groups that are dedicated to

getting enough money to female candidates. they create interest groups push women's issues onto the agenda where it was now back in the height of the 2nd wave of feminism or pro-choice america and planned parenthood now. it would not be where we are today unless we have these women that decided we have to play the political game the way and then play it will be effective to show that we deserve to be there. one of the most interesting things about doing this book for me was interviewing close to 100 people, many of whom were pioneers in many

were a new generation in the 30s and 40s. they have really created a new counter establishment. >> recent history. in 1960 there were no. essentially no women. and so we are kind of taking for granted that we have come so far so fast. if we have to fight history is going to be hard to get to equal participation. 20 percent comeau we are doing well the list are quotas. why do you think quotas are off the table? >> i think it has to do with our racial history. in the 60s and 70s quotas became a code word for not letting african-americans and

institutions that they had been excluded from the cost of 400 years. i think the way that race drove our politics in the 60s and 70s and into the early '80s has a lot to do with why we are stuck not being able to do things to increase diversity whether it is immigrants are other ethnic groups. >> and so we see we are in this incredible race right now. and we know that women are important. why is the women's vote important? >> in some ways it is understated. if you look at the 2012 election roughly 10 million more women than men voted. they make up the vast

majority of voters and as i said, the woman's vote is pretty solid. the changes in off year elections these women tends not to vote in off year elections. they have this seesaw women making the difference. women, the research shows also that women are concerned about party and ideology but the reason is that essentially the democratic party has become a feminist party. you cannot be opposed to women's equality and advancing opportunity for women and succeed as a democrat on the national

level and in most states as well. >> you looked at both parties and the progress they were making. very interesting. if you want to really advance the issues you will have to get outside of the party which is what will push the envelope. brings back to what you said earlier. helpful about the bipartisanship. gridlock subway possibly be a governing nation, but it seems like they have done things a little bit differently. >> so there are about 20 women in the senate right now, two thirds democrat one 3rd republican. going back to when they were essentially no women in the

senate -- 30 years ago no democratic woman had never been elected to the senate and right. so the women i can call particularly in the year of the women in 1992, there are about six of them i think mother were outsiders in the institution and reach out to each other because of some chromosomal determination, but here they were senators wanting to get something done. the key story is senator barbara mikulski and kay bailey hutchinson, hutchinson reached out to mikulski of the bill to improve women's retirement security in a very polarized moment as gingrich was taking over the cars as they

worked together and without together to make this bill happen when nothing was happening in congress because of the partisanship and realized they had such a good working relationship that they created these bipartisan women centric banners. >> like the new girls club. >> minor things. >> will i heard over and over again from republican women and democratic women, our life experience leads us to want to be pragmatic and

get things done and figure out how you break through barriers to getting adequate compromise which is the way our government needs to work if we're going to have a functioning government. >> exactly. it reminds me of justice sandra day o'connor. she does talk about how that ability to compromise is so critical to a functioning government. how else to women in governing positions make a difference? >> doesn't matter, is it just nice?

there are three key reasons. there is the important symbolism of it. we tend to say, maybe that is so important to think about flipping a coin and 44 times it comes heads. rosa give this is a why hasn't this been an aspiration? there is also the symbolism and message this sends to the world. we are beset by extremism

where the common denominator is misogyny and the repression and oppression of women and girls. for a woman to be at the head of one of the most powerful nations of the world i think this sends a powerful message about what america stands for. the most important reason is women do different things when they are in government and make women and girls opportunity, equality, and advance for the priority in a way that is rare for men to do. >> it was about the fact that if there was a woman in the room it might just not

occur. >> there is an expression, if you are not at the table you are on the menu. the affordable care act is a good example of this. the leadership went into meetings and started cutting things out. leadership was entirely male and one of the things they cut was women's health. and so again, senator mikulski got wind of this and in the democratic caucus meeting for this she stood up and had tops of the other woman and said no, this is

not a compromise that is acceptable to us. long story short, read made it happen. it was allowed to be the 1st and only amendment when they finally passed healthcare reform, and so the reason that women are charged more for insurance, the reason the institute of medicine is deciding whether essential health care needs of women is because of that moment of the women stood up and said no. >> it is sort of a perspective. we end up with design flaws. we find all we see there is a clear correlation between women's participation in the bottom line. great report as we could

drive growth by 2020 if women had equal opportunity to participate. we are really using a huge opportunity. >> absolutely the united states is to have one of the highest rates of women's participation in the labor force, but we are now something like 16 or 19. we went from two or three to 16 for 19 in the world. everyone agrees the reason is we do not have the same policies around paid family leave and maternity leave and childcare and pre- k. one of three countries in the world does not guarantee

paid maternity leave. >> it's frightening. not to have paid family leave is holding us back. this is costing us five points of gdp. women reinvested earnings back into the community. as a positive cycle. why don't policymakers say this is in the best interest of everybody. >> i absolutely agree it is not a woman's issue. it is an american issue. >> i think we have a representative government. you cannot avoid the fact

that people bring particular experiences. women have a perspective that is different. let me compare the democratic candidates for president. sanders talks about being pro-choice, supporting paid maternity leave, talks about supporting child complicated. he has something like a $14 trillion budget to pay for free college. he has not budgeted for childcare or paid family leave a pre- k. hillary clinton has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record, too. but she talks about the problem of the hyde amendment that access to

reproductive care is essentially unavailable to poor women because of policy. she talks about the level of women's workforce participation, funding child care of paid family leave. she talks about finding subsidy for parents to pay for childcare. if you are a democrat whichever candidate you support is an example of priorities. women because of our experience have figured out a way to integrate this perspective and to whether it's national security or economics of healthcare. it is not just a discrete women's issue. >> i think again, it is the perspective you bring. female judges cannot vote differently on general

matters but you do see a difference on issues related to sexual discrimination. it is the experience you bring to bear. you see how powerful participation is. we are really fighting history. if it is about incumbency and the lack of women's political participation we are really fighting a difficult battle. 1848, seneca falls, one of my most cherished historical events, seven years later, they both died before the

amendment. you say this incredible thing in the book about how it was a lost opportunity. >> the fact that it took 70 years shows how much resistance there was to women exercising just the most fundamental right of citizenship. i talk about this. absolutely hysterical predictions about what would happen to the country and civilization. and we only got there because of a social movement about a 19 teams was involving literally millions of women when the population was more like 30 million. >> organized. >> lobbying legislatures already petitions, marching,

doing hunger strikes, electing and i'm electing politicians. doing public speaking, strategizing. basically women, about 2 million women in the country had the experience circa 1920 the need to run a successful campaign for political office. what happened mr. finally is the leaders of the top suffrage organization said we are going to stay out of partisan politics. we need to educate women about the vote. the league of women voters comes out of one of the suffrage organizations. and at that moment the parties were scared.

they wanted to run women candidates, putting forward women centric policy. been in power said we don't have to worry about them. we really lost several decades of the gradual building, and it was a moment back to this point about gatekeepers. >> that is super interesting. those decisions could be impacting today's elections. but it begs the question why can't they did make an effort? >> we see some of it.

the republicans in 2012 and came up with recommendations to bring women in the leadership. democratic party, the head of the dnc is a woman. we see that they are including women. the parties have little control over who runs for office. this election is the perfect example. trump,trump, who knows what party he was ever a number of before the sides he is running for the republican nomination. sanders who has been on principle and independent caucusing with democrats for 30 some years runs in the democratic party.

there is a little bit of a wonky comparison. in argentina the president is kind of a trump like figure. he had that platform. he wanted to be president. years ago had to form his own political party. so there are a lot of very boring electoral rules issues that make it harder for women. >> thelet's bring it back to the women's voting today. we know that the women's vote matters. he told us the percentage points. we know that women by majority vote democratic. >> that is an excellent, difficult question.

one, democratic and republican women don't vote the same way. some republican women are socially conservative. there is a silent majority white republican women who are cross pressured. >> progressive and liberal on social issues and strong feminists and they really are disturbed with the direction the party has taken. >> really interesting quotes. >> sometimes i feel like a cast member on survivor. they great-granddaughter of herbert hoover on the republican gay marriage political action committee. she is pretty much appalled at how an extreme religious

right has taken over the party. on the democratic side seen generational tension. the older generation who really faced barriers in their personal life know this history that it took women acting together to get as far as we have gone. ..

they are bouncing to candidates that they see as good in different ways. and so it's a case where there absolutely not going to sacrifice women's equality, but there are other progressive issues that they want to see advanced. for many of them they feel standard is a better vehicle than what a great article in the times or the post but basically saying sexism at work helps hillary clinton. it was this concept as women at different expenses they go through life, and what matters to women of a certain generation in this particular moment may not matter to them later and vice versa. they may be voting on their feminist ideals. but what matters to them is different in this moment of their lifespan which makes a lot of sense. >> guest: absolutely. i had that experience myself when i was in college and can't

participate in a lot of different political movements. not one person in the feminist movement talked about childcare and how was i going to manage having children and having a career. and it was a excruciating when i got to that point in my career. one of the ways we can help some of these college age women is to keep pushing this debate forward, even if they end up at a different place. i think ultimately democratic, young democratic wing will come around to supporting hillary clinton be enthusiastic about it. but i think getting the family questions into the conversation is not second tier or back burner but as essential to how happy you are in your personal life, how successful you are in your career, how your children

thrive is good for everyone not just women. >> host: the other thing in your book which parallels what we read about is this idea that why women go into politics, why they are running. the why behind things. we are focused more on economic leadership but women are sort of off an extended department or do they use the power for purpose. purpose is a big driver. i think what's interesting in the book is that women write because they want to solve problems. both democrats an and republicas hugo in the book is a man often run because it's a career opportunity or power, power and plate. but i think what's interesting about millennials and maybe you find this in your research is that millennials and women are starting to segue of it. older women and millennials, men and women, are starting to look the same things. millennials don't want to sacrifice family. men or women.

they don't think there should be and and private way there's no paid family leave. that a few people should have to suffer that way. they want a better worklife balance. we may see this generational shift is aligned more with women's priorities i want to ask you about that. you women run for different reasons? >> guest: i think your point is excellent about purpose driven and mission. we see this among the millennials who want to reshape the business world. they want to do good. >> host: unless there's some purpose behind work. 80% of the latest safety do not want to go to work unless their company stand for something. >> guest: absolutely. this is a great ship for america in general and the world, absolutely. i think because women perceive that it is more difficult to win elections, and that you think in many ways women perceive it's more difficult than it is a

delight to see the message get out to women that it's really not come it's hard for everybody but it's not much harder for women than it is for men. currently. so i think the sacrifice that it takes to run for office, particularly for women who don't necessarily have a ready-made networks that the men and politics do, you have to have that extra boost. you have to feel that there is a purpose to it, that there is a mission to it. but i think part of the good news is there are plenty of ambitious women don't want to be politicians and run for office just because they want the status and prestige lightning. the more women decision-making aligns with men who come of what the prestige, the status can i think that's good. that's a sign of progress. >> host: on the other natives assigned progress women are said any sort of standard. it seems like we're always

comparing this to the reasonable man standard and comparing everything to that. and so maybe purpose is the new power. >> guest: there some great international research that come after voters are institute and there are more women in politics, the caliber of politicians improve because it's become more competitive. the women are in some ways better qualified and it just lifts the whole bell curve toward more of the side effects let's try but i'm taken by geena davis is research. she talks about we talk about 70% leadership gap where we have women stuck at 70% leadership in almost every governing body. i think the pressure of barnyard coined that and what gene davis found was that only 17% of them as extras in movies. it could be in some way we get conditions using 70% representation as normal. if it will achieve 70%, they are

represented. do you find that treasure absolutely. that's a brilliant point. it just reminded me as i was doing this book and i would say i'm writing about looking into this question is america ready to elect a woman president, will it make a difference, what are the barriers? and i say nine out of 10 times women and men would go on not going to just vote for a woman because she's a woman. of course, not. no one does. this gets to that identity politics, you know, question. central and centers can appeal -- trump and sanders -- but if women identify to movement that's politics. there's a double standard. i think it has something to do with come if we get beyond 70% or if we have a woman, that it's not unusual so that's too much.

that's strange to see. >> host: it's not natural in some ways. maybe we are not comfortable as the cold yet with women having power and russia put out in the boardroom and again through the stereotypes about women argued when they're in leadership or even if you look at media which gene davis does, how women are depicted as leaders really makes a difference. reminds me of this great story we heard from apple operate where she said, i never aspired to th be a suggested because i never saw a secretary of state where he addressed the she was having dinner and one of her grandchildren, her granddaughter was there, and they were talking about how she broke the barrier in section state, then her granddaughter said isn't that a girl's java? she is seeing condoleezza rice, hillary clinton. but how quickly it changes the expectation of what is appropriate for women to be doing just when you break a better you.

so "breakthrough" is the title of your book, an important concept. >> guest: there is great research that relates to this. in the united states and internationally comparison something like 17 countries, that when adolescent girls see voluble women running for office or winning office, it jumpstart their political ambition. they talk about how they want to run for office. they talk about how they're going to be politically active. so it is role model, symbolics.com isn't just nice. it's one of things that's going to change the ratio from 70% to what it should be, roughly 50%. >> host: your earlier point about not just young women and girls but also for other nations around the world. the message that we send other nations about, we export 80% of media so that's not helping.

there's another great story gene davis told about how when she was in washington, she was giving a talk in some cave up to her, i want to say it was from, i can't remember but it might've been from rwanda. she said you've got to help us. she said no, i'm an actress. like i do research on media that you need to talk to the ambassador. they said no, no. you have to stop exporting some of the tiki wiki because it's really changing the standards in the country the expectation of the role of women. the way women are depicted, taking that leadership is a breakthrough and it sends a signal to the rest of the world about how we view them -- women. >> guest: raising this question of hey, you know, you're having a several day summit in i don't see women mention anywhere. she works, she talked nicer to people. and the next year and year after

suddenly japan has made women economics the centerpiece of trying to get the country out of this terrible, long-term economic decline, realizing the economic importance. >> host: one of the biggest shifts in the last five years is having evidence-based face. one of the most coverage over to was when prime minister abe wichita falls and said if i want to be competitive to go go bot my economy to be competitive, he talked about the participation of women. that's a real shift in the states on evidence-based face. is not based on its the right thing to do. we know it's right thing to do but it's based on fact it is empirically the smart thing to do. your book shows that. >> guest: i really do think that it will be transformational to have a woman president. on gender issues we've made tremendous progress but our

systems were not built for the 21st century. they were not built to meet the aspirations of any woman under 45 in this country. and as you said most of the men under 45 are really chasing under these older models of the breadwinner husband, i can be involved in my family. and so i do think that leadership at the top, particularly in the american system of government, is so important for setting the table, setting the agenda about what matters. and also using the bully pulpit to say this isn't a luxury come this isn't back burner. we are going to focus on advancing gender equality brainy ourselves into the 21st century. >> host: that such an important point because if we don't, we are such a slow process.

we have so much process built into her system at work is getting faster and competitive. if we don't take these moments to be designed with our systems work we will be left behind. i think that is something we've gone from the convergence of technology, also the evidence-based case. it's just come if what you need to stay competitive. for me, i think while your book is so important in particular women's political participation, we need women as policymakers help make those changes. that is something that's missing. the private sector can do what the private sector can do. we can integrate technology. we can work from home, do all the things we need to do but if our policies don't support it we cannot stay competitive. >> guest: absolutely. my first book was on the progressive era where they were dealing with a lot of the same things. one of the things about policy for businesses is, policies help set a floor and kind of keep up

the bad actors. so there are probably a lot of businesses out there that are ready to do the right thing by their workers who have you children, whether it's men or women. but they can't be competitive with the germany that provides a couple years, but they can't be competitive with the business down the street who is going to undercut them. whether it's things like the minimum wage or social security or more family focused policies of the rest of the world has discovered is necessary to harness limits economic potential, it cannot all be done by business. there's a lot of debate about how you do it. i do think there's room for compromise between republicans and democrats on this. is a primarily taxation is a tax credits? what's the balance of mandate versus incentives?

there's disagreement. there's going to have to be some middle ground reached, and back to another point. having women as the head of committees in the senate, in the house come as president makes it more likely that that very hard work will get done. >> host: what do you think, what do you think is holding back these direct conversations? these are the kind of conversations that seem to be happy all over which why we are grateful your book came out. why is this not top of mind for people? >> guest: i think it's a waste that goes back to your 17%. so that means 83% of the conversation is being driven by men. historically, culturally men have not had to make these family issues a priority because society took care of it for them. everything was set up for them

to go about their business and achieve positions of power and not really worry about a sick child at home, for example. so i think as the younger women who i see very much expressing very forthrightly the importance of gender equality, not necessarily when the equality of gender equality come as the conversation starts to change, then these issues become important. they have always been treated as come to us after we take care of the military, after we take care of the economy, after we take care of the federal reserve. this is girl stuff. so part of it is changing from this is girl stuff to know, this is the american step. >> host: mark zuckerberg, talk about changing the culture,

coming out and taking paternity leave with the birth of his daughter, making it a priority. i do think this next generation of men understand they really get it that it's not a women's issue. why would you design a work nine to three, 96 or at school day that is 93. nobody benefits. tickets to benefit. moms don't benefit. it's not in anyone's interest. i think i want to say some of these guys, these younger guys who are also look at the world and in much more creative way. they are reinventing things. they know this is a reset moment. why can't it be a reset moment where everyone can benefit? i think that's the point seems to be made stronger is this is not a women's issue. >> guest: i'm very optimistic actually. i don't think that sexism is a barrier to elected a woman anymore. i don't think sexism is particularly a barrier to us not adopting these policies. i feel like history created a

playing field that is not level yet. history shaped our playing field and we're going to have to make some conscious efforts to level it, to bring women up, and also to spread the idea of mom younger man up through older generations in some ways than one again i could speak to the business case. we are sitting on the business side, we see ceos of large banks of large companies, of the world bank is at the same gender equality is smart economics everybody in the policies because they want to stay competitive. they want to grow the bottom line of the companies. women are the largest economic force in the world today. there's some great research this is one of our economic power in china or india combined. i think people who look at the evidence-based case you want to get from here today. they are very pragmatic.

you are not an ideological about things. they know it matters to our future. i think that's kind of an important point, given that's why your book is laid this out in such an important way. >> guest: i also think, right, the stakes could not be-or in this election. every remaining republican candidate for president has taken a very extreme position on women's health and women's rights. so it's not only that we're going backward, going forward and beat to death someone who really prioritizes and speeds this up. there's also a big danger of falling backward of what's at risk. voting rights for millions of african-american women. african-american women have the highest turnout of any group in the country now. latinas, the question with the supreme court allow obama's

immigration orders to go through, or millions of women going to be deported? will women continue to have reproductive rights, the right to access to abortion and birth control? these are all essential to whether women can participate anywhere near equal levels in our society. >> host: that's another great point, what's at risk. but what about the lower level? we talked about the presidency but we are stuck in 20%. is still a historic buying to? what can we do or should we be doing differently to get that at the congressional, senate or even state and local level? >> guest: great question to you real differences in the state. i think it has to do with in some ways the size of legislatures. my california senate district has 1 million people in it.

the state of alaska has two senators and 600,000 people. so get back to there are very few spots open. i think there are ways we can change actually our legislatures come increase the number and get more women in. but there are things that parties can do on a voluntary level. in california, for example, islet as a very democratic state and the state democratic party is quite powerful when it decides who to endorse and not to endorse. in many countries that have quotas they start as voluntary adopted by parties. the parties can make a commitment to a general diversity and use the little power that they have to increase women's representation. and i think there's a problem with women not running but in many ways people say there's an efficient at or women are not

linking. i think women are rational actors in the a look at the very low odds and the high expense of winning a race as a nonincumbent and saying that's not a rational decision for me to run for that spot. >> host: i don't know if you find this to be true but it seems that way women are depicted in the media and sort of going out and taking positions of power creates a backlash in some ways. that's another if you are a rational actor you can think of what is going to do to my family, life, is it worth it? do you see that playing out? >> guest: i think it does. what i talk to women who are involved in politics they all said that you have to be tough. that's par part of the game. politics is a blood sport. i think the blood sport of politics is keeping a lot of good people out of politics, women and men. and i do think that there is, we still have a problem with women in power.

we like how they are when they are in power, but we don't like women asking for power. it's unseemly. imagine hillary clinton talking about her poll numbers the way donald trump does. it would be ludicrous. it's inconceivable house but how do we change that? we talked about this sort of maybe it's not as hard for women to run as if they think it is increasing its also interesting fields where there's stereotype threat in a way that it's so bad and so hard and so it's creating sort of a negative effect, a chilling effect on women want to go into debt. i think it's important to understand what can we do and how do we let women know it's okay to run, that have great chances of winning? >> guest: i think probably one of the most important things is would have the opportunity to elect a woman, to elect a woman. and we see, once you see a person in that role, it's a

real. it's not hypothetical. and so it helps them set their ambitions. the other night i was watching one of the town halls and my 17 year old daughter and while she's walking by the tv whenever clintothat is when she says i wo be secretary of state. .. i am going to have an equal chance at that spot. >> right? >> and then once a woman gets

reelected over and over again. it is just getting into that first spot. >> we only have a few minutes left but i would like to ask you if there is anything you would like viewers to come away with? why is this book important in this particular moment? what should viewers be thinking about as they are looking at the selections? >> i think people need to be thinking about what we also think about who represents our interest, our values, who seems to have the temperament and character to be president. this is the most important job in the world and the person has to have all of those qualities to be an effective president. it does matter to have more women in power. it is not idea politics but rational self-interest and a

sense of the common good of the nation to want more women in pow power >> we have to thank you for this book. i loved it. lots of research and not just about this election but about why we need women in the political space and thank for you contribution. i think it is a huge one. >> thank you very much. great talking to you. >> great talking to you as well. >> when i tune into it on the weekend it is authors sharing new releases. >> watching the non-fiction authors are booktv is the best television for readers. >> on c-span they can have a longer subject and delve in the

subjects. >> they bring you spectacular work after spectacular work. >> here is a look at authors featured on booktv's after words. nancy cohen talked about the challen challenges women face. john yu argued congressional power has good beyond its limits. jc wats talks about the guiding rules that she lives her life by. and also coming up, the mother of columbine high school shooter discusses mental health and

recalls how she dealt with the tragedy. and professor and former chair of the u.s. civil right commission, mary francis berry, will look into voter suppression. >> you can buy a voter cheaper than it is to invest and educate in voters. and you run the risk if you did educate the voters they may hold you accountable and say what are you doing over there? you didn't vote to medicare. you are free to work with another donor class and you have freedom. with that voting over and over again and voting fru, which is cheap, and why i call it voter suppression on the cheap. you are suppressing choice and

real democracy and doing it really cheapy. >> after words airs on booktv every saturday at 10 p.m. eastern and on sunday's at 9 p.m. eastern. >> it is 12:00 here on booktv and once a month we spend three hours with our guest. today we had forbes on a train here but his train derailed in boston. he is joining us live on the phone. mr. forbes, thank you for being with us. >> good to be with you. >> what a morning you had. explain what happened? >> outside of philadelphia, between philadelphia and