everyone remembered what side you were on in 1966, she said he had a wonderful way of for giving everyone. and it was a bit self serving, because you did not know who he needed in the next fight. but it seemed to be a genuine feeling of for giving people. is that how he conducted politics? >> no one could figure out how he could forgive the friend -- whenever you needed his vote, you could not have it and then the president would be inviting him to the white house for dinner. and we frequently complained about it. which did us no good, because he continued to entertain him and happily he determined that his

career was not going to be furthered in politics and he got out. he could not understand why he was so good to him. but he was forgiving and his mode of operation was you may need him tomorrow, so don't stab him in the back today, so things of that nature. and he was very, very fair about that. >> in these times it stood out for me, because she said i used to tell him, why are you being so nice to that guy, i've been hating him for three weeks for what he did to you, and the president would say, he did something very good last week. he said, never close off a relationship so there's no possiblity of reconciling. i hope that everyone in washington right now will read that sentence and take it to

heart. [ applause ] >> michael, the term soft power has been in voeg for a decade, and i believe caroline uses the phrase, i don't know if there was a first lady that has been able to turn the feeling about the united states around the world. she does not talk about her political thoughts as much as we would like, but there's a sense of getting a great deal done to support is administration, including the choices of countries she was visiting and the work she was doing. >> she could see around corners and see things that others could not see. one of them was latin america which then and later on got

short attention from the american president's, she thought it was important. they went and traveled there. one of the most wonderful things in the book is she talks about a newspaper headline that mrs. kennedy was nice enough to actually shake hands with little children who were from a latin american country, because that was so unusual at the time. one thing both john and jacqueline kennedy i think both felt is what you are saying, ted, one test of american power is the number of missiles and nuclear weapons and so, but often times just as important is how people think about america in their hearts and that was what the peace corp was about. >> there's wonderful statements in the book -- >> one or two. >> -- thank goodness. i learned she named her poodle degall -- >> this was my foot note, she should not be held responsible

for that. >> did those surprise snu >> when she said that she came to have, i think the same opinion of french people as she did of people in wisconsin. i think sort of for the same reasons, because wisconsin did not ultimately vote overwhelmingly for john kennedy and the french particularly charles degall was giving her husband a great deal of trouble. so i think you can see the things to some extent as a great test of loyalty. >> there's language in the middle of the account of the cuban missile crisis. she said no day and no night. >> no difference between sleeping and waking. and that was a signal. one of the toughest thing in the sfoer a story and i think you would agree with this, it's to find out what someone truly believes and thinks. and she describes a cuban

missile crisis that they were together probably more during that period than perhaps any other time during that presidency. and he would call her and they would go for walks on the lawn, and spend a lot of time together. you were mentioning franklin roosevelt, he admired elenore, but when he needed to be with someone, he would not have spent a lot of time in a crisis with her like this. but in the term of jfk, who did he turn to? jackie. >> were there parts of the cd set and book that surprised you and revealed new sides of president kennedy? >> not really. but i was marveed about the detail she went to in

remodelling the white house and the research that she did and then her ability to administer it is really overwhelming. i just can't believe that a person could do it on short notice, unless she had been planning it for, you know, much longer than we know. >> i think it was a depth of her reaction when she came to the white house and had a love experience with mrs eisenhower. and she said that the -- when the white house was reconstructed during the truman administration, it was falling down, they scooped out everything in the inside and built new floors, they ran out

of money, so they made a deal with one of the stores and they refurnished that way and that is what it looked like. the restoration of the white house is written off as interior decoration, she had to raise this money which was not easy. she had to keep particularly two or three advisers from essentially colliding with one another. and sister parish to some extent too. if anyone doubts her political skills, the fact that she was able to do it and get it in on time and under budget and for the white house to look the way it does today, if it were not for her, it would still look like a bad convention hotel. >> the eisenhowers do not come off terribly well. president eisenhower is walking around the white house in golf shoes leaving holes in the

floor. but i felt sorry for mimi. to have been succeeded by jacqueline kennedy was not the easiest thing on earth. >> i think no but as mrs. kennedy said that thing w-- things would drift to her ear that mrs. eisenhower would say i hear they made the state room purple. >> between the two you get more from hearing her speak, i had an alarming moment in my car and i had them all loaded and i had a cd from keith richards in if cd, took understanding to figure that out. >> i think she would love that. >> where do you think -- do you think your readers and her readers, i mean, are they rea r readers or should people -- >> i think when you read it you

can perhaps absorb what is said more. but when you listen, i think you are right, ted, this is true for most tapes of this kind, you get a sense, in fact i heard caroline talk about this. you heard her voice and there are shades of meaning that you cannot get from reading the words. >> we are now at the part of this event where we are taking questions, and i have a few to begin p this is for you, dick. she talks about joseph p kennedy and rose kennedy, you must have known those two. do her impressions match with her memory of them and her interactions with them in public? >> yes. >> you see why dick had a long career in political life. and distinguished.

>> well, um -- >> no, mr. kennedy was a very much a dominant figure in almost everything that went on in the political life of john kennedy. his mother was even more dominant on their prayer life and kept after them for all of the reasons that good mothers do. i mean, to make responsible children. and -- but they -- they kept very, very close track of what each was doing. and so, i would not disagree with anybody who thinks that they were enor musly influential, the only thing that i'm conscious of is ambassador kennedy could not influence

certain people in the democratic party. i mean, people that we were supporting, he frequently did not. so, that -- >> who were you thinking of? >> well, i'm thinking about one fight that we had and he just was not responsive. i mean, well, bobby was the responsible one and what happened was, that bobby had indicted the brother of a congressman from new york and the congressman who was responsive to us and had wanted desperately for the indictment to be withdrawn, bobby refused. they then were talked to the ambassador who said no, he is going to do what he is going do anyway.

so, it caused us some pain but not a great deal. but it's the type they would differ, if he differed he would differ. because he had one strong rascal. i think around that time ambassador kennedy used to joke that he was a robert taft democrat. >> do any of his assessments differ in your view than other historians? >> the thing that surprised me was if we were talking a year ago, i would have said that she was a large influence during that period, but i would not have particularly said that she was a large political figure in the administration. and i think if you read this book, you have to say that. because, the number of times she talks mainly about people, but not always only about people. and you notice that the people

that she is i didn't te-- that critical of wound up not doing well. she talks about a few cases where for instance, she was in pakistan which was added to her trip to balance, it off for political reasons. the ambassador to pakistan did not have a good relationship, so for diplomatic reasons it was thought to comply that walter mcconnahy had a equal relationship, so mrs. kennedy was complying th in-- was sugge that the president thought well

of him. having been in pakistan and watched him in action, she went right back home and wrote her haas memo saying, in is exactly the kind of ambassador we should not have in a job like this. and pit went to the state department, and ambassador mcconnoughy served to 1966. so maybe a comment on dean russ. >> she did not get as involved in domestic politics? >> i do not think she didn't get involved. for instance, the talk about the monuments from the s-1 dam flooding, i remember going to see john, not, what the heck was his name congressman from brooklyn. in charge of appropriations. >> would he have been eager to

help in egypt? >> no, he was not at all anxious to help the president. because he fancied himself being in opposition, it strengthened him domestically. >> john rooney? >> yeah, type. but, he was -- but i went up to call him off the floor to ask him to please vote the thing that the president wanted it and he eventually said yes he would, but he never forgave me for it. >> you have another question, are you aware of any first lady prior to jacqueline kennedy that gave forward a image of the first lady. >> no, she was always innovating and maybe pretty near the most

pin ovation she made was this idea that she would be asked for eight and a half hours very personal details in her time as first lady. and now it happens often. >> there's not a page of the book that is not showing her wit and sense that she and president kennedy were, were sharing -- >> there's a wonderful story, if i could step in for a moment. indonesia is coming for that state visit and his not very good reputation proceeded him and so they are trying make the best of it. and often times she said when there's a leader that came to the white house, the president would bring the leader up stairs to visit with the first lady.

and this presideleader had publ his art collection. she got a book of the collection about 20 minutes before the leader arrived. she was not able to read it before she got in, so she was on the couch with him and the president on the other, and said, we have this wonderful book of your art collection and every page was a topless woman. and the leader would say, there was my second wife and there was my third wife. and she said, jack and i had to make such an enor mus effort to keep from laughing that we almost did not make it. >> dick, could you tell how funny she was? >> i'll tell a funny story about her family, she was close to her sister, who was married to the prince of poland. and he came here during the campaign and he was very big in

the polish crowd, but he was not an american citizen, he was a polish citizen, and the drive was to get them out and see the people. and there's a fellow who worked in the state department, palensky, he was a very, very powerful political figure in the polish world. so he definitely wanted stash to come to his district. or to his campaign, i said, mish, we cannot do that, we cannot have a foreign dignitary campaigning in a domestic election. well, he said, let me see what i can do. so, the next thing i remember is i get a call from shaplinsky, misch, last a night, in

wilkiesberry, stash was a smash. did you hear me? i said well thank you stash. >> and pennsylvania went democratic that year by a much larger margin than expected, we now know the reason. >> dick, how do you think that president kennedy would have negotiated in this kind of a climate. how would he have helped our system recover? >> i really do not know, the system as we have it today where people refuse to tolerate the other person's view. how he could possibly have honed up to it. when i left washington which was exactly a week before the president was assassinated.

now, we had put together with a lot of work and a lot of things of a real coalition of republicans and democrats prepared to support a real civil rights bill. it was -- and i left washington with a certain assurance that it was over. there was no need to doit. i used to name the republican congressmen i could line up on any given manner because they had respected president kennedy and they respected the things he stood for. you don't have any of that today. no one respects anyone else. no one has shared with anyone else. so i do not know how we cou-- h could have ted fit in today's world, unless he could have bombed them or something. >> the space program, when he went to congress and dick i'm sure was a part of this, i think

a moon landing is essential for national security before 1970. a lot of congressmen who didn't want to spend the money, if national security was at stake, i'd vote for it, which they did. >> well, i think we should all take from this book a measure of optimism about ways that our system can perform well at its very best, and on that note -- >> so even though we're not american idol, there's no phone number to call in to place your vote, but our book store does report directly to the "new york times" best-seller, so if you would like to keep jacqueline kennedy ahead on that list over dick cheney, we encourage you all -- to buy a copy or two or three of the book at our book store. i ask to you remain in your seats, if you will. we'll get caroline. the book signing will be right outside this door. those of you in the satellite, there will be a line coming in from the front.

those in this room, the line will form literally around the back of this wall. but most of all what i want to do is to thank caroline kennedy for her comments and for this terrific panel. michael beschloss and mr. donahue. lisa kathleen graddy is the curator for women's political history here at smithsonian. so when you were putting together this latest exhibit, how did you decide how the gowns would be placed and what it would say about the history and the role of these first ladies? >> well, we picked a series of gowns. partly just based on what we thought was pretty, and what hadn't been out in a while. sometimes it's nice to be the curator. you get to just choose things. we also wanted an array of colorened and different styles. it's not chronological. we wanted to maximize the space and really maximize the look of each style and the color of each

dress against each other to make a more pleasing picture, and i think that putting things that are far apart in time next to each other as opposed to a slow progression, you really see the amazing difference between, say, lucy hayes, that dress wit bustle and the very tight shoulders. if you look at their shoulders, you're not going to raise your arm ace bov your waist and something like grace coolidge's flapper dresses. amazing difference. chronological, they'd be so far apart you wouldn't really be able toll see that. >> you said, we try to put things out that haven't been out in a while. sdp th does that mean there are gowns, the items that be back in storage? >> there are things back in storage that hopefully will come out in time. one of the things, we can change things here. we're not doing every first lady. eases the dresses. we're trying to make them survive as long as possible and

some have been standing around hundreds ever years. they need to rest and be out of light and this allows us to change things around and allows things that haven't been seen before to be seen by new people. we have more in the collection than the gowns that i think -- i always think of them as being the -- type specimen gowns. the one everyone expects to see for each first lady but sometimes we have others and those are are interesting, too. >> there's a lot of fanfare that goes into the giving of the dress. how did that come about? >> that is -- has also been a changing tradition. people always think the exhibit looked one way. actually about nine different shows, it's been changing. people think that the gown presentation always happened one way. in reality, it didn't really start until lady bird johnson. the tradition was, first they amassed dresses to create the show. that happened, just sort of a big bolt the first time.

they would ask each first lady and the ones to fill in the blanks for a dress. now, helen taft got interested in the exhibition. now, helen taft, she was the first lady at the time, and she contributed her 1909 inaugural gown. so, she set sort of the tradition of giving your inaugural gown. every first lady since then who has had an inaugural ball has given her inaugural gown. >> has anyone ever refused or balks at the idea? >> i don't think anyone has ever refused, but edith roosevelt, who we'll see around the corner, we'll also see her inaugural gown, she didn't have a lot of patience for this. she was not first lady at the time. but she said she didn't save clothing, that she cut it up and made other things out of it. so, she did not donate anything to the collection. her daughter, however, later did. and what she donated was the inaugural gown. but mrs. roosevelt wasn't kidding. the bodice had been removed from

the dress. >> does that give us context at the time that that was a traditional, normal thing to do? >> mrs. roosevelt said she liked to cut them up and satin gowns or silk gowns made tea gowns. it may have been a quirk of hers a thrifty quirk of hers that she remade her clothes. >> not just inaugural gowns. there are other examples of other types of gowns in this exhibit. why do we care so much? it seems on every occasion we're looking to see what they're wearing. >> i think, one, it's become sort of a red carpet culture that likes to look and analyze what people are wearing. there's always been an interest in first lady's fashion. people were interested in what martha washington was wearing. again, i think it's because we look to these clothes. we look to this entertaining stuff for clues. we don't meet the first lady. this is currently we probably have more exposure to the first lady than we ever had and we still don't know her. most of us will never meet the first lady. so we have to figure her out.

based on these little clues. snippets of interviews, what she's wearing. what she served for dinner. how she entertains and we piece all that together to get an idea, the causes she promotes, and we piece all that together to create a rounded view. our own view, of the first lady. >> yet they're supposed to represent sort of a presidential style, if will you, if you can explain what you think that means, and then which first lady didn't meet public expectations when it came to that and which ones were really praised for their style? >> i think the first lady sets the tone, the style and demeanor and tone of the presidency. she picks the china. she arranges entertainments. she's the one that sets the feeling. the feeling of the presidency. she's also the more accessible probably partner in the presidency. so she has to decide.

all those entertainments are going to come down. she will be graded on -- her choices will be examined. and it's got to take a while to figure out -- i can't imagine how daunting to come in and have to face your first state dinner. you've never done this before. and they need to set a tone. and if they deviate that much, did people like to or not like it and the white house has ebbed and flowed between very elegant and more casual, and as the country's changed, also the style has changed. also the style of each first lady and people have reacted pro and con with each one. starting with martha washington who had to figure out what is the appropriate style for democracy? or republic, if want to think of it that way. how do you command respect for a new nation a fledgling nation,

but not look like a monarchy? you've got to step away from that. so how do you balance that? what's casual? what's formal, what's informal? yet she was addressed as lady washington, because no one knew what to call her. >> so who was criticized, who really hit it out of the park and met expectations? >> i think dolly madison is the first amazing social first lady. she was the go-to first lady. she had decorum but there was a little bit of casual, informal and fun to her events. if you had a card of introduction you could come to ms. madison's weekly crushes. people mixed and talked. it was said you couldn't tell who her friends and enemies were. because she was lovely to everyone. she treated everyone the same.