in advance by one group and its candidate leaves the delegates no opportunity for a democratic choice, and it reduces the convention to a mockery. i've always believed that the democratic party should stand for an open convention and should resist any bandwagon that's stifles the free and deliberative process of this great incident of democracy. don't find ma happening in the republican convention you understand. the democratic party must never be allowed to become a party of privilege for a man of modest means or no means at all cannot rise to a service in the nation. i'm speaking up at this time because i would hope that many of delegates that have been stampeded or pressured into preconvention commitments against their better judgment and i'll know first hand of such

instances. i hope those dealt gates have a chance to exercise further judgment. there is yet time before the convention opening on july 11th for the delegates to reflect on their individual responsibilities to the party and to the nation. this is a time of great difficulty in the world. we cannot afford to be swayed by personal likes or dislikes. we must be careful not to permit ourselves to be moved by personal prejudices of religious b big gotary. the usefullessness of the party and the restoration of leadership to the nation are of such paramount importance that i'm compelled to disregard the meeting of friends to replain solid about the situation that developed. they've urged me not to do anything that upset or offend

anyone by speaking up now. you find that's hard for me to do. but i could not remain silent because i think it would be tragic if the convention were to allow any one clique to ride herd over it. to let this happen could very well frustrate the hopes and desires of the american people to return a democrat to the white house. >> craig crawford, some perspective. this is july 2nd in 1960. a former democratic president with the heir aernt john kennedy getting the nomination on the first ballot. quite unusual. >> i always learn from steve skully. you always find something i didn't know while you're teaching classrooms. i have to quarrel with harry truman, and i love him dearly and i can't remember quarrelling with him. i think he had just the opposite. what was he defending? he was defending a system where

party elites undemocratically met at conventions and picked nominees. he was attacking a position kennedy had perfected of primary volters, of grassroots party members picking nominees. that's the more democratic process and he had it in just the reverse. >> here's how onken gli 1960 in new york responding to harry truman. it took two days for him to respond. today it will take about two minutes. >> harry truman was such an icon, they had to pick their words very carefully. >> so let's watch. >> last saturday one of our most dedicated and courageous presidents gave the nation his views on the forthcoming democratic convention. in as much as mr. truman's remarks were directed at me, i'm

taking this opportunity to respond to his statement. first, mr. truman suggested that i step aside as a candidate in 1960. hen let me say i do not intend to step aside at anyone's request. i wi i was the only candidate to risk my chances in all the primaries. the only one to visit every state. i have encountered and survived every kind of hazard and opposition, and i do not intend to withdraw my name now on the eve of the convention. secondly, mr. truman asserted that the convention would be controlled or prearranged. in response let me say to the extent that i have anything to do with it, it will be an open convention. as every convention of our

broadly based party is open, even though our candidate has been selected on the first ballot, in every single convention but one since 1932, including the 1948 convention which nominated mr. truman. to me an open convention means one reflecting the free will of delegates, freely elected and contested primaries and in state conventions, but based on my observations of him in 1952 and in 1956 and last saturday, mr. truman regards an open convention as one which studies all the candidates, reviews their records, and then takes his advice. nevertheless i share his hope that our convention will consider all prospective nominees including all those he named and some he did not name.

and i hope that mr. truman will attend the convention and should i be the nominee i hope he will support me in the fall. third, mr. truman accused ms. supporters of using improper pressure on the delegates. not one concrete example has ever been named. i do not want any votes that have been pressured, and the facts of the matter are that my votes come from the primaries. from all that was open and from rank and file democrats that voted for me in state conventions. >> craig crawford, those exchanges give you a sense of how different the conventions were in the '50s and '60s today. >> and how kennedy was changing. that was part of him being a change candidate in that year. he completely exploded the way the party picked nominees.

that was a tough sfons to truman saying anything critical by ronald reagan. the overarching issue is something we see today. there is a struggle within both parties between the elites who want to run things and i would put harry truman in that category in this debate they had. the grassroots voters, the tea party types, and the anti-war progressives on the democratic side in 2008. in other words, there is this struggle in both parties between the elites wants to control the nomination process and the democratic impulse to let voters pick nominees, which is why you see both parties trying to come up with every way they can to thwart that grassroots. that's why democrats have over 1,000 superdelegates, for example. way more than republicans do. so that they can guard against some nut getting nominated by the people.

so that struggle, that debate that truman and kennedy were having, we see that struggle played out in many ways today in both parties. >> so let's move ahead to 1976. you were at the republican convention in kansas city. i want to show the students just one of two exchanges. this is as president ford was calling ronald reagan down from the convention hall and up to the podium. 1976 was important because it was the last republican convention going into the convention in which neither gerald ford, the president, or ronald reagan had enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. of course, ford was able to umtly get that nomination on the first ballot, but let's watch one exchange. >> everybody in this great auditorium tonight, we're all tremendously pleased and honored to have ron reagan and nancy reagan come down we are all a

part of this great republican family that will give the leadership to the american people to win on november 2nd. i would like, i would be honored on your behalf to ask my good friend governor reagan to say a few words at this time. [ cheers and applause ] >> here in this auditorium tonight better than we've ever done before, we have to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we've ever been, but we carry the message they're waiting for. we must go forth from here united, determined that what a great general said a few years

ago is true. there is no substitute for victory. mr. president. thank you. thank you. >> thank you. >> so that was in kansas city, and then after losing the nomination, ronald reagan had this to say to his campaign staff. >> sure there's a disappointment in what happened, but the cause, the cause goes on. don't get cynical. don't get cynical, because look at yourself and what you were willing to do and recognize that there are millions and millions of americans out there that want what you want, that want it to be that way. they want it to be a shining city on a hill. >> craig crawford, 1976.

one for the record books. >> that takes me back. i was in that room where reagan gave na speech. i was at the convention as a student observer, part of a college program with my school in florida. i was actually campaigning actively for jimmy carter at the time. i remember going back to my friends in florida with the carter campaign and even jimmy carter's son, chip, whom i knew and tells them -- they were all make fun of reagan. what a jerk. what an idiot. we had this discussion for years. they were all like wanting reagan to be the nominee in '80. based on that experience in kansas city where i saw him up close and personal, he was the most talented politician speaker anyway until bill clinton, i would say, that i had ever seen. and i was just really the contrarian with the carter white house later on. i had this debate all the time. i said no, he's not as crazy as

he sounds. you got to see him in person and how these crowds react to him. that convention, that was one of the best dirty tricks i'd seen in politics, what the reagan folks did it to ford that night. it was a real sign of waengs on ford's part that he let his rival speak on acceptance night. but that was a deal they made with the campaign, that reagan would support him and not make trouble if they let reagan say a few words. the young americans for freedom which was a youth group supporting reagan out of california, very conservative kids. they rented vans and went all over kansas city and bought noise makers and plastic horns and things and sustained the demonstration after reagan spoke that lasted so long, it pushed ford's acceptance speech past primetime. it was the strength of those -- i could actually hear the horns in that clip you just played.

>> that was 1976. four years later another sitting president, this time jimmy cart carter, who you worked for in '76 being challenged by the left from ted kennedy. he ultimately lost the nomination. in new york city at madison square garden he gave this speech the night before jimmy carter was nominated. >> and someday long after this convention, long after the signs come down and the crowds stop cheering and bands stop playing, may it be said of our campaign that we kept the faith. may it be said of our party in 1980 that we found our faith again. may it be lsd of us both in dark passages and in bright days, in the word was tenneson that my brothers quoted and loved and that have special meaning for me now. i am a part of all that i have met. too much is taken, much obliged.

that which we are, we are. one equal temper of heroic hearts. strong and will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. for me a few hours ago this campaign came to an end. for all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die. >> craig crawford parallels between reagan in '76 and carter in 1980? obviously some differences as well. kennedy was never elected president and reagan was. the carter primary and the reagan/ford primary? >> very much so. that was a divide between democrats that never healed pretty much to this day. carter and kennedy people still

insult each other in private and sometimes publicly. the incredible thing about that speech that kennedy gave is another sign of when people lose, sometimes they give their best speeches. that was a great speech. he never mentioned -- he never said a kind word about carter or endorsed carter. acceptance night on the stage he wouldn't do a photo op with carter. he wouldn't get near carter to have a picture of them arm and arm. they went out of that convention stitt political enemies. >> let's get to student questions. we'll begin with the washington center. whoever wants to start. >> leonard donaldson. i was wondering, you mentioned that the carter and kennedy divide has happened, and looking at this current republican primary, mitt romney has not been able to gain that support of the base. you know, as you said, newt

gingrich and rick santorum really don't like mitt romney. could you see that kind of divide in the republican party? >> good point. >> excellent point. yes. the better gingrich and santorum do, the more delegates they accumulate, the closer it gets to what we saw in kennedy, carter, reagan and ford. if you look at the exit polls and put them altogether of the primaries and caucuses, romney's getting about a third of the voters whose self-idea is conservative and very conservative. i just don't see how he wins the nomination, which is why i say you never get those people. they'll vote for you, but they're not enthusiasm. they're not going to get out and work for him. it's going to be a depressed vote, obviously. that's why i say he ought to

game change and go for the independent votes that are a whole lot more than a third of the whole kuncountry is independent. and forget about pandering to the social conservatives and very conservative voters in the republican party. that's the game changing gamble which i say you ought to move back to the center. you know, those ads we saul earlier, see, i think that helps romney, that flip-flop stop. what that tells independents is he's really pro-choice, and he's really for obama care and so don't listen to what he's saying now. and because voters aren't going to vote just because he flip flops because they figure all politicians flop flip. obama has done his share of flip flopping. attacking him because he's a flip flopper, i don't think it's that effective. when you do it, you remind me at his core he's really a moderate. >> let's go to one of the

students from gettysburg college. sfwrus yourself and ask your question. >> hi, i'm tear. i'm a sophomore from connecticut. my question goes back a little bit in conversation. when you talk about your involvement in the '76 campaign and involvement of other young college aged people, it made me think about in the 2008 election i saw a lot of friends and a lot of young people really get involved, and i was wondering what you kind of saw the role of young constituents would be in the 2012 election. >> that was so exciting for me in 2008 to see all those -- i remember going to the jefferson jackson dinner in des moines. i think it was november or so of the year before, 2007. and that's when i first saw there were like 3,000 college-aged kids at this event. in the rafters cheering and that is when i realized hillary was done.

if you compare her supporters toys her youth and energy, i thought this guy is going all way. it did rye mind me in '76 jimmy carter did poll a lot of young people in politics for the fir worked for and lots of friends. that's one of the most wonderful things that happened in politics. i don't see anybody in this race doing that. i in a little more trouble than he did in 2008, although i think they come back. that's the big thing about obama coalition. if he can pull that coalition i spoke about, young voters, new voters, ethnic voters, people who are not traditional voters, that got him over the top in 2008. those folks disappeared in the mid-term election in 2010, which is why democrats did so poorly. they're just not -- my theory is if obama's lucky that those voters are still committed to

him. they'll get to the voting booth if he's on the ballot. in other words, they'll vote for him but they won't vote for who he tells them to. >> allison hart, let me turn to you. what is this election all about, 2012, and as you take a look back at what we've seen in 1960, 1976, 1980 and 2008, what john halpern and mike write about in "game change," what motivates you to go to the polls? >> i think it'si thek what's going to motivate a lot of people to go to the polls we're not -- i'm not going to speak generally -- i'm not extremely happy with how things have gone. i'm sitting in and gas prices are still $4 a gallon. and i talk to my mom in wisconsin and she's expecting gas prices to get up to $5 by

fourth of july. and where i feel that there is this entire talk of change in 2008 and i'm sitting here wondering, well, where is that change, because prices in my p prices. if you go to the grocery store, i can't spend -- or i can't leave without spending $25 on five store brand items. and it's a little ridiculous. i think what's really going to encourage people to go to the polls this year is that the change that was promised them has not been delivered in all aspects of economic prosperity. so i think that that's a huge factor. > let's take your point and let selleny wrote last week in the "new york times." he traveled to chicago to take an inside look at the obama campaign. how does the president get reelected? where does he go for support both financially and in the

polling booths? he says, quote, the president's reelection base here looks more like a company than a campaign. the campaign declines to say how many additional employees are posted across country, but a payroll of $3 million in january, suggest that go the staff is larger than any ever assembled for a presidential race. jeff selleny is joining us on the phone from alabama where he's covering the primary for this week. thank you very much for being with us on c-span. jeff, let me ask you about what you learned from the obama campaign and some of the questions the students have been asking, how he tries to go about some of his own reelection effort, tapping into some of the supporters in 2008 who may or may not have joined the effort in 2012. >> well, one of the things that the campaign is doing is it's trying to reconnect with their network of supporters from four years ago. they have been involved through various legislative efforts, but these are real people with real lives and other things going on

so that the campaign is really trying to rebuild this network and they're trying to expand it. they were part of the obama coalition four years ago. there is a whole crop of new voters, for example, that will be turning 18. so it's people like that as well as other people who possibly weren't involved in the campaign four years ago, but they might be inspired now to be involved for some reason. so the campaign is really using a lot of business aspects through analytics, they're trying to find obama supporters through social media and through other available four years ago. it's really because they have the luxury of money and the time to build this organization, because he didn't have a primary, of course, and he's still waiting for his republican challang er. all of this in your piece last week in the "new york times."

quote, having spent $48 million already, the campaign invested heavily in its efforts to find and to reconnect with past donors and volunteers, with 13 million e-mail subscribers as of 2009, 12 million twitter subscribers and some 25 million followers of its pace book page, the campaign has instantaneous access to a huge universe of people. compare that to rick santorum or mitt romney. >> it's much, much, much more than mitt romney and a few more muches than santorum. obama really does have an advantage here not unlike any incumbent would. it's not unlike george bush when he was running for reelection in 2004. it will even out, and oncethnomf the base of the republican party, i would presume, would rally behind its nominee. but what the obama campaign is trying to do is look for voters

who aren't necessarily -- wouldn't be engaged without a little bit of help here. they're really trying to build this network of people, largely through facebook, through twitter and other things which is exponentially much more available and at a much higher reach than four years ago. but the $48 million, i was really surprised by that, actually, when we started adding up all the expense reports. i was surprised they had spent $48 million. the majority of that is on salaries for people and also online advertising. they are using an incredible online advertising campaign to try and find small donors as well as trying to rally voters around the idea that president obama should be reelected. >> jeff zeleny, two questions for you, if we could, please. jessica larki monmouth university. jessica, go ahead, please. >> hi. yes, in your article "obama minds for voters with high

tools," you mentioned that some of the small donors that gave early and often in the 2008 election have failed to rematerialize, and i was just wondering why that is. >> well, it's a variety of reasons. we've spoken with several of them just anecdotally for this story and for previous stories. some of them were inspired by his candidacy the first time around, and some of those donors and supporters have been a little bit disappointed by his candidacy, that they believe he hasn't brought all the change that he promised that he would. and some people just sort of moved o. they wen. they were really engaged four years ago and they don't have the luxury or the time to be doing things as much. so it's a variety of reasons that some people aren't -- that some people aren't involved. i think it is definitely the case that there is a fair amount, or at least some amount, it's hard to quantify how much,

of sort of a disenchantment of people who really supported senator obama four years ago wholeheartedly, and some of those supporters don't believe he's lived up to his expectations. but what this campaign is trying to do is trying to show that there is a choice between president obama and whoever the republican nominee turns out to be, and that they believe in the end most, if not all, of the supporters will come back home. and the economy is worse than it was four years ago, so some people have also told us they just simply don't have the extra income lying around to contribute as they did before. >> jeff zeleny, national political correspondent from the "new york times" and a student from gettysburg college. >> i'm a senior at gettysburg college, and i'm just wondering

what the democrats are doing with the latino vote. the latinos have 70% of the vote and you cannot win without them. and i'm also wondering if mario lobo will do anything to help. >> first to you and then to craig crawford, because it is a key selection in the electorate and something president obama has had to deal with in his immigration issues. >> no question it is influential and a segment of the electorate that republicans need to improve on if they're going to win. it's why you see people like governor jeb bush -- former governor of florida jeb bush really being alarmed at the conversation and rhetoric that some of these republican presidential candidates have taken toward immigration. at this point we don't see a lot of outreach from the presidential candidates on immigration. we've seen some softening of rhetoric or language, if you will, from mitt romney and

others, but the presidential candidates at this point are not doing a lot in terms of outreach. they're trying to finish their primary. and it's really a challenge for them in the summer. and i think one of the ways that mitt romney could probably get beyond na that is to nominate someone for vice president, if he becomes the presidential nominee, nominate someone for vice president who is hispanic or has that constituency and perhaps the senator rubio, whose name is mentioned a lot, but i think this is one of the long-term challenges of this republican party they have not yet addressed. >> craig crawford? >> and the numbers certainly don't lie. the wall street journal poll saw a week ago or so, all three candidates, rick santorum, mitt romney and gingrich, all got the same number, they got 14% of