surprise. did not really serve her husband's legacy thereby. she thought the white house would be good therapy, a good incentive for her husband's recovery. things,ident is many but it should not be a nursing home. ,hen we elect a man president and so far, only men, we have to acknowledge that we are infatuated into people. they cannot do it alone. if one of the to does not have their heart into it, it does not happen. it is too expensive, too humiliating for anything but 1000% commitment on the part of two people. what are the qualities that work well in these roles? loving each other helps, but it is not enough. -- theential art

essential ingredients are a long history with all of the kinks worked out and a shared love of politics and people and very good performance skills. be willing to carry a lot of political water and hold back on personal demands for the requirements of the presidency. beth truman hated what she called the rigmarole of the presidency. she could not survive today. make all of those trips to join her mother in independence, missouri. we simply would not stand for that. the sacrifice in terms of privacy lost is tremendous. those with a sense of history, like jackie, and they love of bush,ure like barbara grab that glass ring and hold back on the demands for ordinary marital bliss. i have to say that laura bush was not display that relish of

the new and unexpected. i suspect she would rather be back in austin or crawford, curled up in a good book. but the attacks that claimed the lives of 3000 of our countrymen has changed the bush presidency forever. laura has become the central reassuring face of a sometimes beleaguered administration, providing a necessary balance for her husband's righteous fury. ironically, the fact that she does not seem anxious for a public role or a bully pulpit, if you will, means that we are more willing to grant her that. it seems unlikely that she can ever slip back into her pre- september low-profile role. she has proved too valuable a political asset for her husband's presidency. like so many of their predecessors, the marriage and the presidency of george and

laura bush has been transformed by history. thank you very much for your attention. [applause] -- thank you. i would be delighted to hear your questions or comments or if you disagree with any of my views. this lady had her hand up. >> i was wondering if the region from which the woman comes, because the south is known for strong women. >> yes, this steel magnolias syndrome. >> yes, but still the grace. hillary comes out of chicago. it is a different background. carter is similar. does that have something to do

with the perception of these women? >> no doubt. seemstically, rosalynn the other pole from hillary clinton. in some ways, as engaged in her husband's -- in most ways, as engaged as hillary. if you will recall, she insisted on attending cabinet meetings, something hillary never did. imagine if hillary had shown up at the cabinet table. the roof would have collapsed. or, a for example, nancy reagan, who actually was more integrated into her husband's administration than hillary. but she camouflaged it better. she was more subtle about it. she was never in the west wing. hillary taking an office in the west wing was a serious miscalculation.

overestimatedhe our readiness to, as i said in cede the first lady such a role. we do not want that. we want her to keep her partner steady and on an even keel and give him the support that we all want him to have. but do not rub our faces in it. maybe there is some hypocrisy in that. but those are the rules. yes, you had a question. >> giving the changing culture youmultiple divorces, don't think it is likely that, sooner or later, we will have an unattached resident? us anhat time comes, give idea about how you would write an extra chapter in your book about that resident. -- that president.

>> wow. maybe you can help me with that. funny enough, no divorce has ever followed the president. these couples are really strongly united. unlike our marriages, if i can speak for our marriages, a presumption on my part, these are marriages that have a singular focus, that ambition, 1600 pennsylvania avenue. they really march in step. takesaid, because it does the commitment of two of them, it kind of unites them in that ambition. that is a real cement. as to your point about, sooner or later, will we have a divorced or single president, i bel you, he or she will handicapped in the race. i am not ruling it out, but it is such an advantage to have

that partner because 50% of the maybeg for you is -- and out of some residual nostalgia for the monarchy that we worked so hard to shake off. ompdo like the pop and -- p and ceremony that accompanies the first couple and so many traditions a company that -- ac company that image. we are pretty attached to the first couple note and -- notion. because the presidency combines both the prime minister and the ceremonial head of state role, the first person, the first lady, eventually first gentleman, performs a useful and necessary role in my view.

since the white house is not only where they work, but also where they entertain. it is necessary. indulge, because my plane was a little bit late, i did not hear your whole injured -- introduction. i did not know if you mention i was married to ambassador richard holbrook. richard was ambassador to the united nations until last year, when there seems to have been some shift in washington and i think a new guy came in. anyways, we lived in the official residence of the american ambassador to the united nations, the waldorf where george bush the elder had also lived with his children. do a to suddenly tremendous amount of hostessing and entertaining.

three or four events per week. i was trying to hang on by the tips of my fingernails to my life as a writer and other things that you described, my nonprofit work. but boy, it was tough, i will tell you. that took a lot of time, the seating and the flower arrangements. and you care. home, you care what that even turns out to be. you get very drawn in. i feel sorry for a president who would not have that support and that partner. i do not think that hiring someone to do it is the same thing. that is just my opinion. >> i have the perfect model for you. rusku need it. at virginia was the best secretaries first lady that i have ever known.

, but sheever out front did all the detailed work night and day. >> she was a lovely woman. it would be lovely to need that role model. this question says, you made no mention of the eisenhower's. why? >> very smart question. i think i have a good explanation. i explained in the book why. ofs book is not an anthology presidential couples. it is those couples, and i exercised the authors i felttive here, that really made a contribution and a political impact together. were a realer's throwback. to another age.

she was more the general lady and first lady. she had very little interest in her husband's administration and .arely rose before noon it is perfectly lovely in that limited role, but i could not be devoting a serious chapter to their interaction when the has almost no impact on the eyes our -- on the eisenhower presidency. , forpped a lot of one's example, the coupled that roosevelt, between roosevelt and truman -- i am sorry, between roosevelt and eisenhower. harding's and the movers -- the hoover's and the

coolidge's. those couples did not leave an imprint on our generation. all of the others did. i hope you will agree. if you have any other comments on presidential marriages before the 1900s -- that would be another book. i started with woodrow and edith wilson. this is a look at the modern presidencies. withmany of you, i read utter fascination the tremendous work on john adams. correspondence between abigail and john adams and the correspondence of that wish i hadthink, i -- there is a book about the adams'and i wish i had thought of it myself. it was a tremendous partnership which really enriched the nation and i think, in a way, it

confirms my thesis that presidents who can rely on a honest hardert, really have an advantage -- partner really have an advantage. john adams certainly had that in abigail. either way, for high-quality correspondence between a , youdent and his spouse could do worse than looking to the chapter on the trumans. wrote his wife almost every day. they were a part a lot given all of her trips to independence. he was so miserable. he missed her so much. he was constantly writing to her and he never stopped courting that. -- beth. those letters are of such quality and such a compliment to beth. he shared everything with her.

the eved his fears on of his meeting with stalin. time, apologetic that he is running all over 5rlin looking for chanel no. and he cannot find it. [laughter] i thought, wow, what a guy. harry truman gets my gold star for best husband. ok, what is some of your evidence that barbara bush had any effect on george bush? hope whoever asked this question will read my chapter on the bush's. i do lay it out in some detail. primarily through interviews with participants and people who as wellthe white house

as the privilege of spending some time with president and mrs. bush the elder. they were our first house guests when we took up our post at the u.n. it was the first time they had been back there since they left several decades earlier. there was a lovely moment when the president and mrs. bush walked into our home and we had the same housekeeper that they had. you can imagine she is no spring chicken, but dorothy is still there. if president and dorothy just embraced and we stood back and let them have their moment. , "dopresident bush said rothy, take me to the room where my mother used to stay." dorothy led him to the room and he went in there and stayed and had a conversation with his mother while the rest of us stayed behind. anyway, that is just a memory i

treasure from our tenure at the united nations. i have had the opportunity to observe their interaction and i have no doubt that barbara bush had tremendous impact on the presidency of her husband. again, sheitive, but was much less overt about that role. , for example, mrs. clinton. in part, it is a generational thing. the larry clinton was of the generation that came of age in the early 1970s. i am of that generation. he had different expectations. he never doubted that we would have careers. llary, i interviewed her for this book and she told me flat out that she was the wilderness by the role. she had always had a defined job

ascription. the first lady does not have a defined job description. subtle, f it is a thingl thing -- ephemoral to respond to the countries needs of that moment. and our country'sneeds -- our needs are shifting. i think she handled it well. >> we are going to go a few minutes over our 12:00 adjournment if we can. i have a few questions and then i would like all of you to let kati marton go out before all of you do. we have had the experience with some book signings. everybody leaves and there is nobody to sign books for. so just a few more questions. >> does anybody have any

comments or questions? >> is there anything about the president's children? children,nt's traditionally, i am afraid do not fare very well. they do not get a whole lot of attention, especially the ones who are young enough to suffer from the absentee father and lack of attention. the roosevelt children are case in point. i am not sure the carter children did as well as they might have. you can do a whole another book on presidential children. agelucky ones are of an where they are beyond -- for example, the current children, although they had a few of too oldere sort to be impacted by the presidency. i have to say that, for all their personal problems, the clintons raised a very good

daughter. she is, in many ways, a model daughter. they managed to shield her. they were pretty ruthless about keeping the media from chelsea to me,lsea really, represents the best of both of her parents. she is a very serious and highly motivated young woman who, as you know, is studying at oxford university. it is not much fun being the child of a politician, especially one who is as single- minded as you have to be to get elected president. any others? >> you said that hillary's handling of the health program was an enormous miscalculation. i agree with you. do you think that it might have been different if she had had a

good plan instead of an appallingly bad plan? do you think it might have been different if she had any skill whatsoever in handling the development of such a program, that is the political development? >> without getting into the particulars of her health plan, which i do get into in my long chapter on the clintons, i think the difference would have been marginal. it was just a bad idea from the get go for the president to give his wife such an enormous role. , and even if she had handled it flawlessly and had done everything you would have wished, we, the public, would have been suspicious and resentful if she would have become a lightning rod. it was just a bad idea. but they learned and they repositioned. undertookagain

anything like that, thank god. >> people outside of the country has helped us understand our own institutions. did that help you? -- yes, ider myself am an immigrant, a refugee to these shores. you mentioned that i was born in hungary withescape my parents when i was a small child. but we are a nation of immigrants. , iive in a city that is think, at last count, 40% immigrants or refugees. , in someider myself ways, a typical american. backgroundropean gives me a certain perspective.

perhaps your virginia background give you a different background and my new york background. this book is very much an opinionated book. tremendous research went into it. it was not a book i could have written in my 20s. it is a book that is informed by my life and my experiences of marriage, of observing others, therying to juggle oftitude of things that many us are trying to juggle in our lives, particularly when in. women.n -- particularly children, career, house. all of these things in hidden power, for sure. no doubt my european background

is one of those things. >> any other westerns? -- questions? things to a lot of say with the exception of edith wilson and pat nixon. was an abusehere of power of the first lady, if you feel there has been some distinct kind of negative impact? >> most definitely on the part of edith wilson, who did not serve her husband's or the nation's interests. that was a tragic miscalculation. , i have pat nixon nothing but compassion for pat nixon. i think she -- i call that alliance" because her husband paid her the most avid court and kind of miss led her into thinking that he was

not going to go into politics. she just was not that out or that life. pat loved the public life, to enjoy it. she suffered every step of the way. as her husband became more and more of a lightning rod, she retreated more and more. we could observe her withering in the white house from neglect. chapter on the nixons, i many really painful examples of cite many really painful examples of how abused she was. abuse can take many forms, not only a black eye. abuse can be neglect and pat nixon was woefully neglected. i think we all felt that pain. >> i do hope you write about the

earlier century and the residential marriages -- presidential marriages. it is so great. i have enjoyed about half of your book, which my granddaughter gave me. >> thank you. >> although the presidential marriages are really of most interest to most of us at the national levels with which you are familiar. i wonder if you have thought about or written about other couples make such a difference. i am thinking of ministers roles, college presidencies and so on.

i do not know whether those would be as saleable. >> you raise a very interesting point. one of the things that i did not expect from writing this book is to what extent women identify with hidden power. so many women has -- have felt hiddenwn power has been and they contribute enormously to their husbands careers. it was always this sense of really that we did not credit them sufficiently for that. so i went around the country power" first came out this fall and it was very gratifying to hear though many toen of all generations, up me and say, thank you for writing that. i feel that you have done a

service for all of us who work so hard on our partner's careers. and yet the men always get all the credit. i know that i could not do what i do without my husband's support. if you were here, i hope he would say the same thing. he better. [laughter] yeah. absolutely. if richard is watching c-span, i hope he hears this. honestly, we all need somebody standing behind us. it does not have to be a husband. -- inmebody who's in eyes whose eyes you can do no wrong and who will be your cheerleader and who catches you when you make a fool of yourself. we all need that.

nobody needs it more than the american president. that is the point of "hidden power." let's grant the president that right, to have a strong, empowering partner. presidentefit from a with such a partner. we have underestimated that until now. >> that seems to be a good note on which to finish. [applause] first second season of ladies begins september 9. watch all the episodes of season one online at c-span.org. join the conversation on facebook and follow us on twitter.

>> coming up, the president of the naacp and the executive director of greenpeace talk about the progressive agenda. and then former cia director on energy security. president obama's take to head the fbi will testify at a senate judiciary committee hearing on tuesday morning. he served as deputy attorney general in the george w. bush administration. live coverage starts at 10:00 eastern on c-span 3. , vice president joe biden will speak at a memorial service for the firefighters killed in the mountain community of escott, arizona. that get started live at 1:45 p.m. eastern.

>> we do not want to wait even a minute here, so we're going to get get going. my name is joan walsh, i am editor at large at salon.com, and i am an msnbc political know some of you and i am happy to see all of you here. we have such a wonderful panel that i will limit my remarks. one of the thing that is so fun about being here is we can be really honest with each other

and talk about how the going, how's it working, what is working, what is not working and buck up each other's spirits in case anybody is feeling the solution.-- disillusioned or disappointed right now. i had that experience yesterday. i did a really fun book panel yesterday. i guess i found it a little bit negative about our current political climate. this wonderful woman stood up and said i want you guys to remember that we did some amazing things in a 2012.we beat back voter suppression. president.d the we made strides in the house and senate. you are talking as though we lost. and i was like wow, you are right, we won. we won. why does it not feel that way sometimes? so this is a panel that really looks at maybe why it doesn't feel that way, and what we need to change. we know that we made these big victories seven months ago, but our progressive agenda is in aled by a minority.

country that is able to use minority power. they can pass their unpopular agenda, but they can block our popular agenda. namely because of three issues. barriers at the ballot box, corporate-funded election, and gridlock and washington, d.c., that we all know is heavily caused by crazy senate rules that are running the senate in a way that it has never been run before. so we know to achieve democratic change, we've got to push back against corporate-funded efforts to suppress voters participation could win to stop the influence of corporate money. we have to end the obstruction and abuse of roles in the senate. and are working on it. civil rights, labor, and environmental organizations launched something called the democracy initiative to engage in the cited we have a powerful panel to talk about the work of democracy initiative and the groups involved. they represent millions of american voters and a large number of you here at netroots nation. so we want to energize you and send you home optimistic and

with some ideas about how to get further involved in making the change that we know needs to be made. so we have got a great panel. i'm going to tell you who they are really quickly. i'm not going to read their amazing bios and accolades. i'm going to let you them tell you who they are, why they're here. we have got benjamin jealous of the naacp. karen scharff, there is karen scharff. we have larry cohen of cwa and phil radford of greenpeace. we were supposed to have tom udall. he could not be here because the senate is busy. but we have senator jeff merkley, who is an -- [applause] -- amazing hero in many ways, including coming back to be honest panel for us. and to share his perspective on senate rules reform. so i'm going to let them go in

order and start with ben.he will tell you why he is here and what he wants to talk about. >> well, for small, good afternoon.-- first of all, good afternoon. it is great to be here with all these great folks of this panel your concerns, fired up, pushing money out of politics, and about making sure that if a senator wants a bill, they've got to put on their depends undergarments and go down there and do it the old-fashioned way. look, we are at a crossroads in our country. it is not as bleak as many say it is. is simply whether or not the future is going to come faster that many people think is possible, or whether it will come in slowly koch brothers wanted to. our country is rapidly approaching a day when we will be the great plurality that we have always been destined to be.

we will be a plurality of pluralities. we will be a country that has no authorities. we will be a nation that will get along to get along. we will be a group of all colors of all communities the welcome that it appeared we understand that is what this country is about. democracy is about one person, one vote. there are other people, fortunately they tend to be much older, who are really trying to hold onto the status quo. and we have to understand that we have been here before. there has been a moment in our history when those who are invested in the status quo were very fearful of a growing black electorate, increasing numbers of people of color migrating

into this country. right after the civil war. this country passed the 14th amendment, passed the 15th amendment. what we've seen with bills are latino exclusion acts. they're not happening in maine, where there is a big undocumented canadian population. [laughter] no, they are happening along the southern border. but the difference between now and then is that back then, black people were recently freed slaves. back then, women could not vote. back then, the chinese in this country literally could be rounded up, and that what made angel island. ellis island was for people coming into the country, and

violence was for those that were shipped out of the country. the good news that this is not then. we are much more powerful. what we saw last year, we lived through the greatest assaults, more laws pushing voters out of the battlefront. a backlash to the backlash that increase voting in the very demographics that were targeted for oppression. if there was a group of people who had too much power for too long, at the end of the day, to undeservedly, because they were not a majority. the clock was running out. they would be acting like far right-wing. just really trying to do everything they can to hold off

the future. they cannot hold off the future it will come. it is up to us to make sure that it comes more quickly than they think is possible. [applause] >> hi, i am larry cohen from the cwa. we all have red shirt on, it would be easy to see, but it is not. happy solstice to everybody here and we're going to stay up all night, right, that's what happens in the north. cwa has about 550,000 active members who do collective are doing, and another hundred 50,000 who are retired or do not have bargaining rights. why did we get into the democracy initiative? because on every key issue that our members care about, we hit a dead end

as any of these cwaers could tell you, collective bargaining in the united states has become all defense, like you are clinging onto a cliff. and how long can we hold onto our health care, how long can we hold onto our job, how long can we hold onto our retirement? how long can we hold onto our rights? seven or eight years ago, we defined our key issues to cut across the five main industry groups that make up our union. around those four things, job, healthcare, retirement, and our rights. we set out, whether it was an bargaining or in congress to move that agenda.with partners. we could not move an agenda like

that on our own, no matter what. we soon saw that despite 2008, which i think most of us would say is a high water mark in terms of what you could do with these rules, we saw in 2009 that at the federal level, first because of senate rules, nothing even got discussed. so that 111th congress passed over 400 items, mostly legislation, never got discussed for one second on the floor of the senate. whether it was much more far- reaching healthcare reform, the employee free choice act, which would have meant workers had real organizing rights in this country again in the private sector, none of that got discussed. in fact, people would second- guess, oh, maybe we should have had a slightly different bill. when in fact what we faced was an onslaught from the right wing

totally taking over the republican party and a big chunk of the democratic party, particularly in the senate. i should not say a big chunk. i'm sitting next to one of the best of the best of the best ever, but a chunk. [applause] and so we started to learn, maybe a little slow, that these democracy issues, not just senate rules, which we will focus on some here today, but money and politics and voting rights were at the core of why economic justice was beyond our reach. and so for us, we talked about basic education, discussion piece called building a movement for economic justice and democracy, that if we did not link the democracy issues with jobs, healthcare, retirement, security, and right on the job, no hope anyway for today.

in fact, we need to have a plan, which hopefully we are building together, and many other democracy initiative partners are here in the room, as well is right here on this table. that it would be what we call seven to 10 years, but at least then there will be a path. in some of the things like at least some moderate senate roles reform, hopefully are within our reach, if we mobilize in the next few weeks, that many others like universal voter registration, or big money out of politics, it's going to take longer. and that we should not get discouraged, and we will give up that vision about economic justice. but if we don't build a democracy movement, that has more in similarity to tunisia, egypt, we will be moaning about economic inequality for years

and decades to come. we are very optimistic that if we stick together, build broader, are modest but tough, are determined, that together with the democracy initiative and with the movement for economic justice, and with great leaders like senator merkley, we can achieve the real american dream. thank you. [applause] >> the american dream is a good point to begin a transition because we think about the american dream -- it is under such assault. homeownership, as a wealth building mechanism for the middle class, struck down by predatory premises in the subprime market. living wage jobs disappearing, 80% of those that we lost in the recession were minimum-wage jobs, and only 40% of the jobs we got back were minimum-wage jobs.

there is a long list and they go the u.s. senate should be there to take these issues on. that is what you do in a democracy. that is what a legislator is for. respond and try that response out. if it works well, expanded commitment is not, retract it,-- expand it. if it does not, retract it. but right now, what happens is the idea is debated, maybe it gets through committee, gets to the floor, and you have to get a super majority of 60 just to get the issue onto the floor. an amendment, if it is objective, will take 60 votes. this is not the senate as it has existed historically in the united states of america. under lyndon b. johnson, and six years as majority leader of senate, only one time -- one time in six years -- did he have to produce a petition and then hold a vote to try to close debate and get to a final simple

majority vote. the rest of the time it was the courtesy.everyone had their say. now we are going to a final vote. under harry reid's first six years, he had to file 391 petitions. these petitions take up a whole week because everybody is fighting for that rare exception, years apart. there aren't 391 weeks in a six- year period. you can start to see how the senate has been brought to its knees. we only got one appropriation bill done in the last two years out of 24. we can talk about the disclose act, which was mentioned. whenever got to a final vote on the disclose act. we had 59 senators twice to say yes, let's close the debate, let's hold a final vote. the dream act got a majority, but not a super majority. a replacement to the sequester got a majority but not a super majority. so we need to change this.

we need to get rid of the filibuster on the motion to proceed to the floor, straight up or down votes, are you on for it or not. we need to get rid of it on conference committee. right now, there is no conference committee on the budget, even though the sentence passed a budget, and the house passed a budget, because the senate republicans are filibustering the conference committee. i ask you -- how can anyone object to the house and senate getting together and trying to reconcile the differences between their two bills? but that is how dysfunctional the senate has become as a result of those who wanted to be dysfunctional. this is a key piece. if you are very powerful, and you have dozens or hundreds of lawyers, and you have huge amounts to donate to super pac's and campaigns, you have find a way past the super majority over time. but if you are fighting for a progressive cause, for fairness, if you are fighting for the 99%

rather than the 1%, than the 1% uses the paralysis of the senate to block the opportunity to have a full debate and vote on things that will take america forward. that is why this should matter to all of us. i will be very brief. there is the nomination site, and there is the legislation site. i have described the legislation site. some of the changes we should also insist upon -- 41 votes to extend so that absent votes count for the debate, not for extending debate. if those 41 one more debate, we should require that there has to be debate. folks have to stand up and actually make the case before their colleagues, before the american people. the american people with all of your help can decide if they are heroes or bums, and that fee that will hopefully help us get a final vote and take legislation forward.

on the nomination side, we are a senate that is crippling the other two branches of government. that was never envisioned in the constitution. in our longer discussion go i will have more to say on that. but let me close with this -- my partner throughout this has been tom udall of new mexico. he saw the senate when it worked because of a family tradition in which they knew capitol hill well. and he was absolutely appalled by this dysfunction. he made the argument more clearly and forcibly than anyone else. every two years wishes are with a discussion of the rules, the rules will be adjusted to keep the senate working as a legislative body. it used to be called the world's greatest liberty body. when they be wonderful if we could say that again? he would love to have been here today, and please make sure you extend your love to him and appreciation for this battle he has been leading. thank you.

[applause] >> hi, i am karen scharff, the executive director of citizen action of new york, and i'm co- chair of the new york working families party. work on issues of economic, racial, social and environmental justice. we like to think of ourselves as pragmatic idealists. we want to work on things we think we can win and get done, but pushing that to the edge of what is possible we take on the big issues like healthcare, adequate funding for our public schools, we try to find solutions that are ambitious but achievable. that is what led us to one of our big issues, which might be pushing us sort of over the edge of what is possible, but hopefully we will so get there. we also the new york affiliate of u.s. action, which many of you may be affiliated with. i'm culture of the working

families party, which is independent clinical party in new york. in new york we have a system where he can run as a candidate on multiple party lines, so we do in the working families party is we have a strong coalition of powerful groups, and we use our ballot line to choose candidates to encourage progressive candidates to run, endorse progressive candidates against more conservative democrats, and also to help democrats be republicans. and citizen action and working families party has been leading the coalition in new york along with a huge amount of help from our national partners. in order to address this issue, we have been trying to form a public funding election system in which the system would apply six dollars for every one dollar you get contribute in your district.

the idea is that would allow candidates to run for office and when using only small donations and public funds rather than have to do what most candidates have to do which is spent all of their time, dollar for dollar, asking the wealthiest donors and the largest corporations to give the money to fund their campaigns. the idea is that by being able to run with small donations and public money, candidates would no longer be forced to not only take money from campaign contributors, but then make public policy that satisfies those owners. new york city have a system like this that have worked for decades at the city level. it changed who runs for office, who wins, and what legislation gets passed in the city council. more people of color will run, more women run, more working members run. not only do they run, but they actually win. not only do they win, but once they are in office, they do very differently.

most recently, the progressive caucus in the city council, many of whom we helped elect, works closely with us to require that employers provide sick days. those are the kind of victories you get when you have a public funding system. [applause] yes, big victory. those are the kind of victories you get when you have a public funded system and you can elect people to office who are actually concerned about the everyday lives of people in their city. at the state level, we do not have that. it is sadly not an exaggeration to say that new york city -- new york state as in the country, our democracy has been hijacked by wealthy donors. those who give the money not only determine who runs and wins elections, but i would say the opposite is true -- they also determine the policy decisions that are made every day by our government. in new york, a few months ago, there was a massive campaign involving many unions and organizations to increase minimum wage at the state level. we finally did win a small increase in the minimum wage, but only after state budget later agreed to provide huge tax

rates to low-wage employers like walmart in order to reimburse them, basically, for the increased wage they would have to pay. why are we suddenly giving away $65 million a year in tax credits to the walmarts of the world? it might as of the to do with the fact that walmart gave $500,000 in campaign attribution living up to that fight. those kinds of campaign contributions in policy decisions are exactly what is wrong with our political system. you see it in issue after issue. it is a wide and growing economic equality in our state. and our country. it is not an accident. big money has fixed policies that have led to deregulation, unionbusting, lower wages, and many other policies that led to our economic and financial crisis and increase the wealth of the 1%. in this kind of climate, especially after citizens united, where we can't get big money out of elections, we have

to give voters back into elections in order to change the outcomes of elections and public policy. that is why the working families party and citizens national created the campaign a few years ago to fundamentally change the campaign in new york and set a trend for the country both at the national level and other states by creating a voluntary system that provides public matching funds to small donations from ordinary voters, to make elections work again for voters and have voters take back their democracy and begin to reclaim public policymaking we believe after looking very closely at campaign finances in new york city, and the state, and the country, that public funding is the only way in his current, high money, high-stakes political culture to provide a real alternative to candidates so they can run people and when elections with small donations. that is why we base election

that such a top priority. that is really our reason for getting into this campaign, as larry said, what are we to those fights going -- challenge is winning those fights without first changing campaign finance system. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. i am the executive director of greenpeace. i'm sorry that i did not scale scaled on the wall in common with more of a greenpeace entrance. >> it is not too late. >> that is right. >> i think you can, is just that you did not. >> that is true. i appreciated the comment that the senate should use diapers. people ask us, how do you go to the bathroom, and we do what the senators should do during a

filibuster, they wear diapers. [laughter] i wanted to acknowledge karen and the working families party because they are one of the few groups that are so courageous. two primary some of those weasley democrats that are out there. we need a bunch more of that. we need more truly leaders. we need people to hold politicians accountable so that they are afraid of us if they do not do the right thing. question for you -- when was the last major new environmental law passed in the u.s. congress? >> new? >> last big, groundbreaking environmental one. i heard 1971, i heard mr. cantor back there saying 1980, superfund law. 1980. last big new environmental law passed her the u.s. congress.

there've been many amendments, but last new big law. 1980. so 1980 was one year before ibm came out with the first personal computer. i was four. i had hair here and is none here and big glasses. 1980. you might think that is fine because the rivers are not on fire anymore like they were. he might think that is fine because we do not have like monday like we had in st. louis where you cannot see the sun at noon because of air pollution. but when you look at what president bush just put out or the end of his tenure, that over half of us will get cancer in our lifetime, and that over 61% of those cancers are related to the environment, when you look at that, we are far from done. the reason we got all these laws pass from 1970 to 1980 was that there were millions of people in the street, and our corporate opponents were flat.

corporate opponents and not know what was hitting them at all. everyone knows the powell memo, if you don't, quickly google it. come on, i know you have your iphones or whatever. i know you have your cwa- supported phone. but the head of the chamber of commerce, which actually represented small it is, that we had a problem. ralph nader, an environmentalist, people who want women's rights, people who care that wages would go down. those who are going to destroy our world. so he said the corporate right, the companies, the corporate right needed to take over this country, and they needed to take over the courts, congress, they needed to get those lefty professors fired and take over schools, they needed everyone to have an nda to change their way of thinking. they needed to do a whole litany

of things to finally change the balance of power. where we are today is the newest version. where we are today if the koch brothers, using bigotry and big money to destroy our democracy. the newest version of a really old story of corporate power of racism, sexism, a few people wanting to control this country. these guys are using to take over our country. they're using a by suppressing voters, keeping young people, old people, people of color out in texas, ls. there is a law where you can votes, or there is a bill where you can vote with a gun id, but not with a student id. how blatant is that? you are pushing that law while you are pushing to get big money into politics, while you are really happy to keep the senate broken. will we pull together here is an unprecedented coalition across

rates come across issues, across silos, because what we know isae know is fundamentally, we're in epic historic battles in the battle to get people in, to get this beautiful, diverse country in the world. get everyone voices heard, make sure everyone's voice counts, and get the money of the few people who want to hold onto power as long as they can out. get we get people in and we that money out, we will not need to worry about our mothers or our daughters or our sisters or our fathers or our brothers getting cancer from being exposed to the workplace in their communities because our voices were actually be heard. that is why greenpeace is here, and that is why it is a real honor. that is why i cannot wait to see the senate with us in diapers. [laughter] [applause]

>> i don't know how i ended up sharing a microphone with ben jealous. because we have had a change in our panel, we're going to make that the questions a little bit. i'm going to keep you all on your toes. we want to get to the issues of the way money and politics, voting rights and senate rules are interlinked. we have got people, karen and ben are going to talk about the state level, the new york experience, and we are all really excited about what you are doing in north carolina. we're are going to leave it to phil and larry to look more at the national political picture and give us a picture of what di wants to jobless. we've got a lot of people here who back what you are doing and want to be as helpful as possible to you. tell us exactly what is going on

in your discussion, and what we might hope to see happen in july. if anything. >> right now, the senate is immersed in the immigration debate. we're looking forward to passing that bill out of the senate, keeping it intact with the framework that was put together by the group of eight, four democrats and four republicans could what we are doing right now is our missions, and we have this huge backlog. we need to put in place five new members of the national labor relations board, one of the most important things we have to accomplish. [applause] we need to get richard cordrey confirmed at the permanent director of the cspd. [applause] we need another taking the epa forward. you are the president talking but applying the standard for carbon dioxide pollution. we need the director of epa to take that forward.

it is a huge goal. [applause] tom perez is waiting to be confirmed at labor, a real champion for working people. we have three folks who have been nominated to the d.c. circuit court, these would be folks filling positions that have been long and deep. this is the second most important court in our country to the supreme court because so many of the issues or laws go through that appeals court before they go to the supreme court. clearly what has been happening at the nominations have not been getting done because we have embargoes on them. we have a super majority opposition. we have folks to finally get a vote and when nominations by 92-2, who have had to wait a year to get that vote.

if you think about it on the judicial side, this is really court packing by blocking the president's nominations. it is unacceptable. if you think about it on the executive branch site, it is a strategy designed to drain the energy of the president and his team that has been elected in order to keep them pursuing the things that they campaign on, which is an incredible interference and democracy. it adds a cynicism. our young folks are wondering -- why should we vote? why should we care? the house is not much better. we have to do this in order to have a vibrant democracy function. here is the bottom line -- we have to eliminate the filibuster on nominations. [applause] so what we are expecting in july is to try to get these nominations done, and we expect there will be opposition, as

there has been all along, and at that moment, we need to say either we have up-and-down in a timely fashion, including the whole backlog of justices that are lined up, or we change the rules or change the interpretation of the rules. because our democracy has been stolen, and we have to take it back. [applause] >> so, since i know you have limited time, i'm just or to take the moderator's privilege and push a little bit. obviously we can do this with the majority of -- we have a democratic majority. where are we on this, and how would you urge people to get more involved, and if they have democrat senators who are absent not stated a position or perhaps are known to be skeptical of this idea, what is your advice to people? how can we push this forward? >> i encourage everybody to be very involved because this is about our nation, about what

gets passed in laws, about whether courts are packed, about whether the president's team is in place to pursue the executive functions. use your national organizations, whatever profession you are part of, group you are part of a may encourage your national leaders to weigh in. larry can fill in a lot of this because he has been helping groups organize at the national level. it matters to the members in this regard. and for the folks in your home state. it matters to the leadership of the party. yes, you are correct, we will not get this done by a bipartisan majority. i worked for a hard to find colleagues across the aisle who would form a group before the last election.

let's make the senate work in this fashion. and i had a number who felt very much akin to the reforms that comment i have been talking about. but they did not feel they could take on the minority leader, mitch mcconnell, in a procedural issue. so it has become clear it has to be done in a partisan way, but not in a politically partisan way. this will be healthy for the entire country. the ideas that we have been putting forward will be good. they are fair. our legislative side gives you a chance to filibuster, on the nomination side that still gives you a vote. people will say don't you need to keep the hurdle in place to keep a bad president and a bad republican majority for making bad things happen? here is the thing -- don't think for a moment that the republican colleagues will not change the rules when they are in a position of power. in his 2005, when the democrats were filibustering judges, republican said that -- either stand down and quit filibustering, or we are

changing the rules to simple majority on judges. and it was a group of 14, the democrats agreed not to filibuster, and the result was they got what they wanted without the rule change, which then came back to cause us great harm when the democrats are in the majority because the republicans did not abide by the same deal. so this is why we have to do it and why it makes sense. >> larry, you and i have talked about this. you have been a real outspoken person on the need to do this, on some of the obstacles to doing it. this notion -- i wrote something that was critical of the senate majority leader reid, and you were sober with me that he cannot do it by himself, and he does not have the votes, he may not have the vote. talk about your work and trying to push some of the democratic

senators who like the collegial way things have run. also fear this notion of being in the minority again and not having any power, although i have always said when you are prayer -- preparing to be in the minority, you are preparing to be defeated, and if you are bold and you take the strength of the majority and do what you are elected to do, that would be kind of cool. [applause] >> radical idea there. >> i know. i know we agree on this, larry, but talk a little bit about your thinking. >> first of all, and the next three weeks are critical as senator merkley just said. this is to show that we can make a difference. this is to show that we can

change things. it is not senate resolution five that you wrote with senator udall, it is not on the floor. this is just on nominations, that if we do not get this done, number one, as was already set by senator merkley, on august 27, the only confirmed off, his term is up, at eight. 80 million workers have nothing at all, no floor to work on in terms of their rights. whether it is the 6 million, a pathetic number, but that is what we are down to, or the 74

million who don't. so this july recess, the three weeks in july when the senate meets is critical, but the nlrb is only one part of it. the republicans have said when dodd frank was passed, we will never confirmed the director of the cfpd, so elizabeth warren was acting because she could not have gotten confirm him even though she won an election for the senate for massachusetts, but could not get confirmed because of the way the nominations are handled. so part one of this is these next three weeks where we have a mass campaign, and it is not all this and more, it is the organization sitting out here working together, fixthesenatenow.org. it means mobilization, particularly in every state where you have a democratic senator because we're not going to get a republican republican vote on this, not one. you heard senator merkley. right here in california, the senators need to hear loud and clear, they are probably just about ok right now, but they are not in the 40 that we clearly had. they are in the next group. and so many of you are from california. they need to hear from you. in the next three weeks.

theuly 2, that is during recess, the senate recess is june 27-july 8. we will be organizing together visitations or whatever you want to call them with as many of these critics senators as possible, including the ones that are among the 40 that are terrific on this because they need role energy on this. they need to hear that we are not going to stand for a democratic majority that sits back and says well, we cannot get four of our colleagues to stand up with us. we need a 42 say to the other 14 the majority of which are fine but they need -- well, i do not want to get you involved on that. they need -- what we call that? they need a push, and they needed now. they need a kick.

there you go. [laughter] >> if a push does not work. >> so we have a very shaky 51, but we need to focus on all of them, and we need to do it now. name the names. i do have the names, just by coincidence. this is a larger groups i do not overly focus on three. levin, pryor, jack reed, feinstein, leahy, donnelly -- we need the other 40 to get done too. most of those commodities want to absolutely target the three, you can probably figure them out, but most of those are good.

we have to do it now. on july 2, we will be a national day of action. americansillion assigned a petition to the leader, harry reid, but he is not going to do it if he does not have 51. can't do it with 50 because the vice president can break the tie. even on a procedural issue. but we need 51. so i do not want to use up all the minutes on this, but this is a first step of the democracy initiative. this is the first step in the broad movement for democracy that we can win. on the one hand, imagine a one with great leaders like senator merkley, how we will feel like we can make some change occur. in number two, feel what they will be like, for example, labor day is celebrated this year, and days earlier, the nlrb

ended. that is the choice. thisllion workers in country. it is not just the nlrb. that is what we are facing. that is a choice. labor day with no labor law in america. that is going to be the bottom and we are already near the bottom of any the mock receipt or this locker see movement get some movement and progress in july. we change the rules and we get an up or down vote. >> i'm going to go to fill now. [applause] we like clapping. it wakes everybody up. we are going to ask you to go beyond this. it will be great to kick this off with a win like that. take us to the next step and talk about what it takes for a group as big and important as

yours. tok about what it means bring these powerhouses together and get people outside of their silos and work together on senate rules reform and the next issues you are taking on. justn we give the senator one more round of applause? [applause] there is nothing that unites us better than a dam good enemy. what does it take to bring a lot of different groups together? it takes the fact that our fights are largely about people, which is money. organized people versus organize money.

if you are from the environmental movement, you look at who is in congress and who is good on are issues and you quickly realize the labor movement and women's mute -- women's movement elected those people. theou care about environment am a fundamentally, you have to care about workers rights and women's rights and you have to see that unless we are together, the labor movement, if they are in -- if they are not in office, forget addressing climate change, forget all of those things. bringrst thing that can us together is that while we have differences and while are real policy debates, the underlying balance of power we need for people's voices to

be heard, from those who want profit to make sure they make more money than the workers, we have to change the balance of power. there's a set of leaders and organizers that realize it is not about ec, it is about being on the ground and shifting the balance of power that is number one. number two, these folks are amazing and easy to work with. fundamentally, if you believe the balance of power, if you get the history we are a part of in working to actually fill the promise of having a democracy in this country and that our change depends on it, it all flows from there. >> one thing that is exciting is that this is going on at the state level. i want to talk about some of the great lessons you are doing. >> there is great work happening in several states right now. in north carolina, they are dealing with a very tough

reality head-on. it's a very successful coalition of folks built by the naacp and the state leader, reverend barter were -- reverend barber, they put together the power to push through great reforms and for the people to really be heard in 2008, president obama won the the south, and who have been fighting this very aggressive, far right wing attack on rights in the state that have come to a head over the last couple of years. they have been visible and inspiring in showing what we can do when we come together, one for all and all for one.

at the same time, we've seen big victories on voting rights in states just north. some of them below the mason- dixon line. a couple of weeks ago, governor bob mcdonnell took the last of the jim crow voter suppression, the lifetime ban of formerly incarcerated people voting. [applause] doneat we may not have today, clap for a republican. the reality is that it will -- they were extremely courageous. i bagged cain to do the exact same thing when he was on his way to be the governor of the dnc. this franchise reinvention eyes 200,000 virginia voters -- these are working people likely to be democratic voters. he is a civil rights voter

edits and easy argument. he argued some principles that i couldn't even recognize. then we go to mcdonald's early in his tenure and he says i believe in redemption and i believe in second chances. i think this is the right thing to do. we worked it through the legislature and when that failed, he stood up and signed an executive order that will reinvent a the databases, probably half of the incarcerated people in virginia. inn this law took place 1901, my grandfather was a state senator in virginia and he thought he might have a further career in politics in the state. at that convention, senator

glass of the glass-steagall act would say, yes, this is what this convention is about, discrimination. when he put forward this plan, he said the will be eliminated as a factor within five years. when cain would not do it, when leaders refused to do it, it was a very big deal. now because of a movement led by the naacp, in maryland, we have seen expansions of early and same day registration. in delaware, we just passed a constitutional amendment getting rid of the five-year waiting time from venting

formerly incarcerated people from voting. it will significantly increase disproportionally and let a lot of poor white folks work as well -- vote as well also. we have seen past laws -- more passed laws expanding the vote than shrinking the vote because we decided the movement, this is -- we have a loss and we have lost some tough fights in virginia that put into place voter id. this year, they felt like they had to sign the bill because it's better to be in a situation where you win one and lose one then to be one where you are just losing. why north carolina is so important is that in this

century, the effect will primarily be about date level legislation. in the last century, the fight was about federal litigation. comingere some big cases down next week trade but it will finally be about state legislation. most of us are very familiar with fighting people who are breaking the law to suppress the vote. what we are dealing with is an older violation in our politics. it was taken off the shelf in the civil war, that past the law to suppress the vote and eight off the shelf for 40 years. we can expect we will be dealing with this every single state legislative cycle until this country becomes a majority people of color and the far right wing has to figure out how to get along with somebody. the reality is that is why what is being done here is so

important. iss not about 2014 as it about 2044. by 2044, that will be a bigger voting block then black folks. they are trying to invest in our job and our job is to make the future come faster. >> definitely. [applause] >> what you said about the state level work is also true about women's rights. that's where we see the most incredible rollback. >> to be clear, voting rights need to be your second most important thing. whatever is your one big thing is your one big thing. but the far right wing really understands if they get this, they take that also. they are coming after this to make it harder to make it -- to make it harder for planned

parenthood to push its agenda. if we don't understand that, we can't be about one thing anymore. we have to be at least about two things. this will be the ones strand that they pull in the sweater of rights protection. [applause] >> and may be the third thing is money in politics. you're going to talk about opening a campaign in new york and the campaigns and the unvarnished truth area -- unvarnished truth area >> before we worked on fair change theto campaign finance system, we thought it was important and we created a very broad coalition, well over 100 organizations that

were dedicated to the campaign. the environmental people made it one of their top ironies. the progressive labor organizations made it a priority and that is the breath of the coalition, it is phenomenal and it's the first time we've seen that kind of coming together around an issue of democracy and hope we can continue that and expanded to all voting rights efforts going into 2014 as well. there are a lot of different things that are interesting, but i want to start with a few different pieces about the kind of tactics that we use. in addition to being a very broad campaign, it's an issue where we used everything we could ink a to do and did it in one way or the other in the

hopes of putting this issue over the top. in 2012, we kind of died in the legislative session quickly. we knew that when we got to the legislative fight, we had to prove it was an election issue, not just a good issue that no one else would understand. we had to prove to the legislators and governors, that they would stand on democracy and campaign finance. they help recruit, train, develop and correct a senate campaign in new york that had and created by senate republicans as part of their gerrymandered redistricting process. they traded the district just to make sure they would not lose a majority so they would lose as a senator. we turned to a woman who was a farmer and school board member and she was a strong champion theair elections for all

reasons we were talking about. we made the campaign be heavily about that issue, the need to have a new campaign finance system. they also came in with a campaign focused on fair elections. they were focused on outsourcing and the combination of those efforts with the deal activities put together meant that we won the campaign, lost in the present count and lost in the recount several months later. [applause] the issue of fair elections became such an issue because when the republican candidate saw hundreds of thousands of dollars were being spent to say the democratic candidate was for fair elections and he was against the, he thought it was a fair issue. nobody believes in spending

taxpayer money on elections. he has to spend more issues running than we did. payas going to tax you to for corrupt politicians like him. 2013re able to go into the fight to save voters do care about this. we were able to win a race on this issue. get to of the lessons of where we go from here and we have not quite one yet, we have to go back to the elections as a way to look at accountability. we started off even though we had a big electoral strategy. we figure that we had to have a very aggressive campaign that would use every tactic in the book. we made sure that each partner group did what they are going to do. the policy