guest: it's certainly significant for many ports and what we've seen over the last probably 10 years or so is that the port authorities are much more looking beyond their date in terms of that transportation infrastructure and being more involved whether it's with their local governments, the local metropolitan planning organizations that deal with transportation issues in the local regions to try to ensure how that some of the priorities that are necessary to address the congestion that obviously is important to the local communities as well as the port can be addressed here in the norfolk area you mentioned the tunnel certainly a long-term plan is for a third passage, a third tunnel that will provide both benefit to the cargo moving into and out of this port but also again for

the community here in hampton roads. host: we have 30 seconds left but we're at a state-owned port here. state-owned versus privately owned in this country, major ports. what's the difference? how many are we talking about? guest: all of our members are public port agencies. many are state, some are local like city, counties, harbor districts, et cetera. and they handle most of the public type groups like containers, et cetera. many of the ports facilities that handle things like oil, petroleum products, liquefied natural gas, et cetera, are private facilities and they handle a lot of those types of bulk commodities. so there's probably roughly an equal amount of public and private terminals. host: kurt nagle, the president of the port authorities, we thank you for talking to our viewers and welcome us to the port of virginia. we appreciate it. >>est: happy to be here.

president obama's news conference from earlier old i -- from earlier. a look at first lady's rachel jackson, willie donelson, and angelica. journalists report. >> president obama spoke about a range of issues including surveillance programs at nsa and u.s./russian relations. this is about 55 minutes. >> good afternoon. these have a seat. over the past few weeks thomas i've been talking about what i believe should be our number one priority in the country. building a better bargain for the middle class and for

americans who want to work your way into the middle class. at the same time i am focused on my number one priority -- keeping the american people safe. been reminded once again about the threats to our nation. as i said at the national defense university, and meeting those threats we have to strike the right balance between protecting our security and our freedoms. as part of this rebalancing, i called for review of our surveillance programs. unfortunately, rather than orderly and lawful process, the , repeated leaks of classified information has initiated the debate in a very passionate but not always informed way. i held a healthy skepticism of these programs as a senator and as president i have taken steps

to make sure that they have strong oversight by all three branches of government and clear safeguards to prevent abuse and protect the rights of the american people. but, given the history of abuse by government, it is right to ask questions about surveillance, particularly as technology is reshaping every aspect of our lives. i'm also mindful of how these issues are viewed overseas because american leadership amount -- leadership or around the world depends upon example of american democracy and american overtones. what makes us different from other countries is not just our ability to secure our nation but the way we do it, in open debate and the democratic process. in other words, it is not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programs. the american people need to have confidence in them as well. and that is why i'm over the last few weeks, i have consulted members of congress who have come at this issue from many different respective's and i have asked the oversight board

to review where our counterterrorism efforts and our values come into tension, and i directed our national security to be more transparent and to pursue reforms of our laws and practices. so i would like to discuss for specific steps, not all- inclusive, but specific steps we will be taking to move the debate forward. first, i will work with congress to pursue appropriate reforms to section 215 of the patriot act, the program that collects telephone records. as i said, this program is an important tool in our effort to disrupt your wrist plots and it does not allow the government to listen to any phone calls without a warrant. but given the scale of this program, i understand the concerns of those who would worry that it could be subject to abuse. so after having a dialogue with members of congress and civil libertarians, i know that there are steps we can take to give the american people additional confidence that there are

additional safeguards against abuse. for instance, we can take steps to put in place greater oversight, greater transparency, and constraints on the use of this authority. so i look forward to working with congress to meet those objectives. second, i will work with congress to improve the public's confidence in the oversight conducted by the foreign intelligence surveillance court, known as the fisk. it was created by congress to provide judicial review of certain intelligence activities so that a federal judge must find that our actions are consistent with the constitution. however, to build greater confidence, i think we should consider some additional changes to the fisc. one of the concerns people raised is that a judge reviewing a request from the government to conduct programmatic civilian -- conduct programmatic surveillance may only see one side of it.

while i have confidence in the court and i think they have done a fine job, i think they can provide greater assurances that the court is looking at these issues from both perspectives, security and privacy. so specifically, we can take steps to make sure civil liberties concerns have an independent voice in appropriate cases by ensuring that the government's position is challenged by an adversary. number three, we can and must be more transparent. i directed the intelligence community to making -- to make public as much information about these programs as possible. we have already declassified unprecedented information about the nsa, but we can go further. so the department of justice will make public the rationale under article 215 of the patriot act. and release information that entails authority and oversight.

and finally, the intelligence community is creating a website that will serve as a for further transparency. this will give americans and the world the ability to learn more about what our intelligence community does and what it doesn't do, how it carries out its mission and why it does so. fourth, we are forming a high- level group of outside experts to review our entire intelligence and communications technologies. we need new thinking for a new era. we have to unravel terrorist plots by finding a needle in a haystack" occasions. technology has given governments unprecedented capability to monitor situations. so i'm asking this independent group to step back and review our capabilities, particularly our surveillance technologies and how we can maintain the trust of the people, how we can make sure that there is

absolutely no abuse in terms of how these surveillance technologies are used, ask how surveillance impacts our foreign-policy particularly in an age when more and more information is becoming public, and provided an interim report in 60 days and a final report by the end of this year so we can move forward with a better understanding of how these programs impact our security, our privacy, and our foreign- policy. so all of the steps are designed to ensure that the american people can trust that our efforts are in line with our interests and our values. and to others around the world, i want to make clear once again that america is not interested in spying on ordinary people. our intelligence is focused above all on finding the information necessary to protect our people and, in many cases, detect our allies. it's true -- protect our allies. it's true, we have surveillance capability, but it is also true that we have shown a restraint that many governments around the

world won't even think of doing or refuse to show. that includes, by the way, some of america's most of her -- most we should not. forget stricter guidelines. some other governments will throw their citizens in prison for what they say online. let me close with one additional thought. the men and women of our intelligence community work every single day to keep us safe because they love this country and believe in our values. they are patriots. and i believe that those who have lawfully raised their voices on the -- on behalf of privacy and civil liberties are also patriots who love our country and want to live up to our highest ideals. so this is how we will resolve our differences in the united states, through vigorous public debate, guided by our constitution with reverence for our history as a nation of laws

and with respect for the facts. so with that, i will take some questions. let's see who we've got here. we are going to start with julie pace of ap. >> i wanted to ask about some of the foreign-policy fallout from the disclosure of the nsa programs you discussed. your spokesman said yesterday that there's no question that the u.s. relationship with russia has gotten worse since vladimir putin took office. how much of that decline do you attribute directly to mr.putin given that you had a good working relationship with his predecessor? will there be additional unit of measures taken against russia for granting asylum to edward snowden or is canceling the summit must make -- the most that you can do? >> i think there has always been some tension in the u.s.-russian relationship after the fall of the soviet union. that has been cooperation in

some areas and competition in others. it is true that, in my first four years, in working with medvedev, we've made a lot of progress. we got start 2 done. we were able to work together on iran sanctions. they provided us help in terms of supplying our troops in afghanistan. we were able to get russia into the wto, which is not just good for russia, but therefore are companies and businesses -- but for our companies and businesses because they are more likely to follow norms and rules. so there is a lot of good work that has been done and that will continue to be done. what is also true is that, when president putin came back into power come i think we saw more rhetoric on the russian side that was anti-american that played into some of the old stereotypes about the cold war

contest between the united states and russia. i have encouraged mr. putin to think forward as opposed to backwards on those issues with mixed success. i think the latest episode is just one more in a number of emerging differences that we have seen over the last several months around syria, around human rights issues, where it is probably appropriate for us to take a pause, reassess where it is that russia is going, what our core interests are, that what we're doing is good for for the united states and hopefully good for russia as well but recognizing that there are just going to be some differences and we will not be able to

completely disguise them. and that's ok. keep in mind that, although i am not attending the summit come i will still be going to st. petersburg because russia is also in the g-20. that is important business in terms of our economy and our jobs and all the issues that are of concern to americans. i know the one question that has been raised is how do we approach deal of picks? i just -- how do we approach the olympics? i just want to make clear that i do not think it is appropriate to boycott the olympics. we have a lot of americans out there who are working hard and doing everything they cap to -- they can to succeed. no one is more offended by me than some of the anti-gay lesbian legislation that you have seen in russia. but as i said, just this week, i have spoken out against that not just with respect to russia but a number of other countries. we continue to do work with them, but we have a strong disagreement on this issue.

one of the things i'm really looking forward to is maybe some gay and lesbian athletes bringing home a gold or silver or bronze, which i think would go a long way in rejecting the kind of attitudes that we are seeing there. and if russia doesn't have gay or lesbian athletes, that will probably make their team weaker. >> [indiscernible] >> keep in mind that our decision to not participate in the summit was not simply around mr. stood in -- mr. snowden. it was on a whole host of issues that russia has not moved. so we don't consider that

strictly punitive. we are going to assess where the relationship can advance u.s. interests and increase descend stability and prosperity around the world. we will keep on working with them. where we have differences, we will say so clearly. and my hope is that, over time, mr. putin and russia recognize that, rather than a zero-sum competition, in fact, if the two countries are working together, we can probably advance the betterment of both peoples. chuck. >> given that you just announced a whole bunch of reforms based on essentially the leaks that edward snowden made on all of the surveillance programs, does that change -- has your mindset changed? is he more of a whistleblower that a hacker as you call them out one point or somebody who should be provided more protection? is he a patriot?

and just to follow up on the personal -- >> i just want to make sure that everybody asking one question would be helpful. >> it is part of a question they did not answer. can you get stuff done with russia without having a good personal relationship with putin? >> i don't have a bad personal relationship with putin. when we have conversations, they are candid. they are blunt. oftentimes, they are constructive. i know the press likes to focus on body language and he's got that kind of slouch, looking like a bored kid in the back of the classroom. [laughter] but the truth is, when we are in conversations together, oftentimes it is very productive. so the issue here really has to do with where they want to take russia. it is substantive on the policy front. no, right now, this is just a matter of where mr. putin and the russian people want to go.

i think that if they are looking forward into the 21st-century and how they can advance their economy and make sure that some of our joint concerns on counterterrorism are managed effectively, then i think we can work together. if issues are framed as they u.s. is for it then russia should be against it or we will be finding ways for we can help each other at every opportunity, then probably we don't get as much stuff done. now i have forgotten your question, which is presumably is the more important one. no, i don't think mr. snowden was a patriot. as i said in my opening remarks, i called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations before mr. snowden made these leaks. my preference -- and i think the

american people's preference -- would have been for a lawful, orderly examination of these laws, a thoughtful fact-based debate that would then lead us to a better place. because i never made claims that all the surveillance technologies that have developed since the time some of these laws were put in place somehow didn't require potentially some additional reforms. that is exactly what i called for. so the fact is that mr. snowden has been charged with three felonies. if in fact he believes that what he did was right, then like every american citizen, he can come here and appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case.

if the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, i signed an executive order well before mr. snowden leaked this information that provided as a blower protection to the intelligence community for the first time. so there were other avenues available for someone whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions. but, having said that, once the leaks have happened, what we have seen is information come out in drips and in drags, sometimes coming out sideways -- once the information is out, the administration comes in and tries to correct the record. but by that time, it is too late or we have moved on and a general impression has taken hold not only among the mac and public, but also around the world, that

somehow we are out there willy- nilly just sucking in information on everybody and doing what we please with it. and that is not the case. our laws specifically prohibit us from surveilling u.s. persons without a warrant and their are safeguards that are put in place to make sure that that basic principle is abided by. the instinctive bias but intelligence community to keep everything close and probably with a fair criticism is my assumption that, if we had checks and balances from the courts and congress, that traditional set of checks and balances would be enough to give

people assurances that these programs will run properly. that assumption i think proved to be undermined by what happened after the leaks. i think people have questions about this program. so as a consequence, i think it is important for us to go ahead and answer these questions. what i will be pushing is, rather than have a trunk come out here and a leg come out here and a tale come out there, let's just put the whole elephant out there so people know exactly what they are looking at. let's examine what is working, what is not. are there additional reductions that can be put in place and this move -- additional protections that can be put in place and move forward. there's no question that mr. snowden unleashed a much more rapid and passionate response

than would have been the case if i had simply appointed this review board to go through and i sat down with congress and we had worked this thing through. it would have been less exciting. it would not have generated as much press, i actually think we would have gone to the same place. and we would have done so without putting at risk our national security and some very vital ways a weekend get some intelligence we need to secure the country. >> i would like to ask you about this debate that is playing itself out in editorial pages about the choice you will eventually make for the next federal reserve chairman. there is the perception among democrats that larry summers has the inside track and perhaps

perhaps you have made some assurances to him about that. jenny yellin is the vice chair of the federal reserve. are you annoyed by this debate i find it unseemly? and do you find this the most important economic decision you will make in the remainder of your presidency? >> yes. the federal reserve chairman is not just one of the most important economic policy makers in america. he or she is one of the most important policy makers in the world. and that person presumably will stay on after i'm president. so this, along with supreme court appointments, is the most important decision that i will make. there are some supreme candidates and you mentioned to them, mr. summers and ms. yellin.

they are both terrific people. they are both terrific people. i think the perception that mr. summers may have an inside track simply has to do with a bunch of attacks that i was hearing on mr. summers preemptively, which is sort of a standard washington exercise, that i don't like him. because when someone has worked hard for me and on behalf of the american people and i know the quality of those people and i see them getting slapped around in the press for no reason even before they have been nominated for anything, then i want to make sure that somebody is standing up for them. i felt the same way when people were attacking susan rice before she was nominated for anything. so i tend to defend folks that i think i've done a good job and don't deserve attacks. my main criteria for the federal

reserve chairman is somebody who understands they have to do a mandate, a critical part of the job is making sure that we keep inflation in check, that our monetary policy is sound, that the dollars sound. those are all critical components of the job and we see what happens when the fed is not paying attention. we saw prior to paul volcker coming into place inflation shooting up in ways that really damaged the real economy. but the other mandate is full employment. and right now, if you look at the biggest challenges we have, the challenge is not inflation. the challenge is we've still got too many people out of work for

too long-term unemployed, too much slack in the economy. we are not growing as fast as we should. so i want a fed chairman who is able to look at those issues and have a perspective that keeps an eye on inflation, makes sure that we are not seeing artificial bubbles in place, but also recognizes, you know what, a big part of my job right now is making sure that the economy is growing quickly and robustly and is sustained, endurable so the people who work hard in this country are able to find a job. and frankly, i think both larry summers and janet yellin are highly qualified candidates. there are a couple of other candidates who are highly qualified as well. i will make the decision in the fall. >> defending larry summers as robustly as you just did [indiscernible] >> i just told you i haven't.

i would do the same for you somebody was saying something about you that wasn't true. [laughter] i really would. carol lee. congratulations on hudson. do you have pictures? >> i do. thank you for making it a slow news week. i want to ask you about the surveillance issues. restoring the public trust and the public has seen you evolve from when you were in the u.s. senate to now and even as recently as june. you said that the process was such that people should be comfortable with it and now you are saying that you're making these reforms so that people will be comfortable with those. so why should the public trust you on this issue and why did you change your position multiple times? >> i haven't evolved in my actual assessment of the programs.

i consistently have said that, when i came into office, i evaluated them. some of these programs i was critical of when i was in the senate. when i looked through specifically what was being done, my determination was that the two programs in particular have been an issue, to 15 and 702, offer valuable intelligence that helps us protect the american people and are worth preserving. what we also saw was that some bolts need to be tightened up on some of those programs. we initiated some additional oversight reforms, compliance officers, audits and so forth. and if you look at the reports even the disclosures that mr. snowden has put forward -- you're not reading about the

government actually abusing these programs. and listening in on people's phone calls or inappropriately reading people's e-mails. what you are hearing about is the prospect that these could be abused. part of the reason they are not abused is because these checks are place and those abuses would be against the law and the orders of the fisc. having said that though, if you are outside of the intelligence community, if you are the ordinary person and you start seeing a bunch of headlines saying u.s., big brother, looking down on you, collecting telephone records, etc., welcome understandably people would be concerned. i would be, too, if i wasn't inside the government. so in light of the changed

environment where a whole set of questions have been raised, some in the most sensationalized manner possible where these leaks are released jerk by drip, drip by drip, one a week to maximize sensationalism, in light of that, it makes sense for us to go ahead and lay out what exactly we are doing, have a discussion with congress, with industry which is also impacted by this, with civil libertarians and see can we do this better? i think the main thing i want to emphasize is i don't have an

interest and the people of the nsa don't have an interest in doing anything other than making sure that where we can prevent it terrorist attack, where we can get information ahead of time, that we are able to carry out that circle task can we do not have an interest -- carry out that critical task. we do not have an interest in doing anything other than that. and we have set up a system that is so far as failsafe to make sure that these programs are not abused. the people may have better ideas. and people may want to jigger slightly sort of the balance between the information that we can get versus the anchor mental encroachments on privacy -- the incremental encroachments on privacy.

if people don't have confidence that the law, the checks and balances of the court, and congress are sufficient to give us confidence that government is not snooping, well, maybe we can embed technologies in there that can prevent the snooping regardless of what government wants to do. there may be some technological fixes the provide another layer of assurance. so those are the kinds of things that i am looking forward to have a recession about. >> [indiscernible]

>> the fact that i said that the programs are operating in a way that prevents abuse, that continues to be true, without the reforms. the question is how do i make the american people more comfortable? if i tell michelle that i did the dishes -- now, granted, it in the white house, i don't do the dishes that much -- [laughter] but back in the day and she is a little more skeptical, well, i'd like her to trust me but maybe i need to bring her back and show her the dishes and not just have to take my word for it. so the program is -- i am

comfortable that the program currently is not being abused. i am comfortable that the people examined exactly what has taken place, how it has been used, what the safeguards were and feel safe here in it is absolutely true with the expansion of technology, this is an area that is moving very quickly with the revelations that have depleted public trust, that if there are some additional things that we can do to build that trust back up, then we should do them. jonathan karl. >> thank you, mr. president. you have said that core al qaeda has been decimated and its leaders are on the run. now that we have seen this

terror threat that resulted in embassies closed throughout the world, much of africa, do you still believe that al qaeda has been decimated? and in the interest of transparency, can you tell us about these drone strikes we have seen in the last couple of weeks in human? -- weeks in yemen? >> what i said in the same speech back in may that i referred to earlier is that core al qaeda is on it's heels, has been decimated. but what i also said was that al qaeda and other extremists have metastasized into regional groups that can pose significant dangers. and i would refer you back to that speech back in may. although they are less likely to carry out spectacular homeland attacks like 9/11, they have the capacity to go after our

embassies. they have the capacity potentially to go after our businesses. they have the capacity to be destabilizing and disruptive in countries where the security apparatuses are weak and that is exactly what we are seeing right now. so it is entirely consistent to say that highly organized and relatively centralized al qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 has been broken apart and is very weak and does not have a lot of operational capacity. and to say we still have these regional organizations like aqap, that can pose a threat and drive potentially a truck bomb into an embassy wall and can kill people. so that requires us then to make sure that we have a strategy that is strengthening those

partners so they have their own capacities to deal with potentially manageable regional threats. it means that we have to continue to be vigilant and go after known terrorists who are potentially carrying out a that scaring up plots or are going to strengthening their overtime because they are always asking the boundaries of maybe we can try this and maybe we can do that. but this is an ongoing process. we are not going to completely eliminate terrorism. what we can do is weaken it and strengthen our partnerships in such a way that it does not pose the kind of horrible threat that we saw on 9/11.

i'm not going to discuss specific operations that have taken place. again, in my speech in may, i was very specific about how we make these determinations about potential lethal strikes. so i would refer you to that speech. >> about the drones -- >> i will not have a discussion about operational issues. >> i hope you would defend me as well. >> i would. >> thank you. october 1, you will implement your signature healthcare law. you decided on your own to delay a key part of that. if you pick and choose what parts of the law to implement, could your successors down the road pick and choose what to keep in place? you said on september 12, we

will bring to justice the killers who attacked our people in a ghazi. where are they, sir? >> i also said we would get bin laden and i didn't get him for 11 months. we have informed the public of a sealed indictment. it is sealed for a reason. but we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack. and we will stay on it until we get them. >> [indiscernible] >> i will leave it at that. but this remains a top priority for us. anybody who attacks americans, anybody who kills tragically for americans who are serving us in a very dangerous place, we will do everything we can to get those who carried out those attacks. with respect to health care, i didn't simply choose to delay this on my own.

this was in consultation with businesses all around the country, many of whom are supportive of the affordable care act and many of whom who are already providing of interest to their employees but were concerned about the operational details changing their hr operations because i have a lot of employees which could be costly they for them and suggesting that there may be an easier way to do this. what is true is that, in a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that does not go to the essence of the law. it has to do with, for example, are we able to simplify the attestation of employers whether

they are already providing health insurance or not? it looks like there may be some better ways to do this. let's make some technical changes to the law. that would be the normal thing that i would prefer to do. but we are not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to "obamacare." we did have the executive authority to do so and we did so. but this does not go to the core of implementation. let me tell you what is at the core of implementation that has already taken place. as we speak, right now, for the first time, if the kid is 26 years or younger, that is benefiting millions of people across the country.

it is why lack of insurance among young people has gone down. that is in large part attributable to the steps that we take. you have millions of people who received rebates because part of the affordable care act was to say that i might insurance insurance companies are not spending 80% of your premium on your healthcare, you get some money back. lo and behold, people have been getting their money back to it means that folks who have been bumping up with lifetime limits on their insurance, that leaves them vulnerable -- that doesn't exist. seniors have been getting discounts on their prescription drugs that is happening right now. free preventive care, mammograms, contraception, that is happening right now. i met a young man today at the signing of the student loan bill who came up to me and said thank you. he couldn't have been more than 25-26 years old and he said thank you. i have cancer. thanks to the affordable care act, working with california, i was able to get treatment and i

am now in remission. in 53 days, the remaining 15% of americans who do not have health insurance, they will be able to go on a website or call up a call center and sign up for affordable quality health insurance at a significantly cheaper rate than what they can get right now on the individual market. and even with lower premiums, if they still can't afford it, we will be able to provide them with a tax credit to help them buy it. between october 1 and the end of march, there will be a note and enrollment period in which millions of americans for the first time will be a will to get affordable health care. i think the really interesting question is why it is that my

friends in the other party have made the idea of preventing these people from getting health care their holy grail? their number one priority, the one unifying principle in the republican party at the moment is making sure that 30 million people don't have health care. and presumably repealing all the things i just mentioned, kids stay on their parents plan, seniors getting discounts on prescription drugs, and i guess a return to lifetime limits on insurance, people with pre- existing conditions continuing to be blocked from being able to get health insurance -- that is hard to understand as an agenda that will strengthen our middle class. at least they used to say, well, we will replace it with something better.

there isn't even a pretense now that they will replace it with something better. the notion is simply that those 30 million people or the 150 million who are benefiting from the other aspects of affordable care, will be better off without it. not backed by fact or evidence, it's just become an ideological fixation. i will tell you what. they are wrong about that. there is no doubt that in implementing the affordable care act, a program of this significance, there will be some glitches. no doubt about it. there will be things where we say, you know what, we should've thought about that earlier or this needs fixes. it was true of social security, medicare, the children's health insurance program, of prescription drug program part d that was rolled out by a republican president, and true by the way of a car company

rolling out a new car. it is true of apple rolling out the new ipad. you will be able to come up whenever you want during the course of the next six months and probably the next year, find occasions when you say, oh, that could have done -- that could have been done a little bit better. or they are making an administered a change good that is not the way this was originally thought it would work. yes, exactly. because our goal is to actually deliver high-quality affordable healthcare for people and to reform the system so that costs start going down and people start getting a better bang for their buck. i make no apologies for that. let me make just one last point. the idea that you would shut down the government unless you prevent 30 million people from getting health care is a bad

idea. what you should be thinking about is how can we advance and improve ways for middle-class families to have some security so that, if they work hard, they can get ahead and their kids can get ahead. jessica. >> thank you, mr. president. following on what you just said, republicans in the house might give you that choice soon to either allow the government to shut down or see obamacare defunded. >> i will not engage in hypotheticals. i can tell you that the american people would have difficulty understanding why we would weaken the economy, shut down the government, shut down vital services, have people who are not getting paid who then can't go to restaurants or shop for

clothes and all the other things that we are doing here because republicans have determined that they don't want to see these folks get health care. again, they used to say they have a replacement. that never actually arrived. i have been hearing about this whole replace thing for two years now. now i just don't hear about it because basically they don't have an agenda. -- an agenda to provide health insurance to people at affordable rates. and the idea that you would shut down the government at a time when the recovery is getting some traction, where we are growing, although not as fast as we need to, where the housing market is recovering, although not as fast as we would like, that we would precipitate another crisis here in washington that no economist thinks is a good idea.

i'm assuming that they will not take that path. i have confidence that common sense in the end will prevail. >> you have to make that choice. >> we will see what happens. we have a couple of months. >> the last time you spoke with speaker boehner about it? >> fairly recently. before they left. scott. >> thank you, mr. president. part of the political logic behind immigration reform was a strong showing by letting the voters last november. that doesn't seem to resonate with a lot of house republicans who represent overwhelmingly white districts. what other political leverage

can you bring to bear to help move it in the house? >> well, we have an economic report that shows that our economy would be a trillion dollars stronger if we had immigration reform done. we have evidence that our housing market would be stronger if immigrants are in a situation in which having paid a fine, having paid back taxes, that they now have the ability to actually enter into the housing market. we have strong evidence that our technological and research edge would be better if we get immigration reform done. we know that the senate bill strengthens border security and puts unprecedented resources on top of what i have artie put into border security. if your main priority is border security -- i have already put into border security.

if your main priority is border security then this is the built-in we know it creates a system in which employers are held accountable for when they hire undocumented workers. this is something that people say is a bad thing. i agree. but make sure that that system for holding employers accountable is in place. so when i hear the opposition to immigration reform, i just run through the list of the things they are concerned about and i look at what the senate bill does and i say to myself, you know what, the senate bill actually improves the situation on every issue that they say they are concerned about. now what they may argue is that it doesn't solve the problem 100%. i don't know a law that solves a problem 100%. social security lifted millions of seniors out of poverty, but there are still some poor seniors. the civil rights act and the

voting rights act drastically reduced discrimination in america, but there is still discrimination. it doesn't make them bad laws. it just means that there are very few human problems that are 100% of all mobile. -- 100% solvable. what i see is a strong bipartisan vote coming out of the senate. i think the speaker and others have said that they need to do something. and i urge, when they get back, that they do something. it may not be precisely what is in the senate bill. my purpose would be for them to go ahead and call the senate bill. but if they have some additional ideas, the senate is happy to consider them. and get that bill on the floor.

put it up for a vote. i am absolutely certain that the votes for the senate bill, which strengthens border security, demands responsibility from undocumented workers to pay fine, pay penalty, get to the back of the line, reforms are illegal immigration system, hold employers accountable, i am absolutely confident that if that bill was on the floor of the house, it would pass. so the challenge right now is not that there is not a majority of house members just like the majority of senate members who are prepared to support this bill. the problem is internal republican caucus politics. and that is what the america people don't want us to be worrying about. don't worry about your washington politics. solve problems.

and this is one where you ask they have some pretty well consensus. i don't know an issue where you have labor, chamber of commerce, evangelicals, student groups, you name it supportive of a bill. let's get it done. all right, thank you very much, >> president obama also signed a bill that lowers interest rates. it ties interest rates to the market and allows undergraduates to borrow at a three percent rate. parents at 6.4%. >> before i sign this, i would like to say thank you to the extraordinary coalition that

helped to make this possible. i want to thank chairman klein and all the members of both house and senate from both parties that came together to design a sensible, common sense approach to keeping student interest rates at a reasonable level so that the young people have a better opportunity to go to college and get at session that they need. i want to thank the advocates including some the young people i suspect will be benefiting from lower rates. because without their voice and participation, we probably would not have gotten this bill done. the last point i will make and i senators and congressmen behind me will agree, even though we have been able to stabilize the interest rate of student loans among our

job is not done. the cost of college remains extraordinarily high. it is out if your reach for a lot of folks. the amount of debt that young people are coming out of school , ah is a huge burden on them burden of their families and make it more difficult for them to buy a home and more difficult for them to start a business. affect onepressive the economy overall. we have to do something about it. i look for in engaging the same coalition to see if we can attain you to make additional steps to reform our higher education system and more things to say the weeks to come. for now, i want to celebrate what we accomplished here. at thank everybody for getting it done. for those of you have not seen me do this before, it is a real

art form. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. president. >> it was very interesting. [laughter] >> i have not done this in a while. [laughter] >> how about a budget, mr. president? >> thank you everybody. >> thank you, guys. [inaudible] >> on the next washington journal on a look at president obama's proposal. bourn.argaret chad

governmentect on oversight, how he sequestration is affecting national defense. it begins at 7:00 a.m. on c- span. bring public up their event directly to you, couldn't you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events among briefing, and conferences and offering complete coverage of the u.s. house. all as a public service a private industry where c-span created by the cable industry 34 years ago. and now you can watch us in hd. ladieson two of first begins on monday, september 9 with a look at the life of mrs. roosevelt. we are showing presentations of season one. it is on c-span, the worms on

every first lady -- progress on every first lady. we discussed the influence on rachel jackson, molly donelson, and angelica van buren. >> rachel was not a fan of anything that took andrew jackson away from the hermitage. she ran the plantation and the firm and kept everything in order. everything loved her -- everybody loved her. >> she could write a nice letter and had nice jewelry. she was not as frumpy and she was reputed to be. >> he rose in politics, that was an ugly sore.

>> the campaign was so bitterly fought, that they went all out, calling her a whore. they used every piece that they could find and she was good garbage for them. >> made the statement that i would rather be a dookkeeper and live in that palace. >> her niece was 21 years old when she became the white house hostess. >> for all of the negatives they had to say about andrew jackson, they loved her. >> received an education in the fine arts of being a lady. it was that kind of education that enabled her, when rachel suddenly dies, to slide into the role of white house hostess. >> the women liked her. the women's opinions and meant

more. she knew exactly how to do things. >> it is emily that jackson has a falling out with. jackson never lost his affection for her. he just could not deal with this going against his will in his own home. >> for 12 years, no president's wife served as first lady. on this program, we will learn about two administrations that were run by would old presidents. of course, andrew jackson0-- -- of first, washington's societal ambitions. -- up first, will washington -- washington's societal ambitions. hear to tell us about those who served in the white house to support the presidents, a presidential historian.

michael henderson, welcome. and pat brady back at our table tonight. her biography of rachel jackson jackson is called "the french your love story of rachel and andrew." how do people understand the change that andrew jackson brought to the white house? >> was the first westerner. we have virginia presidents from the old south before that. he grew up in the frontier. the change is enormous.

socially, the change is enormous. he is not of the old planter class of the south that previous presidents had been from. he was not like a newly linder either. he brings different values and the french ambitions to the white house. >> even though he was a widow the president, the ghost of his wife, over the white house during his years there. why is that? >> she was the woman of his life. he loved her. when she died just a few months before he was inaugurated, he was a rest. he spent all of his time thinking about her and her memory and having her portraits in his bedroom so he could think of her. it really changed the way the first administration wins. >> we need to go into the campaign of 1822 understand the

presidency. 1828 was the year of what? how did it change? >> it was the first time we did not have a majority of electors. the whole election was given over to the house of representatives. we had these competing factions in the house of representatives. you had crawford from georgia. you had henry clay and calhoun and jackson. jackson won the popular voted, but he did not win the electoral college. when the politicking was going on in the house of representatives, there was an opportunity to make deals. one of the deals that was made was that henry clay would become the vice president and items with win the election. once we come out of that

election, the buildup to the other election is that that was a corrupt bargain. >> you described 1824 setting the stage for 1828. the 1828 campaign was older enmity fought together again. how did it play out? >> in 1824, jackson was not quite sure he was ready to be president. when he won the vote and it was stolen from him, he knew he was meant to be president. he thought the election had stolen the people's presidency. when he came out in 1828, he came out fighting. >> what was interesting about the campaign was that it was a precursor to modern campaigning. he and his surrogates for out on the stump. as many as 800,000 more americans voted in that election

as they had in the previous ones the -- the previous one. how had he thought of that? >> it was the growing development of a national party that martin and iran had been working on with people -- martin van buren had been working on with people in the south. this was a time of great technological change. we had real growth and newspapers and new communication methods coming to bear as well as a much larger electorate. we had general white male suffrage in all of the states. there were more people taking and there was more opportunity to hear about it. >> the western states had come in. >> rachel jackson became an issue. this is the first time in our early country's history that people targeted the wife of a presidential candidate. >> abigail adams had taken some

hard hits from the press. that sort of thing had happened. this was the first time someone actually went out trying to find what they thought was a search and publicize it widely. >> was the first one looking for dirt? >> a man who hated jackson and wanted to see jackson go down. when he thought out she had been the voice, he really despise her. he was rigorously fundamentalists. it was a moral issue for him. he really thought she would disgrace the white house. >> he did not do it, but he did not stop it. hammon was his party hack.

he did not come down on him. he just sat back and said, oh my goodness. >> we saw in the open, political cartoons. was this a new phenomenon? >> yes. to call a lady that had been married for 36 years a bigamous or an adulterous was unprecedented. >> what was she accused of? >> was accused of being married before. and she was. she was married to a man who

treated her and her family very badly. her whole family hated him. out west, they did not believe you had to stick by your man if he was horrible. they believe in dissolving an unhappy marriage, so they did. >> also, criticism of her and her western frontier lack of class. >> she had an accent. she had a tennessee accent. she did not have an east coast accent. >> were opponents concerned about what the image for the new country would be if he made it to the white house? >> there is a strong class issue running through all of this. it is difficult to talk about in

a country that does not have class. would this person be virtuous enough to represent the united states? is this person genteel enough to represent the united states? >> the great tragedy is that after this was a freeze campaign, he went to the white house and she is preparing to go after this campaign, he went to the white house and she was preparing to go with him and what happens? >> she died. she thought people would be rude to her and they might snub her. she thought about not going. she decided that would be admitting they were wrong. she decided to go. on december 22, she died of a heart attack. >> and she was buried in a dress she planed to wear to the inaugural ball.

>> this is our first video of the night. we will be showing you video throughout the night. we will take you to the heritage, their home in tennessee and learn more about what enter jackson carried throughout the rest of his life after rachel. >> we do not know what kind of health rachel was in overall. after the fall of 1828, her health was not good. the campaign for president that jackson was going to have a huge effect on her health. this is a letter jackson wrote on this day that rachel actually died, december 22, 1828. he is writing to his friend. he describes the onset of rachel's illness, her final illness.

he says that she was suddenly, violently attacked with pains in her left shoulder and breast. a contraction of the breast, that suffocation was apprehended. it was clear she was in a serious condition. he talked about getting ready to go to washington like he is assuming she will get better and off they will go. unfortunately, she passed away later in the day. according to the stories of her death, jackson called for her to be bled when she died. he was a big believer in a row of medicine, medicine that did not kill you, would cure you. even though she was not alive anymore, he asks the doctor to bleed her. supposedly, there is a small stain on the cap, the little blood that came out when the doctor tried to bleed her. we have a lancet that the doctor would have used to cut her open. we have some things about this

morning. a black calling card -- his mourning. a black calling card to suggest he was in deep mourning. a book that was given to him by a friend of his that has a long inscription. it is a book called the mourner comforted help them read things that would help them along. jackson was completely devastated. had it with him all the time, on his chain or in his pocket or on his bedside table so that he could see it in the morning when he awakens. for her to die just as he was actually preparing the plan is to get on the steamboat to go to washington was almost more than he could deal with. this was painted while he was in washington after rachel's death. had it with him all the time, on his chain or in his pocket or on his bedside table so that he could see it in the morning when

he awakens. she was with him pretty much all the time even though she had passed away. this was a book that was important to jackson. this was in rachel's psalm book. she made this cross stitch cover to keep the book nice. after her death, jackson kept things like this close at hand so that he could refer to them, another way of keeping her clothes. jackson had a habit after she died of purchasing more using our keeping things that reminded him of our. this was the central hall of the hermitage manchin. although the house burned after rachel's death, jackson insisted they repurchase the same

wallpaper they had chosen. she liked it and it reminded him of her and he wanted it here. this is jackson's bedroom. after rachel's death, she was not very far away from him. he kept many mementos of her around. he had a portrait that was a favorite of his copy so that he could have been hanging over the fireplace so that it would be the first thing he saw in the morning and the last thing he saw at night according to the tradition and stories passed down by the family. he would go out to her tomb every sunday and spend some time out there either thinking about her or thinking about the problems of the day. he wanted the feeling of her close by. >> this program is interactive. we welcome your but dissipation. there are lots of ways you can do that.

you can call us. our phone number is -- if you live in the eastern time zone. you can send us a tweet. if you do, use the hashtag #firstladies. here is a tweet, who writes, did rachel have plans about what the jackson life should or should not be like in washington, d.c.? >> she did. she did not like expensive entertainment. she liked to go hear the leading creatures of the day and have family and friends around her in the white house. i think it would have been a domesticated white house. >> the same person ask another question. given her public scrutiny, did in the famous dignitary's attend

her funeral? do either of you know the answer to that? >> she was buried two days after she died. given the way news traveled and people travel, no one could have made it. all of the local dignitaries, all of the church bells tolled. everything close down. there was a huge attendance at her funeral. >> time to step back and telling a little bit of the great love story between rachel and andrew jackson. who was rachel donelson jackson? >> it was one of the daughters of the first family of tennessee. they made a trip during which many of the people on the trip died. they were some the earliest white settlements. her family was quite positive in

the area. she was part of the gentry of tennessee. >> we have a question from someone wanting to know how unusual it was for someone, at the age of 24, to be on their second husband? was that considered unusual at the time? >> not particularly. people die all the time, particularly on the frontier. most people remarry because you needed to have the support in order to live. >> the original theory was that they divorced. >> widows and widowers always remarry. it was peculiar for someone not to remarry. >> her first husband was -- >> he was about 10 years her senior. >> why did they make the match?

>> the war between the whites and the indians was so ferocious and so strong, the whites wanted to stay there. the indians did not want them there. the battle for territory. the donelsons went to kentucky where things were safer. >> how long did the marriage lasts? >> not long. 3 or four years. he was too mean. >> he was a nasty, abusive person. >> it take courage for her to leave him? -- >> did it takes courage for her

to leave him? >> it took courage for her family. she adored her family and they adored her. they were part of the whole decision for her to elope. >> who was andrew jackson when she met him? >> nobody. he was one of the borders at her mother's house. he lived in one of the cottages with another batch of a lawyer. you might say, why is one of the gentry renting out cottages? in terms of this being an ongoing war, to have extra guns on hand is always a good thing. >> explain a little bit more about tennessee in that time and what the country looked like. >> this was the far west. it was recently settled.

most of the settlers theater came by river the long way or they came over the mountains. this was still rough country. it was not as subtle as kentucky. >> next is a question. this is from mitchell in nashville, tennessee. >> put up that rachel's birthday was in june and you included a month and day. my understanding was that no one knew her exact burth mont -- birth month and date. >> that is true. it is believed it was in june. >> if i am not mistaken, only white property owners voted during that time. is that correct? >> that is correct. in the early days, it was only white property owners of certain

standing. the franchise expanded to generally being white males. >> rachel meets the tall andrew jackson. they are attracted to each other. how did their marriage take place? >> all his life, jackson truly liked women. he loved her mother and saw her as a mother figure. he could not bear to see women mistreated or badly treated in any way. his gallantry was involved with what he saw was the abuse of of this woman. when they fell in love, they decided to elope. they stayed several months, close to a year. when they came back, they said, we are married now.

her whole family, including her mother said, this is our son-in- law, andrew jackson. who is going to tell them, no? people just accepted it because the family, neighbors, and friends accepted it. >> when did the details come about that their divorce was not finalized? >> the divorce was filed in virginia. there were stipulations in the settlement that it had to be posted a certain amount of time and in different places. he did not go through with posting all of it. he was playing games with the whole divorce anyway. >> so who is at fault?

[laughter] >> he had to take it to court in kentucky before a jury. at that time, they had been living together as a married couple for two years. when she was accused of adultery, she was living with andrew jackson. if she had gone bad -- gone back, she would have still been married to this person she hated. >> when did the hermitage become their home? >> my mind is going blank. early in the 18th century. they started in that area. they started in a bigger place. he got into some financial trouble and they moved to the hermit is. at that time, it was a log house. >> our next video is a glance at rachel and andrew jackson's life at the hermitage. >> he was retiring for a while. when they first moved here, he spent a lot of time at home. the primary people who would

have visited prior to the war of 1812 would have largely been friends and relations from the area. rachel had a huge family. they have lots of kids. there was a lot of them and they were in and out all the time. rachel was close to her family. jackson was an orphan and grew close to rachel's family. emily donelson, the house she grew up in, is less than two miles away from here. he has become this national hero and there were people here all the time. rachel was the knowledge to be a pretty nice hostess, cordial and welcoming. during jackson's saying after the battle of new orleans from 1815 to the rest of her life, they have lots and lots of company. they had many, many parties or

even in jenner's here at the hermitage. -- dinners here at the hermitage. they acquired a good deal of silver as they went along, such as these cups. they would have been used for an evening party where some highly the third up punch was served. -- liquored up punch was searched. it was more about her comfort in big cities than it was about her actual appearance or clothing. she was not a fan of anything that took into jackson away from the hermitage. during the war of 1812, there were letters from her that say things like, do not let fame and

fortune blind you to the fact that you have a wife, i am home, and i need you. he knew pretty well that she would have preferred him to stay home and the plantation owner andrew jackson. this is the earliest letter we have said jackson wrote to rachel. it was written in 1796 when he was in east tennessee on business. it is addressed to her, my dearest heart. it is with great displeasure that i sit down to write to you. what pleasing hopes i view the future when i am restored to your arms or i can spend my days

in domestic sweetness with you, the deer companion of my life, never to be separated from you again during this fluctuating life. the garden was always considered one of her really special places. lots of comments from visitors about her gathering flowers. there is one story. when a young lady was here on her honeymoon and she and her husband were invited to stay. she mentions that the garden was special to rachel. when they were preparing to leave, to move onto the next stage of their honeymoon, she walked in the garden with rachel and rachel gathered flowers and this is where they left.

>> i don't know that we know that. he was shrewd politically but i think he probably -- he probably took care of the political sphere himself. >> i would think practically no for sure. we have no records of such -- we have a lot of their letters and they're always personal or financial but they're really not politics. >> we were talking before the program began about jackson's large personality and how sure he was of his opinions. would you talk about that? >> he was absolutely sure of his beliefs wholeheartedly and when he saw people who disagreed with him, he often took that as a sign of enmity and that was really difficult. >> personal. >> personal enmity, yes. >> so that would be further thinking he might not have sought guidance from any other person? >> what he really couldn't stand was someone who was a friend or worse yet, a relative, who disagreed with him because that was really personally dishonest as far as he was concerned. >> we'll learn more about how that unfolds in his presidency as the conversation continues. next is loy in durham, north carolina. welcome to the conversation.

caller: hi. how many slaves did the jacksons have in tennessee and would those same slaves travel with them in the white house? .>> thank you. either of you know the answer to that? >> they had 300-odd slaves. it was a rather large plantation. but, no, nobody at the time would travel with large numbers of slaves. they would bring perhaps a couple of personal servants but things had become iffier as sentiment grew in the north and it became less and less possible to bring slaves to free territories. >> so jackson wins election and comes to washington. tell the story of his inaugural party. >> he has the inauguration, he

arrives on horseback back to the president's house and the public is invited but there are about 20,000 people who had attended the inauguration so the house is open to the public and this is the democratic republic of the people of the west and they crash into the house and dance on the tables, they drink all the wine. there was a 1600 pound cheese that had been sent as a gift to the new president that was completely devoured during this time so the white house was really, really beaten up pretty bad. even jackson had to be escorted

out because they feared for his safety. >> he left the party early and went back to his hotel to go to bed. >> over our past several programs, we have been talking about the burgeoning and strong washington society developing in the town. how did it react to this opening of the white house to the masses? >> with horror, you know, margaret smith, who was quite a socialite and kept diaries and letters said, oh, the pity, the pity, it's not the way it was with every other party after an inauguration, it was part of the select few who came, not the public. >> once the party, the inauguration party was over, this is a man you described as being in intense mourning. was the white house social for a few years after that? >> it wasn't social very much at all for the first year. they had to refinish it and

replace all the drapes and chair seats where muddy boots had been trampling and put things together and even after that, to the disappointment of washington society, they said, we're in deep mourning, we will not be giving parties. >> let's take a quick glimpse at america in that timed about census bureau statistics. this is america in 1830, population at this point, 12.9 million in 24 states and once again more than 30% growth since the 10 years earlier census. there were two million slaves, about 15% of the population. and the largest cities continued to be east coast -- new york, philadelphia and baltimore. what else should people know about the period in this country? >> it's a period of incredible change. much like the period that we've gone through in the last, with the information revolution. this was a huge period of change. we had gone from an agrarian society that thomas jefferson was talking to being of multiple ethnicities, multiple religions, waves of immigration, the railroads, the telegraph, all kinds of things were changing the way life was lived. >> what was happening to the north-south unity at this point? were we seeing the seeds of the civil war? >> north-south unity was a

difficult one. the founding fathers had never settled that question because it wasn't easy to settle. by the time you get to 1820, we have an economic crisis in 1819 and then we have the admission of missouri and the missouri crisis which precipitates a free fix, we'll put in one free state and one slave state and won't talk about slavery anymore. by the time we're in the late '20's and early '30's, the spector of slavery is casting a shadow over america. >> next question. caller: i was calling, chatham is the county seat of pennsylvania county, virginia, and we have in our courthouse a portrait of rachel because she was born here supposedly in 1767 which was the year we broke off and organized our county and her father was a surveyor and she

supposedly left her when she was 12 and the gossip was that he had to leave town because they were kind of interested in some of his surveys but anyway, we do have the site marked and we have rocks left from the frame house. did virginia play any part -- you know. >> thanks, mary. we'll pick it up from her. do you know this part of her biography? >> it was where she was born and lived until she was 12 when they decided to go over the mountains to the new territory but basically we know nothing about her girlhood. we extrapolate it was like the girlhood of other children on the western edges of settled territory. >> next is joellen in columbus, ohio. you're on the air. caller: hello. i was calling to see if rachel had any children.

>> no. despite her deep wish for children, rachel had no children. she was one of 11 and those of her brothers and sisters who married had very large families, as well. but she had no children of her own. she had -- they adopted one of twin sons that belonged to her brother and sister-in-law when they were middle aged so there was an andrew jackson jr. who was her nephew. >> and there was another son, jackson had been in battle and found -- and had slaughtered many people, women and children, found an infant, tried to give it back to a creek woman who was alive. she said, you'd best kill him, you've killed all of his family anyway. jackson takes him home and raises him as a son. it's a very interesting kind of story because here's jackson, the indian killer, and yet he's

adopted this son and raises him as his own. >> he writes a lot of letters to rachel saying there's something special, he's an orphan, i was an orphan, there's some reason i found him and he's not to be in the servants' quarters. he's to be in the house and he's to be educated. he wanted to send him to west point but john quincy adams was president by then so it was impossible. >> first year was a fairly quiet one and the social side of the white house and social means politics by this time in washington so at what point does he decide he actually needs assistance? >> well, emily, rachel's niece and nephew, were with him all of this time, that they were so close, all these nieces and nephews, all named the same name so it's difficult sometimes to figure out which andrew donelson we mean but this particular young man had been one of their

wards and became the president's secretary. he had married his first cousin, emily donelson, and they planned all along to come with the jacksons and they went ahead and accompanied him. >> how did she create the role of first lady in the administration? >> she had lovely manners. she was a very pretty girl, young, in her early 20's. she had very good manners, had been trained in a lady's academy in nashville. >> washington society loved her. >> they loved her and one of the main reasons they loved her was because she was young and malleable and the old grande dames of washington could run

all over her as they could not someone like rachel. they always liked the innocent young nieces. >> as someone who cast himself as the people's president, he lived fairly large in the white house, it seems. fairly nice parties and lots of money spent on redecorating. how did that square with his public image? >> he believed with democracy with a small d and he was very concerned about moneyed interests and elites controlling the country so that is the core of the democracy he was trying to create. he really believed in people being part of the democracy. >> but it didn't preclude entertaining. >> it didn't preclude him being cultivated and having manners and becoming a lawyer and learning how to interact in caller: yes.

i'd like to know, what was the big to-do about the election of 1828? we know what was said about rachel jackson, but what was the comments on the other side? >> well, there were. >> among other things, they said john quincy adams was a pimp which is the most ridiculous thing you could possibly image. it was based on a little thing but had nothing to do with sexual activities. they said a lot of bad things about adams and also about his wife. she was, after all, they believed, a foreigner. she was born in great britain even though she had american parents and legally was an american but they saw her as a possibly foreign influence. >> and she wasn't happy in the white house particularly either. she was very cultivated and washington was a squat little town really at this time. >> we promised scandal, intrigue. it wasn't just in the 1828 and

rachel jackson and the criticism she received but also what became known as the peggy eaton affair which colored and framed much of the jackson presidency. who was peggy eaton and how did this unfold? >> peggy eaton was the daughter of a washington, d.c., hotel keeper, tavern owner. many politicians stayed in his hotel and the family got to know them well. she was beautiful. she was well educated. she liked to sing and perform. she actually sometimes appeared in public, which, god forbid, any lady should do. so she was seen as not quite quite. >> she was beautiful. she was vivacious, and she didn't really know her place. she really interfered and went into situations that were part of the men's women and this was a period in the american history which domesticity is specific

and there's the women's sphere and the men's sphere and the women's sphere is to guard the household and the morals of society while the men go out and fight in this new capitalist world. margaret eaton and i call her margaret because that's what she liked to be called. i think peggy is a bit of an insult because she didn't like to be called that. she really was somebody who was going up against a different class and was going at it in a very difficult way. she was outspoken and bold and that was not a woman's role. >> how did she become an issue for the cabinet? >> her husband killed himself. he was a pursuer on a naval vessel, he killed himself so she was a widow. >> with two children. >> yes. and one person who had consistently lived at the

o'neal's hotel was john henry eaton who was one of jackson's closest friends, supporters, a close friend and supporter of rachel throughout all the bad times and he was worried, at margaret's suggestion, that he might have ruined her reputation. there was a lot of talk they had had an affair and that's why her husband killed himself and so he asked jackson, should i marry her? and jackson said, certainly. he was always for love and romance. >> and jackson was familiar with her. >> he liked her. >> he stayed in the same boarding house and knew her when she was a young girl so he felt she was perfectly respectable and this was a good thing. >> how did it rise to the level of a cabinet scandal? >> they married too soon. >> they married too soon.

>> she should have been mourning for at least a year and she married john eaton well before that and that was a problem. >> well, and besides that, once the cabinet was named and it includes eaton and his wife, whose social bona fides are not so good, and then she presses right ahead and goes and calls on one of the haughtiest of the wives of the other men, floride calhoun and floride refuses to return her call. in those days, that was akin to slapping someone in the face. >> society was very structured and the protocol of society was very structured and the first person you would see when you came into town, you would visit the vice president and you would leave your card, so she started in on this process but she did it incorrectly and floride calhoun was not about to return a call to this woman. >> it came to a point where jackson's cabinet was in an uproar and many resignations

because of it. >> all the wives except one refused to call on peggy eaton or when the president gave a big party and she was an honored guest often at his side attempting to force these women to recognize her, it was, hello, and they would walk on. everything was so cold and so ugly and margaret was totally mortified and the worst of all, among those who gave the cut to margaret was emily donelson, his niece. >> we have two quotes from andrew jackson at the time period that gives you the sense of the president's involvement and peak over the so-called petticoat affair. "do you suppose i have been sent here by the people to consult the ladies of washington as to the proper persons of the cabinet?" and to peggy eaton herself --

did it become a constitutional crisis with his cabinet resigning? >> well, it did, and unfortunately, it's jackson's gallant defending of margaret eaton that turns it from a social crisis into a political crisis. he couldn't leave it alone. he spent enormous amounts of time trying to defend her honor, getting affidavits about where she was, tracking down the people who made these terrible comments, and finally it becomes, in his mind, that it has to be an attack against him, as well, it's not just margaret, it's an attack against him. >> that's when he grows to hate calhoun. >> that's when he sees calhoun behind all of this. >> bringing this back to niece donelson because you said she was malleable but also told us he could not abide by close people, especially family

members, who disagreed with him. what happened between the two? >> she was so influenced by the ladies that she joined in the -- really, the ostracism of margaret eaton and he demanded and she did receive her at the white house, but he demanded that she treat her as a friend and she would not and so he sent her home. >> next is a question from john in annandale, virginia. hi, john. caller: hi, great series, as always. i'm wondering how andrew jackson's personality or approach was affected by him becoming a widower, if at all. i know wilson, for example, quickly remarried, which wasn't the case here. but was there any noticeable change in him? >> he was devastated. >> yes. he was not just devastated,

though. he was embittered. his whole first term really didn't accomplish anything because he was either in mourning or he was attempting to help peggy eaton out, he was fighting with his favorite niece and nephew. he had to actually -- he asked his cabinet to resign. it was a whole huge thing that involved him because he saw her as a surrogate for rachel. if they could treat her this way, they might have treated his wife that way. and he could not let it go. >> next up is a call from dorothy in westerville, ohio. hi. caller: hi. thank you so much for taking my call. the program has been remarkable so far. my question is, how did rachel deal with andrew jackson's fiery temper? i'll hang up and listen for your answer.

>> thank you. >> the only person who actually could control jackson when he was in a rage was rachel. one particular time they were going down river and there was a boat ahead of them with a number of happy young bucks who were all drunk who were zigzagging, zigzagging, zigzagging, so their boat was held up and he took out a gun and he said, i'll just kill a couple of them and she stopped that whole operation. >> next is nancy from new jersey. hi, nancy. caller: fabulous. i would like to know if either of your guests have seen the old movie depicting the jacksons with charlton heston and susan hayward. it showed a beautiful love story. it was accurate? >> it wasn't particularly accurate but it had great looking actors and it was really romantic. i loved it.

the book came out, "the president's lady" in 1961. it was a best seller for years. >> last question for this part of our program is from gary robinson on twitter and it sets the stage for the next half hour of our conversation. what was secretary of state van buren's role in the petticoat affair and jackson's cabinet? >> secretary of state van buren had the unfortunate benefit of being a widower himself so he didn't have to have this social political push from his wife as the other cabinet members did. he was free to go and see margaret eaton and he. did he called on her frequently. he treated her well, and he gained tremendous, tremendous respect from jackson for that.

it's very interesting 19th century historian who says the whole political history of the last 30 years -- and he's writing at the beginning of the civil war -- can be attributed to the moment when the soft hand of martin van buren touched mrs. eaton's knocker. although there's a double entendre there, it points out the fact that martin van buren undercuts calhoun and steps in and places himself in position to be the next one to run for president where calhoun had been the natural choice. >> how did it become a successful bid for the presidency? >> it was somewhat complicated. he resigned. he got the -- he got eaton to resign, he got the rest of the cabinet to resign and then he got appointed -- jackson said you can't just resign, that's not good. i have to do something for you so he nominated him to be the minister, basically ambassador,

to great britain, and martin van buren left for great britain happy to be the new ambassador to the court of st. james and calhoun who was the seated vice president had the deciding vote in the senate on the appointment of this nomination and he cast a vote against it, infuriating jackson, and sealing van buren's future. >> martin van buren comes to the white house, the first northerner, far northerner, new york state. >> from new york state. >> he was the first born as an american. >> first born with american citizenship as his birth right. >> and another first, the adams were of english heritage. he was dutch. >> he grew up speaking dutch. english was a second language to him so he was from a different culture. >> and a widower president coming to the white house. his wife died many years before and to set the stage for our conversation on his white house and first lady who served him,

we're going to listen now to white house historian bill seale. >> president truman's favorite portrait because she was pretty. she was a southern belle, a tall girl. today you would say she was athletic looking. she married abraham van buren, met him at saratoga springs. she was from columbia, south carolina, was a belle and had plenty of money at the time. the singletons were a big, big family. she had plenty of money, bought pretty clothes. she was apparently a lot of fun so she and abraham went to europe on their honeymoon where she was introduced to young queen victoria approximately her age and was so excited about the way the queen received women that she came back to the white house and had a platform built at the end of the blue room which was called the blue room for the first time in that administration, van buren, and

she received all her friends all in white at the end of the room and they just nodded, they didn't shake hands or anything. it was not taken very well at all. imagine a country that never allowed ambassadors to wear uniforms. they didn't t the platform was removed. she lived on to the 1870's in new york, married to abraham. and not a lot known about her. very few letters and she was i guess what you would call a belle at that time. she didn't worry about things much. >> martin van buren came to the white house as a bachelor with a number of sons and was it a quiet place in his term here? >> yes. it was very quiet. he was facing a tremendous political crisis because of the panic of 1837 which he inherited from jackson and jackson's policies. >> several weeks after he was inaugurated so it struck like that.

>> and it went on so that he was a depression president. >> he was a depression president and this was the first huge economic depression the united states had had. we had a small one in 1819 but it wasn't nearly of this scale. basically, we had already had an interconnected global economy and there were calls out on banks from london, there were calls out to american banks, they didn't have the money. and they collapsed. and as the banking crisis started to go out, we don't have a national currency at this point, state banks started to collapse and everything dries up. >> what was the depth of the depression for most americans? >> oh, boy. by that may there were riots over food in new york city. it was really serious. >> it was still going on in 1842, 1843. it didn't go away.

>> it got a little bit better but not nearly for a long time. it was really a good five years. >> did he have a cabinet or his own personal ability to -- skill set to help resolve the crisis? >> well, presidents don't hold all these levers even now and this is before we have a fed although he did recommend an independent treasury system which is something like that but martin van buren and the democratic party had been arguing against federalism and against these federal projects so they sort of backed themselves into a corner on that. >> i don't think anyone at that time could have dealt with a major depression. they just had to wait for the economy to heal. >> they didn't have the tools. they really didn't know what was causing it and they certainly didn't have a structure in place, for example, we have the fed today that will loan money to banks that are having runs so they don't close and don't go under -- but we didn't really solve this problem until we got

to the new deal. >> and with this great trial going on in the rest of the country, how interested was the van buren administration in having a social side? >> he was a very social person. that was one of his great skill sets. charming little dinner parties. he was very personable. he, like jackson, always liked women and loved women friends so there was still -- there was still a social side to the white house because a lot of his politicking was done socially. >> he would go elsewhere but in terms of large-scale entertaining, the new year's day party, which was traditional, was pretty much his big party until his eldest son married angelica singleton. >> here is where we bring in dolley madison and what role does she have to play in this administration? >> referred to by carl anthony brilliantly as the queen mother, i think, she had a beautiful cousin, angelica singleton, martin van buren had four single

sons including his secretary and chief aide and she introduced them all at a dinner party. >> why was dolley madison back in washington? >> her husband had died. >> and they had to sell off the plantation. >> her son wasn't the best manager so she moved back to washington. she also loved the washington scene. >> she bought a house on lafayette square. she was right there. and she immediately jumped in to the social swing where she had been happiest and she came back there as a widow. >> back to calls. terry in independence, missouri, as we talk about the van buren administration. hi, terry. are you there? we have lost her. let's go to kentucky. >> all right, we've lost terry. let's go to shawn in louisville, kentucky. first, it's about mrs. jackson. she had a son who

passed away. and also i would like to comment on angelica's impression with hostess in the white house and representing the abroad.n administration and how dolly madison influenced lady.ole as first thank you, i enjoy the program immensely. >> okay. much. you so >> and the adopted indian child that died also shortly after jackson went to washington. singleton's first year, van buren spent the first year in the white house without a hostess. nextmarried in november of year. '38-'39 hostess for the season. everybody thought she was beautiful and glamorous. job.did a fabulous they went on an extended honeymoon through europe and she

met the queen of england and she really took to it. madam lly had gone to grillo's french academy and she learned all of this. back for the me next season is when she sort of had a problem. that's when she tried the tableau at the new year's open house. country that's interested in democracy. 24 is just the beginning of the election dential season and here's angelica acting in a queenly manner. go over well. >> here's presidential -- erings on twitter asking this may be self-evident. did angelica van buren want to lady or was it expected of her as the only woman in the family? >> she was dying to. she was excited. and s all glamour wonderment. she wanted a bigger stage for herself too. on facebook, angelica van buren was a new bride when she duties.hostessing

what was public opinion of her? >> at first it was very positive. she's young. people like to see newspaper cuts of her and all that. the trip to europe that did her in and that did a great van buren m to the administration. she was too naive to realize gone overboard and she was shocked when public out at her ed because we were in a depression. here she was posing with ostrich feathers on a dais as if she were the queen. present herself? the dais and -- > they built it to the blue room. we were here for martha, i said here was no dais in the receiving room. she sat on a sofa. been so d have anti-republican. angelica didn't know better. and francen victoria

and she thought she could be platform,he built the wore the ostrich feathers and in white. after the newspapers and particularly after the whig talking ns took over about born with golden spoons in their mouths and wasting the they actually tore out the platform. well flipside of it, how did the europeans receive the first couple? allow. liked her a >> louis felipe thought she was incredible. storm.ook europe by >> did that help with international politics? the image? not exactly. ngelica's mother's brother was the minister of the court of 126789 james. a holdover from that administration. van buren kept him on. stuff because he was a slave breeder by an irish

militant. growing tension there. on he publicity of angelica the positive side didn't really cover up those deeper problems. > tonight we're telling the story of two widowed presidents for themelatives serve as the role of first lady in the white house. why was it so important for unmarried and widowed presidents to have a hostess. ould that be true for a single president today? >> i don't know that. probably not. >> there's some importance to it. not as much today as there was then. in a parliamentary system when chief of state, a prime minister, the president, here's someone to do the ceremonial duties and we pile ll of that on a president, there's a function there for the president's partner that may sound too modern. a social and entertaining piece that is there.

it was difficult for the bachelor presidents to pull that a female. having >> entertaining women of the imes, there had to be a hostess. a man alone couldn't do it. thomas jefferson was well known good t being a entertainer, preferring a evening with men only. oh but basically to have the large entertainments to greet lady ates, you needed a hand. >> this is a very peculiar instance that we have. this is a house. it's the woman's sphere again. it's the white house, so it's a charged political sphere, but it's still the woman's sphere. so there's a tension between the politics and society. that the heightened here in the house. >> here's chad watching us in baltimore. what's the question, chad? angelica tion is when

victoria,ted to queen what was victoria's impression of angelica? charmed by he was victoria. they were about the same age. >> i really think the european fascinated and they were eved that civilized. hey weren't backwoods barbarians which is what they expected of americans. >> angelica's family was very wealthy. singleton was extremely wealthy. angelica herself had a great interest in fashion. he would have come in the finest and the best portrait. she was polished. of two a merger different family cultures. ton coming from the plantation life wealthy in

south. with the van burens from new york state, very different sort of approach. work between the two of them. >> van buren was not a back ward country clod. van buren loved the society. was known as little magician because he was always pulling a lot of plans and disliked him, like calhoun, would say, oh, he just appeals to the ladies. the ladiesks through through the back door. become brought up in d.c. >> some people here didn't even story.e but martin van buren is esponsible for us, the universal expression, "okay". > the election of 1840, supporters of van buren who started referring to him as old kinkederhook. okay had just hit the streets in boston and it was icked up by the campaign as a

way to talk about old kinkeder hook. it stuck. universal the expression we all see all the time. city, utah. >> i would like to know if beyond did anything thoeszing, whether she did any public advising. mormon people on the frontier were disappointed in her with the g causes because they had conflict with the other frontiersmen. did she do anything with that sort of thing or was she a he's nothing in the public sphere that was really the man's world. evidence of her delving into politics. civilin life, even in the war, she's quite quiet about in e her sentiments fell anything political. she really does not express a political view. she does not have any influence. >> the influence in politics is a negative one by the perception administration.

>> because of her mistake. he was young and she made mistakes. >> did she recover? >> she did, i think. they tore on the dais and she stopped doing the posing. then, the administration was almost over anyway. it. was part of what sank >> this wasn't -- you know, this wasn't -- angelica wasn't mentioned in this terrible depression. serious interest in the united states. one.e removal being a huge these are big difficult issues. besides, the north and the south apart from each other and the room for rapidly on is evaporating. the center isn't going to hold. more detail, the question from the caller about the mormons and van burens? >> i don't. let's take a question now

from bill in staten island, new york. hi, bill, you're on the program. welcome. hi, how are you doing? >> hi. side bar.another in the book about aaron buhr, he trueuates that buhr is the father of martin van buren. how serious is that claim? >> it's called burr, the novel. tale. delightful he did look at something like that that it's almost impossible. during the campaign of 1840, that was raised. a close had been associate of aaron buhr, jackson been a close associate of aaron buhr as well. him.charmed by martin van od that buren's mother living in the kintderhook new york

after having the kids already, she had been married before, having an affair with aaron buhr is highly unlikely. >> bethany johnson on twitter. would like to know if angelica had any kids. >> yes, she did. that's one thing about the women n the white house, they're pregnant much of the time. they're pregnant, given birth, dies and r the child they're in mourning. that was her situation. pregnant twice in the white house. the first child she lost, rebecca. shortly after that tableau scene, she retreated from public she was already pregnant and women were kept in private after that. so -- three boys after that. after the presidency. she had three boys. singleton, travis, and martin iii. > kerry in independence missouri? >> hello. >> hi. you're on, carrie? wondering why martin

van buren didn't marry after his died? >> interesting question. martin van buren talks little about them. cousins, they t knew each other growing up. hanna was his wife. these children together. he had her reinterred in in his life.later but we don't have too many stories of him having romantic with don't understands other women, or even -- even he has proposing friendships but he never seems romantic connection. >> why didn't martin van buren hanna in his autobiography. is that true? >> true. he did not mention her. a rambling bit of an autobiography. it's 800 pages long. might ld think that he have -- actually, his son, john, when he had his first child anted to name the girl after

his mother. and he wrote to his father, was name "hanna" or "anna." much to his sons very much about his wife. he kept a locket of a painting her with him and that's all we know. >> we're going to take people by you noel next e which is the historic home -- that the storic home van burens occupy. can you tell us about it before we see it. lindenwald was the house he bought while he was president. he bought it in case the white didn't work out. we know that it didn't. it was the ancestral home of one his them cease in kinkederhook. pleased to acquire that property. in 're going to visit it kinderhook, new york. angelica and her husband would spend the summers here. there were occasions when they ould spend parts of the winter

months but the summer months here. for most of the time, president van buren lived here. here in the dining room, ms. van hostess.ld have been he had many social and political events here. she was at the residence would be the hostess as she e occasions just was from the white house. she was quite refined being that all as so wealthy and had of the appropriate social graces at the time, so much so the from france o was typical of american manners and social graces complimented van buren. he purchased his home in 1839 acres.with 130 later he added another 100 acres and had a successful farm here balance of his life. in the green room, two parlors floor.first typically the women of the house activity, e in politte conversation. they would read or recite from memory.

they would play parlor games in here. angelica van buren was trained harp.ladelphia on the we have a harp here. there were occasions she would played the harp for other female guests in the green room. breakfast room here in lindenwall. this is a room compared to the saw earlier. a place where the family had their daily meals. china you have here is the the china they used in house hold. in july of 1843 when angelica visiting esident were here, she suffered a miscarriage. letters that during that time, she con have a lessed hall.s couch in the main she had another baby girl die as an infant while she was at the white house. and abraham did have

three sons that lived to adulthood. floor, abe second are ham and angelica van buren would have spent a great deal of were visiting her father-in-law, president van buren. dresses own and worn by angelica van buren. imagine her wearing them here at the white house. parisol she would have used in the summer months while she strolling on the grounds of lindenwall. it was a large farm of 240 acres. martin van buren and his daughter-in-law, angelica, had a close relationship. he was a very amiable man. that's why he was successful in politics and she was trained in graces of the 19th century. forink they genuinely cared one another. looking at some of the beautiful clothes, a number f them preserved in different

places. >> the smithsonian museum of lindenwald hasry, some. >> we were talking about the series of the early first ladies nd whether or not they influenced fashion trends in the country. clothes, was se she a fashion trendsetter for the country? that certainly was for proportion of society that could dresses.ose kind of like jackie kennedy, someone to be emulated. used it bout how they after they lost the bhous. >> this is a period in american history when farming was you could make money at. and van buren did put a lot of lindenwald running as a working productive farm and it. money doing so that was an important at onent of the life lindenwald. he had his family there. nieces and ns and

nephews from -- from his wife's come.rs and sisters family stayingleton there. and john van buren and his wife stayed there. he was a house full of family. but he also had continuing political ambitions. >> absolutely. he left the white house. and although he never claimed to it clear if made the country called for him, he step do his duty and forward. in 1844, he thought he was going democratic nomination in baltimore and he didn't. big deal. it was a major crack in this national party between north and south. >> what about the bid for the soilers. president.other dutch theodore roosevelt who bucked the arty he represent in

bull moose election, martin van makes a es and substantial decision that he's what he go against spent his life working for. party run a third campaign with his son, john, and e runs on the free soil, free liberty ticket. it's a very interesting third party. republican of the party. they basically believed in free soil, free men and free labor. >> any evidence that angelica and her brothers or other in the were involved former president's future ambitions? john was involved because he stayed political. others weren't. other sides ofon this issue. >> i think what's interesting, she's is that after

widowed, or actually before, part of spends the last her life in new york city. >> in new york city. cosmopolitan yearning. >> take a call from courtney in naples, florida. hi. grew up in kinderhard in the 1940s. recollection of lindenwald is it was an abandoned home that in total disrepair. were totally wild nd any evidence of a farm was totally absent. at what point did the this property get improved? my rex election is that a man of

some wealth bought the property and started repairing it and then the government took it over. can you fill that part of the story? > your memory is quite accurate? >> van buren and his family lost lindenwald. it went out of the family almost it became an 789 ornate farm house. down.e 1930s it had run it went through other it rations. house.ied to make a tea it never was owned again by nyone with enough money to do anything great for it but never had enough money to ruin it either. so the gentleman you mentioned, campbell restored the house. ried to save it from being a complete ruin. then legislation was passed to ake it part of the national park service it was the national restored the that

house in the 1980. sarasota, florida. good evening. >> hi there. good evening. angelica's g what did while she m was acting as hostess ez in the white house and where they lived while she was there. >> they lived in the white house. the president's staff always lived in the white house in the 19th century. wanted relatives because they wanted people who got along with. orthere was an available son nephew. they lived in the white house in and abraham arters as the secretary and principal aide to his father. >> abraham had been in the seminole war. war, he came back and became a petty master. >> did anyone in van buren's the white house ever mention hanna. she didn't seem to be a very moving figure in his life.

wanted to talk more about that. >> what i really wanted to say was not so buren odd in not mentioning his wife. many 19th century leaders, leaders or scientific would talk about their lives without mentioning wives or children. that was just so personal. to do with their success. >> well, we have about seven left.es what i would like to do is wrap all of this up and talk about period, 1829 to 1841. wo administrations, jackson followed by van buren. very much intertwined with the scandal politicings. so let's talk in a broad sense about the changing country and political parties that brought all this on. major things we forget because we're so comfortable with the united states being a two-party system. a democracy, we forget in the early republican, system sn't a two-party

that the founding fathers hated parties and thought they would democracy. for it really is this generation, wait van buren who says, minute, we need to have an ordered, structured system of making political things happen. that is the party. we have to have a philosophy, show up, vote together on the same thing and hang together or sections of the country and the differences in the democracy control. out of they did. how did washington, d.c. change over the 12 year s? >> it grew like crazy. beginning, of course, it was basically just kind of a big swamp with a lot of trees and dirt. would be a house here three or four blocks and it would be a building there. it finally became actually a city. t became a place to take

account of. what's so important about this it's the time changed m boats have the whole situation about selling from the south that the growing, it's the most profitable part of the country. and abolition sentiment is north. like crazy in the that's why we see someone like running on the free which is in fact an abolitionist party. and avery comes into focus we have set the stage for the most horrific test f democracy that we had of the civil war. >> in this time period, two apolitical first ladies serving in tumultuous times.

>> very much. >> she's loving the old enderings of the white house we're showing. how did the white house change? >> in the jackson administration, the north port co-was added which is the major piece you see sticking out from house. a major addition to the white house. put in plumbing and central heating. he blue room is first called the blue room in the van buren administration. a lot te house changed too. >> jackson spent a lot of money basic repairs.on theme if you fall the history is it starts out a certain way and gets run down break as it does for your own house. they put off repairs. they're do them, pretty much needed, badly needed. especially if you're andrew jackson bringing 20,000 people in your house. davenport, iowa,

you're on the air, welcome. i was wondering why did they relatives?ry their >> okay. isabella, can i ask you how old are? >> 12. >> are you learning a lot program?this >> yes. in thee glad to have you white house audience. thank you for your question. settlements, a limited number of people, oftentimes the the only ones really available to you. uncommon at all. it wasened even uncommon for double first cousins to marry happened too.s people didn't have a sense that odd.as it seemed like a good thing. you knew what that person was like. you knew all about them. there wouldn't be any bad surprises in your marriage.

>> in van buren, he was a dutch speaker. he married to the dutch speakers. a dutch people. >> i want to show you a book written one about martha ashington we showed you earlier. this is the story about rachael so andrew jackson of being gentle and it's available for who want more. only skimmed the surface in the 90 minutes here. isabella and a book michael about a theme brought us back to. that's the changing role for women in politics. women s happening with and their ability to influence politics in this period? >> gaining in that with the movement, there were many women reformers who were part of that great movement who were also feminists. peculiar to n't so see women having opinions. say, oh, did the

young girls have any political influence? not at all. people thought it was the right thing. good thing they didn't think politics. that was changing drastically. > how did the ladies in the administrations deal with the panic of 1837. say not so well? >> they, like everybody else, had no idea what was going on. panic.ly was a >> or how long it would last. call, which e last is john in oklahoma city. john, your last and quick question, please. >> yes. i always uestion was heard that the van burens spoke dutch in the white house. may have answered this. it's kind of a story. what president's family spoke a foreign language in the white house. only answer is often given is the family of martin van buren. dutch.poke

i don't believe his children did. he spoke dutch in kinderhook. riding out d about the the country side to talk to the people who speak dutch. so in that period between his and retirement, the dutch peaking in the hudson valley began to die out even though it had been 150 years since the it. ish conquered >> he lost the election. what happens next in this country? >> what happens next? buren goes home? >> who comes into the white house? hero, the war e hero. william henry harrison. harrison comes in. nfortunately catches pneumonia and dies 31 days later. john tyler, a terrible partiless president. > that sets the stage on the next program, first ladieladies

image.ce and thanks for talking us through interesting early american country, andanging the presidents who led them and helped t ladies who them. we appreciate your time. >> thank you, susan.

>> we bring public affairs events from washington directly in the room ng you whitegressional hearings, house events, and offering gavel-to-gavel coverage of the white house. -span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by the local cable and satellite provider. you can watch us in hd. report boston-based earles and national terrorism correspondents discussed last april's marathon bombings. of the association in journalism. this is an hour and a half. i'm john jenks from kmin can university in illinois. my co-moderator represents media thics division from new york's

iona university. we organized the panel to the worst of domestic terrorism cases in ears and how journalists covered it. we bring you the journalists who hottest ne of the stories from the year and who it.ualized we as journalism educators should learn from the pro, the men and women you see in front of you. story teaches us more specific questions that we can students.o our how to deal sensitively and powerfully in reporting on trauma. how to report the biggest man hunt in decades in a locked down city. to deal with the flood of unsourced information and rumors social media. ongoing port a fluid terrorism investigation. to report a story when

expert and a scene journalist. that would be john. will take 10 to 12 minutes. to we'll open it up questions after everyone is done. and the panelists should feel question each other at that time as well. if you have a question, look for who will moderate that. our first guest to the right is director of engagement for bostonglobe.com and someone who directed the breaking coverage of the bombing and the aftermath. in a second, i'll put up the live blog so you can see some of things they did. kevin cullen to her right is a columnist in ng "the boston globe" and tore himself away from the whitey a few hours to speak to you all. in the bombing coverage, he was voice of boston for many people on tv and in his columns.

john has the unique perspective of having run the marathon, reported on the bombing for news day, and written the definitive boston athletic association that runs the marathon. dena is with npr and lived with the investigation for weeks as searched for clues on the identities, motives, and possible connections. is with the pointer institute and deeply annualized the ethical issues for journalists covering the bombing. with tereasa, go to kevin and john. dena will pick up the story. up.ly will wrap it then go to questions. thank you tereasa? to be here. inviting me e for here. my title as john said is engagement and boston.com and r

"boston globe".com. hat doesn't mean i don't take the opportunity to go back to my roots whennd editing marathon ve blog the every year with a colleague. we do it from the media center a maybe a block from the finish line in copley square. that day all we're concerned live blog the marathon are the elite runners wheelchair racers. the race they finish and hold their press conferences in the hotel, our day is done. the globe.to that day we finished up and as hotel and did the ur year's many years' routine of flagging down a taxi to go back to the globe, i had just

instant, i said to i elf, you know, eric and have never just walked over to he finish line to watch some people finish. maybe i should suggest it to them. was sort of my day done, his day wasn't. he had a lot of technical work paper.ack at the didn't mention it. got back to the taxi. back to the globe. and somebody said, did you hear, bombing a it the finish line. my stuff ed up all of and i -- i ran out to the ewsroom and i set up shop at a desk at the front of the room. it was a desk that i could stand see me.eryone could blogceeded to run our live for the next five days until the in nd brother was arrested watertown hiding in the boat in somebody's back yard. -- my goal for the live

blog and we use a tool called this.le live for you're probably familiar with scribble live. live blogging re tool that a lot of newsrooms use. blog was r the live uncluttered.it very, very clear, concise, as accurate as possible as much information as possible. that ized immediately everybody in the universe was coming to "boston globe".com for information. so hard with traffic that our site went down. our site to the live blog. boston.com, ped in you got the live blog, not the

home page. the same for bos topglobe.com. that lasted thankfully for 20 or 30 minutes. nobody really noticed. hey department want to know anything else. they didn't care about any photos at that point. they just cared about information about the bombings. a tremendous ad responsibility at that point, ll of us did in the news gathering operation to give them as rmation as clearly possible. informationwas iing i got from my colleagues in the ewsroom and from wire stories and writing off of tv as well, i was deleting a lot of material. reporters who were all at the same scene were tweeting. scribblelive, you can bring in tweets automatically of sources you want to. we had a list of reporters field, i it in the

deleted repetition. because i had to keep -- i had users in mind. i had to keep the as yens in mind. and i wanted this to be a clean report. i didn't want them seeing four oncees in the live blog at all about the same thing. that wouldn't help them at the reporters would tweet we all know how big and ego reporters have. and sometimes they would tweet live hey were making appearances. i'm going to be on cnn in 20 minutes. great. and i'll tell you, that's -- i never did that. >> i know you didn't. one asked you to be on tv. true, actually. >> he was the man. he was the man during all of you., i'll tell but that's important for the followers.

i don't mean to tooes the reporters that are friends of mine. it is important for the flowers but not for this live blog. decisionsthe sorts of that i made. the other responsibility uh felt was to the extended friends and family the people who lived in boston and were coming and what communities were involved in the man hunt, for example, so if they haven't loved le to reach their ones or just curious about what it provided information that may have been a source of reassurance for them. there are two things i would like to mention. i don't want to call them -- one misstep. he other was a conscious decision that has been questioned by people including the npr colleague down the table there. one is that you i'm sure you all many news

organizations including us in early on log reported that an arrest had been made of when, the suspects, indeed, an arrest had not been made. that decision to put that in the life blog was made by our editor. great, great news man. there was a reporter in the newsroom who had -- who's a just the top federal law the cement reporter in city. and around anywhere. impeccable law enforcement source. she told brian who it was. editor who itetro was. and the decision was made to after a lot of other news organizations, including cnn and believe abc and i'm not sure what other news organizations reported that we would put the in the ive blog, not

paper, but in the live blog, federal law enforcement source said an arrest had been caveat -- amid conflicting reports. to signal that we only had one source. it was a great one. him.elieve but we don't have any other confirmation yet. it is. it for what the second thing that happened allowed a -- we couple of globe editors and a globe reporters to tweet directly to our main twitter our main accounts, at boston.com and at "boston globe." them made a mistake. he sent out a tweet to our main that an arrest had been made and he failed to attribute cnn. spotted it, we

said, whoa, alarm bells went off. found out who had done it. he felt tishl. mistakes on handling made on social media is not to delete them. want to argue you delete it because you don't want it to be retweeted. as if you're gh, mistake.o cover up your for something this important, we ent out a tweet that was a correction. it's funny the response we got was hey, that's okay, we understand it happens, etc. please be more careful. but it didn't -- it didn't us.ode on o the experience that i had in doing that live blog was that it very difficult at times. i would say most of the calls easy.

i didn't have to make a lot of the calls, fortunately. the things like photographs that we go out which horribly graphic. know, when i think back on it now, that it was -- and easy call not to post the live blog. absolutely ion was critical. during this period of time, days, the five particularly in the man hunt hen we didn't know where they were and they were careening around the city. a tips and difficult situation. but i'd like to think that the those five during days helps keep people informed a little now, maybe bit reassured too as well. [ applause ]

>> well, going from the cutting journalism back to the old part era, that's me. i'm very old school. i consider the street my office. don't spend a lot of time in the newsroom. after the bombings, i spent very little time in the newsroom. there to write my columns. i think i wrote 12 columns in 11 days and eight ipad at either a bar or coffee shop. jesus christ. trying to keep track of the trial. anyway. when the bombing happened, i was away from the finish line. got as close as i could. realized i wasn't going to get close and we had people at the scene, actually.

had steve silver who was it oing the scene when happened. david abell, a reporter. race, didn't he? he ran the race. and was doing work at the finish line. and then john who's more of a still photographer, one of the the business. so we had people as close as you could be. he stuff they produced was remarkable. i knew -- i've covered war. covered terrorism, particularly in northern ireland. and covered the aftermaths of 9/11. so i wasn't a stranger to what like this. situation i over a period of days, eally was as much of the reporting staff as anyone because when something like that happens, you need sources. block a around the long time. i know a lot of people in law enforcement. or in the situation that we lot of what you would

call first responders and the responders at that scene would have been most of the from district four. the police station in the south end. there.a lot of the cops i know the captain. knew the second day -- the first column i tried to make sense of themaking senseless. i n the next day, i knew wanted to do. and then i knew the guys at ladder 17en and tower would have had to have been on the scene because it was around explosions.rom the it was very sensitive. hours of the explosions. eddie d a guye know, kelly. i said if i go down to broadway, hat's what they call the station. would it be okay to go to broadway? you.id let me get back to

it took a while. i remember -- because after a happens, the t cable news networks. it's unbelievable. t's like everybody -- i said i just talked to msnbc. why do you want me? want you. and i was doing this round of things. i was sitting with chris jansing and got a call and eddie kelly said i'm around the corner. got to come right now. said this has go it to be forward fast. i got to go. i went to the fire house at 6:00. this is the kind of town boston is. there's the -- walk ont desk when you into a fire house is always manned by a firefighter. looked there and it was my cousin's kid. i said i didn't know you were in this house. >> eddie kelly lives next door to my sister. >> exactly.

>> he said ed is upstairs waiting for you. there's eddie. i know eddie since he was a kid. older than him. hi said none of these guys want the paper.n i said it makes it hard for me. you?id can i quote he said, i don't care. he said they don't want to look glory hogs. i said i didn't know their names deal.not going to be a big i knew tommy and benny -- i knew all. and i -- particularly shawn mine.en who is a friend of i had known the night before after writing my column, i off at the erie pub in dorchester. i did it for two reasons. i really needed a drink. i was starving. after the bomb, i realized i hasn't eatened. they have a great corn beef sandwich. the pub, alking into deputy fire chief joe penn a great fireman grabbed me.

had his i phone. he said this is shawn, shawn o'brien. get him out of the house. mean, talk t do you to him? shawn, kevin, come have a drink me and joe. e said, no, i don't want to come out. i said, later. shawn at the was scene? he said shawn found the kid. that's when i found out the boy had died. i wasn't to kill him on that spot. later told me shawn was really obviously. this was the story i found that night. that every firefighter on engine richard family. kevin me and the chauffeur, that called the driver. evin his daughter baby sat

martin. the the other two, eddy kelly, in the same is janie tep dance class as who lost her leg. the lieutenant's kid is in with henry. but shawn o'brien, the firefighter who came to martin's body, his daughter, eva, is in as same third grade class martin. he's looking at this kid and knowing that it's his daughter's friend. so that scene to me encapsulated big city boston is. and how personal this was for all of us. like i said, i've covered war, a long ireland for time. northern ireland is a small place. people who got hurt and people who did bad things. it was my home. reportingly different experience. and somebody -- i don't know -- howie kerts on

one of his last shows on "reliable sources," he asked me, it was a conflict of interest you being so so and knowing all these people. i said it was because i knew the fire fighters and i knew a lot the cops and the ems guys that i got information. at the columns i happened, r this there's not a lot hoff thumb sucking. reporting in of them. those guys and women, the policewomen of district four me.w me and trusted that's how i got the information. it was the same thing with -- asking was constantly me to check with my police sources or law enforcement sources. i said i could check with nerve except the fbi. wouldn't tell me if my pants were on fire. that's a long story. that is what i did. so, you know, a lot of the -- a lot of the columns that i had in

two weeks were really hard news. for example, the after the -- m.i.t. cop who was sean callier, his family only wanted to talk to me. i talked to the brothers and column on did a that. after they pinched i call him joker, the second one that of the knew where some cops had gone. j.j. foleys, a great end.on the south i walked in at the same time as s.w.a.t. team.the jerry foley brought the beers. the great sergeant who saved lives the first -- if you listen to the tapes on the the bomb went off, there's a voice in the 9/11 keep the creaming --

roads open. keep the ring road open. screaming. that is danny keeler. i once described him as a former marine. i said i don't think there is such a thing. there was danny in the black s.w.a.t. outfit. younghere with a bunch of cops. toasted and said thank god this is over. the dead said to sean, cop then a third toast. in there to that because they knew who i was. somebody from a tv station showed up, they would have been escorted out of the bar. that kind of stuff -- this was deeply, deeply personal to the town. and at that moment, in a very for us, it's awkward because access is what need.

but you get access at a time ike that if you're trusted, if you're known. it mattered. i said that we -- we spent so time in our business talking about our own demitz, depressing. that is another reason i don't newsrooms.d everybody is like, oh did you hear who got laid off? buyout coming. i don't go in there that much because i don't want to hear that. but when we came out of this at think everybody could look at each other and say, you know, "boston globe" indispensability to the town after this happened. i don't mean to brag, because i other media did incredible. i thought the television stations in boston were incredible. kelly and sean kelly at channel 5. lisa hughes is an anchor in channel 4. mentioned her in the first

column. watching when it happened. i'm watching and it's a mile what?and i'm like, there's lisa standing there. and lisa is married to a guy casey and mike's wife was kill in 9/11. married and adopted his kids and they had a kid together. i'm watching her and saying it doesn't seem fair that she should be doing this. she was just a pro. so tremendous, so poised, so professional. thought, you know, everybody in -- everybody in the business, in our town, i thought responded with incredible professionalism because it was everybody.o it's rare in this business that you get something that's yournal and you have to do job. but that's enough of that. [ applause ]

. >> well, like everyone else in 15, things pril changed very quickly, very me when the for first bomb went off. efore then, i was an author in boston to promote a book on the history of the 125-year-old rganization that staged the marathon since 1897. the boston athletic association. here's the book. as part of the as part of the marathon.running the >> can i be a radio person and pull your mic closer? do.'s what we >> sure. >> thanks. >> i had been in boston for before the a week race. i had been interviewed about the book by the globe, the herald, wbz, the big radio stations in town. npr.y i'd given about four book talks, marathon press conference. it was funny to be part of the press conference and not be the

covering it. book at00 copies of the the hines auditorium and generally had done all of the things that authors were do.posed to all that plus run 26.2 miles. it off on race morning, the globe ran a nice review of my book and a couple of running that came out around the marathon in their arts section and several reporters interviewed me at the start. their stories, needless to say, were never broadcast. what all the reporters asked me about was the past. after all, i had written a book about the history of the race. but after 2:59 p.m., nobody or the out the past history. all of the questions were what now and what next? in the hotel when the bombs went off. i was finished. on the phone with a friend of mine at the press room in the hotel.t

i was telling them a block or so line.the finish i was telling him about my race and asking who won. run the race, you know the kenyans are way ahead of you. said, whoa, we just heard a loud bang. that ranks up stupidity with the naval officer who on december 7, radar operator at pearl harbor, no, no, all of the screens are birds, not enemy planes. told him probably a fuse box blew in the circuit box. the hotel is 100 years old. it wasn't. within a few minutes, calls, texts, e-mails , to see if i was all right and at newsday editor to see if i could help out on-the-scene detail

and report. i couldn't. area was cordoned off as i could see from the enth floor room in the hilton closing down huntington avenue one of the main drags to copley square as you guys know. the other reason i couldn't go was i couldn't walk. ran 26.2 miles and i looked like a character ut of night of the living dead if i tried to walk. so i gave them what i could see, was emergency vehicles racing, screaming down huntington avenue. running and walking from soon guys withnd big guns taking up positions in front of miho tell. scary stuff. and a friend of mine in the metro west area west of boston along the course of the marathon called me. he was going to come in and have dinner with me that night to race and the conclusion of what had seemed like a successful week promoting the book.

of the city.ut you can't do anything to help, which was true, come stay with us. so i said, you know, that's a good idea. get myself out of the city, because traffic was barred from coming in. drive in and pick me up two miles from where the attack had been and drive me out there. meant i had to walk to mass avenue which as these guys know hotel.w blocks from the so i called my wife back home, said this is what i was going to do. i texted my editor and said i leaving. packed up a week's worth of clothes, aty running pens, notebooks, and started alking very slowly down huntington avenue. the sun is starting to set. i had a ski cap pulled down, and a huge n, bulging backpack on and i was walking away from the scene of the crime. so now, you really couldn't imagine a more suspicious

character. 'm surprised i wasn't pulled over. i got to mass avenue. along like huffling this. several cabs slowed down when i looked at me, drove away. one cab driver in boston did not city had been the target of a terrorist attack. ended withe up and i my friends. he next morning, two requests, one was "the new york times" which i also contribute to, that got my attention. news day. the times editor needed an outline of what i was going to say. i didn't know what i wanted to say. maybe something about the the event because i had written the book. that seemed irrelevant at the moment, maybe, maybe not. i cobbled something together on the trip home. it.liked the boss wasn't sure. hey wanted to round table it

understandably. the newsday editor said just write what you want. you.st i told the times which is a very difficult thing for the free to do, thank you, but no thanks. 'm going to do a story for newsday. the next day back home i banged race and rds about my a little bit about the history. it appeared as a full page two later. now i know in news day, i know from silting in on many of these its's tedious -- from watching c-span, it's tedious from their ownad work. but it's like professors reading in class, bad.ok but i want to read the lead of story. this is the op-ed piece that ppeared in newsday two days later. i laughed out loud while running monday.on marathon on this was, of course, hours rocked theexplosions

117-year-old event, desi mated everal family, and shattered the innocence of a city that is so protective of this race. that as back earlier on sun-flashed morning when the task at hand for those of us in simply r's marathon was putting one foot in front of the miles.for 26.2 now, while our efforts shrink given what ficance happened later in that day, it was still an effort. now laughing is not an easy to do while running a marathon. laughter requires oxygen and the fibers in of muscle the throat. when you're run ugh, all your fizz logical systems are focused on one task -- getting blood to the legs to keep them from moving. for laughter. and yet, i couldn't help myself. framingham about the six-mile mark where there are 20 miles to go.y at the railroad station, i saw a

holding upoung women signs, "you're not almost there" read the first one. thought.t, i the perfect flinty new england the inane bro mid often thrown at passing runners but ignorant g race spectators. go, you're almost there -- and you have 15 miles to go. the second sign -- this is the parade ever. again,e got me thinking, slow process when one is near oxygen debt. but as someone who's been steep in the last two years in the history of this event and the that stages it, the boston athletic association, i that's help but think, just not true. while it may lack 76 trombones, the boston marathon has is a 117-year tradition. grandpa raid. 1897.ppable march since

which makes it one of the oldest annual sporting events in america. series, thehe world super bowl, the final four, the stanley cup. new york city marathon. by the time it was held in 1970, already n marathon was an old dodger. i went on to talk about the first race and concluded by basically back in 1897 and then kind of pulled it in the and said that end, i was proud to have run it. i'm still very proud to be a what f it, despite happened. i know a lot of other runners revulsion but pride of having been there in that terrible day. now, the last point b, in the weeks after the marathon and after that piece appeared, i was questions by colleagues and local tv crews and friends, questions that i think you all ill be hearing a lot in the months to come. the f you're not a runner, fall is a big marathon season. boston is in april. the other major marathon

races in america happen in the fall. you have chicago in mid october is running. a huge race. here in d.c., the marine corps and the in late october new york city marathon the first sunday in november. two questions asked and covered in all of the races. is there enough security? question two, are the runners worried? you the answer. number one, security? who knowles. it's impossible to guarantee. your cop buddies will tell you. impossible to it's guarantee safety 100% of 26.2 streets. but we have to trust that our law enforcement officials know what they're doing. do.y usually question number two? are the runners worried?

worried.runners are about get thing blown up as they are about finishing the race. i'll finish. [ applause ] >> should i just go ahead. >> just go. >> i guess i will. i'm npr's counterterrorism correspondent. sheepish being on the panel. i covered the boston marathon a terrorism correspondent as opposed to someone who was up there up close. think you guys did great job of reporting what you did up way.e in a very personal this panel more than anything lse i've heard shows me how personal it was. i should say that i'm going be a boston native pretty soon. leaving next week for a niemann fellowship. joining you at harvard.

standards, but then they took me. >> excellent. to talk about how npr covered the event. terrorismthat i cover vents with frequency, whether they be domestic or international, i had a couple of to people trying to teach journalism and things to keep in mind as you try to cover events. the first

if i had stepped back a little further, i would have said they following that but it doesn't make sense. chamber of news reports can kill you. that cnn, fox, p, and "the boston globe" website, sorry about that, were reporting that the arrests were ade on the wednesday after the bombing. the best advice i can offer did and "boston globe" this. is you ot have worked, stick with the people who have helped you get it right in the people cautious in the past. tremendous pressure in the npr to match this arrest story. have a terrific ed sorry. e worked on the breaking

stories before. just sort of the way our makeup is, we're both really, really cautious. we'd be a little later and be right than be right on the news wrong. so it took me ten minutes to get the phone.erson on he was one in a position to know arells. had been an we worked on stories like this before. him, chi how to read i think most reporters understand, you can tell from tone of voice whether your source is worried about something or if he's sort of than he's saying and isn't that worried, particularly in terrorism. zazi -- the zazi case in new york, the guy who wanted to bomb the subways in new york. all my sources, when you called hem, they sounded so frightened. their voices were so tight. now, it may be that i hear this radio now.use i'm in

going to gauge what was on. the word choice and how they frightened. they sound frightened because it's

cell numbers for

sources if there was an arrest needed to confirm. i said, look, i wanted to advance that i'm going to call you. they said they were going to be up working anyway. the car chase started around 3:00 a.m. called me to tell me there was a car chase they this.t was related to i started calling other people who had been particularly this story. and because i warned them i was going to call them in the middle of the night, they all picked up phones on the first ring. they saw it was me. i think it was sort of the natural courtesy that you when you knowrces you're going to be burdensome, you apologize ahead of time. tip is.eally what the the last tip i would say is you questions specific

so there can be no misunderstanding. all,use in the hubbub of it you think you're communicating really well. you may not be communicating as well as you think. they have a ton of information. you're trying to get a ton of information. they may skip gaps and you're going to make natural assumptions. that may not be correct. e see this in the story that's sort of kicking around right now. a daily beast story about a so-called conference call between the head of al qaeda, the new deputy, the guy named wohashi and 20 other al qaeda members. i spoke to sources that said in all of the times they were racking him, for more than a decade, he's never picked up a phone. so i was clearly spending a lot it ime yesterday -- i think came out yesterday. maybe the day before, i was spending a lot of time trying to either confirm or knock down the story. i pretty much knocked it down. papers today, the

well, actually, it wasn't a conference call. i bring it up is not to chastise the reporting but to make a point about gaps. someone said a bunch of people were together on the conversation, you can very the conclusion it's a telephone call. opposed to a chat room or an intercept. he way it worked in the tsarnaev case, the arrest was bizarre, minutes after the police and the fbi came out and aid they were calling off of the man hunt in watertown, i was on the air with "all things melissa d" with host block. the way our studios are set up, this is in the new building over union station. we had these big flat screens that are sort of behind and the me, i can't seed him. i'm facing the host. the host can see the engineers for her to screens see the flat screens, i have to my neck, right?

we're about to go live. n the screens, they're closed captioned. so we don't have sound, but we can see what's going on. caption reads, gunshots fired and the clock is counting three, two -- ur, i keep looking at the screen, looking at melissa, looking at screen, looking at melissa. she's going to do the intro. live.c is i don't want to come out on her mic but i want to make sure at the camera, at the screen. i'm pointing. trying to be quiet and calm. she sees it. she's amazing. seeing ly says we're there might be gunshots fired in town.ighborhood of water even though moments ago police he had escaped from this neighborhood. and we went about describing what we were seeing live on -- on the screen in front of us. gina isssa calmly says,

going to go and make some phone calls and she'll be back. of the --i tiptoe out out of the -- okay. so what followed were the minutes of my reporting life. i immediately dialed up a bunch sources i had been calling since the bombs went off. was leaving all of the voice messages. the new newsroom is very open. it's a cool building. you can ever take a tour, it's totally worth it. it's the coolest thing. we call the hub which has all of the editors around it. hey're all watching the screen and looking at computers and all waiting for me to figure out going on. so every couple of minute, one r the other of the editors is looking at me. i'm sitting on the table. my cell phone is on the table and i'm atching it like, please ring, please ring. again.igh school all over

please ring. my phone rang. and there had been all of this on tv whether he was in the boat. brother, had been on the boat, or was wired with weapons.s or had then my cell phone rings and the about read a direct line what was going on on the ground on the other end. is he in they god, boat? he said, yes. a suicide he wearing vest. he said he couldn't tell. i stopped for a second. you mean you can't tell? do you have a visual? he said, yes, we have a robot, a camera, an actual visual on him. we're sure it's him. yousolid a confirmation can get, right? so while he -- i'm talking to him, i'm repeating everything he's saying. so the whole hub can hear it really take 't notes and i'm trying to think as fast as i can what possible

i need answered. how often do you hang up and goes, did you ask him this and i'm going, i didn't think of it. so i repeat all of this. hub editors are watching. and taking notes themselves and and i said, it's him. backhen i sort of scramble into the studio and we reported it and we felt really, really confident about it because of what it was. so a second source eventually us more it, gave details. bewe felt really, really solid this. we were sort of watching on tv what this guy was saying. nd so we felt really, really strong on immaterial. so i thought i would wrap up three things that made the boston marathon attack different han any other attack i covered in the past. the three things, the way they were radicalized. hat a huge role technology played in this case, and the bureaucratic snafus that we worked out sort of

after 9/11 that clearly are not worked out. briefly. this tsarnaev out with the brothers. i wrote a book about the ackawanna six, the first radicalized kids from upstate new york here in the united states. typical scenario is someone radicalizes somebody. then they go to a camp, get some training, come back, try to here.k something that is the typical sort of cenario if you are following a terrorist case here. but in this case, it didn't happen. the radicalization happened as can tell on the web. the older brother, clearly had his younger on brother. he went to chechnya. sources tell me that they ouldn't find a nexus between terrorist groups there and the older brother.

interesting to hear how the younger brother describes all of this. made an extensive written statement, something in the pagesorhood of 27 written in the statement. see if that comes out in court. his may be a new model of radicalization for law enforcement to study. getfact that the two had no away plan makes me think this was not such great plot. a guy who tried to set off the square but he es didn't use any of the ingredients he was supposed to getaway plan, he was going to drive home to connecticut. car keys and his house keys in the car that was supposed to explode. planner n't a great either. so he ended uptaking a train connecticut. so the second point about technology. huge role inayed a this case. one source told me if they had

much video, iphone footage have ctures they would captured eric rudolph right away instead of years later. i think it was "the globe" with the israeli software program the fbi to fast forward all of the footage and zero init so they could on the brothers. the software looks for anomalies moving in people are crowds. there was information in the car jacked. the driver told them it didn't have a gps. but it did. the new cars in re like black boxes in airplanes. they provide untold information driving.eed, how you're there is more but that gives you n idea without touching on tweets that he was sending, how much technology had a role in this. finally to the bureaucracy. there were communications problems between the boston

the joint terrorism task force in boston. about who t for tat knew what, when about the older brother. learly the russians didn't fully inform the fbi about their tamarlan.about there was blame and the russians looking at them and the russians say a lot of times at somebody.oking they didn't give anymore that.ation than the press had its own problems. the need to be right. of news organizations did post mortems on what they did rong and how they the can do better next time. npr was careful. walk back have to anything we reported. i would take back that report i did on the early information fbi.the it wasn't wrong, it was their thinking at the time. have ably should not reported it. and we learned from the boston marathon bombing that reporting media age is just much

trickier and it puts a lot of who are,on those of us you know, old media outlets. we're the outlets people trust so we have to get it right even if we're not first. thanks. about this. amazing i'm kelly mcbride from the pointer institute. is 's amazing is that this mow we do journalism ethics, right? e look at the best and worst practices in very specific applications. extrapolate what should our values be? what should our principles be as we practice journalism. o you guys have to teach what these guys are extrapolating from the on-the-ground experience. the thing is we live in a world now where we are accelerating

we innovate hich and create new ways of reporting. i want to do is just lessons. some of the what i do is look at the marketplace of ideas and try to it's working. and tom rosensteel and i the gook ublished called the new ethics of journalism. it does just that, describes a new framework for making ethical decisions in the world of journalism. you can see the new ethics in in all of these descriptions of how this one particular story was covered. when you listen to tereasa alk about covering the story live, on a blog, although we 24-hourd live television television for several decades now, that is not the same as the that we live in now has everyone like

not just tereasa and "the boston and npr because they can break in and the cable news has the but everyone ability to share, create, and istribute information instantaneously because we all have access to the tools of publishing. so that means that when tereasa is describing how she's sorting she's information and deleting information that is not ecessarily helpful to her audience, there are new developinghat we are as we go live. and we're thinking -- tereasa is job. a great she's thinking about the audience. we try to tell this story, what's new. what's 's new and important to the audience and how does the audience make sense doing what you're is being described by a lot of iterative journalism

which means piece-by-piece-by-piece journalism. it raises a lot of questions about when we do make mistakes, we own up to those makeses. what the best practices should and r standards corrections. it's interesting that tereasa talked about -- she deleted some information that wasn't necessarily pertinent to her udience or that seemed rep tishls. but she didn't delete the mistakes. she corrected the mistakes and the audience know that the mistakes had been corrected. -- and i lluded to think this is interesting across difference the between a branded individual and organization.s because both of those serve a different audience. individual journalists for the most part have to learn how to brand themselves these days. some of them may deny that they they -- every

journalist has an individual brand that he or she is through his twitter ccount or through the public appearances she might make on able television, the books he writes or the level of expertise she conveys in her work. is all part of the brand. belongs in addition to the news organization, it individual.he challenges.hical as the individual develops a brand, they develop a loyalty to the brand. sailing sometimes its's great for the individual. but not else inially what the audience coming to "the boston globe" wants. that -- that individual journalist has a different brand a tension between those two audience that has to worked out. expectationsout in

that we're literally creating now as we go. we don't necessarily have the that works out. a lot about his job. and this is when we describe the work of journalists now, it's very hard to -- you can't say journalist anymore. ike we can say who a professional journalist is because they get paid to do journalism. in facts, it's no longer possible to describe everyone who's a journalist. of people do journalism but they are not professional journalists. nd so in a big breaking news story like this, you have lots both ts of people, professionals and citizens describing what happened. creating small chunks of information and that creates an overall narrative arc that the audience now gets as a fire hose

them.g at but one of the most important roles of journalism is to come what kevin do described as making sense of happened. helping the audience come to terms with what really happened -- how that's -- and that's different from just facts. here are the new so creating context, whether a s historical context or context of what this means for a community -- first of all, branded ne as a individual. won't t often that you have someone who has a very specific brand doing that work. is the that brand platform that you then -- that pontificate on what this all means. so brands are really important creating context. and one of the things that's eally interesting about the marketplace of ideas today is is really hard to

come by. trying to ever are find information, you -- we all right?google search, we search something and what we find, what google gives is the most recent information. google gives preference to links recently updated. knows how the algorithms work because they change them all the time. to create ry hard context through search. so that's -- if you think about democracy, people don't just need to know what happened, they need to know why it happened and means.t if they they are going to fulfill their civic duties. of our jobs as journalism educators now to figure out how the in addition to doing "here are the facts." here's the truth of what happened. how do we then teach journalists to create context?

really hard thing to teach. we have to figure that out. that's our job as educators. there is an ethical imperative do that if you are interested in journalism. who is doing e journalism bears the burden of imperative. but if you're going to call yourself a professional you have an hen additional burden to figure out not just what happened, but why it happened and what it means. and so that is the broader challenge to us these days. let me go through a couple of other notes. we live in this world, kevin was talking about had.ccess that he the access is incredibly valuable. and you create access by working a community. and this doesn't have to be a community.

it can be a law enforcement community. it can be a political community. you create access by building trust. and you can abuse that access by betraying that access r by using that to distort the truth. e see many people who are -- one of the things that tom and i have done in this book is world where we have the traditional professional media we're all so familiar with. we also have the fifth estate. and the fifth estate are all of he individuals and organizations that are creating information that functions as journalism. necessarily t embrace the values that journalists embrace. that's not a bad thing. some of them want to embrace those values and they don't valuesrily know what the are. and some of them -- some of them

have a deliberate intention to further an agenda. so they're not necessarily in the values of dedemocracy as much as they are advocating for a certain philosophical point of view. of -- there are people access state who have and people in the fifth who have access. is rising values that up that we need to do a better better jobhing and a in our newsrooms of emonstrating is the value of transparency. so when steven -- what's that he tweeted out? i don't want to call him out. ut he tweeted basically that i -- that i -- scoffed at the idea that there was a saudi --ional who >> right. so that wasn't completely right?rent, because -- because it's a great example of something that is

not truthful. es, you scoffed, you scoffed because you had -- you had a history of knowledge about the quote.ular >> he had 140 characters. i will defend him on that one. long e-mail.g but this gets to your point. we morelly cleared this beforehand. he said, i was going to say this, does this work? said, yeah, i guess. we were sort of -- i didn't hink of it in the broader context. so i'm as much to blame on that one as he is. probably should have had a second tweet that followed it up. perfect solution. tonight be clear that her indicated e -- have this. and let it -- being radically how we get ourut nformation and why in 140 character tweet we might say impossible, even

within the limitations of twitter, it's not impossible to be transparent. but it requires a consciousness nd a habit that we don't necessarily have fully developed in the world of journalism yet. which means i imagine it's very hard to in each the classroom you don't see it demonstrate in the profession very often. what the definitely marketplace of ideas requires or emands in order for the audience to assign credibility to a certain piece of information. the other -- the other interesting practices that of ge here is the idea framing the story. so in a narrative like what appened in boston, you have a million stories to tell. badly, nd when we do it we are just throwing information at people and we're not friming

story. and that is -- or when we do it in the immediate -- in the of any e aftermath event, our job as journalists to describe what happened. do that as accurately and possible.ully as i loved that tereasa described four goals for her blog that she unclustered, be which is really important. concise, accurate, and informative. nd those two things are different ---ing accurate and informative. implies you want to ive people information that furthers their understanding of what happened. not just information that is merely sbrelsing. a -- i see you. thank you. a -- having aving a -- having a contract between or a news al rganization and their audience

requires that the news organization understands their audience. that's something else we're not the world of l in journalism right now but we're getting better. all of these mechanisms for an audience to talk to us and to describe to us what their their tions are, what questions are and we're not conversation ous with the audience on a daily basis. some individuals are. job of ple do a good this. to talk ple don't want to the audience. as institutions, we don't talk and describe the institutional aspirations very well. that willf the things ultimately separate out the -- ultimately be how news organizations gain value is how hey develop this conversation with their audience. we described three principles in

our book. the principle of truth, transparency, and the principle of community. hose become the framework, the foundation for making decisions create journalism that supports democracy rather than -- that's -- the difference sort of the lower -- the lower bar would with just to that can be ation consumed. and so there is a difference. ou can see it happening right here. so it was really great to have four such solid journalists describe that. because this is how we do journalism ethics. so, thank you. >> we have some time for panelists, r our right here? thes you were talking about passion and conviction about the onnection between newspaper

reporter and the community of firefighters and police, it that's really a microcosm of the value of a and aper and a community the way these are knitted together a lot of us don't get when we think about journalism or journalism is dying and it's really much more of a community aspect of it rather than just an industry. >> i think you're right. contexts, -- in those in that context, we both hold accountable. if i screw something up, i'm danny kieler. from they know i won't take crap. that's too bad. so i think that's -- like i said, it's funnive in, in the of the e aftermath bombing, i had some interactions people and orcement a couple of firefighters who don't like me.

our relationship was very -- civil at the time because we all the same we were in boat. we are part of that community. >> any discussion with any of these organizations about the releasing of the photographs in with the death of the police officer? that the scenario is you released the photographs and the guys know they're on the run and they kill the cop. did anyone -- >> i didn't hear anybody blamed that. they were look iing -- dena mentioned, they didn't have a plan. they were morons. he was trying to get the gun. he had the triple lock holster. can't open the damn thing and i know what it is. it's hard to open. -- they killed him for nothing. there were debates among law enforcement. to put the reluctant

photographs out, i believe. d dan danny was saying get it out there. our eyes and ears are out there. we'll have this guy. its's very hard to blame -- i don't see how you can blame the aw enforcement people for putting that picture out there. because, yeah, it created the desperation they did it. but if you didn't do it that it was going to be another day. they had to know the net was closing in on them. to dohink they were going that. they only had the one weapon. they needed another weapon. it was going to happen. >> i think also it was something hat -- not that they thought this might happen. i think this was part of the discussion between law enforcement officials, both local and federal. we do this, what's the worst case scenario? ill it ignite the two guys and make them do even more than they've done. >> they were going to. they were the bombs. hey were going to go somewhere else. >> that was eventually they decided, look, they're not going at this.

and we're just not getting any closer. o we can't -- the facial recognition software they had, everyone talks about it in a sort of a new agy kind of way this is the solution to everything. in fact, your head has to be ilted the right way and they have to be able to measure between your ear lobes and your get a it's hard to facial recognition photograph i.d. tamarlan had a driver's license dzohar did too. couldn't get a bead for facial recognition and that's what tilted them on the edge and that's when they decided they wanted to go ahead and release the photographs. going -- we heard it was to be -- i can't remember the day of the week. it must have been a tuesday or something. we heard -- it took a couple of days. >> one of the kids that lost his of remember, the picture the guy with the cowboy hat holding the kid. his s jeff bauman who lost

legs. he i.d.'d him. he said that's the kid with the i saw him. that was a lot of time. they were going to put it out a day earlier. implies they clearly thought through this kind of imply kapgs. >> okay, over here. to beat a dead horse here, but surely those of you ho come from boston must have some sort of an opinion on the "rolling stone" cover and i hear what that is. >> he's the columnist. i'll let him give his opinion. >> it was a brilliant piece of rolling stone. if it's one of the things they said around -- they're trying to create a provocative cover to sell magazines. they did a good job. always reluctant to criticize other journalists' decisions.

you don't likeif it, don't buy it. to d a -- if i wanted to go criticism, i had a bigger problem in 11,000 words they way to write, martin richard, crystal campbell, and lindsey lou." those are six words. i would have liked to have seen names in there. >> in the back there? >> picking up on the thread of and the oyalty, anecdote that kevin shared with s about the experience in the bar with the s.w.a.t. team just after the arrest -- at what point is -- is -- are the ground rules clear about to happen in that session and what you're going to pick up on are the cops and in example, talking to a friend, are they talking to a professional journalist, what is view, what is their view of this? is there a meeting of the minds? how do you deal with things like that? >> they knew -- they know who i am. but i don't -- they weren't

ground rules set. but, you know, and they didn't -- i ything that was didn't have to make a decision, the paper.t this in it was an interesting scene ecause it was ed kelly, the firefighter and ritchie paris, they were the ones basically guys ing praise on these and saying they should be paid as much as us because firefighters in boston make 30% more than cops. so that was the most up.roversial thing i picked that was from the firefighters. that is a good question. emotion of that ground i wasn't thinking rules. i was thinking of the scene and column ow i ran in the in the sunday paper. that would have been 1:00 in the guys.g when i saw those it was the i was out on the the bar.e of jerry foley said somebody out back wants to see you. keeler.

he said i just want you to -- i want you to see all of these are the best.kids he said to me, don't put my name in the paper, i'll kill you. i put it in much later on danny. but he just -- i mean there was bunch of young cops and a big cop named brendan walsh i know hockey with my cousin and he hasn't been home for five days. i tried to capture that. rules.ere no ground but obviously if they weren't happy with the column, i would from them. >> i have a lot more ground rule problems. as a general matter because of what i do. don't think my job is to make it harder for the fbi to do their investigation by releasing tidbits. if they're doing something wrong, it is my job. their job 're doing and giving me tidbits for context, i understand what they're doing. out not my job to put it there. the question i ask very often is can i use that? take t's great or i'll

notes and at the end i say, look, can i say any of this? this?n i say i'll pick my three favorite things. they'll say, yeah, you can use that. this, say it this way, we're concerned because we want this part of it to remain quiet. because we're still pursuing that as a line of investigation. nd there's a little bit of becauseion that goes on i don't think i should be clamming them up because they're orried that i'm going to talk all the time. it has to do with the trust. i think they know i'm fair and i if i think now that something is going to impede an investigation in some way, like is about n an arrest to happen or someone tells me a ething that's going on in secret grand jury deliberation and if i were to say that, then it would -- it would impede an arrest, those are the kinds of things that i keep very close to the vest. and they know i do. up sort of telling me these things. and then i can talk to editors

why are they saying this? i can say that news organization know ghtly off because i this is going on behind the scenes. we just can't report it yet. >> the difference between the that -- so they both share a loyalty to their audience. is the difference consequences for what could happen, which is why you have to be so much more clear and explicit with your sources and can be a little more -- it's based more on trust. consequences of what could happen. i mean, you're dealing with experts.security and the consequences of if you established relationship with a source who's presuming that everything is on back ground, then you have to go back and negotiate to get everything on. if you make a mistake and you put something out there, the be equences could significant. whereas you're most likely going off. st piss someone >> you don't know danny keeler. have it worse than i

do there. >> over here? >> yeah. school.high and we talk a lot about responsibility. to i wonever in the speed get information out there, and how quickly the audience it, res it or requests who's responsibility it is to it's of slow that down so correct. is it ours to say, slow down and tell me more, or is it yours to you know?ntil >> it's your editor's responsibility. that's what they're there -- to tell you the one question you should have asked that you forgot to ask. say, look, thiso doesn't feel -- how does this feel to you? this is what i feel is missing. feel right to me. and to ask you who it is. when i worked for bloomberg for rules theree of the was you tell your editor who it was and why they were in a position to know. and that's sort of the minimum ground rule as an editor is that ou should be asking your reporters who is it, were they in the room, are they hearing this third hand?

what it is ey know that they're telling you. and that ends up slowing stuff quickly. >> are you asking is it the esponsibility of the reporter or of the the audience? that's your question. through nce could feedback could say, you know, we that, well, he fact for example, in -- for us, it's doing that re in live blog was not to be first. audience. serve the i didn't care if -- if somebody had information that, you know, have been nice if we had it first. but who cares in a situation like that? i just didn't care. but i did care i was informing go audience so they could about their daily lives. keep that in mind that boston and the suburbs were shut down.

were asked to stay in their houses. it was just an unbelievable situation. o transmitting, you know, accurate and critical information was essential. inthe audience had come back droves and said, hey, you know, later d this and then you -- you retracted it and you reported that so and so said his and later they retracted it, we don't like that. that's confusing. they -- they never said that. they don't say that. et i understand. and so in that sense, we keep doing what we're doing. that's the way that an audience can influence. > the other way that an audience we need to train, especially high school students, if the audience will do is they go to ""boston globe"" looking for something and they on't find it and they're specifically looking for something, they're going go some going to go hey're to read it. they're going to find it on read it. hat we need to train the

audience to do in a democracy is at least ask questions of the source of their information. why we need to train the journalists to be ransparent about why they're saying this. so that they can sort through co-chamber that people mentioned here and consume -- doesn't mean they're not going to go >> if i could say something quickly. there is something called the news literacy project. we go to hools and we're in chicago and maryland and new york and here. basically they go out the high schools and try to teach students to be good consumers of news. basically you shouldn't frab the first thing that pops up on google and look a little deeper and see who is source is.

and we've had a tremendous response from it. they have an online component they are launching now and as a high school teacher that might be something you look at. >> if you guys want to keep oing but i got to run. [applause] >> if we could squeeze in one more question. >> thank you all very much by the way and kevin running out the door. i want a little bit more on the role twitter and social immediate yafment because this is the race for news, i think that's a big part of it figuring out if you can go with a tweet. it was addressed as first info, the risks of that first information and whether you want to wait being first. can you give us more on the

social media role. i'm asking for twitter pluses and minuses to be able to promote stories or we can talk a little bit about the ethics of the boston marathon, the ethics of twirt poorly used. > i don't have whitey bulger but i have the president having a press conference. thank you very much. >> let me start by answer that question by saying you can't look at twitter or any other social media as good or bad. it just is. this is a fact of life. this is how we communicate today. it's like when we thought tv was the end of journalism. it is a platform on which we communicate and it's up to us to decide how we communicate on there. and you've got lots of good and

bad examples. so you guys have some standards that you've put in place like what people should tweet out. and i think they are good examples of how to work through this new platform. >> we do. i would say that every major newsroom and medium size newsroom and smaller have social media guidelines. the only one that i know of that doesn't have written guidelines is "the new york times." and that's because they feel that their ethics policy covers social media guidelines. and they like to describe the social media guidelines in one sentence which is don't be stupid. and you know, it's funny when one of the social media editors there told me that, i looked back over our social media guidelines which i was revising at the time and i was like she's right, that's what it all

boils down to. but during the marathon bombings, i think that everyone in the newsroom whether they were working online producers and tweeting information out or whether they were reporters or out in the field, everybody felt a very strong responsibility not to be irresponsible. as i said, we did want to get information out as quickly as we could, but not because we wanted to beat another news organization, it was because we wanted to inform the public and give them very critical information that they needed to know. so i would say that everyone was probably a little more cautious with social media than on an ordinary day if there is such a thing in the news

business. but other than the misstep that i mentioned about a reporter neglecting to attribute a tweet about an arrest to cnn, i can't really say that there were any other missteps. >> i don't want to make any [inaudible] >> >> i'm not a hard knows reporter -- nose reporter. agree ewure writer and i with what was said earlier about i'm conscious of my own brand. i just tweet and facebook everything i write now and most writers i know do that. it's almost like second nature. >> again, we thank our panelists for coming.

[applause] captioning by the national captioning institute -www.ncicap.org--

>> season two of first ladies influence and image begins monday september 9. and we're showing encore presentations of season one. programs on every first lady. tonight we discuss the influence of rachel jackson, van buren. on and >> rachel was not a fan of anything that took andrew jackson away -- rachel was not a fan of anything that took andrew jackson away. she ran the plantation and the firm and kept everything in order. everything loved her -- everybody loved her. > she could write a nice

letter and had nice jewelry. she was not as frumpy and she was reputed to be. >> he rose in politics, that was an ugly sore. >> the campaign was so bitterly fought, that they went all out, calling her a whore. they used every piece that they could find and she was good garbage for them. >> made the statement that i would rather be a dookkeeper and live in that palace. > her niece was 21 years old when she became the white house

hostess. >> for all of the negatives they had to say about andrew jackson, they loved her. >> received an education in the fine arts of being a lady. it was that kind of education that enabled her, when rachel suddenly dies, to slide into the role of white house hostess. >> the women liked her. the women's opinions and meant more. she knew exactly how to do things. >> it is emily that jackson has a falling out with. jackson never lost his affection for her. he just could not deal with this going against his will in is own home. >> for 12 years, no president's wife served as first lady. on this program, we will learn about two administrations that were run by would old residents. of course, andrew jackson0-- -- of first, washington's societal ambitions. - up first, will washington --

washington's societal ambitions. hear to tell us about those who served in the white house to upport the presidents, a presidential historian. michael, welcome. and pat brady back at our table tonight. her biography of rachel jackson is called "the french your love story of rachel and andrew." how do people understand the change that andrew jackson brought to the white house? >> was the first westerner. we have virginia presidents

from the old south before that. he grew up in the frontier. the change is enormous. ocially, the change is enormous. he is not of the old planter lass of the south that previous presidents had been from. he was not like a newly linder either. he brings different values and the french ambitions to the white house. >> even though he was a widow the president, the ghost of his wife, over the white house during his years there. why is that? >> she was the woman of his ife. he loved her. when she died just a few months

efore he was inaugurated, he was a rest. he spent all of his time thinking about her and her memory and having her portraits in his bedroom so he could think of her. it really changed the way the first administration wins. >> we need to go into the campaign of 1822 understand the presidency. 1828 was the year of what? how did it change? >> it was the first time we did not have a majority of electors. the whole election was given over to the house of representatives. we had these competing factions in the house of representatives. you had crawford from georgia. you had henry clay and calhoun and jackson. jackson won the popular voted, but he did not win the electoral college. when the politicking was going on in the house of representatives, there was an

opportunity to make deals. one of the deals that was made was that henry clay would become the vice president and items with win the election. once we come out of that election, the buildup to the other election is that that was a corrupt bargain. >> you described 1824 setting the stage for 1828. the 1828 campaign was older enmity fought together again. how did it play out? >> in 1824, jackson was not uite sure he was ready to be president. when he won the vote and it was stolen from him, he knew he was meant to be president. he thought the election had stolen the people's presidency.

when he came out in 1828, he came out fighting. >> what was interesting about the campaign was that it was a precursor to modern campaigning. he and his surrogates for out on the stump. as many as 800,000 more americans voted in that election as they had in the previous ones the -- the previous one. how had he thought of that? >> it was the growing development of a national party that martin and iran had been working on with people -- martin van buren had been working on with people in the south. this was a time of great technological change. we had real growth and newspapers and new communication methods coming to bear as well as a much larger lectorate. we had general white male suffrage in all of the states. there were more people taking

and there was more opportunity to hear about it. >> the western states had come in. >> rachel jackson became an issue. this is the first time in our early country's history that people targeted the wife of a presidential candidate. >> abigail adams had taken some hard hits from the press. that sort of thing had happened. this was the first time someone ctually went out trying to find what they thought was a search and publicize it widely. >> was the first one looking for dirt? >> a man who hated jackson and wanted to see jackson go down. when he thought out she had been the voice, he really despise her. he was rigorously fundamentalists.

it was a moral issue for him. he really thought she would disgrace the white house. >> he did not do it, but he did not stop it. hammon was his party hack. he did not come down on him. e just sat back and said, oh my goodness. >> we saw in the open, political cartoons. was this a new phenomenon? >> yes. to call a lady that had been married for 36 years a bigamous or an adulterous was unprecedented.

-- bigamist or an adultorer -- adulterer was unprecedented. >> what was she accused of? > was accused of being married before. and she was. she was married to a man who treated her and her family very badly. her whole family hated him. out west, they did not believe you had to stick by your man if he was horrible. they believe in dissolving an nhappy marriage, so they did. >> also, criticism of her and her western frontier lack of class. >> she had an accent. she had a tennessee accent. she did not have an east coast accent. >> were opponents concerned

about what the image for the new country would be if he made it to the white house? >> there is a strong class issue running through all of this. t is difficult to talk about in a country that does not have class. would this person be virtuous enough to represent the united states? is this person genteel enough to represent the united states? >> the great tragedy is that after this was a freeze campaign, he went to the white house and she is preparing to go -- after this campaign, he went to the white house and she

was preparing to go with him and what happens? >> she died. she thought people would be rude to her and they might snub her. she thought about not going. she decided that would be admitting they were wrong. she decided to go. on december 22, she died of a heart attack. >> and she was buried in a dress she preplanned -- plan to wear to the inaugural ball. >> this is our first video of the night. we will be showing you video throughout the night. we will take you to the heritage, their home in tennessee and learn more about what enter jackson carried throughout the rest of his life after rachel. >> we do not know what kind of health rachel was in overall. after the fall of 1828, her health was not good. the campaign for president that jackson was going to have a huge effect on her health. this is a letter jackson wrote n this day that rachel

actually died, december 22, 1828. he is writing to his riend. he describes the onset of rachel's illness, her final illness. he says that she was suddenly, violently attacked with pains in her left shoulder and breast. a contraction of the breast, that suffocation was apprehended. it was clear she was in a serious condition. he talked about getting ready to go to washington like he is assuming she will get better and off they will go. unfortunately, she passed away

later in the day. according to the stories of her death, jackson called for her to be bled when she died. he was a big believer in a row of medicine, medicine that did not kill you, would cure you. even though she was not alive anymore, he asks the doctor to bleed her. supposedly, there is a small stain on the cap, the little blood that came out when the doctor tried to bleed her. we have a lancet that the doctor would have used to cut er open. we have some things about this morning. a black calling card -- his mourning. a black calling card to suggest he was in deep mourning. a book that was given to him by a friend of his that has a long inscription. it is a book called the mourner comforted help them read things

that would help them along. jackson was completely devastated. for her to die just as he was actually preparing the plan is to get on the steamboat to go to washington was almost more than he could deal with. this was painted while he was in washington after rachel's death. had it with him all the time, on his chain or in his pocket or on his bedside table so that he could see it in the morning when he awakens. she was with him pretty much all the time even though she had passed away. this was a book that was important to jackson. this was in rachel's psalm book. she made this cross stitch cover to keep the book ice. after her death, jackson kept things like this close at hand so that he could refer to them, another way of keeping her clothes. jackson had a habit after she died of purchasing more using our keeping things that reminded him of our. this was the central hall of the hermitage manchin. although the house burned after rachel's death, jackson insisted they repurchase the

same wallpaper they had chosen. she liked it and it reminded him of her and he wanted it here. this is jackson's bedroom. after rachel's death, she was not very far away from him. he kept many mementos of her around. he had a portrait that was a favorite of his copy so that he could have been hanging over the fireplace so that it would be the first thing he saw in the morning and the last thing he saw at night according to the tradition and stories passed down by the family. he would go out to her tomb every sunday and spend some time out there either thinking about her or thinking about the problems of the day. he wanted the feeling of her close by. >> this program is

interactive. we welcome your but dissipation. there are lots of ways you can do that. you can call us. our phone number is -- if you live in the eastern time one. you can send us a tweet. if you do, use the hashtag #firstladies. here is a tweet, who writes, did rachel have plans about what the jackson life should or should not be like in ashington, d.c.? >> she did. she did not like expensive entertainment. she liked to go hear the leading creatures of the day and have family and friends around her in the white house. i think it would have been a omesticated white house.

>> the same person ask another question. given her public scrutiny, did in the famous dignitary's attend her funeral? do either of you know the answer to that? >> she was buried two days after she died. given the way news traveled and people travel, no one could have made it. all of the local dignitaries, all of the church bells tolled. everything close down. there was a huge attendance at her funeral. >> time to step back and telling a little bit of the great love story between rachel and andrew jackson. who was rachel donelson jackson? >> it was one of the daughters of the first family of tennessee. they made a trip during which

many of the people on the trip died. they were some the earliest white settlements. her family was quite positive in the area. she was part of the gentry of tennessee. >> we have a question from someone wanting to know how unusual it was for someone, at the age of 24, to be on their second husband? was that considered unusual at the time? >> not particularly. people die all the time, particularly on the frontier. most people remarry because you needed to have the support in order to live. >> the original theory was that they divorced. >> widows and widowers always remarry. it was peculiar for someone not to remarry. > her first husband was --

>> he was about 10 years her senior. >> why did they make the match? >> the war between the whites and the indians was so ferocious and so strong, the whites wanted to stay there. the indians did not want them there. the battle for territory. the donelsons went to kentucky where things were safer. >> how long did the marriage lasts? >> not long. 3 or four years. he was too mean. >> he was a nasty, abusive person. dear >> it take courage for her to leave him? -- >> did it takes courage for her to leave him? >> it took courage for her family.

she adored her family and they adored her. they were part of the whole decision for her to be low. -- to elope. >> who was andrew jackson when she met him? >> nobody. he was one of the borders at her mother's house. he lived in one of the cottages with another batch of a lawyer. you might say, why is one of the gentry renting out cottages? in terms of this being an ongoing war, to have extra guns on hand is always a good thing. >> explain a little bit more about tennessee in that time and what the country looked ike. >> this was the far west. it was recently settled. most of the settlers theater came by river the long way or they came over the

mountains. this was still rough country. t was not as subtle as kentucky. >> next is a question. this is from mitchell in national, -- nashville, tennessee. >> put up that rachel's birthday was in june and you included a month and day. my understanding was that no one knew her exact burth mont -- birth month and date. >> that is true. it is believed it was in june. >> if i am not mistaken, only white property owners voted during that time. is that correct? >> that is correct. in the early days, it was only white property owners of certain standing. the franchise expanded to generally being white males. >> rachel meets the tall andrew

jackson. they are attracted to each other. ow did their marriage take place? >> all his life, jackson truly liked women. he loved her mother and saw her as a mother figure. he could not bear to see women mistreated or badly treated in any way. his gallantry was involved with what he saw was the abuse of his woman. when they fell in love, they

ecided to be loath - -elo -- elope. they stayed several months, close to a year. when they came back, they said, we are married now. her whole family, including her mother said, this is our son-in-law, andrew jackson. who is going to tell them, no? people just accepted it because the family, neighbors, and friends accepted it. >> when did the details come about that their divorce was not finalized? > the divorce was filed in virginia. there were stipulations in the settlement that it had to be posted a certain amount of time

and in different places. he did not go through with posting all of it. he was playing games with the whole divorce anyway. >> so who is at fault? >> he had to take it to court in kentucky before a jury. at that time, they had been living together as a married couple for two years. when she was accused of adultery, she was living with andrew jackson. if she had gone bad -- gone back, she would have still been married to this person she hated. >> when did the hermitage become their home? >> my mind is going blank. early in the 18th century. they started in that area. they started in a bigger place. he got into some financial

trouble and they moved to the hermit is. at that time, it was a log house. >> our next video is a glance at rachel and andrew jackson's life at the hermitage. >> he was retiring for a while. when they first moved here, he spent a lot of time at home. the primary people who would have visited prior to the war of 1812 would have largely been friends and relations from the area. achel had a huge family. they have lots of kids. there was a lot of them and they were in and out all the time. rachel was close to her family. jackson was an orphan and grew close to rachel's family. emily donelson, the house she grew up in, is less than two iles away from here.

he has become this national hero and there were people here all the time. rachel was the knowledge to be a pretty nice hostess, cordial and welcoming. during jackson's saying after the battle of new orleans from 1815 to the rest of her life, they have lots and lots of company. they had many, many parties or even in jenner's here at the hermitage. -- dinneers hear -- dinners here at the hermitage. they acquired a good deal of silver as they went along, such as these plants cups. they would have been used for an evening party where some highly the third up punch was served. -- liquored up punch was searched. it was more about her comfort in big cities than it was about her actual appearance or clothing. she was not a fan of anything hat took into jackson away

from the hermitage. during the war of 1812, there were letters from her that say things like, do not let fame and fortune blind you to the fact that you have a wife, i am home, and i need you. he knew pretty well that she would have preferred him to stay home and the plantation owner andrew jackson. this is the earliest letter we have said jackson wrote to rachel. it was written in 1796 when he was in east tennessee on usiness. it is addressed to her, my dearest heart. it is with great displeasure that i sit down to write to

you. what pleasing hopes i view the future when i am restored to your arms or i can spend my ays in domestic sweetness with you, the deer companion of my life, never to be separated from you again during this fluctuating life. the garden was always considered one of her really special places. lots of comments from visitors about her gathering flowers. there is one story. when a young lady was here on her honeymoon and she and her husband were invited to stay. she mentions that the garden was special to rachel. when they were preparing to leave, to move onto the next stage of their honeymoon, she walked in the garden with rachel and rachel gathered flowers and this is where they eft. >> and we are back talking about the jacksonian era with

our two guests at the table. we'll take a question from twitter next. ave murdoch asks, did rachel jackson provide political guidance to andrew jackson. do we know that? >> i don't know that we know that. he was shrewd politically but i think he probably -- he probably took care of the political sphere himself. >> i would think practically no for sure. we have no records of such -- we have a lot of their letters and they're always personal or financial but they're really not politics. >> we were talking before the program began about jackson's

large personality and how sure he was of his opinions. would you talk about that? >> he was absolutely sure of his beliefs wholeheartedly and when he saw people who disagreed with him, he often took that as a sign of enmity and that was really difficult. >> personal. >> personal enmity, yes. >> so that would be further thinking he might not have sought guidance from any other person? >> what he really couldn't stand was someone who was a friend or worse yet, a relative, who disagreed with him because that was really personally dishonest as far as he was concerned. >> we'll learn more about how that unfolds in his presidency as the conversation continues. next is loy in durham, north carolina. welcome to the conversation. caller: hi. how many slaves did the jacksons have in tennessee and would those same slaves travel with them in the white house? >> thank you. either of you know the answer to that? >> they had 300-odd slaves. it was a rather large plantation. but, no, nobody at the time would travel with large numbers of slaves. they would bring perhaps a couple of personal servants but things had become iffier as sentiment grew in the north and

it became less and less possible to bring slaves to free territories. >> so jackson wins election and comes to washington. tell the story of his inaugural party. >> he has the inauguration, he arrives on horseback back to the president's house and the public is invited but there are about 20,000 people who had attended the inauguration so the house is open to the public and this is the democratic republic of the people of the west and they crash into the house and dance on the tables, they drink all the wine. there was a 1600 pound cheese that had been sent as a gift to the new president that was completely devoured during this time so the white house was really, really beaten up pretty bad. even jackson had to be escorted out because they feared for his safety.

>> he left the party early and went back to his hotel to go to bed. >> over our past several programs, we have been talking about the burgeoning and strong washington society developing in the town. how did it react to this opening of the white house to the masses? >> with horror, you know, margaret smith, who was quite a socialite and kept diaries and letters said, oh, the pity, the pity, it's not the way it was with every other party after an inauguration, it was part of the select few who came, not the public. >> once the party, the inauguration party was over, this is a man you described as being in intense mourning. was the white house social for a few years after that? >> it wasn't social very much at all for the first year. they had to refinish it and replace all the drapes and chair seats where muddy boots had been trampling and put things together and even after that, to the disappointment of washington society, they said,

we're in deep mourning, we will not be giving parties. >> let's take a quick glimpse at america in that timed about census bureau statistics. this is america in 1830, population at this point, 12.9 million in 24 states and once again more than 30% growth since the 10 years earlier census. there were two million slaves, about 15% of the population. and the largest cities continued to be east coast -- new york, philadelphia and baltimore. what else should people know about the period in this country? >> it's a period of incredible change. much like the period that we've gone through in the last, with the information revolution. this was a huge period of change. we had gone from an agrarian society that thomas jefferson

was talking to being of multiple ethnicities, multiple religions, waves of immigration, the railroads, the telegraph, all kinds of things were changing the way life was lived. >> what was happening to the north-south unity at this point? were we seeing the seeds of the civil war? >> north-south unity was a difficult one. the founding fathers had never settled that question because it wasn't easy to settle. by the time you get to 1820, we have an economic crisis in 1819 and then we have the admission of missouri and the missouri crisis which precipitates a free fix, we'll put in one free state and one slave state and won't talk about slavery anymore. by the time we're in the late '20's and early '30's, the spector of slavery is casting a shadow over america. >> next question. caller: i was calling, chatham is the county seat of pennsylvania county, virginia, and we have in our courthouse a portrait of rachel because she

was born here supposedly in 1767 which was the year we broke off and organized our county and her father was a surveyor and she supposedly left her when she was 12 and the gossip was that he had to leave town because they were ind of interested in some of his surveys but anyway, we do have the site marked and we have rocks left from the frame house. did virginia play any part -- ou know. >> thanks, mary. we'll pick it up from her. do you know this part of her biography? >> it was where she was born and lived until she was 12 when they decided to go over the mountains to the new territory but basically we know nothing about her girlhood.

we extrapolate it was like the girlhood of other children on the western edges of settled territory. >> next is joellen in columbus, ohio. you're on the air. caller: hello. i was calling to see if rachel had any children. >> no. despite her deep wish for children, rachel had no children. she was one of 11 and those of her brothers and sisters who married had very large families, as well. but she had no children of her own. she had -- they adopted one of twin sons that belonged to her brother and sister-in-law when they were middle aged so there was an andrew jackson jr. who was her nephew. >> and there was another son, jackson had been in battle and found -- and had slaughtered many people, women and children, found an infant, tried to give it back to a creek woman who was alive. she said, you'd best kill him,

you've killed all of his family anyway. jackson takes him home and raises him as a son. it's a very interesting kind of story because here's jackson, the indian killer, and yet he's adopted this son and raises him as his own. >> he writes a lot of letters to rachel saying there's something special, he's an orphan, i was an orphan, there's some reason i found him and he's not to be in the servants' quarters. he's to be in the house and he's to be educated. he wanted to send him to west point but john quincy adams was president by then so it was impossible. >> first year was a fairly quiet one and the social side of the white house and social means politics by this time in washington so at what point does he decide he actually needs assistance? >> well, emily, rachel's niece and nephew, were with him all of this time, that they were so

close, all these nieces and nephews, all named the same name so it's difficult sometimes to figure out which andrew donelson we mean but this particular young man had been one of their wards and became the president's secretary. he had married his first cousin, emily donelson, and they planned all along to come with the jacksons and they went ahead and accompanied him. >> how did she create the role of first lady in the administration? >> she had lovely manners. she was a very pretty girl, young, in her early 20's. she had very good manners, had been trained in a lady's academy in nashville. >> washington society loved her. >> they loved her and one of the main reasons they loved her was because she was young and malleable and the old grande dames of washington could run all over her as they could not

someone like rachel. they always liked the innocent young nieces. >> as someone who cast himself as the people's president, he lived fairly large in the white house, it seems. fairly nice parties and lots of money spent on redecorating. how did that square with his public image? >> he believed with democracy with a small d and he was very concerned about moneyed interests and elites controlling the country so that is the core of the democracy he was trying to create. he really believed in people being part of the democracy. >> but it didn't preclude entertaining. >> it didn't preclude him being cultivated and having manners and becoming a lawyer and learning how to interact in society. >> he always wanted to be a gentleman. that was one of his goals, to prove he was a gentleman and if you look at some of his controversies, they're because in the early days other men did

not treat him as equals. >> next up is lee in durango, colorado. caller: yes. i'd like to know, what was the big to-do about the election of 1828? we know what was said about rachel jackson, but what was the comments on the other side? >> well, there were. >> among other things, they said john quincy adams was a pimp which is the most ridiculous thing you could possibly image. it was based on a little thing but had nothing to do with sexual activities. they said a lot of bad things about adams and also about his wife. she was, after all, they believed, a foreigner. she was born in great britain even though she had american parents and legally was an

american but they saw her as a possibly foreign influence. >> and she wasn't happy in the white house particularly either. she was very cultivated and washington was a squat little town really at this time. >> we promised scandal, intrigue. it wasn't just in the 1828 and rachel jackson and the criticism she received but also what became known as the peggy eaton affair which colored and framed much of the jackson presidency. who was peggy eaton and how did this unfold? >> peggy eaton was the daughter of a washington, d.c., hotel keeper, tavern owner. many politicians stayed in his hotel and the family got to know them well. she was beautiful. she was well educated. she liked to sing and perform. she actually sometimes appeared in public, which, god forbid, any lady should do. so she was seen as not quite

quite. >> she was beautiful. she was vivacious, and she didn't really know her place. she really interfered and went into situations that were part of the men's women and this was a period in the american history which domesticity is specific and there's the women's sphere and the men's sphere and the women's sphere is to guard the household and the morals of society while the men go out and fight in this new capitalist world. margaret eaton and i call her margaret because that's what she liked to be called. i think peggy is a bit of an insult because she didn't like to be called that. she really was somebody who was going up against a different class and was going at it in a very difficult way. she was outspoken and bold and that was not a woman's role. >> how did she become an issue for the cabinet? >> her husband killed himself. he was a pursuer on a naval

vessel, he killed himself so she was a widow. >> with two children. >> yes. and one person who had consistently lived at the o'neal's hotel was john henry eaton who was one of jackson's closest friends, supporters, a close friend and supporter of rachel throughout all the bad times and he was worried, at margaret's suggestion, that he might have ruined her reputation. there was a lot of talk they had had an affair and that's why her husband killed himself and so he asked jackson, should i marry her? and jackson said, certainly. he was always for love and romance. >> and jackson was familiar with her. >> he liked her. >> he stayed in the same boarding house and knew her when she was a young girl so he felt she was perfectly respectable and this was a good

thing. >> how did it rise to the level of a cabinet scandal? >> they married too soon. >> they married too soon. >> she should have been mourning for at least a year and she married john eaton well before that and that was a problem. >> well, and besides that, once the cabinet was named and it includes eaton and his wife, whose social bona fides are not so good, and then she presses right ahead and goes and calls on one of the haughtiest of the wives of the other men, floride calhoun and floride refuses to return her call. in those days, that was akin to slapping someone in the face. >> society was very structured and the protocol of society was very structured and the first person you would see when you came into town, you would visit the vice president and you

would leave your card, so she started in on this process but she did it incorrectly and floride calhoun was not about to return a call to this woman. >> it came to a point where jackson's cabinet was in an uproar and many resignations because of it. > all the wives except one refused to call on peggy eaton or when the president gave a big party and she was an honored guest often at his side attempting to force these women to recognize her, it was, hello, and they would walk on. everything was so cold and so ugly and margaret was totally mortified and the worst of all, among those who gave the cut to margaret was emily donelson, his niece. >> we have two quotes from andrew jackson at the time period that gives you the sense of the president's involvement and peak over the so-called petticoat affair.

"do you suppose i have been sent here by the people to consult the ladies of washington as to the proper persons of the cabinet?" and to peggy eaton herself -- did it become a constitutional crisis with his cabinet resigning? >> well, it did, and unfortunately, it's jackson's gallant defending of margaret eaton that turns it from a social crisis into a political crisis. he couldn't leave it alone. he spent enormous amounts of time trying to defend her honor, getting affidavits about where she was, tracking down the people who made these terrible comments, and finally it becomes, in his mind, that it has to be an attack against him, as well, it's not just margaret, it's an attack against him. >> that's when he grows to hate calhoun. >> that's when he sees calhoun

behind all of this. >> bringing this back to niece donelson because you said she was malleable but also told us he could not abide by close people, especially family members, who disagreed with him. what happened between the two? >> she was so influenced by the ladies that she joined in the -- really, the ostracism of margaret eaton and he demanded -- and she did receive her at the white house, but he demanded that she treat her as a friend and she would not and so he sent her home. >> next is a question from john in annandale, virginia. hi, john. caller: hi, great series, as always. i'm wondering how andrew jackson's personality or approach was affected by him becoming a widower, if at all. i know wilson, for example, quickly remarried, which wasn't

the case here. but was there any noticeable change in him? >> he was devastated. >> yes. he was not just devastated, though. he was embittered. his whole first term really didn't accomplish anything because he was either in mourning or he was attempting to help peggy eaton out, he was fighting with his favorite niece and nephew. he had to actually -- he asked his cabinet to resign. it was a whole huge thing that involved him because he saw her as a surrogate for rachel. if they could treat her this way, they might have treated his wife that way. and he could not let it go. >> next up is a call from dorothy in westerville, ohio. hi. caller: hi. thank you so much for taking my call. the program has been remarkable so far.

my question is, how did rachel deal with andrew jackson's fiery temper? i'll hang up and listen for your answer. >> thank you. >> the only person who actually could control jackson when he was in a rage was rachel. one particular time they were going down river and there was a boat ahead of them with a number of happy young bucks who were all drunk who were zigzagging, zigzagging, zigzagging, so their boat was held up and he took out a gun and he said, i'll just kill a couple of them and she stopped that whole operation. i don't know if he would have or not, but maybe. >> next is nancy from new jersey. hi, nancy. caller: fabulous. i would like to know if either of your guests have seen the old movie depicting the

jacksons with charlton heston and susan hayward. it showed a beautiful love story. it was accurate? >> it wasn't particularly ccurate but it had great looking actors and it was really romantic. i loved it. the book came out, "the president's lady" in 1961. it was a best seller for years. >> last question for this part of our program is from gary robinson on twitter and it sets the stage for the next half hour of our conversation. what was secretary of state van buren's role in the petticoat affair and jackson's cabinet? >> secretary of state van buren had the unfortunate benefit of being a widower himself so he didn't have to have this social political push from his wife as the other cabinet members did. he was free to go and see

margaret eaton and he. did he called on her frequently. he treated her well, and he gained tremendous, tremendous respect from jackson for that. it's very interesting 19th century historian who says the whole political history of the last 30 years -- and he's writing at the beginning of the civil war -- can be attributed to the moment when the soft hand of martin van buren touched mrs. eaton's knocker. although there's a double entendre there, it points out the fact that martin van buren undercuts calhoun and steps in and places himself in position to be the next one to run for president where calhoun had been the natural choice. >> how did it become a successful bid for the presidency? >> it was somewhat complicated. he resigned. he got the -- he got eaton to resign, he got the rest of the cabinet to resign and then he got appointed -- jackson said you can't just resign, that's ot good.

i have to do something for you i have to do something for you so he nominated him to be the minister, basically ambassador, to great britain, and martin van buren left for great britain happy to be the new ambassador to the court of st. james and calhoun who was the seated vice president had the deciding vote in the senate on the appointment of this nomination and he cast a vote against it, infuriating jackson, and sealing van buren's future. >> martin van buren comes to the white house, the first northerner, far northerner, new york state. >> from new york state. >> he was the first born as an american. >> first born with american citizenship as his birth right. >> and another first, the adams were of english heritage. he was dutch. >> he grew up speaking dutch. english was a second language to him so he was from a different

culture. >> and a widower president coming to the white house. his wife died many years before and to set the stage for our conversation on his white house and first lady who served him, we're going to listen now to white house historian bill seale. >> president truman's favorite portrait because she was pretty. she was a southern belle, a tall girl. today you would say she was athletic looking. she married abraham van buren, met him at saratoga springs. she was from columbia, south carolina, was a belle and had plenty of money at the time. the singletons were a big, big family. she had plenty of money, bought pretty clothes. she was apparently a lot of fun so she and abraham went to europe on their honeymoon where she was introduced to young queen victoria approximately her age and was so excited about the

way the queen received women that she came back to the white house and had a platform built at the end of the blue room which was called the blue room for the first time in that administration, van buren, and she received all her friends all in white at the end of the room and they just nodded, they didn't shake hands or anything. it was not taken very well at all. imagine a country that never allowed ambassadors to wear uniforms. they didn't like that at all so the platform was removed. she lived on to the 1870's in new york, married to abraham. and not a lot known about her. very few letters and she was i guess what you would call a belle at that time. she didn't worry about things much. >> martin van buren came to the white house as a bachelor with a number of sons and was it a quiet place in his term here?

>> yes. it was very quiet. he was facing a tremendous political crisis because of the panic of 1837 which he inherited from jackson and jackson's policies. >> several weeks after he was inaugurated so it struck like that. >> and it went on so that he was a depression president. >> he was a depression president and this was the first huge economic depression the united states had had. we had a small one in 1819 but it wasn't nearly of this scale. basically, we had already had an interconnected global economy and there were calls out on banks from london, there were calls out to american banks, they didn't have the money. and they collapsed. and as the banking crisis started to go out, we don't have a national currency at this point, state banks started to collapse and everything dries up. >> what was the depth of the depression for most americans? >> oh, boy. by that may there were riots over food in new york city. it was really serious.

>> it was still going on in 1842, 1843. it didn't go away. >> it got a little bit better but not nearly for a long time. it was really a good five years. >> did he have a cabinet or his own personal ability to -- skill set to help resolve the crisis? >> well, presidents don't hold all these levers even now and this is before we have a fed although he did recommend an independent treasury system which is something like that but martin van buren and the democratic party had been arguing against federalism and against these federal projects so they sort of backed themselves into a corner on that. >> i don't think anyone at that time could have dealt with a major depression. they just had to wait for the economy to heal. >> they didn't have the tools. they really didn't know what was causing it and they certainly didn't have a structure in place, for example, we have the fed today that will loan money to banks that are having runs so

they don't close and don't go under -- but we didn't really solve this problem until we got to the new deal. >> and with this great trial going on in the rest of the country, how interested was the van buren administration in having a social side? >> he was a very social person. that was one of his great skill sets. charming little dinner parties. he was very personable. he, like jackson, always liked women and loved women friends so there was still -- there was still a social side to the white house because a lot of his politicking was done socially. >> he would go elsewhere but in terms of large-scale entertaining, the new year's day party, which was traditional, was pretty much his big party until his eldest son married angelica singleton. >> here is where we bring in dolley madison and what role does she have to play in this administration? >> referred to by carl anthony

brilliantly as the queen mother, i think, she had a beautiful cousin, angelica singleton, martin van buren had four single sons including his secretary and chief aide and she introduced them all at a dinner party. >> why was dolley madison back in washington? >> her husband had died. >> and they had to sell off the plantation. >> her son wasn't the best manager so she moved back to washington. she also loved the washington scene. >> she bought a house on lafayette square. she was right there. and she immediately jumped in to the social swing where she had been happiest and she came back there as a widow. >> back to calls. terry in independence, missouri, as we talk about the van buren administration. hi, terry. are you there?

we have lost her. let's go to kentucky. caller: i am calling about mrs. jackson. i thought she had a son who passed away. i would also like to comment on angelica's impression on the press as hostess of the white house and representing the buren administration abroad and how dolley madison influenced her role. >> thank you. >> she died shortly after rachel moved to washington. buren spent the first year in the white house without a hostess. she was hostess for a season in which he was wildly successful. she did a fabulous job. they went to europe where she met the queen of england and she really jumped to it.

she went to the french academy. when she came back for the next season is when she sort of had a problem. that is when she had that tableau of the new year's open house. this is just the beginning of the next presidential season and you hear her acting in a queenly matter. that did not go well. >> did she want to serve as first lady? or was it is expected of her as the only woman in the family? >> she wanted a bigger stage for herself.

it was all glamour and wonderment. >> and on facebook -- she was a new bride when she took on her hostessing duty. >> at first it was very positive. she was pretty and young and people liked to see paper cutouts of her. it was her trip to europe that did great harm to the administration. she had gone overboard and she was shocked when public opinion lashed out at her because we were undergoing a depression and she was posing on a dais if she was a queen. >> what did they do with it? >> they built it into the blue room. she sat on a sofa that would have been anti-republican.

she did not know better. she had seen victoria and france and she thought this would be cool and she built a platform and wore ostrich feathers. after the whig politicians talked about them being born with golden spoons in their mouths and wasting public money, they pulled out the platform. >> how did the europeans see the first couple? >> incredible. they took europe by storm. >> did that help in international politics? >> angelica's mother's brother was a holdover from the jackson

administration. buren kept him on. he was called a slave breeder by an irish militant. there was growing tension there. the publicity of angelica on a positive side did not really cover up those deeper things. >> tonight we are telling the story of two widow presidents that have relatives. twitter question -- why was it important for unmarried/widowed presidents to have a hostess? would that be true for a single president today? >> not as much today as it was then. in a parliamentary system where you have a chief of state and prime minister, there is someone to do those ceremonial duties. there is an important function

there for a president's partner. it is a social and entertaining piece that is there. it is difficult for these bachelor presidents to pull that off without having a female. >> women entertaining ladies at the time, there had to be a hostess. if a man does it -- jackson was known for entertaining and asked dolley madison and one of his daughters. but to have these large entertainments, you needed a lady at them. >> this is a particular instant, but this is a house -- again.he women's sphere or is this tension between

politics and society. >> caller from baltimore. what is your question? caller: when angelica was presented to queen victoria, what was her impression of angelica? >> we were told that she was charmed of her. we do not know of any consequence correspondence. >> i think the european courts were fascinated and relieved that they turned out to be civilized, that they were not backwards or uncivilized, which was unexpected of americans. >> angelica's family was very wealthy. she had a great interest in fashion. she would come in the finest dress. it was the just she was -- was the dress she was presented to the queen

in. she was polished. >> what about family cultures? angelica came from the plantation life and a very wealthy family in the south. >> martin van buren loved society. he was nervous because he was always willing off plans. a lot men who disliked him would say, oh, he just deals with the ladies. he deals with the ladies through the back door. he was very social. so were his sons. >> a little sidebar, but there were stories that martin van buren is responsible for the universal expression, "ok." >> during the election of 1840, supporters of martin van buren started referring to him and the

phrase "ok" was picked up by the campaign. it stuck. it began the universal expression that we use all the time. >> georgia, what is your question? caller: i want to know if angelica did anything beyond hostessing. some were disappointed in her not helping with the causes because they had conflict with the other frontiers. did she advise him on that sort of thing? or was she simply a hostess? >> we have no evidence of her delving into politics. even later in life and during the civil war, she was quite quiet about where her sentiments fell in anything politically.

she does not express a political view. >> but her influence in politics was a negative one during the administration. >> because she was young and she made mistakes. >> did she recover? >> she did, i think. they tore out the dais. by then, the administration was almost over anyway. >> angelica wasn't going to sink the administration. there were some serious issues in the united states. slavery was a huge one. these are big and difficult issues. the size of the north and the south are pulling apart from each other.

the center is not going to hold. >> what about the mormons and buren? >> i don't know. >> bill, you are on the program. caller: he simulates that burr is the true father of martin van buren. how serious would that claim be? >> i will say that it is a delightful tale. it is almost impossible. during the campaign of 1840, that was certainly raised. van buren being a close associate of burr. both of them were charmed. the likelihood that martin van buren's mother was living in a tavern in new york after having all of these kids already from

her first marriage -- that was highly unlikely. >> from twitter -- i would like to know if angelica had any kids. >> yes, she did. that is the thing about young women in the white house. >> angelica was pregnant twice in the white house. the first child she lost. shortly after that, she retreated from public life because she was already pregnant. she kept it private after that. >> missouri.

caller: hello? >> hi. you are on. caller: i'm wondering why martin van buren did not remarry after his wife died. >> interesting question. there is little talk about this. they were first cousins. they knew each other growing up. hannah was his wife. they had all of these children together. we do not have too many stories of him having romantic dalliances with other women or even possibly proposing. he has friendships with women, but not another romantic connection. >> a viewer asks you -- why did he not even mention having a daughter in his autobiography?

>> he did not mention it. it is a rambling bit of an autobiography. you think -- he wanted to name the girl after the mother. he asked, was the name anna or hannah? he always kept a locket with a painting of her with him. that is all we know. >> we will show a video to a place you know well. it is the historic home that the van burens occupied. can you tell us about it? >> sure. he bought it in case the white house didn't work out. he was very pleased to acquire that property. >> we will visit it in new york. you will see that next.

[video clip] >> they would spend the summer months here. in the dining room, angelica would have serve as hostess. they had many events. during those times, angelica was in residence and hostess of those occasions. she was quite refined. she was wealthy. she had the appropriate graces of the time. so much so that she welcomed the french ambassador and he complimented her. later, buren added another 100 acres. in the green room, one of two parlors on the first floor. typically the women of the house

would engage in a variety of activities. they would read or recite from memory to one another. they would often play parlor games in here. angelica was trained on the harp. we have a harp here. there were occasions when she would play the harp in the green room. this is the breakfast room. it is a much more intricate room compared to the one you saw earlier. it is the one where the family had their daily meals. you can see the monograms. angelica would serve someone tea. in july of 1843, while angelica and abraham were visiting her father in law, she suffered a miscarriage.

we know from letters that she wrote in, she convalesced on this coach in the main hall. on the second floor, abraham and angelica would have spent a great deal of time while they were visiting her father in law. we have several dresses that were worn by angelica. it is easy to imagine her wearing them at events. angelica would have likely used this parasol during the summer while visiting. i believe that martin van buren and his daughter-in-law had a very close relationship. he was very amiable and was successful in politics. she was trained in the social graces of the 19th-century. i think they genuinely cared for one another. i believe that martin van buren

and his daughter-in-law had a very close relationship. he was very amiable and was successful in politics. she was trained in the social graces of the 19th-century. i think they genuinely cared for one another. >> a number of them are served in different places. >> yes. >> we have been talking about these early first ladies and whether they influenced fashion in this country. setter?a trend >> she was definitely like jackie kennedy, selling to be emulated. -- someone to be emulated. >> let's talk about how the family used this after they lost the white house. >> van buren put a lot of effort into making a productive farm and made money out of doing it.

that was an important component. he also had his family there. he had cousins and nephews and nieces. he had families stay there. it was a house full of family. >> he also had political ambition. >> absolutely. he made it clear that if the country called for him, he would certainly go forward. >> what about his bid with the

-- >> sort of like another dutch president who bucks the party he represented, martin van buren comes to 1848 and makes a pretty substantial decision that he is going to go against what he spent his life working for -- united, democratic party -- and he will run a third-party campaign with his son, john. they run on the free liberty ticket. very interesting third-party. a forerunner of the republican party. they basically believed in free soil and free labor and no slavery. >> angelica and her husband involved in any future ambitions? >> no, not really. >> certainly the others were.

abraham went to university. >> what is interesting is that after she is widowed or even before that, she spends the last part of her life in new york city. it is a cosmopolitan journey. >> a call from naples, florida. caller: hi. i grew up in the 1930's and 1940's. my last recollection of it it was an abandoned home in total disrepair. the grounds were totally wild. any evidence was totally absent. at what point did the property

get improved? a man of wealth about the property and started to repair it and then the government took it over. did you tell that part of the story? >> it basically became a large and ornate farmhouse. it had gone through several reiterations. they try to make a teahouse out of it. and basically had never been owned again by anyone who had enough money to do anything great for it, but also never had

money to ruin it either. the gentleman you mentioned purchased the house and try to restore it. actually did, at least saved it from complete ruin and then legislation was passed to make it as part of the national park service. >> next is a call from marilyn. caller: hi there. i'm enjoying your program. i'm wondering what abraham did while angelica was acting as host is in the white house. >> thank you. >> the president's always lives in the white house. that is why they had relatives. they wanted people that they got along with. they wanted to live in the white house and abraham was the secretary and the principal aid to his father. >> yes. he had been to west point and

had fought in the civil war. >> from twitter -- did anyone ever mention hannah? you said you wanted to talk more about that. >> what i really wanted to say is that van buren was not so odd in mentioning his wife. many leaders would talk about their lives without mentioning wives or children. it was so personal and it had nothing to do with their success. >> we have about seven minutes left. i would like to wrap this up and talk about the time period. two administrations that are very much intertwined and scandal politics. let's talk in a broad sense about the changing country and the changing political parties. >> one of the major things that we forget because we are so

comfortable with united states being a two-party system and that that being what democracy is, you forget that during the early republic, there wasn't a two-party system. the founding fathers hated parties and thought they would be terrible for democracy. it was the buren generation that they needed an ordered, structured system of making things happen. we need a party, philosophy, to show up and vote on the same things. we need to hang together or things will spin out of control, and they did. >> how did washington, d.c. change? >> it grew like crazy. >> at the beginning it was kind of a big swamp with a lot of trees and dirt. there would be a house there and a building there.

it became a place. i think what is important about this is that it is the time when steamboats had changed the whole situation about selling from the south and the slave power was growing and abolition sentiment is growing like crazy in the north. that is why we see someone like van buren running on the free soil ticket, which is that abolitionist party. >> this elephant in the room takes stage. >> during this time, we had two apolitical first ladies. one says that she loves the renderings of the white house. >> there is a major piece that

you always see sticking out from the house that is a major addition. they put in plumbing and central heating. they got a lot of heat for it the white house changed a lot. >> jackson spent a lot of money as well. that was on basic repairs. it starts out a certain way and then it gets all run down as it does with your own house. they keep putting off repairs that are pretty much needed.

>> especially if you are andrew jackson and bring many people. >> that, too. >> isabella, you're on the air. caller: hi. i'm wondering why did they usually marry their relatives? >> can i also ask how old you are? caller: twelve. >> are you learning a lot? caller: yes. >> glad to have you in the audience. >> there were a limited number of people. at the time, your cousins would be the only people available to you. it was not uncommon at all. it was not uncommon for that to happen. people did not have any sense that there was anything odd

about that. it seemed like a good thing. you knew what that person was like and you knew all about them. >> they were dutch speakers. these were their own people. >> there was a book written about martha washington. this is her story about rachel and andrew jackson of being gentle. it is available for those of you who want to learn more. let me have you talk about a theme, that is the changing role of women in politics. what was happening for women and their ability to influence politics?

>> what was gaining is the abolitionist movement. they were part of that movement and were also feminist. it was not peculiar to see women with opinions. >> how did the ladies in the administrations deal with the panic of 1837? >> very well. -- not so well? really was a panic. >> last question. caller: yes, my quick question is that i heard that the burens white house.n the

what president family spoke a foreign language in the white house, and the answer is the family of martin van buren's. >> i do not believe that his children did. van buren spoke dutch. i doubt he spoke dutch in the white house. by the time he went into his retirement, he went to the countryside to speak with the people who spoke dutch. the dutch in the hudson valley began to die out. >> what happens next? >> he goes home. >> what happens in the white house? >> the war hero, harrison, comes in and unfortunately catches pneumonia during his inauguration and dies.

>> it sets the stage for a very interesting conversation on our next program of "first ladies." thank you for being here tonight to talk us through 12 years of a changing country and the presidents and first ladies. >> thank you. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> season two of "first ladies: image" begins september 9. we are offering a special edition of the book "first ladies of the united states of america." it is available at the discount price of $12.95 at c- span.org/products. our website has more on the including a, special section called welcome to the white house.

the chronicles life in the executive branch and -- mansion. you can find out more at c- span.org/firstladies. c-span, we bring public affairs from washington directly to you and putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences. we offer gavel coverage of the u.s. house as a public service of private industry. c-span, created by the cable industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. you can watch us in hd now. > c-span, president obama speaking to the press about the nsa and u.s.-russia relations. chuck hagel speaks with the russian foreign minister.

talk tot obama reporters today about a range of issues, including surveillance programs and u.s.-russia relations. this is about 55 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody, please have a seat. over the past few weeks, i have been talking about what i believe should be our priorities for the country. i am focused on the number one responsibility as commander-in- chief, keeping the american people safe. in recent days, we have been reminded once again about the threats to our nation. as i said at the national

defense university back in may, in meeting those threats, we have to strike the right balance between protecting our security and preserving our freedoms. and as part of this rebalancing, i called for a review of our surveillance programs. unfortunately, rather than an orderly and willful process, repeated leaks of classified information has initiated the conversation but not always in a very informed way. i held a healthy skepticism of these programs as a senator and as president i have taken steps to make sure that they have strong oversight by all three branches of government and clear safeguards to prevent abuse and protect the rights of the american people. but, given the history of abuse by government, it is right to ask questions about surveillance, particularly as technology is reshaping every aspect of our lives.

i'm also mindful of how these issues are viewed overseas because american leadership amount -- leadership or around the world depends upon example of american democracy and american overtones. what makes us different from other countries is not just our ability to secure our nation but the way we do it, in open debate and the democratic process. in other words, it is not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programs. the american people need to have confidence in them as well. and that is why i'm over the last few weeks, i have consulted members of congress who have come at this issue from many different respective's and i have asked the oversight board to review where our counterterrorism efforts and our values come into tension, and i

directed our national security to be more transparent and to pursue reforms of our laws and practices. so i would like to discuss for specific steps, not all- inclusive, but specific steps we will be taking to move the debate forward. first, i will work with congress to pursue appropriate reforms to section 215 of the patriot act, the program that collects telephone records. as i said, this program is an important tool in our effort to disrupt your wrist plots and it does not allow the government to listen to any phone calls without a warrant. but given the scale of this program, i understand the concerns of those who would worry that it could be subject to abuse. so after having a dialogue with members of congress and civil libertarians, i know that there are steps we can take to give the american people additional confidence that there are additional safeguards against abuse. for instance, we can take steps to put in place greater oversight, greater transparency,

and constraints on the use of this authority. so i look forward to working with congress to meet those objectives. second, i will work with congress to improve the public's confidence in the oversight conducted by the foreign intelligence surveillance court, known as the fisk. it was created by congress to provide judicial review of certain intelligence activities so that a federal judge must find that our actions are consistent with the constitution. however, to build greater confidence, i think we should consider some additional changes to the fisc. one of the concerns people raised is that a judge reviewing a request from the government to conduct programmatic civilian -- conduct programmatic surveillance may only see one side of it. while i have confidence in the court and i think they have done a fine job, i think they can provide greater assurances that the court is looking at these issues from both perspectives, security and privacy.

so specifically, we can take steps to make sure civil liberties concerns have an independent voice in appropriate cases by ensuring that the government's position is challenged by an adversary. number three, we can and must be more transparent. i directed the intelligence community to to make public as much information about these programs as possible. we have already declassified unprecedented information about the nsa, but we can go further. so the apartment of justice will make public the rationale under article 215 of the patriot act. and release information that entails authority and oversight. and finally, the intelligence community is creating a website that will serve as a for further transparency. this will give americans and the world the ability to learn more

about what our intelligence community does and what it doesn't do, how it carries out its mission and why it does so. fourth, we are forming a high- level group of outside experts to review our entire intelligence and communications technologies. we need new thinking for a new era. we have to unravel terrorist plots by finding a needle in a haystack occasions. meanwhile, technology has given governments unprecedented capability to monitor situations. so i'm asking this independent group to step back and review our capabilities, particularly our surveillance technologies and how we can maintain the trust of the people, how we can make sure that there is absolutely no abuse in terms of how these surveillance technologies are used, ask how surveillance impacts our

foreign-policy particularly in an age when more and more information is becoming public, and provided an interim report in 60 days and a final report by the end of this year so we can move forward with a better understanding of how these programs impact our security, our privacy, and our foreign- policy. so all of the steps are designed to ensure that the american people can trust that our efforts are in line with our interests and our values. and to others around the world, i want to make clear once again that america is not interested in spying on ordinary people. our intelligence is focused above all on finding the information necessary to protect our people and, in many cases, detect our allies. it's true -- protect our allies. it's true, we have surveillance capability, but it is also true that we have shown a restraint that many governments around the world won't even think of doing or refuse to show. that includes, by the way, some

of america's most of her -- most vocal critics. let me close with one additional thought. the men and women of our intelligence community work every single day to keep us safe because they love this country and believe in our values. they are patriots. and i believe that those who have lawfully raised their voices on behalf of privacy and civil liberties are also patriots who love our country and want to live up to our highest ideals. so this is how we will resolve our differences in the united states, through vigorous public debate, guided by our constitution with reverence for our history as a nation of laws and with respect for the facts. so with that, i will take some questions. let's see who we've got here. we are going to start with julie pace of ap.

>> i wanted to ask about some of the foreign-policy fallout from the disclosure of the nsa programs you discussed. your spokesman said yesterday that there's no question that the u.s. relationship with russia has gotten worse since vladimir putin took office. how much of that decline do you attribute directly to mr.putin given that you had a good working relationship with his predecessor? will there be additional unit of measures taken against russia for granting asylum to edward snowden or is canceling the summit must make -- the most that you can do? >> i think there has always been some tension in the u.s.-russian relationship after the fall of

the soviet union. that has been cooperation in seminaries and competition in others. it is true that, in my first four years, in working with medvedev, we've made a lot of progress. we got start 2 done. we were able to work together on iran sanctions. they provided us help in terms of supplying our troops in afghanistan. we were able to get russia into the wto, which is not just good for russia, but therefore are companies and businesses -- but for our companies and businesses because they are more likely to follow forms and rules. so there is a lot of good work that has been done and that will continue to be done. what is also true is that, when president putin came back into

power, i think we saw more rhetoric on the russian side that was anti-american that played into some of the old stereotypes about the cold war between the united states and russia. i have encouraged mr. putin to think forward as opposed to backwards on those issues with mixed success. i think the latest episode is just one more in a number of emerging differences that we have seen over the last several months around syria, around human rights issues, where it is probably appropriate for us to take a pause, reassess where it is that rush is going, what our core interests are, -- where it is that russia is going, what our core interests are, that what we're doing is good for for the united states and hopefully good for russia as well but recognizing that there are just going to be some differences and we will not be able to completely disguise them. and that's ok. keep in mind that, although i am not attending the summit come i will still be going to st.

petersburg because rush is also -- russia is also in the g-20. that is important business in terms of our economy and our jobs and all the issues that are of concern to americans. i know the one question that has been raised is how do we approach deal of picks? i just -- how do we approach the olympics? i just want to make clear that i do not think it is appropriate to boycott the olympics. we have a lot of americans out there who are working hard and doing everything they cap to -- they can to succeed. no one is more offended by me than some of the anti-gay lesbian legislation that you have seen in russia.

but as i said, just this week, i have spoken out against that not just with respect to russia but a number of other countries. we continue to do work with them, but we have a strong disagreement on this issue. one of the things i'm really looking forward to is maybe some gay and lesbian athletes bringing home a gold or silver or bronze, which i think would go a long way in rejecting the kind of attitudes that we are seeing there. and if russia doesn't have gay or lesbian athletes, that will probably make their team weaker. >> [indiscernible] >> keep in mind that our decision to not participate in the summit was not simply around mr. stood in -- mr. snowden. it was friendly on a whole host of issues that russia has not moved. so we don't consider that street we punitive. we are going to assess where the relationship can advance u.s. interests and increase descend stability and prosperity around the world.

we will keep on working with them. where we have differences, we will say so clearly. and my hope is that, over time, mr. putin and russia recognize that, rather than a zero-sum competition, in fact, if the two countries are working together, we can probably advance the betterment of both peoples. chuck todd. >> given that you just announced a whole bunch of reforms based on essentially the leaks that edward snowden made on all of the surveillance programs, does that change -- has your mindset changed? is he more of a whistleblower or a hacker as you call them out one point or somebody who should be provided more protection? is he a patriot? and just to follow up on the personal -- >> i just want to make sure that everybody asking one question would be helpful. >> it is part of a question they did not answer. can you get stuff done with russia without having a good

personal relationship with putin? >> i don't have a bad personal relationship with putin. when we have conversations, they are candid. they are blunt. oftentimes, they are constructive. i know the press likes to focus on body language and he's got that kind of sludge, looking like a bored kid in the back of the classroom. [laughter] but the truth is, when we are in conversations together, oftentimes it is very productive. so the issue here really has to do with where they want to take russia. it is substantive on the policy front. no, right now, this is just a matter of where mr. putin and the russian people want to go.

i think that if they are looking forward into the 21st-century and how they can advance their economy and make sure that some of our joint concerns on counterterrorism are managed effectively, then i think we can work together. if issues are framed as they u.s. is for it then russia should be against it or we will be finding ways for we can help each other at every opportunity, then probably we don't get as much stuff done. now i have forgotten your question, which is presumably is the more important one. no, i don't think mr. snowden was a patriot. as i said in my opening remarks, i called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations before mr. snowden made these leaks. my preference -- and i think the american people's preference --

would have been for a lawful, orderly examination of these laws, a thoughtful fact-based debate that would then lead us to a better place. because i never made claims that all the surveillance technologies that have developed since the time some of these laws were put in place somehow didn't require potentially some additional reforms. that is exactly what i called for. so the fact is that mr. snowden has been charged with three felonies. if in fact he believes that what he did was right, then like every american citizen, he can come here and appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case. if the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, i signed an executive order well before mr. snowden leaked this information that provided as a blower protection

-- whistleblower protection to the intelligence community for the first time. so there were other avenues available for someone whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions. but having said that, once the leaks have happened, what we have seen is information come out in drips and in drags, sometimes coming out sideways -- once the information is out, the administration comes in and tries to correct the record. but by that time, it is too late or we have moved on and a general impression has taken hold not only among the mac and public, but also around the world, that somehow we are out there willy- nilly just sucking in information on everybody and doing what we please with it. and that is not the case. our laws specifically prohibit us from surveilling u.s. persons without a warrant and their are

safeguards that are put in place to make sure that that basic >> but what is clear is that whether, because of the instinctive bias of the intelligence community to keep everything very close, and probably what is a fair criticism is my assumption that if we had checks and balances from the courts and congress, that that traditional system of checks and balances would be enough to give people assurances that these programs were run properly. at assumption proved to be undermined by what happened after the leaks. i think people have questions

this program. so as a consequence, i think it is important for us to go ahead and answer the questions. rather than have a trunk come out here, and a tail here and a leg there, let's put the whole elephant out there so people know what they are looking at. let's examine what is working, what is not, are there additional protections that can be put in place, and let's move forward. there is no doubt that mr. snowden's leaks triggered a than would have been the case if i had simply appointed a review board to go through and sat down with congress. it wouldn't have been as

exciting or generated as much press. i actually think we would have gotten to the same place, and we would have done so without putting at risk our national security and some very vital ways that we need to get the intelligence we need to secure the country. >> thank you, mr. president. i would like to ask you about the debate playing itself out about the choice you will venchtly make on the next federal reserve chairman. there is a perception among dempsters that larry sherman has the inside track. there are money women who believe that breaking the glass ceiling would be important. do you find this debate unseemly, and do you think this is one of the most important economic decisions you will make in the remainder of your

presidency. >> it is one of the more important economic decisions i will make in the remainder of my presidency. they are one of the most important policy makers in the world. and that person presumably will stay off -- stay on. this, along with supreme court appointments is probably as important a decision i can make as president. i have a range of outstanding candidates. you have mentioned two of them, ms. yerlen. and they are both terrific people. i think the perception that mr. smors might have an inside track -- mr. summers might have an inside track may have something to do with a set of

attacks that i was hear on mr. summers preemptively, which happens, that i don't like. when somebody has worked hard for me and on basson of the american people, and -- and on baffle of the american people, and i know the quality of those people, and i see them slapped around in the press before they have even been nominated for anything, i want to make sure somebody was standing up for them. i felt the same way when people were attacking susan rice before she was nominated for inning. but i consider them both outstanding candidates. my main criteria -- i have stated this before, but i want to repeat it. my main criteria for the fed reserve chairman is somebody who understands they have got a dual mandate. a critical part of the job is making sure that we keep

inflation in check, that our monetary policy is sound, that the dollar is sound. those are all critical components of the job, and we have seen what happens when the fed is not paying attention. we saw prior to paul volker coming into place inflation shooting up in ways that really damaged the real economy. but the other mandate is full employment. and right now if you look at the biggest challenges we have, the challenge is not inflation. the challenge is we've still got too many people out of work, too many long-term unemployed, too much slack in the economy, and we are not growing as fast as we should. so i want a fed chairman who is le to look at those issues and have a perspective that keeps an eye on inflation,

making sure we are not seeing artificial bubbles in place, but also recognizing that a big part of my job is to make sure the economy is growing quickly, robustly a, and is sustained and durable so that people who work hard in this country are able to find a job. frankly, i think both larry are s and janet yellen highly qualified candidates, and there are a couple of others as well. i will make the decision in the fall. defending him as vigorously as you did. >> major, i would defend you if somebody was saying something not true about you. [laughter] >> in fact i have done that in the white house. [laughter] >> carol leaf, and

congratulations on hudson. >> do you have pictures? >> thank you. i appreciate you making it a slow news week. i wanted to ask you about the evolution on the surveillance issues. part of what you are talking about is restoring the public trust, and it has evolved from when you were in the u.s. senate and as recently as june, the process is such that people should be comfortable with it. now you are making these reforms, and people should be comfortable with those. why should the public trust you on this issue, and why did you change your position multiple times. >> it is important to say, rol, tigers of all, -- first of all shah -- that i haven't evolved. i consistently said that when i came into office, i evaluated them. some of these programs i had been critical of when i was in the senate. when i looked through specifically what was being

, my determination was that the two programs in particular offered valuable intelligence that helps us protect the american people, and they are worth preserving. what we also saw was that some bolts needed to be tightened up on programs. so we initiated additional oversighings reforms, compliance officers, audits and so forth. and if you look at the reports, even the disclosures that mr. snowden has put forward, all the stories that have been written, what you are not reading about is the government actually aing -- actually abusing these programs and listening in on people's phone calls, or inappropriately reading people's e-mails. what you are horing about is the prospect that these could

be abused. >> if you are the ordinary person and start seeing a bunch of read lines saying big brother is looking down on you, checking telephone records, et cetera, well, under bolli people would be concerned. i would be, too, if i wasn't inside the government. >> in light of the changed environment where a whole set of questions have been raised, some in the most sensationalized manner ssible, where these leaks or

-- are released drip by drip, one a week to kind of maximize attention and see if they can catch us at some imprecision on something. in light of that, it makes sense for us to go ahead, lay out what exactly we are doing, have a discussion with congress , have a discussion with industry, which is also impacted by this, have a discussion with civil libertarians and see can we do this better. i think the main thing i want o emphasize is i don't have an interest, and the people of the n.s.a. don't have an interest in doing anything other than making sure that where we can prevent a terrorist attack, where we can get information

ahead of time, that we are able to carry out that critical task. we do not have an interest in doing anything other than that. we have tried to set up a system that is as fail-safe as so far at least we have been able to think of to make sure that these programs are not abused. but people may have better ideas, and people may want to jigger slightly sort of the balance between the information that we can get versus the incental encroachments on privacy that, if haven't already taken place, may take place in a future administration or as technologies develops further. another thing, as technology develops further, technology may provide us additional safeguard.

if people don't have confidence that the law, the checks and balances of the court and congress are sufficient to give us confidence that the government is not snooping, maybe we can imbed technologies in there that prevent the snooping regardless of what the government wants to do. there may be some technological fixes that provide another layer of assurance. so those are the kinds of things that i'm looking forward o having a conversation about. [inaudible question] >> the fact that i had that programs are operating in a way

that prevents abuse, that continues to be true without reforms. the question is how do we make the american people more comfortable? if i tell michelle that i did the dishes, now granted in the white house i don't do the dishes thatcher, but back in the day. and she is a little skeptical. well, i would like her to trust me, but maybe i need to bring her back and show her the dishes and not just have her take my word for it. the program is -- i am comfortable that the program currently is not being abused. i am comfortable that if the american people examined exactly what was taking place, how it was being used, what the safeguard were, that they would say you know what? these folks are following the

law and doing what they say hey are doing. but, it is absolutely true that with the expansion of technology, this is an area that is moving very quickly, with the revelations that have depleted public trust, if there are some additional things we can do to build that trust back p, then we should do them. >> thank you, mr. president. you have said that core al qaeda has been decimated, that its leaders are on the run. now that we have seen this terror threat that has resulted in embassies closed throughout he arab world and africa, do you still think it has been decimated. and can you tell us about the drone strikes we have seen the last couple of weeks in yemen?

>> what i said in the national defense speech back in may that i referred to earlier is that core al qaeda is on its heels, has been decimated. but what i also said was that al qaeda and other extremists metasticized to different groups. i said specifically that although they are less likely to be able to carry out spectacular homeland attacks like 9/11, they have the capacity to go after our embassies. they have the capacity potentially to go after our businesses. they have the capacity to be de-stabilizing and disruptive in countries where the security apparatus is weak.

that is exactly what we are seeing right now. so it is entirely consistent to say this tightly organized and relatively centralized al qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 has been broken apart and is very weak and does not have a lot of operational capacity. and to say we still have these egion a organizations like aqap that can pose a threat, that can drive a truck bomb into an embassy wall and kill some people. that requires us then to make sure that we have a strategy that is strengthening those partners so that they have got their own capacity to deal with what are potentially manageable regional threats if these countries are a little bit stronger and have more effective c.t. and so forth.

it means that we have got to continue to be vigilant and go after known terrorists who are potentially carrying out plots or are going to strengthen their capacity over time. they are always testing the boundaries of maybe we can try this or do that. but this is an ongoing process. we are not going to completely elimination terrorism. what we can do is to weaken it and to strengthen our partnerships in such a way that it does not pose the kind of horrible threat that we saw on 9/11. i'm not going to discuss specific operations that have taken place. again, in my speech in may, i was very specific about how we make these determinations about potential lethal strikes, so i

would refer to you that speech. >> so you are not going to confirm that we have carried out known strikes in yemen? >> i will not have a discussion bout operational issues. >> i hope you would defend me as well? >> i would. >> thank you. i want to ask you about two important dates coming up. implementation the health care law. if you pick and choose, couldn't your successor choose whether or not wl to keep it in place. you said on september 12th, make no mistake we will bring to justice the killers from ben gases -- benghaziy. where are they? >> i also said we would get

others. there is a sealed sfwimet. it is sealed for -- a sealed indictment. it is sealed for a reason. we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack, and we are going to stay on it until we get them. i will leave it at that, but this remains a top priority for us. anybody who attacks americans, anybody who kills, tragically, four americans who were serving us in a very dangerous place, we are going to do everything we can to get those who carried out those attacks. with respect to health care, i didn't simply choose to delay this on my own. this was in consultation with businesses all across the ountry, many of whom are supportive of the affordable care act, and many of whom by the way are already providing

health insurance to their employees, but were concerned about the operational details of changing their h.r. operations if they have a lot of employees, which could be costly for them, and then suggesting there may be easier ways to do this. what is true is that in a normally political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say you know what? this is a tweak that doesn't go to the essence of the law. it has to do with are we able to simplify the added station of employers as to whether they are already providing health insurance or not. it looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let's make a technical change to the law. that would be the normal thing that i would prefer to do. but we are not in a normal

atmosphere around here when it comes to "obamacare." this does not go to the core of implementation. let me tell you the core of implementation that has already taken place. as we speak right now, for the 85% of americans that already have health insurance, they are benefiting for keeping their kid on their plan if their child is 26 or younger. that is benefiting millions of young people around the country. that is why lack of insurance among young people has gone down. that is attributeable to the steps we have taken. you have millions of people who have received rebates because part of the affordable care act is to say that if the insurance company isn't spending 0% of your premium on your health care, you get some money back. and lo and behold, people have been getting their money back. it means the folks who have

been bumping up with lifetime limits on their insurance that leaves them vulnerable, that doesn't exist. seniors are getting discounts happening ugs is now. free preventive care and contraceptives. i met a young man today who came up today and said thank you. he couldn't have been more than 25 or 26 years old. thank you. i have cancer. thanks to the affordable care ack working with california able to get health care and am now in remission. what happens on october 1, the remaining 15% of the public that doesn't have health insurance, they are going to be able to go to a website or call up a call center and sign up

for affordable quality hell insurance at a significantly cheaper rate than what they can get right now on the individual market. and if even with lower premiums they still can't afford it, we are going to provide them with a tax credit to help them buy it. between october 1st and the end of march, there will be an open enrollment period in which millions of americans for the first time are going to be able to get affordable health care. i think the really interesting question is why it is that my friends in the other party have made the idea of preventing these people from getting health care their holy grail, their number one priority? the one unifying principle in the republican party at the moment is making sure that 30 million people dope have health

care. and presumably repealing all of those benefits i just mentioned, kids staying on their parents' plan, seniors getting discounts on prescription drugs, i guess a return to lifetime limits on insurance, people with preexisting conditions continuing to be blocked from being able to get health insurance. that is hard to under as an agenda that is going to strengthen our middle-class. at least they used to say we are going to replace it with something better. there is not even a pretense now that they are going to replace it with something better. the notion is simply that those 30 million people, or the 150 million who are benefiting from the other aspects of affordable care will be per off without it. not backed by fact or any evidence. it has just become an

ideological fixation. i tell you what, they are wrong about that. there is no doubt that in implements the affordable care ack, a program of this significance, there are going to be some glitches, no doubt about it. there will be things that we should have thought of that earlier or this needs an adjustment. that was true of social security, medicare, the children's health care program, the prescription drug program part d that was rolled out by a republican president and supported by republicans who are still in the house of representatives. that is true, by the way, of a car company rolling out a new car. it is true of apple roling out the new ipad. you will be able to, whenever you want during the course of next six months and probably the next year, find occasions

where you say that could have been done a little bit better, or that thing, they are kind of making an administrative change. that is not how it was originally thought this thing was going to work. yes, exactly. because our goal is to actually deliver high quality affordable health care for people and to reform the system so costs start going down and people start getting a better bang for the buck. i make no apologies for that. let me make one last point about this. the idea that you would shut wn the government unless you prevent 30 million people from getting health care is a bad idea. what you should be thinking about is how can we advance and improve ways for middle-class families to have some security so that if they work hard, they can get ahead and their kids

can get ahead. jessica. >> thank you, mr. president. following on what you just said, republicans in the house might give you that choice, soon, to either allow the government shut down or see obama care de-funded. would you choose to let the government shut down to ensure that obama care remains funded? >> i am not going to engage in hypotheticals. i can tell you that the american people would have difficulty understanding why we would weaken our economy, shut down our government, shut down vital services, have people who are not getting paid, who then can't go to restaurants, or shop for clothes or all the other things that we are doing because reps have determined that -- republicans have determined they don't want

to see these folks get health care. they used to say they had a replacement. that never actually arrived. i have been hearing about this whole replacement thing for two years. now i just don't hear about it because basically they don't have an agenda to provide health insurance to people at affordable rates. the idea that you would shut down the government at a time when the recovery is getting some tracks, where we are growing, although not as fast as we need to, where the housing market is recovering, although not as fast as we would like, that we would precipitate another crisis here in washington that no economist thinks is a good idea. i'm assuming that they will not take that path. i have confidence that common sense in the end will prevail.

>> and if they do, sir, you have to make that choice. >> we will see what happens. we have a couple of months. >> when was the last time you spoke to speaker boehner about the budget. >> fairly recently, probably right before the alexei. >> scott? >> thank you, mr. president. part of the political logic ehind reform was the lateral no vote. that doesn't sit well with republicans that represent white districts. what leverage can you bring to bear? >> well, we have an economic report that shows our economy will be $1 trillion stronger if we get immigration reform done. we have evidence that our housing market would be

stronger if immigrants are in a situation in which having paid a fine, having paid back taxes, that they now have the ability to enter into the housing market. have strong evidence that our technological and research edge would be greater if we get immigration reform done. t puts unprecedented resources into border security. if your main priority is border security, i would think you would want to vote for this bill. we northwest that the senate bill creates a system in which employers are held accountable for when they hire undocumented workers. this is something that people say is a bad thing. i agree. let's make sure that system for holding employers accountable

is in place. so when i hear the opposition o immigration reform, i just run through the list of things they are concerned about. i look at what the senate bill does, and i say to myself the senate bill actually improves the situation on every issue they say they are concerned about. now what they may argue is it doesn't solve the problem 100%. i don't know a law that solves a problem 100%. social security lifted millions of seniors out of poverty, but there are still some poor seniors. the civil rights act and the voting rights act drastically reduced discrimination in america, but there is still discrimination. it doesn't make them bad lascuna. it just means that there are very few human problems that

re 100% solveable -- solveable. what i see right now is a strong bipartisan vote coming out of the senate. i think the speaker and others have said they need to do something. i would urge when they get back to do something, put forward a bill that has an opportunity to actually pass. it may not be precisely what is in the senate bill. my preference would be for them to go ahead and call the senate bill, but if they have some additional ideas, the senate is happy to consider them, and get that bill on the floor, put it up for a vote. i am absolutely certain that the votes for the senate bill which strengthens border security, demands responsibility from undocumented workers to pay a

fine, pay a penalty, get to the back of the line, reforms our legal immigration system, holds employers accountable, i am absolutely confident that if that bill was on the floor of the house, it would pass. so the challenge right now is not that there aren't a majority of house members, just like a majority of senate members, who aren't prepared to support this bill. the problem is internal republican caucus politics. that is what the american people don't want us to be worrying about. don't worry about your washington politics. solve problems. this is one why you have actually got some broad consensus. i don't know an issue where you have labor, the chamber of commerce, evangelicals student groups, you name it, supportive of a bill.

let's get it done. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] >> on the next journal journal, a playbook at president obama's proposal for reforming the mortgage lending industry with . rget chadbourn we will discuss how seacrest ration is affecting national defense. journal journal begins live -- washington journal begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span. >> california congressman dana is our guest this week on news makers. he is the chair of the foreign photographers subcommittee. he discussion the u.s.-palestinian peace talks, russian relations and places

like yemen and afghanistan. >> some people say well if we cut the military at least we won't have the temptation to go fight as much. and if the japanese want to fight over the isles against the chinese, let them do it. we are better off santiago out, and if we have a smaller military, we will be disinclined to get involved. if you look at historically when we fight and don't, i don't see a correlation of higher defense budgets and greater likelihood of intervening. the world wars began when we were unprepared. if we fast forward to the ragan years, in many years the ragan years, people can correct me if they wish afterwards or whenever, but the ragan years are still seen as the golden years of american defense

policy because we billion up the budget and didn't really use the military. support that wonderful? i am not saying it was all ronald reagan's great judgment that led to that. there were some happy circumstances there as well. >> this weekend on c-span, a brookings institution discussion on upcoming defense department budget cuts, saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. on book tv, eric's discussion on the muslim brother hood. and own c-span 3's american history tv, a look at the japanese internment camps. sunday at 4:15. >> secretary of state john erry, and secretary of defense chuck hagel met with the russian foreign minister to discuss relations.

it came days after the cap selden summit. from the stapleton, -- from the state department, this is 15 minutes. >> good morning everybody. we are delighted to welcome ministers here. we are happy to have them here today. i particularly want to welcome my old friend, chuck hagel from the defense department. the relationship between the united states and russia is,

needless to say, a very important relationship, and it is marked by both shared interests and at times colliding and conflicting interests. i think we are all very clear-eyed about that. we are old hockey players, and we both know that diplomacy, like hockey, can sometimes rull in the occasional collision. so we are candid, very candid, about the areas in which we agree, but also the areas in which we disagree. it is? secret that we have experienced some challenging moments and obviously not just over the snowden case. we will discuss these differences today for certain. but this meeting remains important above and beyond the collisions and the moments of disagreement.

it is important for us to find ways to make progress on missile defense, on other strategic issues including afghanistan, iran, on north korea and syria. one thing i would emphasize is that on syria, while we do not always agree completely on responsibility for the bloodshed or some of the ways forward, both of us and our countries agree that to avoid institutional collapse and dissent into chaos, the ultimate answer is a negotiated political solution. the geneva conference is a step toward that solution. i look forward to a very honest and robust discussion on all of these issues. so we welcome the delegation from russia here today, and we look forward to a very productive, hopefully, and full

conversation. >> hello ladies and gentlemen. my colleagues, thank you for the hospitality extended to myself and sergi, minister of defense of the russian if he would ration. and it ot in a while, was the right idea of the presidents when they met june 17th on the sidelines of the g- summit when they decided to resume this format, and thus we meet here today in washington. we were preparing a number of.coms, a package of documents for -- of document, a package of documents for approval at the meeting between the two

presidents. i'm referring to the statement on the comprehensive 18th pment, the , and the y of the statement giving momentum to trade. by design, the presidents were upposed to adopt the statement in the presence of captains of business of the two conference. we want the economy to be more prominent in our relations. we prepared more stammens on enhances combatting the drug threat. agreement of nuclear threat reduction centers. cooperation agreement on research in the nuclear sector.

i want to highlight that we foundation ry solid for future work, and once we start building on the foundation, once these instruments are approached, we will have agreement in different sectors. today well discusses international issues. global issues and missile defense. we have been discussing this .ssue for a long time first -- since we starred discussions of the new treat dwri, we also spoke about missile defense, and we note with satisfaction that in his april letter to president putkonen, president obama recognized the need to take into account all factors of

stability when talking about reductions. the two presidents have discussed things to increase transparency in this sector. ministers of defense of the two counsel were given instructions in that respect, and at least we in russia were prepared to table our proposals to the two presidents and will do so once the summit meeting takes place. as regard to the crisis settlement, syria is indeed on top of our agenda. our goal is the same. we need to start the political process. e need to stage a geneva two conference, and the most important task for the geneva two would be to honor the commitment of all g-8 leaders

made when they called both government and opposition to join efforts to fight terrorists and force them away from syria. n the current day reality, with the things we have been hearing lately, this is indeed our top rarity. afghanistan is important. the iranian nuclear program is. the korean peninsula nuclear issue and many other topics will be discussed today. we are united by shared responsibility. we must prevent the globe.ilization of the we must prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. we need to ensure peaceful settlements of all communities. we have seen military solutions

are not working. we want to see the situation get back to normal in egypt. national see reconciliation efforts. we appreciate the efforts made by our u.s. colleagues and john kerry, especially referring to his efforts aimed as the resumption of the manzella-palestinian dialogue. of course we have aagreement. we will continue to discussing matters which we disagree. i remember meeting john, and we were having this initial conversation, he told me that our countries have a special responsibility. so we need to work as grown-ups. and this is what we do. and we hope it is the same. thank you. >> thank you very much. appreciate that. secretary hagel? >> secretary kerry, thank you.

you and your colleagues here at the state department, thank you for hosting today's meeting. o our guests from the russia federation, welcome. we are very grateful for this opportunity to spend some time lavrov and your colleagues who have accompanied you to address some of the most pressing and important issues facing our countries, facing the world. ur interests almost in every case noted, and more, are mutual interests. the world is complicated. it is combustible. so find solutions at a critical . me in the world are not easy

but just as they have noted, to address these clearly, directly with each other, honestly, and to find the common denominators where we can build high ground to move forward to help resolve these great issues of our time. we live in a very defining time in the world. just as minister lavrov noted in his first conversation with secretary kerry, our countries have some responsibility to , but to obviously the world in many respects. we are leading nations, and we must work with alliances and others as to how we find these solutions to these great challenges. some of the issues that we will

deal with today have been noted . there are others. i have particularly appreciated the opportunity to spend an hour with the minister this morning and his colleagues as we addressed some of the more specific issues related to our defense ministries and our military to military cooperation. that meeting was a very positive meeting, which set the standard i hope for our meeting today. i very much look forward to this meeting, and again thank the ministers and their delegation for being here and to you, second kerry for hosting this. >> thanking, secretary hagel. mr. minister? > thank you. secretaries indeed tied i had

an hour-long meeting with my colleague, secretary hagel. we spoke about mill to mill concentration, political and technical cooperation as well. would like to think -- thank them for wonderful arrangement of the meeting here in washington and highlight the two plus two format. it is in our view very efficient and important. naturally we couldn't but discuss issues that are off concern to our wash colleagues today and to us. fghanistan in first place, and the forthcoming to 14 events. of course we spoke about syria -- the forthcoming 2014 events. of course we spoke about syria.

we spoke about bilateral cooperation, ways to intensify our contacts. we agreed to step up cooperation between future . nisters of the two countries we spoke about how we could give incentive to practical cooperation such as military exercise, both naval or special forces exercise. we also spoke about the need for more transparency. that ld like to make sure major events such as exercise and others hosted by the minister of defense in the russian federation, would like to invite u.s. colleagues, and we will to that timely.

first we would like to invite ot just military at sheas, attache's. we started talking about miss defense, but missile it was should probably be discussed in the way we have gather today. i would like to thank my u.s. colleagues for organizing the meeting. i hope it was as krukive as my meeting with secretary hagel was. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. minister. again, we emphasize the importance of this conversation. and in order to to it properly, we regrettably need to ask our friends in the press if they would now leave us so that we can have an opportunity to

talk. thank you very much. appreciate it. >> on the next washington journal, a playbook at president obama's proposal for reforming the mortgage lending industry. also dan of the lexington institute and winslow will discuss how sequestration is affecting national defense. washington journal begins at , on c-span.ve >> u.s.-russian relations. we will be talking about the chair of the foreign relations subcommittee on europe, euro asia and emerging threats. >> it is imperative we have a good relationship with russia. but yet we have this

administration, and i might add many republicans as well, pushing russia away, still thinking about russia as it was during the cold war. this is no good for the cause of peace, and it is no good for us. >> is it possible you are being a little bit naive here? russia is hosting edward snowden, who top officials say is the most damaging leak ner american history? >> no. i think declaring what mr. snowden did alerting the american people to over surveillance of our own government on the population, to call him a traitor is going too far. in fact he was being loyal to the rest of us by letting the american people know that their government was getting out of hand. and when our government suggests that it has to keep a

record of every phone call every citizen makes in order to protect us, it has gone too far. he fact that russia gave him asylum is very -- i think it is very symbolic. russia, a company we -- as you know, i was ronald reagan's speech writer for seven years. i worked with him on many if not most of his hardcore speeches against the russia. i worked in afghanistan fighting the soviet union. during those days we were against the soviet union because it had too much control and surveillance over its own people. and now many of the same things we were claiming the soviet union was evil about we can actually see happening in our own society. snowden was just alerting us to

our governmental getting out of happened. and russia septembering him for asylum was not as hostile an act as it is being portrayed. >> you can watch the entire interview on news makers sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> of all the handsome young officers that were surrounding my grandmother, 23 years old at the time, very beautiful, my grandfather had been trying to get to her and talk to her, but he couldn't. en the ships shook, they rushed upstairs and left her standing up there. my grandfather fell in behind her going up the steps up to the deck. sailor came running back

saying don't let her hear her father is dead. when she heard that, he feigned. he caught her. >> first ladies, influence and image, looking at the public and private lives of our nation's first ladies. next weave, anna harrison to elijah johnson. all week at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> the reserve officers association held its three-day national security impose yum in washington, d.c. this week. it included remarks by armed services economy chairman, levin son. they addressed a number of issues, including spending cuts on military readiness, sexual assault and the afghanistan draw-down. it advises the white house, congress and the public on national security issues.

>> good morning all, i trust that we had productive meetings and are ready to go for quick continuation of the national security symposium. we are really delighted to have terrific last-minute add to our program with center karl levin, who you all know is the chairman of the senate armed services committee. he is the senator from michigan. where is our michigan delegation. there are some here, senator. a graduate of harvard law

school, elected to the senate in 1978 and has been re-elected every six years since. he is on the permanent and subcommittee on investigations of the homeland security and governmental affairs committee. in 2006 he was named one of time magazine's 10 best senators. he has a host of awards, including the franklin and he will nor roosevelt foundation freedom medal. he holds the second of the navy's distinguished public service medal, which is a big deal actually, and the national guard association, and the harry s. truman award. without further adieu, senator levin. [applause] >> well, thank you so much for the introduction and for the invitation to join with us this morning. it is a real honor to be with