yes, we can't do it by finger-pointing, as lynden johnson said, come, let us reason together. >> diversifying the people that are out there for people -- maybe seeing more of themselves, more minority representation and maybe even more minority involvement in politics. >> all right, as i said to someone yesterday, we have more minority representation in america today than ever in the history of the country. i think better or worse? and i leave that answer to you but i will further respond to you by saying, that's not the answer. question isn't who you -- who the representatives are, government is the people, joyce, i keep going back to lincoln. it's simple. if we have those who understand that their responsibility is to represent us not themselves and that in so doing, if they don't, we say, thank you, we don't need you anymore. we will get those who can and if what you're doing isn't proposing to be representative of us, we want that change by the next group of people we put. no, i don't think the answer comes as the necessary racial quarter basis of increasing that number. the question is i

yes, we can't do it by finger-pointing, as lynden johnson said, come, let us reason together. >> diversifying the people that are out there for people -- maybe seeing more of themselves, more minority representation and maybe even more minority involvement in politics. >> all right, as i said to someone yesterday, we have more minority representation in america today than ever in the history of the country. i think better or worse? and i leave that answer to you but i will further respond to you by saying, that's not the answer. question isn't who you -- who the representatives are, government is the people, joyce, i keep going back to lincoln. it's simple. if we have those who understand that their responsibility is to represent us not themselves and that in so doing, if they don't, we say, thank you, we don't need you anymore. we will get those who can and if what you're doing isn't proposing to be representative of us, we want that change by the next group of people we put. no, i don't think the answer comes as the necessary racial quarter basis of increasing that number. the question is i

henry insisted that at the end of the program when lynden johnson signs and democracy is a complicated thick, we did the series that went from 1950 to 1980. a black organization, spoke with michael and everybody went nuts, you know. black nationalism rose, malcolm x, we had not done malcolm x in eyes one. the panthers black nationalism, affirmative action, you know, that was, you know, it was all a much more complicated history. it was all much more difficult to fund. fire hoses in birmingham and people getting beat up in the bridge in selma. that was very tough. there were a few, lotus software development gets a big shot-out. they developed spreadsheet developers, they stood up and they did it. on eyes two there was not a single corporate underwriter, it was all public money and bill kospi, interestingly enough he and his wife gave a lot of money and gave a party in their townhouse and raised a whole bunch of money for us. i don't know if that answer it is question. >> why do you think -- why wasn't corporate funding in eyes two? was it like a shift? >> it's interesting you say that