words." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by the authors of "game change," and john heilemann and mark halperin. it you have a list things that you thought would make use in this book what on that list has not made news, or what are you surprised at? guest: a lot of things. when john and i set out to write the book, we hope it would be interesting book to read an interesting story. but we were also going for breaking news because we thought there were things that were uncovered during the campaign. i will give you one. john will have others. sarah palin was picked by john mccain and people were shocked when it happened to that time, the campaign said that she had been on consideration for a long time and receive as much of a background check, so-called vetting, as any of the other people john mccain considered. there is skepticism about that at the time did not of the political journalism parade moved on and there were other things to cover. -- there was skepticism about that at the time it. but the political journals a great move on and there were other things to cover. the truth is that she was brought into the game a very late after their main focus, joe lieberman, fell apart as an option. they needed a game changing pick and joe lieberman was again changing the of one sort and sarah palin was another. in book, we quote the vetting a report by washington lawyer who was told on a friday afternoon to get ready and in the space of less than two days look into sarah palin's background, not by making a phone call or interviewing anybody, but simply by doing on-line searches, because they needed to keep it secret. looking at the process by which john mccain picked a virtual stranger as his running mate was something that we thought that a lot of attention. guest: there is a ton of stuff out in the book that we thought would have gotten a lot of attention. i will give you three examples. one of them is a macro story. in the wake of the campaign, one of the pieces of conventional wisdom that was compounded by the obama operation, the question of race was something that they did not really think about. it was not factored into the decision to run, it was a non- issue. that was one of the things they said over and over again after his election. throughout the book, we talk about how much they woere in fact and obsessed with race as a political factor. it produced advertisement after advertisement, fake ads that they thought the mccain campaign would run against them that would be racially frame and how they would respond to that. it was topic a -- host: l me show your view is that what about what you talk about that. "while cash from the mccain campaign was coming up with negative ads on the fly, scribbling scripps, in fact, on the backs of napkins, the obama campaign was determining which ones were most dangerous and to develop responses." guest: the produced dozens upon dozens of spots, and also to look at those ads to be prepared to respond than and other spots that would deal with the problem. the question of what would obama's alleged connections to muslimism -- the obama campaign was constantly trying to respond. we have a great anecdote worked at one point the obama campaign was trying to produce an ad that would take care of all the questions about his race, his alleged muslimism, and alleged lack of patriotism all in one ad the script of this ridiculous --ad -- this ridiculous advertisement -- he read the script and said, "this is too much." on the financial crisis, incredible reporting, i believe, about what happened in the white house meeting george bush held with john mccain and barack obama, hardly been mentioned in the coverage of it is very interesting but it showed how unprepared john mccain was, how well prepared obama was. as you listen to obama take over the meeting, it seems that if you close your eyes, you would believe that this is the president of the united states, not george bush or john mccain. we have a very interesting story about david geffen and maureen dowd and a devastating column that maureen dowd wrote in the early part of the nomination, how that came to be, how this hollywood mogul and this "new york times" columnist bill is one of the first blows to -- dealt one of the first blows to hillary clinton's inevitability. host: she was trying to write that column before she got him to agree to do it. guest: an interesting case of two not only prominent people, but iconic people, it the most prominent "new york times" column is about time -- it columnist of our time, and david geffen, this incredibly influential hollywood figure. he was the head out atf dreamworks and he had turned against the clintons but he was unhappy with the clintons' choice of pardons, not granting a pardon that david geffen had lobbied for us. david geffen had turned on the clintons and felt that they were, if not actual crop, kind of morally bankrupt. -- if not actually corrupt, kind of marleigh backups. he loved obama. when maureen dowd hurt even given to speak in new york -- heard david geffen speak in new york, he was very tough on bill and hillary clinton. maureen in the audience was struck not only by how tough he was talking about clinton's morality, but here they were in new york, the state hillary clinton represented, and the audience seemed very enthusiastic about the notion of that criticism of hillary clinton. over a long period of time, maureen was lobbying david geffen to take what he said at that event and amplify it in an interview with. she was in california at the night before david geffen was to host a fund-raiser for barack obama and she convinces him to do the interview. host: what year is this? guest: 2007. barack obama has gotten into the race and has created a lot of excitement, and in communities that are vitally important if you are trying to become the democratic nominee for president, hollywood, new york, liberal circles, hillary was trying to not let obama rise up as a major competitor to her. for david given to agree to host this fund-raiser was a big blow to the clintons but they were desperate to try to overshadow that. it showed that a hollywood support and the democratic party would not be monolithic. again, maureen convinces david geffen had to do the interview her column goes on the web, and rock obama and -- and obama an then hillary were at this -- and obama was at this fund-raiser. it did not cause any problems for obama. as we report in the book, it was worse for the clinton than they thought. it was the first time that a lot to the issues of bill clinton's personal life, whether the clintons were old politics, whether they were too loose with the truth, was laid out. the one-two punch of it being laid out by david geffen, a pillar of a hollywood establishment, via the maureen dowd column, was devastating. host: i am sure that many people are eager to ask your questions and make comments. sylvia, democrats like, you are first. caller: i saw you all on another show and you are talking about that bill and hillary were upset during the iowa caucuses that the obama campaign had cheated. from what i read and what i heard, the reason they were so upset was because the obama campaign bussed in lots of young people from illinois with the help of a corn -- of acorn, and they showed up at the caucuses early and they locked out the hillary voters. host: john heilemann? guest: a caller is exactly right about what the clintons believe. that, to the letter, what we report in the book -- hillary had been concerned about the caucuses for awhile, that they were to lose, and that he was the state senator from illinois and that this could happen to it the night of the iowa caucuses, when hillary had come in third, she and former president clinton are in a hotel suite and they are as angry as their aides have ever seen about what has happened. she finished far off third and they are incredibly upset. former president clinton starts going on about the fact that all of these people, to order 39,000 people had shown up. -- 239,000 people had shown up. it was incomprehensible to him that many people had shown up to the caucuses, and he seized on the notion that the shooting had occurred and that the buses had come in from -- that cheating had occurred and that losses had come in from illinois to five days later, he suggested that hillary raise this question in a debate, at the outcome of the caucuses should be invalidated because obama had done this thing. president clinton was suggesting to staff that they hired lawyers and challenge the results of the iowa caucuses. we cannot know with any certainty that the charges true, but we spoke to many of the clinton white staff, people long experienced in iowa politics and are very loyal to the clintons and none of them believe that the charges are true but as upset as the clintons were, at what they were looking for some excuse for her performance in there. these are people who would have every reason to believe it was true, and the people who know the iowa caucuses best believe that it is a false charge. host: 80 on the independents' line. amy, could mo -- amy, good morning. i will remind you to turn the television down but i will move on and put you on hold, amy, and move on to palin on the republican line. caller -- ellen on the republican line. caller: i say that i have not read the book, but these folks being so close the connected to the campaign and everybody was involved and all the candidates, i want to know why it is that the most important pieces of all of these people, clinton, obama, mccain -- how everything was shielded, and the most important aspects never came out, and the democrats were protected down to every minuscule little whatever -- the important things to not cam out to it when it came to mccain and sarah palin, how they attacked her come up for clothes and her eating habits, but yet when it comes to not even reporting on any of the policies or believfs or agenda stuff that obama was going to go for, which he is doing now, not having hise things about the book, as did ed schultz. we reported everything that we could find that we thought was germane to telling this story about both parties, candidates in both parties, without fear or favor and with an eye towards history and eliminating what happened, not covering things up. there has been a concern -- why wasn't this stuff reported in real time? people are not going to be forthcoming the way they were with us in the heat of the campaign. there are too busy and there is too much at stake. we went to people right after the nomination fights and the general election when their memories were fresh but they were willing to cooperate, they understood the project and its importance, we hope, for history. second, it is hard to piece this stuff together if you don't have the time, as we did come over a long period of time, long interviews, able to sit down and sift through the stuff and pieced together to the realities of daily journalism, particularly these days with the internet and cable -- there is no way to do that. you have to do it as more of the historical work. host: have you heard from your sources and gotten a reaction from your sources, without specifically saying they are? guest: we have. we talked to a lot of people for the book did most of these people are people who have had very long relationships with politics. we have been covering politics for 20 years each. the relationship we have with those sources of the basis on which the book was built. if we had not had such a strong relationships with the sources, we cannot have done what we did. we have been heartened by their response, which has been uniformly positive. people ought said many notes of congratulation about the book. -- people have sent many notes of congratulation about the book. we have heard from an awful lot of people and they feel that we have gotten the story right and got it in a way that they think is fair, accurate, and good for history in the sense that we captured things about the campaign and how these people live to the campaign and how it changed them and how their strengths and weaknesses affected the way in which they waged a campaign that are important for people who are going to be looking back at his campaign for many years to come to understand what actually happened. host: we go back to georgia and amy on the independents' line. caller: high. sorry about that. you know, i am an independent. i used to be a democrat, and with this past election with barack obama came around, i ended up dropping apart completely -- dropping of the party completely. but i was looking for at the time was a candidate that would really represent the country well. i know for a fact that the fact that the media was there boosting obama of it like the way they did bush, which they actually did do, seems to be the game plan for me is whoever the media choose is to be the next president is going to be the next president. it is very unfortunate, because i did listen to barack obama a few times, some of the speeches that he set about changing things and washington, but yet he was a supporter of mayor richard daley, witches, as far as i'm concerned, being from illinois come -- which is, as far as i'm concerned, being from illinois, one of the biggest perks in politics but -- it was the biggest crooks in politics. what makes you think you change anything in washington? he has not. guest: the role of the media in presidential elections is obviously a huge. one of the things most interesting in reporting on the campaign is the fact that all the campaigns feel that the media was biased against them. they all feel, as the caller says, that they look at the power of media and that they feel it pleasant outsized role and is somehow unfair to them. host: even president obama's campaign felt that way? guest: i think mark and i would agree that obama got a very favorable coverage and the campaign did not disputable. but they felt that on things like reverend wright that there were subjected to as tough and media scrutiny as any candidate in history, and things for which they were hit, like the tony rezko relationship, that those were not germane. they felt that the media was focused on trivialities and things that were non-stories, rather them what the candidate wanted to say about health care policy and economic policy. it is a perennial complaint, and as far as i can see, the media is an equal opportunity in the kinds of readers that puts the candidates through. it is not surprising, as mark said, that in a partisan environment, people feel that the media picks sides. it will not go away, because as our media and to become more partisan, these problems will escalate. caller: good morning, marc, good morning, john, good morning, greta. i have seen you guys on other shows. one of the things that is fascinating to me is that the country seems to be in a state of cognitive dissonance. and barack obama is incompetent, unprepared, on qualified to be president, john mccain is this. based on what you guys have said this morning, the exact opposite -- the reverse is true to barack obama seems to b hope and change and all that, but he seems to be a very savvy politician, a brilliant strategic thinker, a very well- prepared, understands the issues, and yet all the buzz right now is about sarah palin, who mostly speaks -- her vocabulary is mostly monosyllabic, and i have not heard her say anything of substance in terms of public policy from the time she started running up until now. i am just amazed -- are you amazed that the country is so enamored with sarah palin, who lacks intellectual curiosity, lacks the depth. she is mostly a vacuous -- guest: i'm a big fan of monosyllabics, so i have to differ from the caller there at that that is a problem. with all due respect to the color and many who called c- span2 and he sees the world in any -- who calls c-span, he sees the world in a particular way but there are many others who see it differently. there are those who think barack obama is a horrible precedent and that sarah palin is the salvation. we'll try to rise above it dominant feature of political discourse, and to say i have a point of view about the world and i hit the democrats or eight republicans and anything i -- i hate to the democrats or hate republicans and anything i say or write will reinforce that. we wanted to write about this incredibly exciting campaign with bigger-than-life characters and not make a partisan book. as i've said before, we have had a very positive feedback from the left and right, people saying to us, "i may disagree with barack obama's policies, but i was glad to read how he really experienced the campaign and get inside what is real life was really like." same with sarah palin. that is the kind of book we set out to write will n -- set out to right. i hope it has the potential benefit -- the country has become too partisan and it is not good for politics or the future of the country. we hope that people think about politics and a different way, or about the drama and -- more about the trauma and trying to drain it from the pure partisan ip. host: mccain approached the campaign -- "who ever was listening, that was the campaign. the rest was noise. guest: it is a ve book, talkingw mccain in the early planning stages of the campaign -- you had an operation where all the people around him looked back at his 2000 campaign, where he ran as many gay, outsider campaign, and -- he ran this renegade, outsider campaign, and they lost. they said, "we should build on the bush model, raise a ton of money, have a huge operation across the country, the formidable and scare everybody else away." a problem with that is that mccain is psychologically well- suited to that kind of campaign, and as the organization built itself that way, his attitude was, why do i need all this? he did not want to make fund- raising calls and get into the race as soon as they wanted him to get into the race. we have seen from the book with a say, "we are the front runner and we have to act like the front runner and cannot act like the kind person you are naturally," which is a maverick, to use his favorite term. at the kind of thing they aspired to build for him and the kind of thing that mccain was comfortable doing it turned out to be the immolation of his campaign bu. for the first six months, the campaign was broke, he was lagging in the polls, he was miserable, he was firing his top staff, and the meltdown, which nearly killed him politically if not personally, is about that mismatch. he is strongest in the book once he gets rid of all these people. you see him emerge when everybody in politics but he was dead -- everybody in politics thought he was dead, and mccann was actually past year. he was running, metaphorically speaking, -- mccai noten -- çmccain was actually happier. he was running, metaphorically speaking, in a beat-up car. the mismatch between him and a bomb in terms of organization, financed, muscular strength -- and no bomb in terms of organization, finance, was to list a --, him and obama in terms of organization, finance, strength -- this is why in some sense the personal, the stuff about the high human drama of the campaign, it actually matters enormously, because it tells you enormously about john mccain's political fortunes. you cannotç understand that without understanding is psychology and how he looked at the heart and, of politics. -- art and combat of politics. guest: greta, can i say one thing? we are honored and pleased by the amount of attention the book has received. this is literally the first time we've had a chance to discuss this topic, an extraordinarily important part of the 2008 campaign. for people who have seen some of the book and say, i know everything about the book already, it would love to " the thing about the use of airplane tickets, because it defines a huge part of the mentality of the republican nominee i think some people have the impression that they have learned everything that is in the book. we think there is more in the book that people would be interested in. host: nancy on the republican line. caller: when president obama ran, he was more to the center of the democratic party. that is what i voted for. i voted for obama because i thought he was more to the center of the democratic party, not to the left. he has since become more of left then center. that has made me very disheartened. i have turned from democrat to republican and i will start voting republican and i am going to vote more for the people who are my values and my type of ideas about this country and how it should be run. i think our country is out of whack. we are spending too much, the deficit is too high, there is too many people unemployed. i think obama is not concentrating on what the real problems are in this country. he is concentrating on his ideas. guest: will was the name of that color -- what was the name of that caller? host: nancy. guest: i would call her nancy, a.k.a. david axelrod's worst nightmare. this the type of voters thought they have to worry about. he has done the thing that is the most dangerous for any politician, lost control of a large segment of the population with his public image, how he is being perceived t. during the campaign, he was very successf,% - and move on to an agenda that addresses jobs and deficit reduction. the state of the union and the budget are opportunities, the white house hopes, to win over callers like that. host: the state of the union will be wednesday, january 27. steve on the independent-mi line. caller: 1 said the post, he took a called earlier -- you took a call earlier challenging your bias and saying you should be fired. we should actually look at the bias -- to get to the point, we have become so divisive in this country. i think hillary clinton has just shown herself to be a gracious loser,bvious, and the campaign, but also, what a hard- working woman. you look at her, and she's just nose to the grindstone, "i am the secretary of state and i will do the best job i can possibly do for our country, regardless of party." i think during the campaign, obama was such a wonderful speaker, is such a wonderful that he was able to carry the election without a lot of substance. i am a supporter of his, but at the same time, you've got to govern, not just be elected. host: the background on hillary clinton during the campaign. guest: we in the book talk about how the hillary and obama relationship is a love story, which is counterintuitive for people. one of the things that mark and i were surprised to learn is how much of a fan hillary clinton was to barack obama before the campaign did she hosted a fund-raiser for his senate campaign, and she talked very admiring look about him, saying that there is a superstar in chicago, the kind of candidate that she and her husband always wanted to support in the the grand part, very intelligent african- american who had a future and the party. when he came to washington, he seeks her out, six her counsel, already sort of a superstar because of the speech at the convention, and that sort of a bond. she sees him as a potential mentee and he sees her as a potential mentor obviously, a huge amount of conflict and bitterness and then unfolded when they ended at head-to-head in the democratic nomination fight. but in the end, after all for bitterness over how the race turned out and all of her anger, which is documented in the book in a lot of a vivid detail, the extraordinary series of events that lead her to eventually accept the job of secretary of state -- we have at the end of the book, and that is rather incredible coming together -- there is a rather incredible coming together with the late-night phone call and everybody in her life is trying to get her to take the top. her husband thinks it would be great for, rahm emanuel, joe biden, all lobbies for to take the job. she finally called him to decide that they will not -- that she will not take the top, and had this incredible late-night phone call where she tells him why she does not want the job and he accept ththat those are all good reasons -- she is burdened with debt, she is tired and wants to go home -- he understands all that, but he says, "i need you to take this job. with the economic crisis will be a huge part of my first term might need someone who understands foreign policy whose hand i do not have to hold, and i need you and the country needs you." after everything with this at the arc of their relationship, it is an extraordinary moment. the moment she admits her husband might be a problem, something she never did in the campaign -- anything bill clinton did something considered politically detrimental, and she defends him. she never takes any other side, totally loyal to her husband. now she is not saying not disloyal, but admitting to barack obama that there is a political vulnerability with her husband . barack obama does not express that he needs anyone did, he is the maximally self-sufficient politician. he turns to her and in its in some ways that he needs her. it is the first bond, the relationship of trust where they can work together. he tells her to sleep on it and not to say no. she decides to take the job i think the caller is right her first year as secretary of state has demonstrated all the things that is best about hillary clinton. she has worked incredibly, incredibly hard representing america around the world, and from all indications, their relationship is as solid as any relationship of any cabinet secretary to the president. they are on extremely good terms an excuse c-span.or -- and it sl for patriotism and devotion to the country and her ability to put past pain aside for the calling of the country. host: frankie on the line for democrats. caller: have a very simple question for the gentleman but what kind of an impact do think this will have on people running and people who want to work for them when it seems like if you write a book like this -- i don't understand why people talk to you and say some of the things about the candidates. i think it would be hard to get anybody to work for you again, it would be so hard for the candidates. they have to be so careful of what they say and do in private. what kind of an impact to do you think the book will have? thank you. host: before you answer that, howard kurtz wrote in his column in "the washington post," "the portrait may reflect the fact that aids on a winning campaign have little deeper t dish and even less incentive, since many of them are now running the country." guest: there is a lot of their third let me try to address part of it. -- a lot in there. let me try to address part of it. we were dealing with people with whom we had strong working relationships with over decades. in that process, we explained to them in great detail what we were doing to be explained what kind of book it was. the terms on which we were speaking. history is important. one of the things we learned, at times to our panic, is that as time passes, people's memories don't work. there is oral history here that if we had not stepped in and done at these interviews when we did them, in what it would have been lost. people have said -- howard kurtz,'s piece and others -- that we rely on people with axes to grind. i have to tell you -- john mayfield of a -- i could john -- upjohn may feel differently -- i can think of five that most or people were trying to spin the story but they cooperated with us to realize that this was an important moment in american history. that process revealed a lot of stories that we were able, over time, to merge together. there is not a single " controversial" story line in the book that we based on people exclusively who had an ax to grind to we always went to supporters, people more supportive to a candidate or a spouse, and asked what you think there were almost no instances where the merging of those accounts from two sides required judgments. the stories line up. guest: it i want to add something to the quotation you read. the relationship between the public image and a private reality. i think that is actually true. in many cases, there is a wide divergence between public image and private reality. the story of john and elizabeth edwards is the most dramatic and the book, where the gap between what the public saw and wanted to see and how they were in private was cats make -- was chasmic. the gap between barack obama's public image and private reality was of all the candidates than ever was. the spent very little time in the above -- a campaign was a -- all the candidates the narrowest. they spent very little time in the campaign trying to manage him. the obama campaign was able to focus to a large extent on getting done what needed to get done. there was not as large a gap between the two. it as i talked before about race example, there were times where the public image was not going on behind the scenes, but an important part of why he was successful and the can and was the fact that the gap was narrower. guest: we don't have a very much about barack obama that is less flattering. i would urge people to read the book, and there are a number of scenes worked there was crisis, questions about whether the strategy was working. in one prominent instance, you see barack obama saying that we will stay the course, that we chose this strategy and is the right thing. there is another instance later in the book where he decides that he is not getting enough advice on a broader circle of people. one of the things that we report about in the book is this group of the three men, david axelrod, robert gibbs, and david plouffe , who almost a stranglehold on the advice -- who have almost a stranglehold on the advice that is to barack obama. other people, including michelle obama, would occasionally say when things were going badly that there needs to be a broader circle of advisers. there is a stage late in the process when it is clear that barack obama will probably be hillary clinton but will lead into the general election, where he decides to change course and he has a conference call that is not run by one of the three suits but i needed done, who goes on to be department -- but anita dunn, who goes on to be the communications director. some said that the portrait is written by the winners so it is not as full as others. host: when he decides to bring anita dunn into the fold, the strategy she takes up running his fund -- the exchange there, the strategy she comes up with it for e-mail addresses. guest: in the early 2006, the 2005 period, there was a pac called hope fund, and obama interviewed and eventually hired anita dun to run that pac. even when he was still a candidate for the senate in 2004, he was able to raise money for democratic senators. it was clear that he was going to when in a landslide, and he was doing fund-raising events for tom national and other senators. he was an incredible fundraising -- fund-raising events for tom daschle and other senators. he was an incredible fundraising source. he would turn out huge crowds. we knew that obama was traveling around and raising money, but i don't think until we wrote the book that we had a clear sense. we talked to people like claire mccaskill who would tell stories about obama campaign for her in 2006 and when they came to st. louis, not only did they have to have the fundraiser for the 2000 were 3000 people, but it would need to get a separate room for 15,000 people, because everybody wanted to see this guy. his fund-raising ability was at the core of why, as we talk about the democratic establishment being behind him, that was part of the political appeal, part of the wheat they demonstrated that he could be a serious candidate. anita dunn, in some sense, along with david plouffe, initiating a similar strategy for deval patrick in massachusetts, started to think about how this could be capitalized on to build the grass-roots@@@ they call them a dime if they see a thread. -- call them dumb if they see a threat and with that sarah palin -- left comedians like joy behar and bill maher attacker all the time did she had more experience than barack obama. iit is how they try to be little their opponents. they say that europe is this or that. europe is made up of different countries with their own culture. switzerland is not part of the eu -- host: okay, we will leave it there. let me pick up one thing she said about sarah palin and the coverage. sarah palin, from your reporting, was consumed with how she was being pursued in -- how she was being perceived in alaska during the election. guest: she was never very much involved in national politics. very few in the national political or media life had dealings with sarah palin. she was new. we talked to these national operatives in the mccain campaign and other people around sarah palin who to this day are the only people we know who have had exposure to her behind-the- scenes to see what she is like when she is not on tv or giving a speech. they met with sarah palin, two of mccain's advisers, mark salter and steve schmidt. they did not know her bridge was a stranger to them. one of things they discussed with her late in the meeting was the importance of her understanding that even though she would remain the sitting governor of alaska, she needed to understand her focus needed to be on the the national campaign. she was basically an appendage of the campaign and would not get back to alaska until there -- unless there was some sort of natural disaster, and she did not to be focused on her home state needs but on the national ticket. on the point of view of the kaine staff, she did not of a -- up to that from the point -- from the point of view of the mccain is that, she did not live up to that. there were concerned that there was an absence of mccain-palin and yard signs in alaska. it is spent the time complaining to a -- the campaign they spent -- they spent atime complaining that there was not enough of an effort in alaska. she was not being allowed to talk to local reporters, and like a lot of governors, she would give out hurt mobile or two local reporters -- her mobile phone number to local reporters. that ended when she was put on the national ticket. from the mccain campaign's point of view, there was no time for that, and she said she understood that before she was put on the ticket. that was one of many causes of tension between the palins and the mccain staff. host: david, next caller. caller: on my part i am identified as no party affiliation. i always -- when the politician preaches the corrupt year, -- when the politicians it reaches the crop year, i will not vote for them. with clinton into york -- if i was a resident of new york, i would not have voted for her, because she moved in. and many voters in southwest florida thought they were voting for his father and they were very upset that they had voted for his son. i was extremely upset, being a disabled veteran, 1 george w. bush -- host: let me jump in here, because we're running out of time. what is your question or comment? guest: this is a question i have recently started asking my friends about voter fraud. which of the three largest cities in the u.s. have a reputation, whether it is deserved or not, for having corrupt elections? host: i am not sureç of this cn answer that we want to take a stab at it? guest: never be wrong picking cities in louisiana and new jersey. host: let me get to some criticism of the book from howard kurtz's column. he is referring to the quotation that came out about what harry reid said in private about barack obama toç john holliman, why don't you take that? -- john heilemann, why don't you take that? guest: in our author's note,ç we mentioned that we conducted the interview on deep background, basically what howie writes in the peace. it is not complete, the description of all the conversations we had with our sources to talk any great detail about how the interview we did conduct would be used in -- we talked in great detail about how the interview that he would conduct would be used in the book. i can say that there is no case in which the way that we explained we are going to that in the and we did not live up to that agreement with any source we talked to in the book. it is important that people understand that a deep background, as many people have written, is not a concept that is etched in stone. every journalist has rules of the road. host: you don't think that concrete come on-the-record -- guest: with new ones, you can describe different things. we did not violate the agreement with anybody that we made for the book. unlike a lot of exchanges and washington and journalism generally, between reporters and sources, with the terms are not defined but there is assumed to be commonality, or they are defined on the fly, we have meticulously and carefully in every exchange we had a free interview we did went through the project, the terms we are discussing, and we did not violate those terms for any person to talk to a to the book. host: melvin on the democrats' line. caller: i have more of a comment and i wanted to address a couple of issues. there are people saying that barack obama is not living up to his campaign promises. but my main point -- you heard a lot of people talk about concern about deficit spending. i don't think they realize that when ronald reagan took office in 1980, the deficit was $980 billion. one him and george bush sr. left office, it was ordered $5 trillion. clinton left a surplus -- it was $405 trillion. clinton left a surplus, and the deficit was $10.90 trillion when obama took over. where democrats get all the blame for the spending when it is actually republicans who created all this deficit? the democrats never seem to address that issue, and they continue to be demonized for the spending, and republicans used fiscal conservatives -- host: at some of this is playing out, what he is getting at, in the special elections in messages, about democrats' big spenders -- special election in massachusetts, about democrats being spenders and raising taxes. i am wondering if you could compare your debts from hillary clinton's campaign, the staffers -- your notes from hillary clinton's campaign, the staffers that she had, and reports this morning that hillary clinton's staff for new england is helping to run martha coakley's campaign. guest: mark would know more about this. we have been so busy with this book that i don't know the details of this spirit is the case that republicans have historically and traditionally and successfully in many cases portrayed the democrats as a big spending party. they have been are successful in doing that and in massachusetts it has been playing out where you have martha coakley is not getting the kind of support from the democratic base that she would expect. much more importantly, she is having a very hard time getting a number of independent voters that she would need, who are accessed with these questions of tax and spending and deficit. -- obsessed with these questions of tax and spending and deficit. guest: one of the most serious moments in the book is clinton's attempt to get teddy kennedy to endorse hillary over barack obama, and the frustration and anger that both clintons felt. they had gone sailing with him. president clinton would tell people how angry and frustrated he was that he had done so much for the kennedy family as president and they were drifting towards obama. hillary and bill clinton have incredible political support in massachusetts, and one of the satisfying moments for them on super tuesday was despite the endorsed barack obama, hillary was able to win massachusetts. some of her field operatives in massachusetts and new hampshire are now, as i understand, working for the democratic nominee there. they probably should have been there a little sooner. most people watching the race closely believe that their involvement is being done at the last minute, very quickly, and may be too little, too late, if i may use a cliche on c-span. host: steve on the republican line. caller: i'm wondering if you could talk about mitt romney, the conflict between his public image and private conduct. and also mike huckabee. thanks. guest: for a variety of reasons, we did not spend as much time on the republican race, because it lacked the drama. but there are some things on it romney could to the specific question, there is one of very striking example of the striking public image and private reality and the kiss of romney. mitt romney's public image, if anything, was defined as a competent ceo character. he was an arch catalyst and had run -- arch-capitalist and had run bain capital. he could run government like running a board room. throughout our coverage in the book of romney was the fact that the staff was totally frustrated that he was totally indecisive. he could not decide on something as elemental as picking a campaign slogan. they never came up with a campaign slogan. the consultant side of him actually dominated in some ways. he would ask for more and more input and constantly take more and more time and wanted more and more data, and the deluge of data that he sought actually cut paralyzed and 34 people around him, -- actually kind of paralyzed him. for people around him, the worse died. -- they were stunned. we have details of how much john mccain, how much mike huckabee and others disliked commit money to he was sort of a preening -- this like to make romney. he was sort of eigha preening prima donna