enabled to give more and be in a position to say i'll make that giving a more significant part of what i have. >> i would just like to thank you for this evening and i think we should all thank you because you are doing something that is done rarely and you are actually succeeding and that is even rarer. so thank you. [applause] and i'm sorry about the many questions i didn't ask. it was nothing personal. >> thanks again to peter and michael for being here. that was wonderful. he will be signing at the table on the side of the stage. form a line starting outside of the auditorium. if you don't want to stand in line clear sign copies at the table appeared please visit the effective ultrathin table out there. thank you so much for coming out. have a great evening. [applause] >> welcome to book tvs live coverage of the roosevelt reading festival. this annual event takes place at night or company or your other line would bring in several authors in the fdr library. we will kick off in just a moment with christopher o'sullivan. his new book looks at fdr's envoy to churchill and stalin, "harry hopkins." this has live coverage on book tv on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone. good morning. that is what is looking for. i'm bob clarke from a direction different than the roosevelt presidential library and museum and it's my pleasure to welcome you to the 12th annual roosevelt reading festival. this is our favorite band because it highlights will be doing the archives. we are consistently one of the biggest researchers in the presidential library system in this event every year we get to see the fruits of neighbors of researchers use their resources. it's a pleasure to have you here once again. a couple of housekeeping matters. our good friends on c-span are broadcasting live and i want to thank them for the support they showed the other programs throughout the year. also please take out your mobile devices and turn them off or put them on vibrate so our presentation isn't interrupted today. if you love the roosevelt reading festival and want to support this and other great programs reduce your common i encourage you to become a member at the information table outside in the hallway or go to our website and click on membership. it has become something of a tradition that i introduce our next speaker because he's such a prolific historian or not there that he's been here several times before. let me quickly go over the concurrent action format of this event. at the top of each hour our speaker will begin a taco 20 to 30 minutes in length followed by 10 minutes for questions and answers here because we broadcast a c-span we broadcast a c-span i ask you to? i ask a few of the question-and-answer time to the standup anchor phone so c-span can take the question. the authors will move at the new deal store where you're able to buy the books you want to purchase after you hear talks. it is my honor to introduce my good friend christopher o'sullivan. he's conducted research at the library for two decades and is the author of several books about the roosevelt era including the forthcoming frank knox, as dear as knox, fdr's four cannon assaults his most recent "harry hopkins" -- he teaches history at the university of san francisco and has lectured about the roosevelt era in europe, china and the middle east and deliver the keynote address on fdr and the united nations the un's 60th anniversary and is also married to the amazing may o'sullivan has a great front of the library as well. ladies and gentlemen, christopher o'sullivan. [applause] >> thank you, bob. what a pleasure to be back to thank you to all of you for being here this morning. it's a great tradition this reading festival. i at least try to coordinate my visit for the library with the reading festival weather and speak it or not because it is such an enjoyable time. i want to thank bob and the staff at the franklin d. roosevelt presidential library. it has been a great two decades and my motto is looking forward to the next two. for just creating such a wonderful environment, a great place to work when i was casting a ballot for my doctoral dissertation i visited other presidential libraries which existed at that time in the 90s. it was no contest. i had to do something here. i wish i had a more inspirational story but i really had a lot to do with this facility and the people that work here in this wonderful hudson valley environment and national park and everything else. i also want to thank clifford ladd for helping organize the event. i would like to start off by thanking some of the authors who came before me. if you are going to write about harry hopkins, you are trying to climb on the shoulders of a lot of great writers. first of all it is very intimidating to write a book 60 years after robber sure with classic, roosevelt and hopkins. he won alternately for pulitzer prizes, three for drama. he won a pulitzer prize for roosevelt and hopkins. he also won an academy award for his screenplay for the best years of his lines. this is quite a talent. you start off wondering like it sure would leap out of the 1200 page book. you do have to remember he was writing right after the war and many people he was writing about for the lies. sure would have served with those people appeared he was very sensitive to not offending people. my wife and i did extensive research at harvard university were sure with papers are one thing we found is really remarkable were hundreds and hundreds of transcripts of interviews connected with figures that the roosevelt administration right after the war. it is interesting how much he actually left out. he left a lot out to liberally because he was concerned about people's careers people functioning inactive at the time. he didn't want to be too critical of certain people he liked. we were able to mind that material as well. one thing i wanted to look at was very specifically what was it about harry hopkins, not only a sentiment service to the president and eleanor roosevelt during the 1930s but this unique role he played during the second world war is roosevelt's envoy. let me start you with an anecdote that gives you a sense of how strange this relationship was. round about march 1941 shortly after hopkins had returned from his first visit to winston churchill and this is right after roosevelt had won the controversial third term i see i was thinking we need to do some more than basis for destroyers. this is the german nation, beginning of the idea. so hopkins went to britain, spent some time at church show and came back and the women of the press corps were gathering in mrs. roosevelt sitting room for a very informal press conference. suddenly, darting past the open door they see a shadowy figure in a garish housecoat and they realize that if harry hopkins. they have the possibility of scoop as to what harry hopkins is doing in london. he had been very mum with the press about what his mission can't do today. he was merely looking for his cigarette. he lived in such close proximity to roosevelt and he didn't know about that until a couple years into the war. there was this remarkable intimacy. sam roseman, roosevelt's chief speechwriter said there's many close advisors. when you are living with someone, when you call on them you can drop it in your dressing gown. there's a kind of intimacy and influence that isn't necessarily cheap by other people. remember fdr died suddenly in april 1945, 70 years ago. and he left no memoir. how can follow him to the grave about it later in january 1946. the material hopkins was collecting to write his memoir, his widow gave to robert sherwood to get them started on this boat. neither roosevelt nor hopkins left a memoir. there's a gaping hole when you consider churchill wrote a voluminous memoir that this gave church show a huge leg up. i will determine the history because i will read it myself. another thing i thought to do was to try to fill in the blanks left by roosevelt -- the following january. i wanted to understand why they did the things they did. i always feel a great deal of mythology around world war ii and part of that has to do with the emerging popular culture after the war, the film industry and it goes on to this day many americans are not aware that the story does nature important strategic front of the war was really the eastern friend were the red army was fighting hitler's irony. this is where the vast majority of german casualties were suffered. it is fair to say that no roosevelt and hop didn't have come in for criticism for close relations during the war the people who criticize that alliance during the war are to explain how the war would have been one without the red army. without suffering hundreds of thousands of american casualties possibly millions or not winning the war at all. my father firmly believes had it not been for the red army anglo-american forces would've never been able to landed in normandy in 1944. it would have been possible with the exception of hitler's forces having them separated. one thing that appealed to roosevelt about harry hopkins was hopkins remarkable talent of personnel. hopkins is a very good talent spotter. if you consider the kinds of people he elevated, it was hopkins backing more than anyone who made george marshall chief of staff during the war. hopkins had gotten to know marshall during the night to 30s. marshal was on this ignoramus fairly far down and here he was elevated past all this other senior generals to be chief of staff. marshall never really forgot that. i quote marshall quiet liberally in my book. this is interesting. he was speaking to one of harry hopkins most caustic critics the columnist for "the new york times." arthur crock where george marshall once told me how to not been for hopkins, he was convinced the war would've lasted at least until 47. not 45 and they might not have one. that's quite a statement coming from the engineer but to read george marshall. hawkins is also responsible for the elevation of dwight eisenhower who he became the patron to. james forestall an average stettinius became secretary of state. but why did they make the decisions they did? why did they do the things they did it wartime conferences? let me give you briefly offense looking at hopkins and using hopkins as they wait to understand fdr as well. they are shared strategic spend. fdr understood and hopkins shared the conviction the united states was the only power in the war that a genuine link global interests. let me explain that. the soviet union understandably was largely concerned with their fighting the germans. china was friday marches for survival and had significant numbers of japanese forces throughout the entire war. britain had been so reduced by the war that its object is became so much more narrow. churchill was hoping once the war was won and once the soviet union was in the war in mid-1941 and the americans at the end of 1941 was pretty clear hitler was going to be defeated and churchill in particular could begin looking at other factors beyond merely winning the war. for example recouping us much of the british empire as possible. americans had an interest in all that digestible theaters in the world and roosevelt shared with this major military chief the idea we had mobility, see power, air power the ability to supply not only our own friend that helped contribute supply in the friends of some of our allies as well. another very important specific aspect of roosevelt's leadership and when i talk about roosevelt this is a shared consensus with roosevelt and hopkins. they were on the same page on almost everything. native version curious fascinating areas. europe first why? consider this for a moment. it is not guaranteed when the united states is attacked at pearl harbor december 71949, it is not guaranteed the united states will persist in seeing it as its primary thread. many countries and dare i say administrations in american history would have run off distracted by this insane japan as their primary. one recent helper was elated by the japanese attack on pearl harbor and subsequently declared war if he believes this might be his salvation, too. americans would inevitably be distracted by the far east by the pacific war and hitler would have time to regain the initiative starting off allies, pa didn't happen that way. roosevelt and hopkins are part of a consensus that decided a year before pearl harbor that whatever else happened they would not be distracted. that provided the primary threat to the united states. possibly an existential threat to the united states. we now know the german nuclear program didn't really get traction come is certainly didn't make the progress that our stay. ironically and fascinatingly enough, part of that was because of hitler's ideology. he gutted a lot of science, physics programs because of anti-semitism. americans have advantage. americans were concerned that there would develop a super weapon. he did. he developed a rocket, for example. imagine if hitler had a warhead. it might have slipped the war near the very end. americans are much more concerned about the threat that hitler posed in the rough ratio we would devote 60% of our production to fighting the germans than 40% to fighting the japanese. we forget of course the germans and japanese did not have the luxury of merely concentrating on us. the german bedtimes were concentrating 90% of their production and military emphasis on the red army. we were fortunate to have the soviets as an ally. china has well was holding down an enormous number of japanese troops in japan and a sense was fighting the pacific war with one arm tied behind his back china. the fall of france had a profound impact on hopkins and roosevelt. up until this come as so many that have so many events happen that forget how profound the fall of france was. he seems distant compared to operation barbara rose, pearl harbor and everything that subsequently happened. with the fall of france, everything was off. all of the planning that had gone on the wii is sort of the match sort of the match in the word be similar and we would land forces at some point to come to the aid of friends. that was no longer the case as a june 1940. i also think it was important hopkins as part of the consensus to distinguish between hitler and stalin. now consider at the time when hitler invaded the soviet union on june 22nd 1941 by the roosevelt administration made it clear and sumner welles spoke about this at a press conference that day. winston churchill in the house of commons. they said they will come to the aid of those union because they are fighting hitler. they keep them in the war against hitler. both the previous president herbert hoover to announce the policy at the time. he said hitler and stalin are essentially the same and of course harry truman and the senate -- senator from missouri denounces as well catherine stalin. i think many people would argue successfully that hitler and stalin both represented equally reprehensible regimes domestically. but hitler presented a genuine primary threat to the united states. hitler had already devoured and subdued important allies like france denmark, norway, belgium. stalin's regime may not be enviable, but he was not presenting a primary threat to the interests of the united states. this is a very important distinction. aside throughout the challenge again, no one has explained to me unless they start fiddling with video games, no one has ever explained how the war is won without the red army. i just don't know how the grand alliance does it. so what were fdr's objectives. we have some insight into these by looking at hopkins. americans had a genuine interest in ending the war as soon as possible because of the distinctive challenges the united states phase. remember, the u.s. was the only de facto democracy in the grand alliance. let me explain. britain had not had a general election since 1935. britain suspended politics until after d-day. 10 years they have by elections but that was it. americans continued. we have a presidential election authority. we weren't technically in the war. we had a midterm election in 40 to come another presidential election and 44. why was this import? america was more sensitive to public opinion than any other country. the winds of public opinion that if the public decided the cost of continuing the war was not worth it when it is public support for the word becomes difficult to continue to prosecute. we had a real interested in the war soon as possible, minimizing our casualties but also remember what i mentioned earlier, super weapons. this is where roosevelt and his chief military chief rose strongly differed winston churchill. churchill looking at indirect approaches to europe and the possibility of landing in the balkans might unnecessarily prolonged the war. was a real concern in washington this bin forgotten that the longer the war went on, the more likely they would develop a super weapon that i make it more difficult to ultimately subdue him. limiting u.s. casualties was a factor. fdr had four sons in different branches of the military as hopkins had three sons. hopkins then even 19 years old was killed in february 1944. a couple interesting observations about that. if he was such a thing probably as people accused him of being if he used his power he would've been able to protect his son. here you have a high ranking government official having a son killed in the pacific. when you consider subsequent administrations were so many people find creative ways -- it is a sad story. i've could correct me but jimmy roosevelt said after the war he was almost sorry one of the four brothers with not killed in the war because he thought that would've shut up the critics. he said even including himself. roosevelt and hopkins shared the idea of utilizing the alliance advantages. consider this. i would argue having to do the access in a relatively short period of time it all occurred within 3.5 years with the united states is in ward was one of the greatest achievements of any alliance among nations in the history of the world. this was in part because the roosevelt hopkins put a real emphasis on using the advantages of having an alliance. the access alliance worked contrary to each other. they didn't work in the way harmoniously that helped each other's interests, but the americans, soviets, british and chinese all tried to work in syncopation to work to each other's advantage. second front in europe was a real concern that the americans too short a time of the war. again, i would argue those who believe that stalin believed in what conquest because we didn't have a lot of hysterical rhetoric after the war that stalin was a reincarnation of hitler. you have to consider a couple things. i don't know why he was -- pretty tame by standards of television. i don't know why stalin was pleading with the americans and british to make a landing as soon as possible in europe. if you want to conquer europe, i assume the red army could have done that ultimately without its landing in the west. also keep in mind soviets did ultimately obtain a nuclear weapon in 1949. stalin was alive another three years. if anyone in this room are watching at home believe for a minute 13 a nuclear weapon that he would've hesitated to use it at all. pretty enormous differences between the menace of stalin in the soviet union versus hitler and germany. let me just conclude by saying hawkins didn't believe the relationship of the soviet union could be managed. this doesn't necessarily imply that the cold war was available -- avoidable. if you read my book you will know that hopkins did believe there is a formula for managing relations that i would never be as easy as it was during the war that you are an offense that helped the alliance together and made it relatively easy to work together. that didn't necessarily mean there has to be a cold war confrontation after. even during the cold war thawed, decades after roosevelt was dead, we had sporadic periods. how is the model hawkins and roosevelt were pursuing. they understood stalin was a management problem. it was difficult to have good relations but it didn't necessarily mean you have to have a cold war confrontation. roosevelt and hopkins did not believe in false dichotomies of confrontation or peas. they were always other options in between. i will stop here because i know with this fascinating subject there are probably lots of questions and i look forward to answering those. thank you. [applause] thank you. remember as bob mentioned to come up to the microphones to you can be heard on the stand. >> i have a question concerning the extermination of jewish concentration camps. we hear stuff about how roosevelt should have on auschwitz, how all this stuff shouldn't have been. what do you have to say about the sorts of things? >> well hawkins himself was not very principally are immediately involved in this issue. his portfolio was largely managing relations among the 14 members of the grand alliance. sumner welles for example was much more involved in this issue. the larger question which i am by no means an expert on they has to look at this from the day of of military technology and the just aches. there is a conference or a number of years ago maybe even decades ago about the holocaust. the roosevelt library and hide park. one paper in particular struck me that a lot of discussion is motivated by a sincere desire that we ask this fact to do something. but one of the problems at the time was the senior military officials believed anything that might have been done until early 44. one of the reasons why 42 was the worst year of the holocaust was this was the high water mark of the german empire after germany's loss began to be rolled back to some extent. nothing could have been done logistically until early 44. there was some discussion about this. eisenhower always stuck to the idea that nothing should be done logistically that would delay the ultimate end of the war. as a sort of equivalency with the problem going on in the netherlands at the time. there is mass starvation in the netherlands. should we not a massive police operation and similar reasoning ever thought a great deal of sympathy. to do so with the finite resources you have at your disposal by prolonged the war. the general feeling was the sooner germany was defeated and accepted unconditional surrender, the sooner that out qwerty idea that world when men. >> other questions >> i am working on a book about the period prior to u.s. entry into world war ii and so much of what you've talked about has been this urgency to get the war dead as quickly as possible and yet everything prior to u.s. entry into the war involves so much ambivalent about u.s. entry into the war from the fdr administration. i was wondering how you equate what happened before pearl harbor with what happened afterwards. >> my feeling is on par with the fall of france in june 40 but particularly with hitler's invasion of the soviet -- sometimes hard to know because fdr is an extraordinarily complex person and he doesn't think too much in terms of binaries. as i say again there are gray areas and predations of his opinion. roosevelt was moving in the direction of understanding that american entry in the war was inevitable, we probably would not be able to remain out of it. 's political leadership was that he wanted to be pushed into the war by the actions of other people but also by american public opinion. the interesting analogy here is lincoln's desire and the civil war to be sure the south fired the first shot because this to be in terms of what we call optics. import in the world need fast start of the war order straight new and people on the fence in the north were ambivalent about the war. i'm working on the project. bob mentioned the second-biggest shameless self-promotion. i'm working on a project about frank knox. roosevelt brings the republican national as a robust advocate in june 1940 at the time france is home. there's no paper trail because roosevelt said a lot of things we just don't have the evidence for. in the sense he tells knox, do your worst. do whatever you want. go take charge of the bully pulpit and say we should've gotten out of the war yesterday. that is fine. i will not reprimanded. roosevelt likes to mock sister the seven train to drive public opinion and even pushing him. when hitler attacked the soviet union on june 23rd the following day he says now that hitler distracted the soviet union, this is the moment for us to declare war on berlin and strike the atlantic because he is vulnerable. he's facing the other way. roosevelt's reaction is no. we still want for someone to make the first move. this is very important in terms of the policy. i'm convinced roosevelt knew we would enter the war but was plain again very much like lincoln of one in our injury to the thatched edit not only would make it easier to prosecute the war with a larger degree of public support but also relevant to how the world thoughts about us. >> okay thank you. >> i realize this is an extremely speculative question. i'm wondering if there's any indication you have that hopkins would have remained in government administration it better after the war for a longer period of time to help manage these cold war issues and since so much of the cold war seems to have been driven by attitudes in the u.s. and politics here, do you think he could've helped to tamp that down a control that a little more. >> excellent question. we have evidence hawkins is trying to do that after roosevelt died. hawkins did go to moscow in may 1945 sent by president truman to try to recover the relation that had existed prior to roosevelt's death. remember, we still desperately needed the soviet union. we didn't know the atomic bomb was going to work. it wasn't successfully tested until mid july. we agreed as far back as tehran that the red army would join our war in the far east. they went and their nonaggression pact with japan which they did in august. we assume this to be an enormous contribution to subdue in japan. in fact it was. we overlooked the fact that military contribution was such that when an event chariot and the red army was incredibly successful. marshal in particular thought we might be fighting them in chariot long after japan itself had been subdued because they were a million japanese settlers that might go on for some time. what was most important about the soviet contribution with this. diplomacy. japan and their devoted 1945 held out hope they could avoid unconditional surrender by using the good offices that the soviet union to pressure their ally come and the united states. when they declared war on japan the only avenue they have to send short of unconditional surrender was close and it was gaylor for japan at that point. we forget the vital role of soviet diplomacy played. hopkins wanted to clean up his house. roosevelt was dead. maybe some are 45 you get healthy enough that the president needed him, he could call upon him for further missions to the soviet union. hopkins wanted to be high commissioner in germany after the war. this is his real goal and it's fascinating if you look at george marshall becoming secretary of state in the marshall plan, the seeds of this idea really started with hopkins and 44 saying i would love to be in germany after the war doing for germany what we did during the depression. how about a wpa come every agreed and infrastructure ms rebuilding the economic engine of europe. hopkins began to transition and reconstruction in places like germany and france. his ideal job would've been the high commissioner in berlin. he might have been ideal in the sense he was the only american who soviet still trusted any might've been able to promote better relations with the soviets. keep this one thing in mind also. harry was a public official. he liked power. i can see him starting around the summer 45 realizing if he's related to the truman administration and may be dangerous to be perceived as the softest person in that administration. he has remarkably good relations of people becoming important and powerful. ultimately george marshall, jay bollman, april herrmann. but he is savvy enough insured not to understand he has to keep his relationships with those people open. can become by joseph davies or someone perceived as pro-soviet and ultimately not called upon by truman. he has this pragmatic sense that he is the one person stalin continues to trust and was the installable meet with him at any time of the day for as long as they want to talk. but he also needs to retain some sense of political viability in washington as well. as you say it is completely speculative. i don't know what would've ultimately happen. we note that older supposed grand design for managing relations with the soviet union was abandoned by his successor truman part because look at the people there to carry it out. sumner welles gone by 1943. henry three. henry wallace is removed from three. henry wallace's arithmetic from the ticket in 44. harry hopkins hope this altering. the people who roosevelt have invested to help carry the policy forward after the war were all gone all swept away. roosevelt himself thought i would be the balance. it doesn't matter if the state department or whoever is generally anti-soviet. i am still here. he wasn't there after 1945. other comments or questions? we have time for one more question after this. >> you were going to expound upon the views that differ between fbi. >> thank you for that question. i think it is fascinating. hopkins portfolio with alliance management. i even have a chapter that is a quote from the time the catalyst of the grand alliance. they were areas where he and roosevelt diverged. one area that would surprise people is relations with churchill. we have romanticized this to the point of roosevelt and churchill are starring that you have to understand roosevelt representative nation and he was very hard about american interest. roosevelt always had the delightful, friendly avuncular manner that people sometimes misperceived his reading agreement as opposed to just good manners. the relations between roosevelt and churchill were a lot more complex than many of the best-selling books have lettuce to believe. so much so that roosevelt pushed harry forward, delegated him and said you handle churchill because roosevelt could get exasperated by churchill's late nights, want monologues. the use of other goes up the western conference's churchill would's churchill attacks that matched the interpreter would eventually lose track and churchill would be oblivious and continue to talk over the interpreter. so hopkins managed churchill in a personal sense. hopkins would go to casablanca and find churchill and thatcher in a bottle bottle of wine for breakfast. roosevelt didn't have as much tolerance for these peculiarities by churchill's character. roosevelt and hopkins are close together on the relations is all in. there is probably closer agreement on that. were they really differed however with friends. roosevelt has evolved out did not have a lot of time for charles. hopkins did. i think hopkins may have been right on this date. for all of his personal peculiarities and the difficulty in dealing with it was a man of destiny. he believed it was a french person with churchill and the goal might be the right man for the moment for france to feel proud again, to try to remove the stains of the surrender of the occupation. so hopkins was willing to endure an enormous amount of humiliation near the end of the war merely because hopkins was the kind of person who focused on the larger picture. this wasn't about his personality. it was the future of friends and if europe is healthy after the war, it would need a healthy democratic france after the war and that is what he saw. roosevelt and hopkins disagreed violently. mildly over churchill but were generally compatible when it came to joseph stalin. i think we have time for one more. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you all. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and we are watching booktv on c-span2. we will have war from the roosevelt reading festival in a few minutes. we will be back with author patrick luke is. [inaudible conversations] >> joining us on booktv is george gibson. who do you work for and what do you do? >> and the publisher of bloomberg u.s.a. a subsidiary of the parent company on monday and best for publishing harry potter and originating author harry potter book. we started the u.s. is missed in 1998. so we are in our 17 year now. >> what books do you look for? >> we publish infection, but mostly nonfiction. current events, popular science, a little bit of spores in a good member of food related deaths. >> what are some of the big dogs you have coming out this fall by middle books are small books. >> right now this week publishing the book called whirlwind. a full scale one volume history of the american revolution in 34 years. amazingly enough in 1982 is a full history. brilliant book who was an eminent historian and as i said published this week. this fall we are publishing a remarkable book called aghast at the shooter's banquet. rita is of lithuanian descent. she is catholic but the other side of her family is jewish. she grew up with a cap the grand father who she had told had fought against world war ii in a few years after he died in fact had collaborated was responsible for the death of thousands of including many of her family members. she was compelled to discover the truth behind her grandfather the banquet is her story of what really is her grandfather's life. she is a poet and writes like a dream. it's an amazingly powerful story, a gripping one as well. in january we were published two books. one by wendell potter who is a whistleblower among many things wrote a book for the insurance industry called nation on the take and is the story of the hugely corrosive effect of money in politics and how it will affect every american at the grassroots level. not just the political system in washington but every american as they lived day-to-day any documents have the effect is happening. hopefully will have some effect on the spending of money in politics it won't help the presidential election year for the amount of money spent. able for the first time a clear to the average american the price they are paying for the amount of money being spent. lastly, out of the blue a month ago i got an e-mail from tom daschle. tom daschle doesn't know me at all saying i'm writing a book with trent lott, a counterpart on the republican side about bipartisanship and the lack of it today and all about leadership and the need to restore leadership. would you be interested. first i thought it can be tom daschle but it was. i said of course i'm interested. i think please send it and within three days we bought it. it doesn't have an actual title yet. the title will change. but the book was not. it will be out in january at the start of the election season ended as it related book. these two guys were diametrically opposed political aide and lead their parties during the clinton years in the senate and thereafter found a way even though they disagreed to work across the aisle and find a solution. that was their trademark. bipartisanship is their big game and they can talk all the time together. it surprises people they are such good friends. but this is the principal. this is the issue that matters to them and they want to restore the dignity of the senate. it's a terrific manuscript. history showing in fact a lot of partisan conflict in the past so giving hope in fact we might build to get through it again. >> mr. gibson, why do you think he contacted you? >> i have no idea. i have a massive net. when i made and that will be the first question out of my mouth. i can't think of a reason he would. i'm glad he did because it's a terrific book. that's a really good question. walker & co. years ago published george mcgovern's first book. i can imagine george mcgovern, but that is the only explanation i can give you. other than that i don't know. >> take a look at lounsbury's upcoming book by george gibson, the publisher. >> the roosevelt reading festival happens every year at the heftier presidential library in hyde park. this is the home of fdr and his family for several years. more live coverage of the series book festival in just a few minutes. >> presidential candidates often really spoke to introduce himself to voters and promote their views on issues. here's a look of books written by declared candidates for president. in his book -- is a >> well, earlier this year i read a terrific book by a professor at pepperdine called the return of george washington about the period after the end of the revolutionary war, he went home thinking his responsibilities were over. it is clear from 1783 to 1787 yards as the confederation were not working. he will preside over it in 1787 which led to the american constitution which has survived pretty well for a couple hundred years. and then i followed that with an interesting book called the kennedys amateur shows by a guy named thomas maher about the relationships between the kennedy family and the church shows before churchill became prime minister. and of course joseph kennedy was ambassador to the u.k. the outbreak of world war ii and was widely criticized because he was very sympathetic with the germans. he didn't think we could win. wanted to keep america out of it. while researched book on the way up until the time church or was still alive. so attracts the wall. from joseph kennedy is down to jack kennedy. and i'm going back to my favor. which is around 1850 a book called the great american debate about the compromise of 1850 sold the country together after we had won the mexican war and how old is new territory all the way to the pacific or the big question was where these new states going to be slave or free because there were 15 slave states and 15 free states. slavery held on as long as it did. the house is a sun population. it was a heck of an effort to what a country together and in the end it worked at least for 11 years because 11 years later we had the civil war. [inaudible conversations] >> we are back live at the roosevelt reading festival of the fdr presidential library and museum in hide park, new york. patrick lukens is coming up. his new book is called "a quiet victory for latino rights." fdr the controversy over whiteness. you are watching live coverage on booktv. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone. i'm the libraries education direct or and on behalf of the fdr presidential library museum i would like to welcome into the 12th the 12th annual reading festival. franklin roosevelt planned for the library to become the research institution for the study of the entire roosevelt era and the researcher must consistently one of the busiest in the presidential libraries. this year's group of authors reflect the wide variety of research done here. if you enjoy the festival and want to support this and the other great programs we do here i encourage you to become