>> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information servicesorldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> john dickerson is here, he's moderator of face the nation, political director of cbs news and a columnist for slate magazine. so many jogs. he's covered six presidential campaigns in his more than 20 years as a journalist. his new book is called whistle stop my favorite stories from presidential campaign histories. i'm pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> thank you charlie. it's great to be back. >> rose: let's talk at the book. where do you think we are in this campaign. >> well the day mentions are which means each party's gotten their best four days to give their long extended commercial about their candidates which means two things talking about the candidates but the turf on which they want the debate to take place. they are talking about two different turves. in donald trump's home america is under threat at home and abroad. that mans he's building a presidency in which only he can fit. hillary clinton shows an america that's growing and thriving and though it has many challenges because of america's collective actions, they can take on those challenges. so she's building an america in which she is the best one to lead. there's a lot of debate over those initial diagnosis before they can ever get to what the solutions are. i think what we're at right now is where we were even months ago when the trump campaign says the threshold questions whether they are willing to hand the presidency to donald trump and whether he won't break it whether he has the temperament or judgment judgment for the job. that's the number one criteria. it's a change collection and people want change. it's whether donald trump represents dangerous change. if they can clear that question, then he can be president. >> rose: it's a change year as most campaigns are about the future. so it's changed and at the same time she has her own questions about trust and unfavorability and all of that that everybody knows about including her. can that all be trump by trump's disqualifications. >> two thing. it's interesting. elections are about the future although in a way donald trump is very much relation on a vision of the most and saying what you miss and long for in america i can return to you. which is another way in which we're talking about a different turf here. >> rose: i'm asking what that is other than an america. >> it's an america in which values that people feel like they grew up with are still a part of the common conversation. people are, you know, i mean depending on, it has to do with an economy that works and people feeling like they can leave their children in an economy and in a country where they will have a better life tomorrow. they feel all of that is threatened and they feel like if they went back, if you got rid of the policies of the liberal obama, that it would, that america into settle down into its natural state. that's why he always says make it great again. >> rose: before obama. >> that's part of it much the interesting question is when you ask well when was it fine, what period are you going back to. and that's often a difficult answer to get people to give you. so to your question about where we are now and hillary clinton your quite write this trust question. just as donald trump has some instrumentalables on the question of temperament hillary clinton has some on her truthfulness talking about the e-mails. she got four pinnochio's on "the washington post." >> rose: what is it about her making that mistake knowing as intelligent as she is, is it she would not recognize it as, she defended the fact that it was not a lie. so on one happened you can recognize it as not a lie. on the other hand you can have a combination, a set of experiences and a set of self protection that forbids you to acknowledge something. >> right. well that's the characterlogical flaw that most people are worried about. there's a permanent that causes that situation and that would be detrimental in a president that has somebody who their default position is to always move where the answer is not a forthright one. >> rose: she's unlikely to take responsibility as those critics would like her to. >> yes. and the secondary part of that is what do you do when nobody's watching. which is really what the first par of the server question is about, which is this is a system that was cooked up against the spirit and letter of the law and nobody was watching so they went ahead and did it. >> rose: she did it knowing it was against the spirit. is there conventional wisdom people that cover politics every day with the skill you do that in fact she did this, knowing that it was wrong, knowing it was against the law and knowing she said it was a mistake because of the aftermath but that's because of the aftermath. >> she hasn't said it was a mistake initially. >> rose: in other words having an instinct to want to be able to protect yourself by having control of your own server. >> i that's that the instinct that took over the most which is after being as scrutinized as she has been, of course she would want a private system, and so that's the ruling interest here more than. >> rose: and also the open stint not to do something that would be reasonably transparent which is to say bring together a bunch of people who have or are above question in terms of integrity and judgment and say you decide. these are the e-mails, you decide. you know. rather than simply saying i'll decide and then i'll destroy them because you have no question. >> that's right. that's right. that's what irks people about her and the choice people are going to have to make is, is it the trustworthiness people feel about the things she did in business or trustworthiness they feel about donald trump. these are voters who are voting on trust and that's the real open question. how many people for them is trust a key question. but for donald trump, the question is, is this something who has changed his positions and views on multiple things including some of his signature policies. he's moving around a lot on this question of muslim immigration, the temporary ban. and so, do you find that kind of change of position worse than hers. >> rose: let me ask you a question that you might find in this book. would most of the reporters you know rather spend an evening at dinner with donald trump or hillary clinton? >> it depends on what the conversation's about. what's the dinner. >> rose: let's say it's a dinner of being honest and let's say it's a dinner with perhaps alcohol and let's assume it's a dinner in which people can be reflective. it's not a policy dinner. it's not healthcare policy. it is a sense of the let's get together and talk about what's going on in 2016. and who would be more interesting, more provocative and different than the public might assume. i don't know the answer. >> well, it depends. provocative, donald trump. >> rose: beyond provocative. >> well the difference in the public private. the difference between public and private hillary clinton. >> rose: i'm saying the most interesting. >> i don't know, charlie. i don't know. because you can imagine both being incredibly interesting. >> rose: this is the kind of stories you're talking about in part. >> oh yeah, in part, yes. >> rose: when reporters come together what stories do they talk about. that's mainly about stories they know not about hypotheticals. >> what this is about is about things that a lot of which happened in public. this is the turning point in the campaign. but on the dinner question you could imagine both of them being fascinating, they say we're really opening up. i mean donald trump has had a lot of experience doing big deals, dealing with, i mean real estate in new york is a complicated and strange thing. hillary clinton has seen an extraordinary amount over her -- >> rose: of history. >> of history. >> rose: based on how much history you've seen it's much more. >> if you care about history and you want to know, and you could have an honest conversation, that would be, this is somebody who has watched -- think about where the democratic party has gone just in her lifetime. the bill clinton democratic party of 1992 is not the hillary clinton democratic party of -- >> rose: she can admit that today. >> that's true. i guess i mean, certain things like trade, you know. i think it's in the interest of the campaign to -- >> rose: times have changed parties change. >> right. and she would know the contours of that change really well having run in, she's been running for the last nine years. so what was the country like in 2008, how is it different now. her advisors say she was one of the ones from the beginning who recognized the sanders threat. she didn't as many observers did say oh well, you know, we're not going, he's not going to be a real threat. she took it seriously so she uderstands something about the democratic base and what they wanted and why they found him attractive. so if she was speaking honestly about history and politics, that would be fascinating. >> rose: what role does her husband play? what do you know about that. >> i don't know. >> rose: what conversations they might be having. >> clearly they have an, i think he's her closest advisor who knows her and her, and where she comes from and where her heart is on these issues. but i don't think he plays the role, you know, i think the campaign is separate from him. there was some clatterring around in 2008. i don't see any of that this time. >> rose: -- campaign. >> well, in 2016, the campaign is a much more orderly affair than it was in 2008. i don't know if that has anything to do with bill clinton's not having a role in it but when you think about it, the campaign is not, the candidate has had some real stumbles but there's not an instance in which there's been talk, you know, a lot of infighting in the press. >> rose: i think that's the a learning experience too. they said look we made a mistake in 2001 we'll fix them in 2012. >> the cut and thrust of a campaign and pressure of a campaign and when things are going badly for a campaign that seemed to have a pretty good path to a nomination in the democratic party you can imagine a lot of infighting with the clintons. all of the people who have known the clintons over the years from the outside, lobbying and advice. you can imagine it being a lot more dysfunctional than it has been. again, the candidate had plenty of challenges that hillary clinton has presented to her own campaign but just in terms of the kind of day to day operation of the campaign it's been a pretty smooth operation. >> rose: you have said these not a good campaigner. >> she has said she's not a good campaigner. barack obama has said she's not a good campaigner. >> rose: what does that mean? she doesn't like simply the ebb and flow and the drama and the high and lows of politics and the fact it's a very much a huge people thing. >> i think when you watch bill clinton give a speech and in a room, it's a -- obama used to talk about it as a jazz performance where there's a little bit of call and response. there's a reading of the room and the lapsing into the preacher mode for a moment and then the professor mode. and enjoying and having enthusiasm for the commerce of politics. everything i've heard about hillary clinton, she gets that kind of enjoyment when talking about policy. when talking about the stuff that you don't talk about at a rally so much. and the rally stuff is and that kind of political commerce is more difficult for her. it doesn't give her the joy that talking about some of these policies would. and you can tell that the policies give her joy because listen to her talk about them. look at the policy she's put forward and the depth of them. we haven't had that in political campaigns much and it doesn't go to that much of policy detail. >> rose: how do you like her convention speak. >> i think it was -- was it a d. >> by the hillary clinton standard, it was probably a b plus. well maybe an a minus. by the standard of the people who had come before her. it was not, she had a tough set of acts to follow. >> rose: i thought she had good lines, i thought she delivered the line, i thought she had a certain presence in the way she delivered them. >> yes. well b plus isn't bad. >> rose: a certain timing too. no, donald, that kind of thing. she learned it seemed to me. >> well it depends also, yes, it wasn't a bad speech. i'm just saying there were some speeches that were really, that were as acts of performance that were better. >> rose: everybody seems to agree that michelle obama's speech was the best speech at that convention, do you share pat. >> well in part because she's the non-politician coming into the ring so people are looking at her differently. >> rose: she had a -- >> yet her speech ticked off every box, every theme they were trying to launch in that four day. when you look at the speeches as a part of a four day message, hers was she touched every one they were trying to touch which every time you got that much in it, it can feel dense and kind of blocky. and it had a movement to it that you would have expected with a speech that was doing that much work. >> rose: what's the joy of this for you? >> well, i think the joy, the joy of it is trying to figure out, it's the same with you, what's going on in the country. this is the chance for a big national conversation. the joy is having that conversation and figuring out how to because at the end of that conversation is a bunch of people frustrated that the country's not going in the right direction. to the extent you can get any answers, it's a mystery, you know. you're out there panning for clues and when you find something that you think is real, that's enjoyable and that's what part of writing this book was about. you go and you're on a hunt and then i've got it, i see how this works, i see how people have their fears and homes invested in a person and then i see that person responding to them and the big mystery is, is donald trump in his speech that was not boring, it was not, they told us to look at the nixon 1968 speech, nixon not known as a great orator, it had lift, talked about the lift of a driving dream. trump didn't have that but there's a way in which that may not march. may not matter. it's a better speech even it isn't flowery and isn't better. >> rose: how much of that speech wasn't in part on the themes of george wallace, the nixon speech. the majority. >> that's right. there was a couple things. the anti-elite view part of the whole republican message from trump's kids saying he doesn't care about the mba's he cares about the people working on the work site. that's a very common message from george wallace. the feeling about america being off track because the elites have led us there. that's the same message. the feeling that the candidate is saying what he believes and that we've grown into a society where nobody says what they believe and as a result a lot of people suffer because nobody speaks up and the candidate is finally doing that and he's doing it for me because he shares my irritation with, and then you can fill in the blank. and i think when you talk about law and order, that which was nixon's phrase stealing from wallace, competing with wallace who was beating him in law andor in the beginning 68. >> rose: finding resonance also in boston and chicago. >> exactly right. which makes humphrey, it's fascinating. if you watch what humphrey did trying to block wallace with blue collar voters. he goes to the blue collar voters and say do you think he's with the working man. he's a union buster. these what clinton's saying about trump. you think he's for you look how he treated his workers. >> rose: she has to do that to win. she has to go to his base and try to make some kind of -- she may -- he may be able to win because the movement is larger than we all imagine. the disconstant -- discontent s deeper and wider to me. >> we know the discontent is big whether he can funnel it into the electoral process. there's a big group of people if he could get them all -- >> rose: that's my point. can she come in and steal some of that by a, casting reflecting on his, who he is and at the same time being able to overcome whatever the resistance is to her. >> yes, yes. i mean, i think that's right. i think overcoming the resistance for her is hard. >> rose: built up over the years. >> yes, it's built up over the years and i think there's more. it's harder one person has an opinion of you to then in the context of the campaign, to convey trust. that's hard to do. because campaigns are, they are chopped up and they are given in either speeches and how do you convey that but it's easy to make an attack and have that stick. so if you're trying to attack donald trump. somebody learns a piece of news about donald trump producing the goods that had his name on it overseas. that's a piece of news that can change their mind. what's a piece of newspapers that can change somebody's mind about your honesty. that has to happen more over time. over larger more experience. >> rose: over some different kind of exposure. >> that's right and the campaign doesn't offer that kind of exposure right now. the campaigns are so chopped up because of the way the news cycle works and the way donald trump keeps the social media changing keeps things chopped up. it's easier for the clinton campaign to take donald trump down than anything else. >> rose: if someone was a wise political stratest and had the ability to tell donald trump no, would they take away his ability to tweet? would they take twitter away from him. >> i they had they probably would. because what he needs is message discipline. he needs to basically stop getting into side fights, yes. >> rose: about the khan family. >> that wasn't over twitter. >> rose: no, but he couldn't stop and that's when he employed twitter which is always what he does. he goes beyond what's been said because he can't resist. >> right. >> rose: that's because he thinks he's misunderstood. >> right. and because -- >> rose: or because he thinks he's understood. >> after four days of the democrats killing the ground and preparing it for people to see him as lacking the temperments of the job, his actions fall into that preprepared territory. and also then, remember mitch mick connell said he was not a credible candidate because he lacked this discipline. marco rubio has said a version of the same thing that the test for donald trump between a couple 34u7b9s ago when i interviewed him he said the test for the rest of the campaign he can show he can occupy the office on those questions of national security he will have to deal with. and so the temperament question is one that everybody's watching for and twitter while it thrills the people who love him, it -- >> rose: what he needs to do is not thrill the people who love him. as he said if i shot somebody at broad daylight on fifth avenue they'd still love me. >> that's right. he needs to expand his group and the two places is with the blue collar workers expanding the pi people who haven't voted before and college-educated republicans. >> rose: the soccer -- >> the ones in the cbs polls, hierarchy is increasing her lead with that group and that's a group that republicans traditionally always win. >> rose: moderate republicans especially. >> yes. >> rose: going back to the book. now this is acknowledgements. first my wife she's not only read this book many times over and made it better but she also makes me better and has for the last 27 years for putting up with my writing. until late in the night or in the morning. next bright and nan. you two can't imagine yet what a joy it is to come out from behind the desk and join your world, your questions are my favorite thing in the world. >> well they are questions of the simple ones. >> rose: how old are they. >> they're 12 and 14. will be 14 soon, in a matter of days. their questions are the simple ones about the world and why it works and how you treat people and why somebody's doing this. >> rose: why does donald trump do this and why does hillary clinton. >> and how are we supposed to behave when something happens. what it is, is it's beginner's mind. it's looking at all of this stuff afresh which is great because when you get down in the little narrow fight of something you forget people are still coming to this anew and gets you talking about why we do this and why they did. >> rose: that's such an important quality. steve jobs used to always say you have to look at things with fresh eyes and you have to look at things from the beginning. you cannot be hampered by all the other stuff that we gather in a lifetime. there are things you have to look at. fresh eyes and if it is just the beginning. >> right. >> rose: writing with a fresh, painting with a fresh canvas. >> yes, exactly. and because you can't ignore their questions or you don't want to, you have to wrestle sometimes also by the way with things that you accept as wisdom that ain't so. you can't explain in a way that a 14 year old -- >> rose: that only a 14 year old can explain. >> yes. >> rose: tell me about the research. >> a lot. >> rose: what were you searching. >> well, at first it was the stories what i was in search of was the reflection of the race we're having now. did this happen before, did we see a pattern what do we expect next. if we don't see what we expect next that's new and why is that new and what does it tell us. these are just fun stories. these are moments with people with high stakes made a choice and that choice made off or it was a failure. >> rose: these are public choices that were made in the pursuit of power. >> right, exactly. and how do people in pursuing power, what do they give up, what's inside them. what is, how does the public react. if you look at the question, at the election of 1824, one that people probably don't talk that much about, when they look at andrew jackson people worried about a demagogue worried about anybody trying to claim they were the answer. we hear that in our politics today. you also heard jackson say don't let your choices be determined by a group of elites in a caucus. how to be the people making choice. we hear that donald trump today, from bernie sanders as well. and you see these scenes coming up again and again. >> rose: that's the political inventions change and that's the reason political parties change. somebody comes and says next time out it's going to be different. >> right, exactly. >> rose: 68, 72 was different. >> right. so we're trying to figure out we're in a moment of radical change or are we, what's, how big is what we're going through right now. >> rose: radical and transformative. >> right. and that's part of what this does. that's what this does. these a research matter, this started out, some of these stories started out in a mud cast and i have a fan -- pod cast. and he would send me mountains of newspapers in 1824 old pdf's of the newspapers it's reading flying covering the news campaigns. and the books you can get them digitally. you can carry them a lot in the old days you couldn't do. >> rose: does this election remind you of any other election. >> 1968 wallace. in 1964 -- >> rose: third party candidate. >> he was. but he was a surprise. he was appealing to the same views in the cities that people worried about now. the people liked his plain spokenness. >> rose: race was part of that. is race part of this. >> i think immigration race is certainly a part of this. i think in 1946 -- >> rose: is that different than black/white? >> um, i don't know. i mean -- >> rose: does it came from the same fear. >> it comes from economic fear. and what's difficult with wallace than anybody else who, you know, you can be fearful that your job's going to be replaced and not be thinking about race. but when donald trump talks about immigration, some people are thinking about race. so you get the people who are thinking about race and the people who are thinking about their jobs being replaced and they're all a part of the coalition. and the tricky thing is, labeling one as a racist merely because they're just worried that their jobs are going to get replaced. and so that was true, that's been true with the republican party since wallace. when somebody appeals to law and order including democrats appeal to law and order what they're doing in some cases is sending a signal. >> rose: hillary clinton says she believes in law and order. >> right. but when they talk about predators as they did during the clinton years and predators in the cities and used loaded language like that, what some people hear is an attempt to play on white fears about the african american inner city. and that is, they are very volatile and obviously quite dangerous. but not everybody who is fearful for their safety has a racial-based fear. so the mixing of all of that is what makes these issues so difficult. >> rose: you believe that donald trump means what he says or simply says what he says because most of all he cares about winning and power and everything. the end justifies the means. >> i think that's roughly right. i think he cares about an end result in which he wins and the terms of the victory. obviously. >> rose: how he gets there. >> how he gets there is all negotiable. negotiation is the thing that keeps coming back again and again and again. >> rose: trask actional and negotiable. >> yes. and what contains him are the facts that certain decisions would make it the end result untenable. he's not going to say something that's going to lose support of all republicans. >> rose: i don't know who is asking this, who his heroes really are. who is it. would he say lincoln or somebody not in public life. >> he would say his dad. >> rose: i know that but beyond family. >> yeah. i mean -- >> rose: the mother and would say that's obvious when she talks about a mother that's self serving. >> right, right. well it's the first level. i mean any time you talk about your family in a political speech, it's self serving. what you want to do is as you know better than anyone is what's behind that. what's really, you know, behind that. what's the thing your mother would tell you before you left the house. what's the thing your mother told you when you came home from college. it's getting at the story, the emotionalism is there but you want to get at what's really there not the kind of presented view of it being face forward that's true of all politics. >> rose: it really is. do you know who it is, you know. i was reading about normandy recently and -- the feeling thing of mother's protective meaning to life. >> yeah, yeah. and you want to know what donad trump's relationship with his dad is really like or his kids is really like. that's what's used in the public relations sense but you want to know what they really are like. >> rose: what does excellence mean. well hillary too. what does excellence mean? what is it that they look at and say you know, that's the quality that i admired because, you know. it's one thing simply to be or maybe it's all true, to be, to win. i mean is excellence about winning, is excellence about equality the doing of the thing that matters. talk about some of these stories in here. i've always been fascinated by this mario cuomo. and the tarmac. >> and decides at the last minute he can't do it. >> rose: or did he. >> what? >> rose: decide at the last moment. was he always going to say no and just didn't know. >> yes, okay. so the plane is on the tarmac to register in new hampshire. >> rose: not that he, was it simply he didn't know himself he know new sense he couldn't do it. why did he not do it. did he not do it because of fear of failure, did he not do it because, you know. >> well that's the eternal question with cuomo whether he just couldn't take that final leap into what could have been a failure against george bush who at the time was quite popular. nobody was thinking it was a smart move to run against george bush so why take what i built up and chance it against this very popular incumbent president. >> rose: what did we learn from this. >> i think what you learn from that is the power of that there are politicians who have great power in campaigns that never win. or they're never even the nominee. we heard again at the democratic convention again they played before governor cuomo came out they played the -- think about the power of words to live on people are never nominated. sme with teddy kennedy when they played the dream skhul -- shall never die and the power it had at the convention. people don't look like but i don't know, you could imagine them looking back at bernie sanders. in years past. so i think the cuomo, what struck me about the cuomo decision was two things. one the power of people who never get the nomination. and two, how even, you know, people can think this election there's no way we can win against this incumbent president. so he doesn't jump in the race. bill clinton does jump in the race and does end up winning. >> rose: i had people at the time that bill clinton jumped in the race who knew him saying he's really going for vice president. he hopes to run the race. obviously other people and this is somebody who ended up in the cabinet and other people obviously believed that he thought he was destined to be president and was obviously a risk taker. why not. bill bradley acknowledged he should have run four years earlier. >> that's what kennedy told obama don't wait run now run as fast as you can or as soon as you can because you can't wait. chris christie the same deal probably should have run in 12. so now that's jack kennedy said the same thing when he was losing the vice presidential nominee. >> rose: in 56. >> so in 60 charlie bartlett was saying why don't you slow down a little bit. and wait and truman said the same thing. h said no it's now. they're going to forget me. and you know, i wouldn't say he started it all but jackson after he loses in 24 running for president in, for 1828 in 1825. so he starts we think of starting early as a modern thing. >> rose: reagan ran four times, three times. >> yeah. i mean the beginning the campaign the minute you end the last one. >> rose: ted cruz. >> yes. sure, running from really the republican convention in 2015 to 2020. >> rose: taking a stamped because if things go really bad for donald trump, he can say i saw this coming. i tried to stop this and i took a great risk to do it see i was right. >> right, right. and let's a little parallel with what rock fer was trying to do in 1964 when he was booed at the republican convention and goldwater. and rockefeller could have and he did have his moment again after that but rockefeller took a similar stand in 1964 that ted cruz got. >> rose: he thought he would come back in 68. >> and that the party would not be moving in the conservative direction that it ended up going in that you got to moderate as a party. >> rose: what are your favorite stories in whistle stop from the founding fathers. >> well, i love, so the election of 1800, what i -- >> rose: jefferson. >> jefferson against adams. and then aaron burr and goes into the house. i write about james calendar who is the first attack dog and nobody knows about because history hasn't been very kind to him. basically jefferson said in the press, the battles were in the press. gutter age of the american press because they were all partisan. they were vicious to each other. what they were fighting about though and what they were being so vicious about was direction of the country. this was real. these were men who believed deeply in these ideas and they thought if they got it on the whole experiment would collapse. this isn't just a twitter war. these are people deeply engaged in a set of ideas. >> rose: the decisions we make now will forever affect us. >> that's exactly right. they were big decisions. >> rose: about federalism and about everything. >> exactly. and do we support france in the revolutionaries there or da we align with brilten this country we just broke off from. >> rose: something a new generation can understand because they went to see hamilton. >> yes, mariah reynolds that story is broken by calendar and calendar who is working for jefferson although jefferson says this fighting in the press is so untidy, she's funding it. then calendar turns against him after jefferson wins and is the first one to disclose that jefferson had an affair with sally hemmings his slave. so this guy is responsible for the first two sex scandals in america. >> rose: was hamilton someone people liked or was he good at what he did. >> he was good at what he did. >> rose: he seemed to be someone who was so ambitious and so talented some people said enough. >> that's right and in the musical there were a few lines who is this guy speaking for six hours he just won't shut up. the amazing thing is the drive. there is that line where burr talks about the federalist papers and says hamilton wrote 51, i can't remember how many but he is both error stated by his constant and also envious which is in that line by hamilton this irritating won't shut up constantly going always in your face which is always the drive that made him so impressive. >> rose: always in service of his ambition because he was chief of staff at the center of the action to george washington but he knew that he needed battlefield experience to have the political career that he want. >> right, right. and the glory that he won it. >> rose: i always believe, let's assume part of it also was he was a patriot and he believed that was the best way to serve. it wasn't all just about what this will do for me. >> right. he wasn't just climbing. >> rose: he genuinely believed his patriotism. >> right, right. >> rose: or genuinely believed that you should give it all, you should make, quote, to use a word now in our nomenclature a sacrifice. >> yes, right. right. right right. yes. dying is easy, living is harder. is also another great line that george washington said to him in a musical which is, you know, that was the opposite of that, the foolhardiness, that there's actually something harder. so we could go further. >> rose: i'll just take one more. one is that campaigning is poetry and government is prose. >> right, right. the aforementioned mario cuomo gave that quote. so think of the rhetorical presidencies. 1948, truman is a disaster on the stump. we talked about hillary clinton whether she was very good on the stump. truman was horrible. he would read them. people would see the top of his said. so there was a scheme to start speaking off the cuff as they called it. he starts learning to speak to people. he goes on this whistle stop tour, three of them, thousands of miles across the country. what he does is he connect vote by vote along the road. he has opposition or he has researchers telling him of each town he's going to so he knows a little bit about the town. he gets down off the back of the train and counts the teeth in the horse's mouth and knows how old the horse is, and everyone's shocked and the president of the united states knows how to do this. that was, he wasn't poetical. >> rose: he's much more someone talks about i think brings governing to the idea of explaining things. he explains thing we now know the great explainer where obama is more poetic and he almost does it, this is my judgment or my opinion or perspective. he almost does it as if he's looking at himself do it. he's amused by the fact he knows what he's doing. >> do you mean obama. >> rose: yes, obama. >> yes. >> rose: i think clinton takes a delight in saying, because clinton will say if you believe in this, this and this that you should think that you shouldn't believe in then you should vote the other guy. but on the other hand, if you're influenced by the bad angles of our souls then you should vote for me. >> what i wonder when he made that counter-claim about hillary clinton basically she's a change maker that was his argument and required following him down the lane. in other words change doesn't happen by magic it happens by hard grit. here's a person whose had a history of that in their lives and therefore if you wanted change, change election he was trying to basically make a different argument for change. what i wonder is how much is that kind of argumentation work in politics anymore. do they go to a look for an argument or go to a rally and go for a huzzah or getting like a passion. the argument for hillary clinton as a change maker is not a passionate maker. it's much more -- >> rose: a passionate argument that's not who we are barack obama. how many times have you heard barack obama say that's not who we are. in other words a ban against muslims in the country. that's not who we are as americans. it's a sense to look at us and think who we are what do we stand for what are our values. saying what this person is doing is not who we are. it's not america. >> what i meant is passion. you can have passion that's not, you know, shutting out people who are coming in. barack obama gave lots of passionate speech that didn't have any arguments in them. we're all in this together, and that was -- >> rose: not red or blue. >> right. so not red or blue isn't an argument so much as it is -- >> rose: that's my point. clinton is aspiration and obama's more aspirational and clinton is aspiration in sort of explaining policy and explaining things. here's an interesting thing which brings us back to where we began. this is president obama today. really interesting, i think, the notion of where we are seeing a whole accumulation of things coming down on top of donald trump's head, whether they will make little difference as they have in the past or have they reached some kind of prezip tighting and crystallizing force looking back and say there was a moment he could define and never could escape it. if you can in the moment see the future then you're better than i am and here it is. >> i think the republican nominee is unfit to serve as president. i said so last week and he keeps on proving it. the fact he doesn't appear to have basic knowledge around critical issues. in europe, in the middle east, in asia means that he's woefully unappropriated to do this job. this is not just my opinion. i think what's been interesting is the repeated denunsation of his statements by leading republicans. if you are repeatedly having to say in very strong terms that what he has said is unacceptable, why are you still endorsing him. this isn't a situation where you have an episodic gap. this is daily. and weekly where they are distancing themselves from statements he's making. there has to be a point at which you say this is not somebody i can support for president of the united states. >> rose: that was not as dramatic as i see. i hadn't seen that but i mean, it's unfit, it's dangerous and all those things. has that been a part of what we said all along, simply because it is a moment we're noticing it. is this part of the standard rhetoric to say this person believes in the wrong things and all these other things rather than he doesn't have the quality of character or mind to be in that office. it's not somebody you want to as she said be baited by tweet. >> this campaign has always been unfit versus not trustworthy. i mean it's always been the clinton people want to make him seem unfit and the trump want to make her seem untrustworthy and each of those want to make the presidency all about those thing. in other words whether you trust them or not that's the binary choice for a candidate. the clinton team want it to be whether a person's fit or not. the question's whether the voters are going to make their decision on those things. >> rose: here's what's interesting. i think people care deeply in america about character. trust is about character. >> yeah. >> rose: than it has to do so much with behavior and personality. temperament. >> yeah. well but i don't know. this is what we're finding out is whether people when they think of trust they think of them in the oval office. i mean making those tough decisions. >> rose: trust them to tell me the truth. >> right. >> rose: trust them to be transparent about government. >> yeah, yeah. and i think the fitness argument has always been and the trump peopling acknowledge this, that's the key hurdle for him. >> rose: also there are these qualities too in terms of character. i mean, there have been a lot of times in which we have found people who we believe did a lot of very good things as a public leader but we didn't have a huge appreciation or approval of their character. >> well sure. >> rose: that comes to mind. >> if you look at fdr's private character i think people might find some flaws -- >> rose: not flandering because you're going to be in trouble. >> about washington dare i not tell a lie, about the cherry tree, abe so honest that was his central characteristic. lincoln and fdr used dishonesty in their dealing with their candidates all the time. >> rose: dealing with the country. think about what he did in terms of trying to get through the emancipation proclamation and slavery. >> right. and letting two people on opposing sides each think that you're on their side. but that's dishonesty, if you think i'm with you but i'm not -- >> rose: really doing things that were approach right to the line. >> yeah. well, i think we can both agree that honesty is a quality in presidents that some of the great ones have not shown and they've been successful when they have not always been honest. and so -- >> rose: bob gates says that, he said to me and to others i think. the one quality all the best presidents he worked for had or new about was temperament. that reagan, and he included reagan and eisenhower and roosevelt always had temperments. he didn't work for roosevelt but he made that point. >> when barack obama said george herbert walker bush had that temperament and there's whole different qualities under that. cool under pressure, not knowing what you don't know. having the flexibility to hold two opposing ideas in your head at the same time. but it's interesting -- >> rose: i think it was f. scott physician -- fitzgerald who said that. >> they all grabbed that at one time or another. what actually constitutes temperament and that changes over time as we assess these presidents. >> rose: this is what the promotional material for your book says. whistle stop tells a story of reporters rehash at the bar each one adding an unknown tidbit or shorthanding for reference. dukakis in the tank, do in new hampshire. not just for political junkies but for drama and switch backs, nervous gambles hatched in hotel rooms failures of will before the microphone and the crack up of long planned strategies in addition also tell the forgotten stories about the bruising reckless campaigns of the 19 century showing that some of those modern dealing elements of the american president's campaign were born before the records were paved in the electric lights lift the convention all. i repeat all of that in a sense, you set out in to look for those stories through all these books. when did you do that? where in your life did you do that. >> i was just trying to keep up with you, charlie. you know it started 25 years ago in the strand books. >> rose: it began 25 years ago. >> yes, i think so when i was going in and there's a whole bookshelf of all the teddy white books you buy them all for a dollar and you buy the gary wills book. >> rose: in 1960. >> and then you buy, you know, boys on the bus and you buy the jules books and s -- >> rose: what is it about politics. what it is and i think what makes this really great reading, it is that politics is, politics is about the stakes are so high, it's about power, it's about the capacity to make a decision to send men and women into harm's way. it's the capacity in a sense to have your hands the destiny to influence the destiny of your country. something we've written about and talked about so long. it's the cumulative experience of so many amazing stories and people. i mean it's all that that makes the largest playpen even though it's not play in the world because we are the most powerful country in the world we're the most admired country in the world in the end for reason of our detractors. you have to go out and win it and win it day in and day out. it's not like eisenhower had the advantages, he had a unique kind of experience. they genuinely have people who set their sites on it as jack kennedy did, as bill clinton did as ronald reagan did and say this is what i want more than anything. >> right, right. >> rose: i want my chance. >> it's absolutely the story of personal drive and achievement and they're aware what comes in. where they attach. >> rose: they are in the end are the deciders. >> what are they wanting for their country. campaigns are in a sense for people feel control over their country a little bit. what is it they want control over and what is it that appeals to them. >> rose: what kind of place do they want us to be. >> yes. when you have, you know, speakers at the conventions referring back to the words that were written by those founders, the continuity that each campaign with bring with the american experience going back to first principles whether you know this is what we are and what we believe in. it's a beginning and gathering the family around the table and saying we've gotten off course, let's go back to what our first principles are and there's a debate what those first principles are, what liberty and freedom and equality mean in the current context. and you wouldn't have those conversations necessarily during a regular, your regular day. so a campaign forces everybody to the table or it should anyway. >> rose: it is also the story. it's the story of 50 states. >> now it's sometimes only the story of 12 states. >> rose: at the same time it's an expression of the will. in the end it's 10% of the people. 40% of the people now we know pretty much how they're going to vote. we know how they're going to vote for the republicans and those who are going to vote the democrats and it's those in the middle. >> maybe in the last election is the disappoint that people have with the candidates on both sdes. >> rose: what's the answer to the question is this a transformative election or is it too soon to tell as they say. >> well, i think if donald -- actually, i think we already know this that transformation has happened certainly on the republican side. the republican party is under going a transformation and if donald trump wins or loses-if he wins it's going through a transformation. there are republicans who are no longer finds comfort in their party. if donald trump loses, if he loses, there are plenty of republicans who are trying to seize the first movers advantage to define what the new party needs but there's a lot of people who supported donald trump who will say you undermined him that's not my party. and that transformation is big and it's not going to get papered over. it has to be fixed and people have to come down one side or another. the transformation that took part in the republican party in 1964 there were a lot of people driven away by goldwater. people who, i mean 19 republican governors trying to stop goldwater. that's much bigger than what we have now in terms of lack of party unity. and yet the party, what happened is i transformed and it began the ascent of the conservatives and the reagan revolution. so you could have another one of these moments here. we just don't, what we don't know is who and what emerges from this reorganization. >> rose: i saw up close, they sent someone to gettysberg to talk to general eisenhower, the retired president. and had him write a piece. >> in 64. >> rose: in 64. i watched this take place. i watched how they did it. and then they printed what he defined as the acceptable republican nominee. and it was not barry goldwater. >> it was almost as if you had written a piece to say everything that isn't barry goldwater i want in the presidency and then you know what happens after that. scranton, the governor of pennsylvania talks to eisenhower and thinks eisenhower says go ahead and you fulfill everything i put down on this meese and -- piece and run for president. and right before he says i don't want to be part of that and pull the rugs from under him and he has to go on face the nation but he doesn't. this performance of a man who doesn't want to be in the seat in which he finds himself. it's a total disaster. it's a great moment but it's initiated by just what you described. >> rose: this is what you'll find in this book whistle stop by john dickerson my friend and someone who i depend on to help me understand politics. whistlestop is its title, my favorite stories from presidential campaign history. i am a certified political junkie because of all the reasons i suggested because it is about so much of who we have been, who we are and who we want to be. my congratulations to john dickerson. thank you. >> thank you charlie, thank you. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. this is nightly bu.rldwide. with tyler matheson and sue herera >> the dow sees its longest losing streak in nearly a year and oil prices settle below $40 a barrel. new concerns. consumers are spending. businesses are not. and that's raising a lot of questions about how where the economy is headed. scaling back. aetna runs up losses on its health exchange business, becoming the latest to consider its participation in the program. those std m tonig on nightly business report for tuesday, august 2nd. good evening, everyone. i'm sue herera. tyler is off this evening. blue chip dow