i thought all things about him were appealing and his honesty. there was a part in the book where we have roosevelt when he's going to overthrow henry wallace and he wants somebody n new. >> sunday night at 8:00 on cspan. the french ambassador to the u.s. spoke about u.s. france relations at the hudson institute here in washington, d.c. recently. this is about 50 minutes. >> we are so pleased and honored to have you with us today as you were reminding me earlier, america's e first treaty with alliance was signed with france in 1778.

it was such a stressful eechbt that we didn't sign another one until 1949, i think. france is america's oldest diplomatic relationship. at times, it's been one of stormiest, but over the century bs, it has endured and the french have a tradition of sending very interesting and informative observers to the united states and we've probably learned more about ourselves from one frenchman than from whole university departments of american studies. in any case, i was hoping you might want to start off today with some thoughts about the state of the world, u.s. french relations. whatever is on your mind. [ inaudible ]

the first i think in my life, does this work? >> yes. >> can you hear him? >> not as well. can hear you, but not the ambassador. >> we're check -- >> is it on? >> working? okay. so, what i was saying is i think it's the first time in my life that political life in the u.s. it's compareable to european political life. it's a reality. which says a lot about the crisis we are all facing is really a crisis of our democracy. whatever the national characteristics, you know, the reality is that in all

democracies, we are facing the same of our voters. the mike, also. so going back to what i was saying, saying our two societies, our democracies are facing the same crisis. and which leads to political tensions in both countries. we have two president. by their age and their political

leanings, actually both of them have been elected as in sense leaders. in the case of the french case, each was a campaign on the centuries platform, but from the mental mentally in france, to be president, you have to be around for 30 years. in this case, he has never been elected. it was not a politician and never the less, he was elected. may explain why they're a good sh. have been elected through the anger through the voters.

that's the first reality. the second is that the french president has a strong majority. it creates a particular situation by chance which means that france is the bit forthright now, the natural marketer of the united states. which is of course really is calling all its analogy to solving this problem. so it means again by default, we

were for the moment and as you know, you have to be pragmatic. it's not a question of feelings and in a sense, we are delivering. what does it mean that we are delivering? it means that the french are ton main battlefield, we are with the americans. and the americans are supporting us and we are the main contributor to the military operation. really side by side. so we are seeing president mac ronn wron was the first to be

invited and the relationship with two countries. we have been good at avoiding really confrontations and reaching gentlemen's disagreements. and which is apparently, a diplomatic quality. that was my short introduction. >> short and very, very informative. i would like to follow up with your observations about the united states. as an ambassador, you have a unique situation, you talk to people on all sides of the divide. you hear the view of democrats,

liberals, conservatives, never trumpers and administration officials. how do you read the american political situation? how much trouble are we in? >> i am privileged because i'm not an american observing what is happening in the u.s. in the time of intense polarization. i should say for me, the first element i want to emphasize is how emotional are the americans today on both sides. blasting at each other, more in the sort of -- especially for the democratic side.

for the democrats. is calling for a political response. it's not enough to to say i don't like the person. much more important to say i don't like the politics and actually, if i was elected, that would be the politics. which means taking seriously to account seriously what the voters have said. the anxiety they have expressed. the demands they have presented. and to try to basically to articulate the policy. so my advice would be less more, would be less, be less, which is very french, be more political. >> so, that's very good. french ambassador advises

americans, be more french. it's probably good advice for right now. you mentioned brexit. this is clearly an issue that has has been rumbling around for a long time. the eu seems to have been moving a bit in the direction of a softer approach. the british on their part don't seem to have much of a consensus. where do you think this is going and is there any kind of a positive role the u.s. can play or should we just wait it out? >> it's frankly regarding, as a lose loos lose situation on both side of the discussion. the british or the eu people.

facing so many different challenges. >> it's a self-inflicted crisis. the british have decided to leah. it's their decision. they said we don't we don't have, we don't want free movement. so for now for more than one year we have said considering the red lines, what we can offer to you is a free trade agreement with way we have signed a free trade agreement with canada. of course for the british, it's a lott loss. they have full access to the wider free trade arena in the world. and now they are going to have to be treated like the canadians. to the world european union.

as with diplomats, they want to have their cake and eat it. so basically, they've been knocking at the door for one year trying really say, oh, we want to get more on that, more on that. that's the first problem. the european union is a set of norms. you know, you take off the n norms, there is nothing really left on the european union. a set of norms that the member states have accepted. so we can't change new norms. which are the basis of the european union for the sake of the uk. so we have also uk, free trade agreement, but nothing else. considering your red b lines. the second problem is of course the british aren't negotiating with themselves because a lot of disagreements between them. you know really, it reminds me

as a poor french diplomat, i was negotiating with the americans. who you call the interagency process. so you have to process, usually, you're waiting to reserve to the process during three months and at the end, the americans are arriving with the reserve and they say, please don't touch it. it was too tough to negotiate. the way they are doing it to be the same. really, they are spending weeks and months, fighting and fighting, negotiating and after that, they came to us with a -- saying please don't, of course, we are not going to accept it. so it's a complicated negotiation because of the british political situation because the complexity of the issue. you know in 40 years, agreements actually have been negotiated between the you can and eu and

you have to get this meaning. so it's very messy. and when you have a negotiation, it's important to note that closer you get to the date line, more drama you have. there will be. this is drama. there will be drama. those will be slammed, chest will be banned. really that's the part of negotiation but i'm quite really i do believe that at the end of the day, we will have an agreement. it's really, in the interest of both sides of the search, that's what we will have an agreement. as you know now, the best point is the irish border because if the uk is leave iing the europe union, there will be a border on the irish boarder and which woud be contrary to the good five-year agreement.

which was negotiated when the uk was in the eu, so it was quite possible simply not with the border anymore between northern ireland. now, it would be more complicated. so that's the point of the negotiation. again, there will be still a period of tension. periods of tension, but i'm quite optimistic about an agreement. >> we've talked about tdifficul negotiating partner to the one side of france. you have another where president macron at the beginning of his term in office made a very impassioned call for german cooperation and almost a relaunch of the european union.

talked to us after the election then after, we have to have a coalition, talk to us when the coalition is formed. the coalition was foe form eed, new and we need some time and nourk now, it looks like it's breaking up and we can't talk about uch. how do you get a process going because in some ways, this is a better strategy for not negotiating than the british or the american one. what is strike iing is the futu of the european union. the european ewan won was an imperative. something nobody could really even discuss. we have been invaded three times in 70 years. by the germans.

where territory has been devastateded. the first was nuclear detriments. in time of danger, you are alone and we were alone in 1914 and the second was never again. that was of course the feeling of all the feelings of all the french. and never the less, there was a sort of will to say never again, we have to be at the hope to be hope and the prayer maybe is that we have been too success f ful, which means the idea that it wouldn't make any sense. t the question mark is why.

the european union. what is the views? you can say it's good because it's the larger free trade arena in the world, but frankly, it's not for that. especially at the time when there is the wave and here at washington, d.c. and as a target a. because one source appears as the beacon of globalism. opening the borders. signing free trade agreements with everybody. so, the panger is against brussels. so the question we have to answer is how to convince our

citizens that the european union remains of critical importance for our prosperity. and again, the jury is out. at the same time, you should, you may see that countries which are actually experiencing governments like hungry or poland are not talking about leaving the european union and prime minister of them has been very keen on saying that really, they don't want to leave the european union. and beyond all this name calling of our time, the fact is that the european union is meddling through. which is not very glorious.

and trying r respond to the cit and including on immigration. so again, it's tough. twoef move forward. going to your question, it's true that macron has made the -- has in a sense weather waving the flag of hope. and it's not very easy. you said because we are working with germany and it's true that germany is going for the moment, but wuf the italian elections. and macron is trying to set the stage in terms of nationalists

against europeans and he's trying to create, he has been creating a party with other european leaders, especially leaders the prime minister for instance or scandanavian leaders. really to present the center or center of the left. that's really against the nationalist. the result of the elections will be important in themselves because they will open parliament as some powers, but also the message that is, that this elections are going to send. but you know, a book has been written about macron called at the same time. because he is you know, usually when you ask a question to the

president, he's saying, oh, yes, the answer is a and you say oh, that's the right wing answer. at the same time, it could be b, which is the left wing answer. which means that he's trying to really to make a sort of synthesis of the different possible responses. he's not prisoner of a political -- really a political line. as i have said, he's different. he has been elected in a different way and he wants to be different. so there are some measures, you say, oh, that's right wing, some measures it's left wing. in a sense he has understood that a debate is not so much right against left, that the debate as you know about what the far right is saying globalist against nationalist and he wants to be part of this

debate. he is accepting -- he is accepting this debate, but at the same time if, for instance, on immigration there was -- he has a bill voted by the french parliament which was quite restrictive. also he's using also, you know, the signal -- the signals also, for instance, of commitment to the nation, you know, the flag, national ceremonies, the celebration of the centennial of the first world war. so he's also aware of the anxieties of the citizens and trying to respond to these anxieties. >> talking about italy, then, the third problematic neighbor of france in a sense, how do you see how will france respond to the italian position on its budget? >> you know, i'm going to have a

very courageous answer. that's the competence of the commission. that's for the commission to handle this issue. you know, really it's -- first, as you can guess, our relationship, our bilateral relationship with italy for obvious reasons is totally critical for us. you know r, it is the first or second investing in italy, our major companies are really linked and there is also that we have to manage together the question of immigration for the mediterranean sea. so there are some, again, name calling between paris and rome, but at the end of the day we will have to cooperate. i noticed as i've said for the prime minister of hungary that the italians have never said that they want to leave the

european union. the question they are asking in a sense, you know, has been a question which has been hovering for some years, which is to say that the austerity policy, which is really that has been imposed on europe now since 2010, 2011, you have a lot of people who are considering that this austerity policy has in a sense had very destructive consequence on the economy growth and the economy of the member states for the eurozone, which means on the fabric of our society. it's a debate which is going through all the european -- the european countries, especially the south, saying, you know, it's an imposed aus irrelevatere

have to put the end to it. >> i'd like to ask you one more question on my own behalf and then give the audience a chance. and this would be we've noticed a dramatic turn in u.s./chinese relations, standing pretty much where you are sitting, vice president pence a couple weeks ago gave a striking speech about u.s./client relations and talked about a whole of government approach in the u.s. to counter china's -- chinese policies. there have been a number of other steps before and after that that suggest a turn of u.s. policy toward a much tougher approach to china. from a european perspective, from a french perspective, how does all this look and how do you see this line of administration policy shifting

world politics, if at all? >> you know, there are a lot of people who are saying basically that power politics are back. i think that never left the stage. you know, really, but we believe that power politics are back simply because so far for the last decades power politics was overwhelmingly in favor of the west and especially of the u.s. the fact is that we are simply seeing a rebalancing of the world between world powers. obviously china is on the rise and -- and that's less obviously because we can discuss it in comparative terms the u.s. is in decline, in comparative terms, even if the u.s. will remain the main power for decades to come. so it's always, you know, it's not -- it's always a difficult moment, you know, how to find a

new balance between this emerging china and on the other side the u.s. and the other powers, japan, russia. so it's -- so it's not abnormal that we feel, we hear tensions. for the europeans it has always been the case for the europeans, they know what is power politics, you know, really we nearly invented power politics, but we consider that international institutions, international law, our way of civilizing power politics, you know, really maybe hiding under a cloak of decency the balance of -- reality of the balance of power, but also creating frames for negotiating and that's the reason why we are so much committed to international

organizations, but we doubt -- you know, without any naivety. you know, we are not naive. sooner or later we were expecting a definition of this relationship, which is now the major relationship, which is between china and the u.s. you know, it had to come, it was a crystallization moment, you know, the speech of vice president pence was a crystallization moment, but the trends were there. you know, really what we have -- again, on our side of course we do hope that after this crystallization there will be between china and the u.s. there will be a dialogue, you know, really leading to partial deals and agreements and so on. i think it's in the interest of

everybody to reach agreements or compromise between china and the u.s. what we have told the u.s., we have told the u.s. that on the trade issues we were ready to work with the u.s. because it's true that there are real questions which are raised by the chinese behavior, a real question of intellectual property, market success, public procurement and that there was also other questions about cybersecurity. we considered that we should set the standards together, that if we don't do it with the u.s., again, the risk is that china will set its own standards, which are not -- which wouldn't be very friendly towards the democratic values and towards our national interest.

so also we have ideas about reforming the wto because we considered, again, you know, really this administration and these presidents are raising a lot of legitimate questions. the behavior of china in the trade field, for instance, we have been whispering about it for the last 20 years and so it's -- really it's a real question. the wto. also the wto and the previous administration was already unhappy about the wto. it was not appointing judges to the court of the wto. why not reforming the wto. we are ready to work with the u.s. to reforming the kentucky. so, again, there are -- really, again, there is this very special unique relationship between the two powers but on

the european side we are ready on some issues to work with the u.s. >> thank you. enlightening as always. i will try to call on as many people as i can. let me remind you, though, that you need to ask questions. questions are short statements that would be punctuated by a question mark at the end. so please no statements or long comments. identify yourself briefly and we have microphones. yes, so wait for the microphone. this young man here in the front. >> i'm sorry, probably you all look young to me. >> i was wondering what's your take on the [ inaudible ] -- should the european union say on it if the u.s. [ inaudible ] --

[ inaudible question ] >> you know, under the iran deal we have a fundamental political disagreements -- disagreement with the united states. it's fundamental. it's not a question of business, it's a question -- political question. we disagree. we have to admit it, we consider it the decision of the u.s. to get out of the iran deal was a major mistake, period, which means that we do believe that the iran deal was -- of course it was not perfect, but it was -- it gave us a lot of means of monitoring and limiting the iran nuclear program. we have told the americans and we have told the previous administration already that beyond the nuclear issue there were a lot of other issues that we had to face as for the iranian foreign policy.

with this administration actually we the europeans we are negotiating with the administration about an agreement on how to handle the terrorists, missile activity and regional activities of iran. there was a negotiation going on and we considered we were at 90% of an agreement. so our position was clear. we keep and we actually implemented very robustly the iran deal and at the same time we work together, the free europeans and the european union with the americans to address the other issues which are -- which of course are real issues. in a sense more issues for the europeans considered our geography. so we were there. this administration has decided overnight, you know, really to denounce the iran deal and

basically to sweep away the negotiation that we had been conducted. okay. so here we are. what we are trying to do and what we have been repeating to this administration is that if the iranians leave the iran deal, what are we going to do? you know, really basically when we signed the iran deal it was basically to say, you know -- really to avoid -- to avoid facing the alternative between bombing in iran or an iranian bomb. that was what we were trying to avoid, and we believed this agreement was a way of avoiding this very really unappealing alternative. so what the europeans are trying to do right now is trying to convince the iranians to stay in the iran deal. so far they have accepted it. when the new american sanctions

are going to eat -- and apparently they are going to eat very heavily the iranians on november 4th, i don't know what the iranians will do. but again, if the iranians decide suddenly to go back to massive uranium enrichment what are you going to do? really that's the real issue. for the moment we have convinced the iranians we have a very intense dialogue with iranians. of course it's really politics, it's also domestic politics, and the fact that the americans are sanctioning european corporations which were engaged in totally legitimate iran, setting the cars or the normal trade as of course the political consequences in our public opinion. our public opinion is totally outraged that the u.s. would punish foreign companies doing legitimate business in a foreign

country. it's more and more difficult to accept by the european public opinion and we have also to take into account the european public opinion. so what we have been telling the americans was, okay, on one side the nuclear deal disagreement, we disagree, so let's see whether we can work together on the other issues -- on the other issues. but it's also difficult on our side because of the public opinion and it means also that we are expecting our american friends to make some gestures. for instance, the humanitarian goods, of course humanitarian goods are not sanction the. are not under american sanctions. but the fact is that the banks are so terrified by the sanctions that they don't want to do anything with iran. so it means that there is a

strong risk that in a few months, really there will be shortage of medicine in iran if we don't do something positive to solve this problem. so, again, it's a difficult dialogue. again, we are -- it's a bit weird because we have the same diagnostic of the iranian behavior and, as you know, we have expelled iranians because they were trying to organize a terrorist act actually on the french territory. the french, we have been always very tough with iran, but we do consider this a way of what has been decided by the united states makes our action against iran -- against the role of balancing iran more complicated. >> more questions? let's see. in the back there. yes. we will get a microphone to you.

introduce yourself. >> ashland cob. thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. i was wondering if you have any insight on the french/russian relationship and more specifically if france has any hopes for the upcoming trump-putin summit and the inf treaty in general. thank you. >> you know, really first i start by a remark which is, i don't know it's indicative a bit of the united states. on friday, i guess, on friday you had a summit in istanbul between the french president, the german chancellor, the turkish president and the russian president to talk about syria. france, germany, turkey, russia. don't you think that somebody is missing there? and it's very strange because

for us it was a major event, it was hardly covered by the american press. hardly covered. i want really to emphasize this point because on the embassy we had to share a report about the american press and frankly really it was not that -- the relationship with russia is in a sense for the europeans as you may know it's a platitude, but russia is an important country. at the same time we don't want -- we don't see russia as the ussr revisited. the only reason that the russian power is not a global threat to europe, you know, basically if you had the military budget of germany, france and the uk, it's more than twice the russian military budget.

so russia is a partner, russia also is raising some, i should say, political problems in crimea, in ukraine, you know, what was the -- in georgia in 2008. so we have problems with russia, but russia is not a major really unifying threat the way ussr -- the way ussr was. second point our trade with russia is ten times the american trade with russia. so it means also that for us we have also legitimate business interest in russia, business interests which are quite important. by the way, the sanctions that we have -- which have been imposed on russia after the annexation of crimea and the interference into ukraine has been much more costly for the europeans than for the americans because of that. you know, actually our sector

which was a major provider to the russians has suffered. so we have done the job, you know, really. so what is foreign policy? foreign policy is talking with your adversaries. so we have to talk with the russians, we have to find with president putin whether there could be a compromise between the way they see their interest and the way we see our interest. to be frank, when president trump was elected actually we consider it was a very good idea to have a personal relationship between your president and the russian president because it's really for vladimir putin that you can have an influence, an access to the real decision-making process of russia. it is what the president --

president macron has been trained to do and it's exactly what happened in istanbul. here we are going into the conflict in syria. as far as syria -- and for some legitimate reasons the administration under the trump administration have limited their intervention to fighting -- fighting isis basically. the two administrations have not been very active going further than fighting isis. for us what is happening in syria has critical consequences on our national security either for migrations but also because of terrorism, which means cities and countries going to syria and

coming back. for these reasons we could feel much more -- much more urgency maybe than the americans into solving this conflict. the fact is whether we like it or don't like it, that russia is in syria. the fact is that in military terms some people would say that russia and the regime have the upper hand and that we are really close to the last stage of the crisis which is the of itlib. if the russians end syria's attack in itlib it will be one million refugees going to turkey and on the top of that thousands of jihadists stat erred in the nature as we say in french. so you can understand that for

europeans it's a totally unacceptable prospect. so since the turks and russians have been working on this issue with our german friends, we have seen what we can do on idlib and also on a political transition which could be in a sense consolidate a ceasefire and maybe a peace process in syria. so we don't have any illusion about russia. really we see the military activity in the air space, the military activity in the north sea, actually, we have reinforced our military presence, we are contributing to the nato battalions in the baltic states, we have forces really also trained in poland.

but at the same time we have to talk -- really we have to speak with the russians and it's what we are trying to do. so the idea of having, you know, a summit in paris or in bueno buenos aires between the two presidents is a very good idea. >> yes. >> thank you. what's been the response of the administration to your european requests on making a bigger effort to exempt humanitarian goods from the sanctions and how bad -- big an impact is november 4th going to have on transatlantic relations if the u.s. pursues extra territorial actions against european companies? >> i saw the humanitarian

issues. we have not, you know -- we have not actually yet received a precise answer. you know, for instance, the question is really the designation maybe of an iranian bank with which it would be allowed -- we could be allowed to make -- you know, really to have a relationship, you know, because for the moment the administration says we said publicly that humanitarian -- really it's possible to send that to the iranians and what our question was, you need to be more positive to say how to do it because if you don't say how to do it the banks will not do it. so we are waiting for a technical answer, you know, we know that the answers are thinking about it. as for the sanctions on november 4th, first, i don't know what will be their extent, but i should say now that in a sense we have swallowed the 95% of the

bitter potion. if there is something really unexpected i don't think that november 4th will be more -- really will bring more bitterness under the transatlantic relationship in this field, but americans may surprise us. that's the quality of this countr country. >> let's see. one more question. yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. my name is michael smits. i appreciate you being here. the european court of human rights ruled that the austrian case about blasphemy that the woman's comments about the profit muhammad weren't

prospected speech. i wonder also with respect to recognizing the legitimacy of the court and that ruling were a french citizen to be found responsible for the same crime elsewhere in the european union would the french government respect the decision and potential incarceration? >> i think it's typically a very political in a sense issue and to be frank i read it in the press but i didn't read the decision of the court. as you know it may make a real difference. so, again, i don't know what is the exact text of the decision so i can't answer to your question. you know, as representative to the united nations i spent five years, you know, defending the rights of the french men to insult virgin mary and really

jesus christ, really which is a bit strange. "charlie hebdo" was this newspaper, was the victim of the terrorist attack basically because he had insulted in a very cold manner mohammed, the prophet, but he had insulted much more, you know, really the poor pope that is submitted to a lot of indignities, i couldn't describe here, or virgin mary and so on. so there is a big tradition in france, as you know, to be -- to be anti-religious, to be frank. people don't understand it, it's one of our major differences is your idea is to protect the virgin from the state, it was really your founding fathers didn't want to have an image of religion. really your secularism was to

prevent the state to impose and establish a church where our secularism was to protect the state from the church. during one century of fighting between -- from the french revolution, between the roman catholic church and the french state. so there is a sort of twist in our secularism that we have to -- we have to recognize. really you never see a french president swearing on the bible. that would be the end of his political career. it's very different. so, again, i have to look at this because i was also struck by this decision, but when you are struck by such a decision saying basically you can punish somebody because he has insulted a religious figure, suddenly you say, no, it's not that simple. it's not possible that the european court of justice has

taken this position. i'm willing to have a look at it and to answer your question after that. you know, really -- you're french. i saw you arriving, i was sure you were french. so even with american nationality, you can't escape. >> great. [ inaudible ]. >> well, twitter is an interesting medium and i think the ambassador -- >> i don't know twitter. >> -- have both found that twitter is sometimes best avoided. >> yes, exactly. >> all right. well, listen, i think we are all grateful to the ambassador for really generous and open conversation, diplomacy at its best and i hope to see you here again soon for another conversation with another one of those washington-based diplomats. thank you so much. [ applause ]

>> later today former president barack obama will campaign in hooim miami at a rally for senator bill nelson, candidate for governor andrew gillum and other democrats on the ballot tuesday, and that's at 2:30 p.m. eastern live on c-span. president trump and vice president pence are also on the campaign trail. they hold a campaign rally in indianapolis at 7:15 p.m. eastern, live on c-span, your primary source for campaign 201 2018. >> the c-span bus is traveling across the country on our 50 capitals tour. during our stop in concord, new hampshire, we asked folks which party should control congress and why? >> so i believe republicans

should retain the majority in both houses of congress after the midterm elections. i think president trump is doing a great job at the white house with some of the policies he has enacted. i think congress along with leader mcconnell and speaker ryan are playing their part. i think due to the economy and strong gains in the judiciary and foreign policy and world affairs, i think they're doing a good job. although speaker ryan will be retiring i think it will be interesting to see who will take over the helm if republicans do maintain their majority in the house of representatives, who will be speaker. i think with the gains they've made i think the country is doing quite well and i think president trump should be given the chance to continue to work with a republican majority that's doing so much for the country. >> well, i want to thank c-span for visiting new hampshire. new hampshire does democracy better than any other state. coming up in these midterm elections people are active and engaged, informed, ready to vote on november 6 and the democrats are going to take control. >> if control of congress changes after the 2018 midterm

elections that will greatly impact me, my family and many fellow students. there are many issues going on right now that i care about, one of those being healthcare policy. my mother has been greatly affected by healthcare policy and if the democrats were to regain control of congress i feel that that not only myself, my family and many other americans across the country will benefit for the best. >> the answer i give is what happens if the congress changes, i think the ds have a wonderful chance to win the house, that's very, very significant. i'm not so sure about the senate race. it looks as if the senate race may be best case scenario would be 50/50, worst-case scenario 52/48 in terms of the republicans. what's going to happen after the midterm election is anybody's guess. i think some of the efforts that have been put forth by the president really have got to be stopped and it will take a congress made up of democrats in

order to do that. i think the country is at risk. >> and i think the effects of the midterm election depending on whether it switches from a republican house to a democratic house will affect me and the members of my generation significantly and i'm really proud to see all of the not just members of my generation but all young people in general stepping up and running for offices, especially here in new hampshire. there is so many of us. >> voices from the states, part of c-span's 50 capitals tour. >> tonight on american history tv in prime time, we will look back 50 years to richard nixon's 1968 presidential campaign beginning with a film from our real america series featuring the republican nominee answering questions from georgia residents. it was one in a series of live television broadcasts in live states paid for by the nixon campaign.