Looking back over the five years from conception to publication of Rostenkowski,¹ however, I am struck by the need for patience and discipline. Book-writing has some similarities to magazine-writing - which has plenty of its own demands and in which I have engaged as a reporter since 1973. But a biography of a living person, in particular, has many complications that go beyond the "mere" practice of journalism.

In my case, I had to determine which aspects of Rostenkowski's life were most important to me and how I wanted to portray them. I needed to define and maintain a personal relationship with the subject of my book, who has never been known for a warm and cuddly style. And I had to keep in mind the ultimate target for any author: the audience of readers who, I hope, will enjoy and learn from my book.

Several aspects of Rostenkowski's life and personality added to the challenge of writing this biography. As almost everyone knows who has dealt with this larger-than-life figure, he can be blunt and over-bearing, especially when placed on the defensive. But he also is a gifted story-teller with a legion of friends and admirers and he has had lots of experiences worthy of an audience's interest.

Faithful to his background as a disciple of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, he also is instinctively wary of most journalists and he has little familiarity with book authors and their craft. Another factor that influenced my reporting and writing is that Rostenkowski served a fifteen-month prison sentence in the middle of my project. While that posed some unusual obstacles for each of us, I probably benefited because he viewed my book as an opportunity to promote his personal rehabilitation.

My first big challenge was securing Rostenkowski's participation on my terms, which were that I wanted his cooperation but that the book would be under my control; it is not an authorized biography. It took time for this politician, who demanded and usually exercised control, to understand that he would not have the right to review the book's contents pre-publication and that the publisher's contract was solely with me. Another dynamic was that several years earlier I had discussed with Rostenkowski the possibility of writing a story of his life. After brief discussions, both of us wisely decided that the timing was not right. Among other factors, the fact that he was still engaged as a public official would make him and others less likely to be completely candid. (That's not to say that biographies of active political figures - from presidents and influential senators to the wannabees - are not warranted. But in the case of Rostenkowski, at least, I found benefit in examining his career in full and with some perspective of time.)

In any case, he agreed to cooperate with me following his reelection defeat in November 1994. During the next twenty months, we had more than twenty hours of one-on-one discussions. We talked chiefly at a small office in Arlington, Virginia, where he worked for a Chicago-based insurance company. And we had useful conversations at his Chicago home, on the telephone, and at a dinner in Boston in December 1994, before he was to deliver his final speech as a congressman. During those sessions, I encouraged his skill as a raconteur. On occasion, however, I felt that some of his tales were embellished and that others suffered from selective memory.

Because I had interviewed and written about him for National Journal on numerous occasions during his thirteen-plus years as House Ways and Means Committee chairman, I had the advantage of extensive knowledge of his career in public office and as a party official. He was first elected to Congress in 1958 and also served twenty-eight years in what was for him another important post as a Democratic ward committeeman in Chicago. >From the start of my research, I usually was familiar with issues or other individuals to whom he referred. That also helped me, I believe, to gain his confidence that I would write knowledgeably about him.

Although he and I never discussed his additional assistance, I am convinced that he sent signals to many people in his networks - both in Chicago and Washington - that it was okay for them to talk with me. Given the loyalty that many of his former political allies and staffers continued to show him, his objection to their cooperation would have significantly hampered me.

Still, there were limitations. From the start, Rostenkowski was firm that his family--notably, his wife and four adult daughters - should not be part of my book, much as he kept them out of his political life. I agreed to that restriction, chiefly because I did not believe that their assistance would add notably to my manuscript, which would focus on his professional life. But I was unhappy that I had no access to his official papers that he agreed to donate to Loyola University in Chicago, which he had attended. In part, he was wary of granting access to any researchers so long as criminal charges were pending against him. Plus, I suspect that the papers need considerable organization before they could be of useful assistance and that Rostenkowski retains some control of their use. Although my inability to review the collection was not a serious obstacle - in part, because of my extensive reporting, both contemporaneous and retrospective - I hope that future researchers will gain such access.

In one area of research, I was surprised and disappointed by the lack of cooperation. Several Democratic Members of Congress turned down my requests for interviews, even though I have had and maintain productive dealings with them on other matters and they could have provided helpful reminiscences and observations about Rostenkowski. At the top of that list were Reps. Richard Gephardt and David Obey, both of who played important roles in Rostenkowski's career and in the book. Others who turned down my requests include veteran Rep. Sidney Yates, who represented the neighboring Chicago district to Rostenkowski's during their lengthy House careers, plus former Senate Finance Committee chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In these and other cases, I often had the impression that their refusal to cooperate stemmed from a reluctance to discuss someone whom fellow Democrats viewed with anger or embarrassment. Nevertheless, I strived to make the book fair to all concerned.

Although I focused chiefly on Rostenkowski's political and legislative activities, I certainly could not ignore the federal criminal indictment that was filed against him in May 1994 nor the eventual plea-bargain in April 1996 and the prison time that he served until October 1997. That series of events affected my work in several ways, beyond the detailed discussion of those events that the book provided, chiefly in one of the eleven chapters. One result, as I have described, was the reluctance of some Democrats to discuss his career. More broadly, the hostile public and political reaction to him following the indictment made many individuals less inclined to view dispassionately the wide range of his accomplishments and other activities.

As for Rostenkowski, despite his grueling experience with the law-enforcement system, that investigation probably made him more willing to cooperate with me. He feared that he would be remembered in history as the politician who served thirty-six years in Congress and then went to jail. But he hoped that my book would provide a broader perspective. Over time, it became clear to him that would be the case. Before he reached his plea-bargain with prosecutors, I deliberately chose not to dwell with him on details of the investigation. I assumed correctly that much of that information would become public in court records and that, in other cases, he would become more candid once the court judgment was imposed.

His willingness to assist me was emphatically demonstrated when he permitted me to interview him while he was imprisoned at the Federal Correctional Institute in Oxford Wisconsin. We spoke for eight hours during two sessions on a Friday evening and Saturday morning in March 1997. Several aspects of that meeting are worth mentioning.

First, outside of his Chicago-based attorney, I was the only person whom he permitted to visit him in Oxford. Despite requests from his immediate family members, not to mention many friends and former associates, he turned down all of them. I can only assume that he was too humiliated to allow anyone to see him under those circumstances. Second, he was strikingly upbeat and well-spoken during our visit, which was held in a small cafeteria of the prison, where several other inmates were at the time meeting with friends or family members. "He was eerily like the Rostenkowski of Capitol Hill," I wrote in the book. "He was remarkably well-informed about current events."

His only demand - which I accepted - was that I could not publicly discuss or write during his confinement about his prison conditions because he did not want to jeopardize his possible early release. In addition, the visit made clear to me that he was not receiving special treatment from prison officials. If anything, officials at the bleak facility violated Bureau of Prison regulations when they denied his right to confidentiality during an interview with a journalist.

After Rostenkowski's release from prison, we had several more discussions while the book was going through the editing and production process. Perhaps the chief difference from our earlier interviews was that he was now even more focused on advancing his career in the private sector as an advisor to mostly Chicago-based firms and as a public speaker and television pundit. In particular, he grew impatient to see the book published and available to book-buyers. Even though I did not show him any of the manuscript, I wrote two articles about him for Chicago magazine and one for National Journal before the book was published, which clearly signaled my editorial viewpoint.²

I did encounter one major obstacle in moving the book to publication, which I believe was not connected to Rostenkowski's life or imprisonment. An editor at The Free Press initially suggested the book concept to me and we signed a contract in late 1994. In mid-1998, however, we agreed to part company. I believe that result reflected, at least in part, the diminishing interest in political biographies by New York City publishing houses. Although I choose not to discuss here my view of that action, suffice it to say that I quickly secured offers from two other publishers eager to issue the book with little change in the manuscript. I have been delighted that the book has been published by Ivan R. Dee, a respected Chicago-based publisher for both the trade and text-book markets and I'm very pleased with Ivan's hands-on and skilled editing and processing of the book. My chief regret is that Ivan and I did not join forces earlier.

One additional aspect of the book worth recounting is the promotion, which began in earnest when it was released in September 1999. During the following three months, working with my publisher, I kept very busy with promotional events - chiefly in Chicago and Washington - that included speeches, news-media interviews, and signings at bookstores and elsewhere. Although the logistics often were complex, Rostenkowski attended some of those events and he spoke positively about the book. In particular, he was the center of attention at a reception for the book that National Journal sponsored, and which received extended coverage in The Washington Post as his first public appearance on Capitol Hill since his defeat.³

As had already become clear, Rostenkowski's interest in the book-promotion was prompted, in part, by his desire to gain positive attention for himself and his accomplishments. To the extent that his participation generated additional sales and attention for the book, I welcomed his efforts. As for his own well-being, professional and otherwise, I surely wish him well. But as has been the case since I started working on the book, my dealings with him remain professional, not personal. Each of us recognizes that we have separate - though not competing - interests in the success of the book.

Finally, the positive response to the book by critics and the marketplace brought home to me something that had been evident to me - at least, subconsciously - from the start of the project. Five years after his ignominious exile from elected office, Rostenkowski's public service is looking better, especially in Washington. As a review in The New York Times Book Review noted, "It is hard to read this book without feeling some nostalgia for the old bulls, as Democratic powerbrokers were called, particularly when nobody seems capable of muscling through big legislation anymore."⁴

I could not have confidently predicted such a response when I began work on the book in 1995. But I do think that the art of writing - journalistic and otherwise - benefits from the occasional ability to anticipate reader interest. All the better, if I have achieved that goal with Rostenkowski.

Richard E. Cohen is chief congressional correspondent for National Journal. His biography of Rep. Dan Rostenkowski was published in 1999.

1. Richard E. Cohen, Rostenkowski: The Pursuit of Power and the End of the Old Politics (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, Publisher, 1999).

2. Cohen, "Requiem for a Heavyweight," Chicago, June 1996, 70; Cohen, "The Last Lion," Chicago, August 1998, 58; Cohen, "Rosty Without Remorse," National Journal, 20 December 1997, 2546.

3. Beth Berselli, "Dan Rostenkowski's Loyal Constituency," The Washington Post, 22 October 1999, C-1.

4. Robin Toner, "House Master," The New York Times Book Review, 21 November 1999, 16.