tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg August 11, 2015 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we continue with our conversation of the 2016 presidential election. donald trump continues to lead the field. hillary clinton proposed a 10 thatcollege tuition plan has come under criticism from some contenders including marco rubio and jeb bush. coming. caucus is halperine now is mark
and john heilemann. they are hosts of with all due respect. welcome. guest: thank you. charlie: tell me about donald trump now that we have had some days since the debate and his comments afterwards. hasn't done any damage to him or is it too early to tell? mark: we don't know. there has not been conventional polling. it takes too long, it is summer, polling is expensive. there should be. if you look at the fundamentals of the trump campaign, his core supporters, his money, his name id, and ability to dominate the race, the fundamentals of the trump campaign are where they were before when he was the
front runner. charlie: he will continue to be the national front runner and has a chance of winning the nomination? mark: if he won the nomination it would defy modern republican history. yet to bring some skepticism. field, a guy who seems to be able to hold a fifth of the vote and has unlimited resources, and the ability to dominate the news, who knows charlie:. if the issue becomes content of message will that make a difference? mark: you have seen candidates who were populist, never anyone quite like donald trump they have never been the nominee. the nominee has always been the establishment candidate with the most money. that is not donald trump. this is an unusual cycle. charlie: what could slow him
down? john: who knows. charlie: what if the candidates say we have to speak to what we think is bad for the republican party? john: that is starting to happen. it is unclear whether that will affect his current level of support. thele do not care about republican establishment. they don't like the republican establishment. now.uestion is, he has 20% his floor. he may never lose those people because he has done things that have offended the establishment and it has not changed their opinions. i went to new hampshire and spoke to a focus group, you could tell them all kinds of mccain,this was after they would say i don't care about that.
everybody gives money. they would find reasons to rationalize or excuse things that would be a is for republicans. that is his floor. how much is above 20%? any race is it will come down to two people. how much can he grow beyond 20%? know.s what we do not the thing that the polling shows is he is the most popular republican and most unpopular republican. most rubble can voters say they would never vote for him. never vote for him. that 20% may vote for him under any circumstances. at the early phase in this race when the field is 16 or 17 he could cause havoc by winning early contests. one iowasuppose the
and new hampshire. john: suppose. mark: hard to stop his momentum in the short term. the establishment will rally behind one other person. the thing about trump that we haven't talked about, with a normal candidate we assume they could change and get better. trump is doing well in the polls , not performing that well as a candidate. primarily message discipline. when he talks about jobs and the economy and trade he does better . , thehe picks fights perception is that he does worse. the campaign intention is to roll out the policy papers, have him go back to talking about the issues he has been talking about for 30 years. charlie: you suggest that is
what the campaign is thinking about now. mark: we assume trump is going to continue to fight with people and get sidetracked on these petty things. what if he starts to talk about jobs in the economy, leadership, attacking the establishment? cruz,ok at the polls, ted carly, what do they have in common? they have never held elected office. they want to tear down washington, fundamentally change it. if trunking get on that message then john is right. then his ceiling could grow. john: the question to mark's point, so far he has exhibited no capacity for message discipline. anybody who raises an issue that could make him talk about that issue, is issue now, he should
have, even if he doesn't want to apologize to megan kelly, he should have moved on. morning and he was asked about kelly and he went right back in. he could say i'm supportive of women. and: if you were right now you said you wanted to talk to him about kelly he would jump back into it. back.he would go i watched, one of you were on this program, i watched scarborough the next morning and the complaint was in the first seven minutes, all the tough questions were against trump and not against the other candidates. that was the theme of the first seven minutes. says, politicssh
is about addition, not subtraction. trump is pushing people away. he talked about leadership, jobs, trade, china, that is what a normal candidate would do. people say trump must be trump, you can't control him. but he is not a message candidate. when he is he does better. charlie: when push comes to shove was that a bad debate? john: it was a fine debate for donald trump. i don't think he hurt himself much. charlie: did that apply to jeb bush? john: it was a bad debate for jeb bush. not disastrous. he did not -- to my eye and on the basis of the scattered and totally reliable data we have suggest you did not anything to help himself. even people in his world did not think he gave a quality of the
debate performance he will need give. he was flat, uninspiring, not optimistic, he did not come across as the best jeb bush. john: marco rubio did. see if hisnk we will performance raise the numbers. he impressed he leaves. let's see. john: you agree the performance was better. charlie: john kasich. john: certainly helped his cause. he was not well known in the country. the perfect representation of who john kasich is. like him or don't like him. he showed his true self. bubbly,ic, inclusive,
the demeanor he gave. some people said he gave jeb enthusiasm,ge with fire, and optimism that was lacking on jeb bush's part. mark: jeb bush was not as good as he needs to be to win. he needs to show he is going to fight to change things. he needs to show energy and passion. he is not just an intellectual. he wants to change things. he needs to show he is first among equals, is ready to be president, the way romney did. romney have the ability to stand out and show on rising above this, i'm the adult. i don't think jeb bush did any of those things. know whether he has a plan or a know how to do that? mark: it was his first
presidential debate. he is self-conscious at times. i think he will get better. he will be in better standing. he is going to need to practice. he did an event at the red state conference, much better. and ted cruz. organization, and he has fire in a way that right now if you wonder who can be the nominee, he is a stock that is undervalued. himself somez did good in that debate. charlie: you are not quite as enthusiastic. -- i stillnk there think -- the party has changed a lot. i don't think the party is ready for a ted cruz, then carson, my
coco be. they are not going to be, they are not going to prevail over people who are in the establishment or have the ability to cross over. your case in point, there are things case it did that would make people not like him. medicaid, -- charlie: there is something to be said. john: there are people who think that is [inaudible] ted cruz. there are lots of ways to slice the field. charlie: i should be on with all due respect. mark: there is the long-term game. if you want to be the nomine you have to have both.
you have to do well and maybe win. you have to have a plan to win states down the line. ted cruz looks strong in three of the first four states. he is on a bus trip in the southern states. putting in place leadership teams to be down the road. is thefor bush, walker fundraising leader. we haven't talked about walker. we have all talked about the debate performance. in terms of going forward, is scott walker better off today than he was a week ago? john: i don't think he is better off. he continues to have the problem they all have. a cipher. he did not do anything bad, he did not stand out. struggling with trot.
he has decided to run further to the right. he could straddle. he is catering to the base and making a strong play in iowa. that right now in this era of trump, it is hard for people with that message to break through. none of these people except jeb bush is well known. charlie: and we have all been talking about trump. known, basingtter on what people have said to me since the debate. walker, andgain stylistically bush, if john kasich is the nominee, it is going to be the same you saw. he is not growing or changing. walker and rubio and bush have to change, to do with people
like john kerry did. get better, grow bigger. it happens every cycle. charlie: did john kerry get better? mark: he did. they say one day i looked up and they got i was working for seemed more presidential. john: he looked like a president. mark: john kerry looks like a president. he fought for it. are havingthese guys trouble growing and getting that trial by fire because for weeks it has been trump. charlie: what about her? she getting better? all you read about is trust. john: you saw her give a fiery and passionate, authentic attack on marco rubio and the republicans more generally.
the republican party is giving hillary clinton the thing that she needs, someone to run against. she should be focused on bernie sanders. it is not going to inspire the visceral impulse to go on offense this republican party does. she think she is going to be the nominee. as they behave in ways to give rich targets, she can come out and be on offense. as long as she is running as press, theainst the e-mail scandal, that is a bad place for her to be. when she has the republican party to run against, she looks better today than she has in months. mark: look at what she did today in new hampshire. it was her. it was somewhat scripted. watch the video. reproductive
freedom and marco rubio, and his on no exceptions for rape and insist on abortion. it is scott walker's position also. .ubio's position was fuzzy he now seems to have taken that position. late this evening he struck back hard on her positions on late-term abortion. she was passionate today. today, i don't know though put a stop to the chatter but there thateen widespread chatter things were in bad shape. john: the on the question of the polling. the notion that people looked at her and said she is going through the motions. this is perfunctory to her. it doesn't feel like she is in this.
in this question-and-answer session she was in that campaign. mark: it is rare that all three of us spend time with her, that she has displayed in public. that will help her. not just to get bernie sanders but against these republicans. andneeds authenticity engagement. she show that today. she said good moments but in terms of being out there by herself, no script performing, best day i have seen her have as a candidate in this cycle. charlie: we will be back with senator claire mccaskill. back in a moment. ♪
claire mccaskill is here. she continues to serve today. her memoir tells the story of her life in and outside of politics. it is called "plenty ladylike." i'm pleased to have senator claire mccaskill at this table. sen. mccaskill: i am thrilled to be here. charlie: the table welcomes you. sen. mccaskill: i'm excited. charlie: ferguson. tell me. we just had another act of conflict last night. sen. mccaskill: it is really hard.
this is really hard. a combination of things. the narrative the media took off, that it was the police versus protesters. it is not that simple. the incident of michael brown's shooting, the facts of that case, the physical evidence that was tested and analyzed separately by the federal government showed it was a justified shooting, but the protesters are unleashed because there is a pent-up frustration with an institutional bias. it is real. charlie: what is the bias? it has to dol: with marginalizing african people, assumption of guilt, a lack of resources to defend themselves in a system that can be byzantine and difficult to navigate even with the best lawyer. the criminal justice system that has gotten off the path of things like drug court and
reentry court, and trying to someoneut a way to have become a full-fledged citizen of this country rather than institutionalizing them and warehousing them for years. the african-american community has a reason to protest. it got very complicated in st. louis because the facts of the michael brown case weren't the facts that supported the frustrations being vented now. other cases around the country that i think probably show more clearly that sometimes police officers make assumptions they shouldn't make but the vast majority of police officers in the african-american community want to come together, and wants to have a system that people can trust and feel like justice can be blind. we have work to do on them. charlie: i believe that as well. is there something about the way
train policend we officials, police officers, and on the other hand, what happens in neighborhoods so that young african-american men become frightened and respond. sen. mccaskill: frightened and cynical. the problemsne of we have with these homicide rates. people in the community don't trust the police. they are not win to come forward and tell what happened when there is an active crime. if they don't believe the system is there or just to anyone. the stakes are pretty big. our criminal justice system doesn't work if people don't have eighth in it. we will not be able to hire enough police officers. this is something we have to get
after. that is why you are seeing i am optimistic. it is the first time seeing bipartisan support. bipartisan support for criminal justice reform. charlie: what is the reform you see? sen. mccaskill: minimum mandatory's. charlie: on a national level. sen. mccaskill: looking at the prison system, and the failures, the failure of the size of sentences. we have 95% of people in federal penitentiaries for nonviolent crimes. we are spending $7 billion a year. charlie: he is trying to do something about that. ps. mccaskill: the good news is, so are some republicans. all of the agitation, the anger that you see in the protest community, it is going to a good purpose. it is forcing our attention to a problem we need to get after.
charlie: what has changed in ferguson? sen. mccaskill: there have been a lot of progress. we need to reform the court system. we have acknowledge we have to do a better job recruiting african-american officers. charlie: what is the percentage a year ago to? today? i know wekill: elected more african-americans to the ferguson city council. in a community that is majority african-american. was one member african-american. we have done housing, jobs, education. we have a long way to go. there are people of goodwill, white and black, working hard to do better in ferguson. charlie: how do you explain last night? sen. mccaskill: it was a peaceful protest during the day. it got very late. there were 100 or so people
there after midnight. the police knew there were people in the crowd that were armed and shots begin to ring out in different places. the young man shot by the police last night wasn't the only one shot. there were rival group shooting at each other. there was a drive-by. the police were responding to that. at the time it occurred there were more cameras than protesters. i saw that as a theme. through most of the problems, at the beginning that wasn't true. as time went on there were more -- one day there were four or five times as many satellite cameras then protesters. narrative -- charlie: what does the presence of the media do? sen. mccaskill: it fosters some folks acting out.
i think it heightens this narrative that became calcified, that this was about police versus protesters as opposed to the truth, that it was not that kind of thing most of the time. , turmoil wasrs peaceful. if you out liars and the police -- the outliers, the police have protect the crowd. they have to act on training and moved to apprehend those folks. they do so at great dangers to themselves. charlie: 20 to change the grand jury system? sen. mccaskill: the grand jury system was not the problem. they reached the same conclusion the grand jury did in their investigation. been sent itt had would have been criticized.
the physical evidence was the physical evidence. as somebody who has been a prosecutor -- charlie: you know the people involved. sen. mccaskill: and i knew the physical evidence. there was dna evidence, a lot of physical evidence. when you are a prosecutor you long for that evidence because that is how you test credibility of witnesses. which matches the physical evidence in which doesn't? that is how you can tell the truth about what happened. credibility.e that is with the grand jury sorted out. do you think this is getting higher on the national agenda? sen. mccaskill: i do. the pattern and practices problem is real, and they are true in many police departments. one of the things we need to do is get back to a community policing model. charlie: more policeman in the
communities. sen. mccaskill: to get to know people, knowing the ministers, knowing the people, teachers, knowing the kids. that works. i watched it work in the 1990's during the first wave of getting back to the cop on the beat. ofrlie: i talked to a lot african-american friends of me talk about what you know well, the talk to their kids, be careful. sen. mccaskill: no question about it. charlie: there is nothing tougher. sen. mccaskill: no question about it. there are two standards for a young white man and young african-american, the rom theirons f parents are different. we need to have the same instructions from white parents and black parents to their kids. ♪
charlie: a huge issue facing the country, the iranian nuclear deal. you have not yet decided. chuck schumer has decided. some others have decided. some predominantly jewish communities have decided both ways. you have a technology have been reaching out to those countries which will be affected by and have sanctions against iran.
what will they do? what have you discovered? sen. mccaskill: i don't think people realize we don't have the money. other countries are holding iran's money. one of the arguments is they are going to get $150 billion. it is closer to $60 billion. charlie: in total or is it closer to $60 billion available expandas critics fear to their support of hezbollah or assad. sen. mccaskill: $60 billion that is real, that could load to iran if we did this deal. charlie: what is the difference? there is 60 hard dollars that could be used. sen. mccaskill: that gets to quickly.ly quel
the deal has problems. i don't trust iran. what happens? nobody trust iran. if they are smart. what happens if we don't do the deal. what does it look like? will they get that money? will the regime of sanctions remain? we got everybody to the table. everyone united. we had everybody. charlie: with the goal of bringing iran to the table and getting a nuclear deal. we got a nuclear deal that is not perfect. it has problems. if we walk away, the countries that hold the money are india, .hina, south korea, japan i'm calling those countries. when i talked to the chinese ambassador he was clear with me while they would always respect
the sanctions imposed by the security council of the u.n., china does not recognize the secondary sanctions imposed by the united states through their congress. it is obvious to me china is going to for a in terms of their willingness to not do business with iran. does notif this deal pass congress and a veto is overridden as the weighed the deal is constructed, china says we are not going to do sanctions anymore. sen. mccaskill: we are not going to do sanctions imposed that are not through the united nations. and othere way japan countries talk. we are not going to work as closely with united states in terms of voluntarily, people like japan and south korea but need to do trade with iran have voluntarily respected. do we still have power? at some cost. we still have power to say if
you do business with iran we won't do business with you. i want to be realistic about how effective that is going to be. that is why i'm taking the extra time. charlie: they argue it will be impossible to get the sanctions arrangement back because they worked hard to build this. if they turned us down they were not able to maintain or build back. sen. mccaskill: that is the argument he is making. i want to check for myself. charlie: is that what is crucial it some of the aspects of the deal? sen. mccaskill: i don't like some of the x. are they going to get $60 billion with us putting cement down centrifuges or are they going to get $60 billion and be three months, six months to break out? there is no question that they will race towards the nuclear weapon. charlie: they are a month to two
months as we speak. sen. mccaskill: they still have to do the last piece. charlie: they will be moving towards a year before there is a breakout. to thecaskill: i said secretary, will it run have a nuclear weapon by christmas? he would not answer me directly yes or no but certainly, taken as a whole his answer indicated they would be careening towards that reality. the delivery potential and the pieces of the actual -- they will have enough uranium to do a weapon. chuck schumer made his decision. the president is full throated in his support for the deal. charlie: and full throated in his anger at schumer. sen. mccaskill: one might gather that from looking at a distance.
i am trying to keep the blinders on and figure out. sen. mccaskill: does schumer the -- charlie: does schumer have influence? sen. mccaskill: this deal is beyond that. hopefully we all influence each other. , thiss a situation where is a tough call. this is hard. charlie: the toughest you have had to make? sen. mccaskill: one of the tougher's -- toughest. , mystate i represent state's coal dependent. charlie: decisions that may affect your reelection. sen. mccaskill: and costs in my state for people on fixed incomes. those decisions have been tough for me. this is tough. there is so much riding on this one way or the other in terms of the power of a ron -- iran and
the safety of israel. hours and hours of conversation about this prettied up if the president negotiated well. -- about this. they don't think the president negotiated well. do you buy that? or the president got the best deal at this time. he thinks this is a good deal for the united states and that the president and vice president are saying. this is a good deal, the best way, and the alternative is a bad deal. sen. mccaskill: people who are characterizing what they could have gotten don't really know if they were not in the negotiations. this is monday morning quarterbacking. if we were in negotiations and sitting across the table from the p5 plus one, keep in mind,
the other countries that embrace this deal, many are best friends in the world. i talked the ambassador from great britain. was the diminishing of united states ability in the change andfect negotiation on a worldwide stage if congress rejects this deal and the president is not able to participate fully in this deal. regardless of who is president. just for the united states it diminishes the united states. that assuming i think about. our friends are for this deal with the exception of israel. has done,yahu injecting partisan politics around the issue is shameful. charlie: shameful. sen. mccaskill: i think it is terrible for israel. charlie: because he is been to
what? sen. mccaskill: partisan. he was in the laces of bipartisanship. bipartisanship for israel. we are united in our support of israel. the way he came in here before his election, it felt that he was trying to get political advantage in his own election, it felt incredibly partisan. i think it was damaging to his wall that has been put around israel in terms of bipartisanship. i think history will say it is something that i hope he pays the political price for. i don't think it has strengthened israel in this country, and that is too bad. people are looking at this through a partisan lens, which has never occurred before. charlie: he did not hurt his chances. sen. mccaskill: he helped
himself with republican members of congress. pretty muchy are decided. how many republicans are going to vote for this? sen. mccaskill: maybe one. i am sure pressure is raining down on his head. it if it had not been speculated publicly. on?lie: what will this hang a few democratic senators? sen. mccaskill: you have to have 34. 41 would be a win in terms of the disapproval. 34 means he can have the veto sustained. charlie: explain this for everybody. if ther to filibuster democrats are the minority, they would have to be able to keep the republicans from getting 60 votes. that is for the passage of a
resolution to disapprove the deal. if the president does pass in the president vetoes it, you need to third's. that is where it could be difficult. sen. mccaskill: write brady president would need 34 of the 46 democrats. charlie: how hard is it? sen. mccaskill: i think you will get 34. i will be surprised if it is not. charlie: let me turn to this book. you are in support of hillary clinton. sen. mccaskill: im. what thei want to know conversation was like after you went on meet the press. sen. mccaskill: very short. wasn't pleasant. you basically said i have real questions, not about the politics of bill clinton, but about his personal life. sen. mccaskill: i made a for runningomments for the senate in 2006, and it
was hurtful and dumb for me to say it, and i made every effort to apologize. charlie: was it hard to get through to him to say i'm sorry? sen. mccaskill: i didn't get through to them on the phone. i did write them both personally. i decided to write first. charlie: did you know it immediately? sen. mccaskill: oh yeah. i got in the car and i felt good about the debate. i thought i had a strong performance. but i knew. my mouth gets me in trouble. times,hat i think many and i don't always have a filter . it has served me well in the long run but am times, i know when i have said something and thought why did i do that? dumb. unnecessary and
the first am i saw them i went up to them, each one individually and said how sorry i was. charlie: what did they say? sen. mccaskill: they were professional and pleasant. you supported barack obama in 2008. sen. mccaskill: i did. hillary clinton and i had a lunch. i was honest with her. the best i can hope for is me being neutral. i worked with barack obama. they both did. so did bill clinton. everybody helped. charlie: i do you said it was important. that it was important that barack obama had been there campaigning for you and that was one of the reasons you had to say tort -- had to support them. sen. mccaskill: he was there more paris and we worked
together on legislation. i thought he was something aspirational for our country. charlie: more than that. your daughter said to you you can't not support him. sen. mccaskill: she knew i wanted to support him and i was not doing it. she confronted me, as children have a way of doing. charlie: here is this interesting picture of you. on one hand your mouth gets ahead of you. you say things on edited. there is a certain part of you that is conservative. sen. mccaskill: correct. she figured out the reason i wasn't endorsing barack obama knew i wasith -- i going to get backlash from women. i knew women supporters were going to be disappointed. many of them were all in for hillary clinton they had been my supporters for many years. they had really supported me. malcolm, ie alan
knew how upset she would be. all of that was in my head and my daughter confronted me and said all these years when you have missed our events you have said it is about doing what is right and making a difference. you know you should be endorsing barack obama and you are not doing it because you are afraid of the political price. 12 hey. -- the political price you are going to pay. and she was right. charlie: your parents. sen. mccaskill: my mother was very embarrassing to me as a child. she was outspoken and opinionated. somebody walk up to before she was on the city council, at a pta meeting, and grab them by the lapel and give them what for about whatever problem he wasn't solving.
o mother. i realize now how incredible she was. get barbieot let us queen of the prom. this is the stupidest game on the planet. you go to a dance and you win. you don't win anything. you have to figure out a way to find your own. charlie: she gave you the confidence to get into politics. sen. mccaskill: she did. howlie: all these stories, can i get the support of state legislatures, some of the things they said to you were unbelievable. sen. mccaskill: it's unbelievable. i learned how to navigate. what i want more than anything is for young women to embrace being strategic and ambitious. i have figured out how to work around. i think of todd akin. that was high risk. it was very strategic, and it works.
women have been hesitant sometimes to get into the of politics.war charlie: you don't think about hillary clinton. sen. mccaskill: she is very smart and strategic. that is why she will be elected president of the united states. charlie: you were early to support her. what did you say of bernie sanders? too liberal? sen. mccaskill: i think what i kerfuffle, ied a said that i didn't think a self identified socialist, i don't think and get elected president. charlie: what is it he believes in that you down? sen. mccaskill: he sees a more how aggressive our tax structure should be. i'm for changing our tax structure but i think he sees at
times he has talked about having workers own the corporations. i think he sees himself as a socialist. whoe myself as a capitalist sees we got to fix some things making the playing field on level. charlie: why is he resonating so well and i'll and new hampshire? sen. mccaskill: young people, liberal people are frustrated at this economic inequality. i get that. i think it is good he is in. it is good he is talking about it. in the long run she is good for hillary. charlie: some think that what is resonating is they are looking for someone that speaks truth to power. sen. mccaskill: if you look at trump, bernie is sincere and these are believe he holds deeply him a different than donald trump. don't think i'm comparing. i'm not. when i am saying is they are
both tapping into people who feel disaffected, cynical about our government, who believe we have to shake things up and do things differently. that is what is going on. one is for somebody who is all bluff and bluster. that will be donald trump. the other would be bernie sanders, who is sincere and cares deeply. i think he is too liberal to get elected in november 2016. i'm glad he is there. he is my friend. i think he is terrific. charlie: he is drawing huge crowds. beyond what you would expect. sen. mccaskill: i think he is. charlie: what you make of the fact that many people -- that hillary is polling negatively on the trust factor? sen. mccaskill: you have to take it in context rate everybody is all in on negative on hillary.
i admire bernie because he is thecritical, especially in same way the republicans have been. he talks around issues that he thinks he contrasts with hillary. the republicans, think of the candidates doing nothing. think of the money and power in this country that is aimed at hillary winston. it is formidable. everything that is aimed at hillary clinton. charlie: the money and the power. sen. mccaskill: look at the money raised in super pac's so far. i think it is $200 million. the candidates have raised $78 million. we have all this money being stockpiled by all these billionaires. half of the money is from the 67 people. there is a lot of big money power that hillary clinton does not become president. charlie: that is a defining
issue in the general election. the theory of the case. that will close, that will somehow see it as an avenue for them to regain a place that we had in american community. sen. mccaskill: she is smart rolling out a proposal on access and if audibility in this country. i look for her to do the same thing on drug addition -- drug addiction. she has talked to people and learned about it. she is going to begin to have proposals. they are talking to people at their kitchen tables. i look to thek -- debate, none of those were discussed. they did good follow-up. they didn't really touch on
economic issues. charlie: that is true. raising questions here about bankruptcy. i thought megan's question was legitimate. sen. mccaskill: of course. what was shocking to me is that she would pose that question with all those adjectives he used about women that show disrespect and a lack of civility, no one else on that stage spoke up and said anything. that was an opening a mack truck could have driven through. why didn't someone say i disagree with characterizing women that way under any circumstances? that is one of the problems. they think we are making up this war on women. there was nothing in that debate that gave anyone a since they were going to fight for women in any way, shape, or form. charlie: the book is called "plenty ladylike." tell me the story of the title. sen. mccaskill: after the
debate, with todd akin in 2012, he told the press i just had not been ladylike. it stuck. i've been told by a teacher when i was young if i didn't quit speaking so much the boys weren't going to like me. it wasn't ladylike. those comments, in the if grade and in my last race for the senate, i wanted to tell women it is plenty ladylike be outspoken. she saw herself in the daughter who ran the senate. sen. mccaskill: she had a ball. she campaigned with maine. she was a miraculous politician in missouri. she could get out at a gas station. by the tommy gun the rv every good old boy in the place had taken a bumper sticker. she was an amazing woman. charlie: thank you. thank you for joining us.