tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg August 11, 2015 9:00pm-10:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we continue with our of the 2016 presidential coverage election. donald trump continues to lead the republican field. meanwhile, hillary clinton proposed a 10 year college tuition plan that has come under criticism from some republican contenders, including marco rubio and jeb bush. the iowa caucus is first. joining me now is mark halperin
and john heilemann. they are managing editors of hosts of politics and "with all due respect". welcome. >> thank you. charlie: tell me about donald trump now that we have had some days since the debate and his comments afterwards. has it done any damage to him or is it too early to tell? mark: we don't know. there has not been much 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 in a variety of ways, i think the fundamentals of the
trump campaign are where they were before when he was the national 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 presidential history, so you have to bring some skepticism to it. in a 17 person 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, and 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? 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 a little bit already. it is unclear whether that will affect his current level of support. a lot of people who are his supporters do not care about the republican establishment. in fact they don't like the , republican establishment. the question is, he has 20% now. that may be his floor. he may never lose those people because he has done things that has offended the sensibilities of 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 things, this was after mccain, but before the debate.
they would find reasons to rationalize or excuse things that would be bad for other republicans. that is his floor. how much above 20% is his ceiling. the physics of any race is it will come down to two people. how much can he grow beyond 20%? that is what we do not know. the thing that the polling shows is he is the most popular republican and most unpopular republican, which is to say that by and large most republican voters say they would never vote for him. half would 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 in the party by winning some of those early
contests. charlie: suppose the one iowa and new hampshire. john: suppose. mark: hard to stop his momentum in the short term. eventually, if the field winnowed down, 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. he is not performing that well as a candidate. he is not doing those things that candidate would normally do, primarily message discipline. when he talks about jobs and the economy and trade he does better. when he picks fights, the perception is that he does worse. the campaign intention is to roll out some 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? you look at the polls, ted cruz, ben carson, carly fiorina, they are all hot candidates right now. what do they have in common? they have never held elected office. they want to tear down washington, fundamentally change it. back on thatget message then john is right. , charlie: then his ceiling could grow. john: the question to mark's point, so far he has exhibited no capacity for message discipline. which is to say, anybody who raises an issue that could -- thatim into talking
bait him into talking 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. i saw him this morning and he was asked about kelly and he went right back in for another five minutes. charlie: he could say, i'm supportive of women. mark: if he were sitting here right now and you said you wanted to talk to him about back, he would plow right into it. john: he would go back. charlie: 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 of that show.
mark: as jeb bush says, politics is about addition, not subtraction. trump is pushing people away. instead, if he talked about leadership, jobs, trade, china, again that is what a normal , candidate would do. people say trump must be trump, you can't control him. but he is not a disciplined 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. but i don't think he helped himself either. charlie: did that apply to jeb bush? john: it was a bad debate for jeb bush. not disastrous, but he did not -- to my eye and on the basis of the scattered and totally reliable data we have suggest
that he did not do anything to help himself. even people in his world did not think he gave a quality of the debate performance he will need to give. he was flat, uninspiring, not optimistic, he did not come across as the best jeb bush. john: marco rubio did. mark: i think we will see if his performance moves the numbers. i think he impressed the elite. 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. he did give the perfect representation of who john kasich is. like him or don't like him. i am not being a partisan. all i am saying is, he showed his true self, optimistic
inclusive, bubbly, the demeanor gave jeb bush's message with enthusiasm, 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 three things, none of which he showed in the debate. he needs to show he is going to fight to change things. he needs to show energy and passion. that he is not just an intellectual. that he wants to get in there and really change things. he needs to show he is first this group ofn ready to be president, the way 17, romney did. crowded stage, romney had 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 consistently. charlie: do you know whether he has a plan or a know how to do that? mark: it was his first presidential debate.
he is a very self-conscious performer at times. i think he will get better. i think he will probably be in better standing. he is going to need to practice. he did an event at the red state conference, much better. did all three of those things i thought pretty effectively. charlie: who else? mark: ted cruz. he has money, organization, and he has fire in a way that right now if you wonder who can be the nominee in this crazy 17 person field he is a stock that is , undervalued. john: i think ted cruz did himself some good in that debate. charlie: you are not quite as enthusiastic as he is. john: i think there -- i still think -- the party has changed a lot. i don't think the party is ready mike ted cruz, ben carson,
huckabee. 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. to your john kasich point, there are things case it did that would make people not like him. he defended medicaid, -- charlie: there is something to be said for taking a position to -- john: there are people who hink that is -- let me go back to make my case for ted cruz. there are two ways to think about it. ideally, if you want to become
the nominee, you 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. iowa, south carolina, nevada. and he is on a bus trip in the , southern states. putting in place leadership be availed down the road. except for bush, walker is the fundraising leader. charlie: 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 just because he continues to have the problem they all have. he was essentially a cipher at the debate. he did not do anything bad, he did not stand out.
they all have the same problem, struggling with trump. he has decided to run further to the right. he could straddle. he is catering very strongly 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. mark: none of these people, even jeb bush, is well known. charlie: and we have all been talking about trump. john kasich got better known -- basing it on what people have said to me since the debate. mark: case again walker, and stylistically bush, if john kasich is the nominee, it is going to be the exact john kasich you saw on the stage the other night. he is not growing or changing. he has been in this game for
decades. 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. the staff around a presidential nominee of eventually say that, wow, looked up and they got i -- i was working for seemed more presidential. john: he looked like a president. mark: john kerry looks like a president. he fought for it. right now, these guys are having trouble growing and getting that trial by fire because for weeks it has been trump. charlie: what about hillary clinton? john: what about her. charlie: is 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. you can say that she should be focused on bernie sanders. it is not going to inspire the visceral impulse to go on offense that this republican party does. she thinks that she is going to be the nominee. as they behave in ways to give rich targets, she can come out and be on offense. that is the worst part of this stretch for her. as long as she is running as herself, against the press, 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: anyone who knows or should look at what she did today in new hampshire. it was her. it was somewhat scripted. i watched the video. in talking about reproductive
freedom and marco rubio, and his position on no exceptions for incest on abortion. it is scott walker's position also. rubio's position was fuzzy. he now seems to have taken that position and is not denying it. late this evening he struck back , hard on her positions on late-term abortion. she was passionate today. today, i don't know if it will put a stop to the chatter but , there has been widespread chatter that things were in bad shape. john: i think it is beyond 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. she doesn't seem like she is in this. today, there was this
question and answer session with reporters. she was in that campaign. mark: it is rare that all three of us spend time with her, that she displays that in public. that will help her. against bernie sanders, but against these republicans. she needs authenticity and engagement. she show that today. she has had some good moments in the campaign 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. we will talk about her new book and the vote in the senate over the iran nuclear deal and much more. back in a moment. ♪
charlie: claire mccaskill is here. she was the first woman for missouri elected as united states senator. she continues to serve in that position 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. welcome. sen. mccaskill: thank you. i am thrilled to be here. charlie: the table welcomes you. sen. mccaskill: i'm excited. i wanted to get at this table for a long time. charlie: ferguson. tell me. we just had another act of conflict there last night. sen. mccaskill: it is really
hard. this is really hard. a combination of things. the narrative the media took up immediately, 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 -- not the witnesses -- 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 in our justice system. it is real. charlie: what is the bias? sen. mccaskill: it has to do with marginalizing african american 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. a criminal justice system that has gotten off the path of things like drug court and
reentry court, and trying to figure out a way to have someone become a full-fledged citizen of this country rather than institutionalizing them and warehousing them for years. so the african-american , community and the protest community has a reason to protest, but 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. there are 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 and 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
on the one hand we train police 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. and this is one of the problems we have with these homicide rates. people in the community don't trust the police. they are not going to come forward and tell what happened when there is an active crime. if they don't believe the system is fair or just to anyone. the stakes are pretty big. our criminal justice system doesn't work if people don't have faith in it. we will not be able to hire officers if people don't believe the law is going
to be enforced fairly. 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 for criminal justice reform. charlie: what is the reform you see? sen. mccaskill: minimum mandatories. 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: the president is trying to do something about that. sen. mccaskill: he is. he is. 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 since one year ago? sen. mccaskill: there have been a lot of progress. we have reformed the municipal court system. we have acknowledge we have to do a better job recruiting african-american officers. charlie: what is the percentage a year ago versus today? sen. mccaskill: i don't know the numbers, but we have elected an african-american police chief. we elected more african-americans to the ferguson city council. in a community that is majority african-american only one member , was 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. and when 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 last night. there were rival group shooting at each other. there was a drive-by shooting nearby, so 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 in ferguson, in the beginning it wasn't true, that as time went at onere were more -- time there were four or five times as many satellite cameras then protesters. the media narrative is sometimes -- 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. most of the protesters yesterday and during all the weeks of ferguson's terminal -- turmoil, were peaceful. the police have a job to protect the crowd. they have to act on training and move to try to apprehend those folks. they do so at great danger to themselves. charlie: do we need 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 independent investigation. i think the matter what had been presented to the grand jury it
, 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 was saying. 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 and which doesn't? that is how you can tell the truth about what happened. if it matches the physical evidence, that obviously heightens the credibility of that witness. the grand jury came to the same conclusion. charlie: do you think this is getting higher on the national agenda? sen. mccaskill: i do. the pattern and practices problems they found in ferguson are 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.
we have moved away because of a lack of resources. 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. we have got to get back to a community -- a policing model. charlie: i talked to a lot of african-american friends 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 instructions from their parents are different. we cannot have that in terms of their interactions with police. 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. some support, some against. you have a technology have been reaching out to those countries which will be affected by and
have sanctions against iran. what would 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 biggest arguments against this deal 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 to use as critics fear to expand their support of hezbollah or assad? sen. mccaskill: $60 billion that is real, that could flow to iran if we did this deal. charlie: what is the difference? there is really 60 billion hard dollars that could be used.
sen. mccaskill: that gets to them quickly. the question is the deal has , problems. i don't trust iran. what happens? charlie: the president doesn't trust iran. nobody trusts: 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. nothing else, a nuclear deal. sen. mccaskill: 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, china, south korea, japan. so i'm calling those countries. ,charlie: what are you finding out? sen. mccaskill: 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. so it is pretty obvious to me china is going to fray in terms of their willingness to not do business with iran. charlie: in other words if this , deal does not 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 any sanctions not imposed through the united nations. that is the way japan and other countries talk. we are not going to work as closely with united states in terms of voluntarily, people like japan and south korea that need to do trade with iran have voluntarily respected. do we still have power? yeah at some cost.
,of course we still have power. 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. i haven't had it chance yet to talk to south korea or india. charlie: they argue it will be impossible to get the sanctions arrangement back because they worked hard to build this. if they turn this deal down, they will not be able to maintain or build back. sen. mccaskill: that is the argument he is making. i want to check for myself. i want to do the best job i can. charlie: is that what is crucial for you, or is it some of the aspects of the deal? sen. mccaskill: i don't like some of the -- are they going to get $60 billion with us putting cement down centrifuges or are they going to get $60 billion in three months, six months to break out?
there is no question that they will race towards the nuclear weapon. charlie: they are a month and a half 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. sen. mccaskill: i said to the secretary, will iran have a nuclear weapon by christmas? he would not answer me directly 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. listen chuck schumer made his , decision. the president is full throated in his support for the deal. charlie: and evidently full throated in his anger at schumer. sen. mccaskill: one might gather that from looking at a distance.
charlie: yes. sen. mccaskill: i am trying to keep the blinders on and figure out -- charlie: does schumer have influence over other senators? this is akill: situation -- this deal is beyond that. hopefully we all influence each other. this is a situation where, this is a tough call. this is hard. charlie: the toughest you have had to make? sen. mccaskill: one of the toughest. the state i represent, my state is coal dependent. charlie: these are decisions that may affect your reelection. sen. mccaskill: and costs in my state for people on fixed incomes. so those decisions have been tough for me. there are always tough decisions, but this is really tough because there is so much riding on this one way or the
other in terms of the power of a iran and the safety of israel. charlie: hours and hours of conversation about this. they don't think the president negotiated well. do you buy that? or the president got the best deal that was gettable at this time. he thinks this is a good deal for the united states and that is what the president and vice president are all saying. this is a good deal, the best way, and the alternative is a bad deal. sen. mccaskill: i think that people who are characterizing what they could have gotten don't really know if they were not in the negotiations. this is a little bit like monday morning quarterbacking after the game has been played. if you were in negotiations and sitting across the table from the p5 plus one, keep in mind,
the other countries that embrace this deal, many of them are best friends in the world. i have talked the ambassador from great britain. his concern was the diminishing of united states ability in the world to affect change and negotiation on a worldwide stage if in fact 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. assuming that they think about this too. our friends are for this deal with the exception of israel. what netanyahu has done, injecting partisan politics around the issue is shameful. charlie: shameful. sen. mccaskill: i think it is terrible for israel. charlie: shameful because it is
not to the benefit of israel? what? this has been an oasis of 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 built around been 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. i think people are now looking at this through a partisan lens, which has never occurred before. not help hisid chances of influencing the
congress by coming here and speaking before the congress? sen. mccaskill: he helped himself with republican members of congress. charlie: they are pretty much decided. how many republicans are going to vote for this deal? sen. mccaskill: maybe one. poor thing, i am sure pressure is raining down on his head. sen. mccaskill: it has been speculated publicly. i would not say it if it had not been speculated publicly. charlie: what will this hang on? a few democratic senators? what will make the difference ?sen. mccaskill: you have to ? 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. in order to filibuster if the democrats are the minority, they would have to be able to keep the republicans from getting 60 votes. sen. mccaskill: correct. charlie: that is for the passage
of a resolution to disapprove the deal. pass and theoes president vetoes it, you need to thirds. that is where it could be difficult. right.caskill: the 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. i want to know what the conversation was like after you went on meet the press. sen. mccaskill: very short. it wasn't pleasant. charlie: you basically said i have real questions, not about the politics of bill clinton, but about his personal life. sen. mccaskill: i made a
gratuitous comment running 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. charlie: you just decided to write? sen. mccaskill: 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. i say what i think many times, and i don't always have a filter. it has served me well in the long run, but sometimes -- i know when i have said something and thought why did i do that? it was unnecessary and dumb.
i wrote, then the first time i saw them, i went up to each one of them individually and said how sorry i was. charlie: what did they say? sen. mccaskill: they were professional and pleasant. charlie: you supported barack obama in 2008. sen. mccaskill: i did. hillary clinton and i had a lunch. i was honest with her. the best you can hope for is me being neutral. i worked with barack obama. he was in my state. i believe there is something xtraordinary -- 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 support them. sen. mccaskill: he was there
more and we worked together on , legislation. i thought he was something aspirational for our country. charlie: more than that. you say that your daughter said to you you can't not support him. sen. mccaskill: correct. she knew i wanted to support him and i was not doing it. she confronted me, as children have a way of doing in terms of grounding -- charlie: here is this interesting picture of you. hand, your mouth gets ahead of you. you say things unedited. but there is a certain part of you that is conservative. sen. mccaskill: correct. she figured out the reason i wasn't endorsing barack obama had to do with -- i knew i was going to get backlash from women. i knew women supporters were going to be bitterly disappointed. many of them were all in for hillary clinton they had been my supporters for many years.
and some of them not for so long, but they had really supported me. i knew, like alan malcolm, i knew how upset she would be. so all of that was playing 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 you are going to pay. charlie: and she was right. sen. mccaskill: and she was right. and i called barack obama to say i was all in the next day. charlie: your parents. sen. mccaskill: my mother was very embarrassing to me as a child. she was outspoken and opinionated. she would walk up to somebody 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 she thought he wasn't
solving. we were always walking around like, oh, mother. i realize now how incredible she was. she would not let us get barbie queen of the prom game. she said that 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. charlie: all these stories, how can i get the support of state legislatures, some of the things said two-year work -- sen. mccaskill: it's unbelievable. but 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 it. charlie: what does strategic mean? sen. mccaskill: i think of todd
akin as an example. that was high risk. it was very strategic, and it works. women have been hesitant sometimes to get into the bareknuckled world of tactical politics, which by the way is politics. charlie: you don't think about hillary clinton. sen. mccaskill: i think hillary clinton smart and strategic, and that's 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 said, it caused a kerfuffle, i said that i didn't think a self identified socialist, i don't think can get elected of the united states. what does he believe in that you don't? sen. mccaskill: he sees a more extreme view of 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. i see myself as a capitalist who sees we have got to fix some things making the playing field unlevel. charlie: why is he resonating so well in illinois 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 -- now bernie is sincere and these are believe he holds deeply. he is 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 and a buffoon. that would 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 2016. november i'm glad he is there. he is my friend. i think he is terrific. charlie: he is drawing huge crowds. beyond anything that you might 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: well, you have to take it in context.
everybody is all in on negative on hillary. i admire bernie because he is not critical, especially in the same way the republicans have been. he talks around issues that he thinks he contrasts with hillary. but the republicans at -- think of the candidates doing nothing. think of the money and power in this country that is aimed at hillary clinton. it is formidable. everything that is aimed at hillary clinton right now. and powerll the money in this country is aimed at hillary clinton? sen. mccaskill: look at the money raised in super pac's so far. i think it is $200 million. the candidates have only raised $78 million. we have all this money being stockpiled by all these billionaires. i think more than of the money half is from the 67 people. there is a lot of big money power that wants to make sure that hillary clinton does not
become president. charlie: that is a defining issue in the general election. who can step forward with the theory of the case that will that somehow middle-class america will see it as an avenue to them to regain a place that we had in american community. sen. mccaskill: i think she is smart rolling out a proposal on access and affordability for college in this country. i look for her to do the same thing on drug addiction. she has talked to people and learned about it. i think she is going to begin to have proposals. they are talking to people at their kitchen tables. i love this table, but i think it kitchen tables -- i look to the debate, none of those were discussed. charlie: i thought the moderators did a good job of holding people's feet to the
fire. sen. mccaskill: i think they did too, but they did not really touch on the economic issues. charlie: that is true. raising questions here about bankruptcy. i thought that macon kelly's question was perfectly legitimate, did you? 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 they gave anybody in america a s toe that they were going 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. because i had 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 two book ended comments, one in the eighth grade and one in my last race for the senate, i wanted to tell women it is plenty ladylike be outspoken. charlie: is your mother still alive? sen. mccaskill: she is not. she died a week before the election. she saw herself in the daughter who ran the senate. sen. mccaskill: she had a ball. sheet campaign with me. she was a miraculous politician in missouri. she could get out at a gas station, and by the time we got back in the rv every good old boy in the place had taken a bumper sticker. she was an amazing woman.
the currency is tumbling in the months to come and market forces at pboc sing their is no economic basis for the constant devaluation. follow me on twitter. @rishaadtv. 21 years is a notable timeframe, david? isid boy -- david: the yuan set for the biggest two-day drop in 21 years. said, let me start with the equity markets right now. that is happening across the region. the biggest drop here in over a month. shanghai not really but have a look at southeast asia. singapore with the bi