tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg May 13, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT
♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: in politics this week, donald trump has turned his attention to making peace with his party and his party making peace with him. hillary clinton, on the other hand, can't seem to stop senator bernie sanders. dan with more is bowles. chief political correspondent for the "washington post." what do we make of the deal, or whatever happened on thursday in washington? dan: this was a first step, not
a final step. set ofan important meetings donald had with paul ryan and the house republican leadership, then the senate republican leadership. meeting wheremmit they expressed confidence they were beginning to get on the same page. but we know, particularly with donald trump and speaker ryan, they are very different human beings, from very different backgrounds, with very different views of the world. on a lot of policy issues, they are on very different sides of the coin. while they may have a similar desire to have a unified party heading into the fall elections, i think the expectations they are ever going to be exactly on the same page is probably a bridge too far. charlie: and they have two different concerns. donald trump, to win the election and paul ryan to make
sure that damage to the republican party, if there is some, is minimized. dan: if there is a top priority on capitol hill at this point as they look to the fall, it is not necessarily to elect donald trump. it is first and foremost to preserve majorities they have in the house and senate. obviously they would like a republican president, because they do not like the prospect of hillary clinton becoming president and having four more years of democrats controlling the white house, possibly eight more years of democratic control in the white house. but they will watch and wait wa rily as donald trump makes the evolution from candidate to the nomination to candidate for the general election. they and everyone else will be looking closely at paul's, especially in -- the polls, especially in swing states, and at some point they will make a judgment as to whether donald trump is an asset, neutral, or a
liability, and they will take their cues from that. we will see in the final months whether everybody is pulling together, or whether they are looking to protect their own majorities. charlie: clearly, donald trump has said some things and done some things within the last week that worry the republicans. number one, the attacks on hillary clinton, seeming to suggest he will run that type of campaign, and some people are nervous about that. he has also begun to hedge some of his positions, especially with respect to social security, on which he differs with paul ryan. how different are they on issues, rather than just style? dan: they are very different on some issues. on entitlements, social security in particular, donald trump and paul ryan are in totally different places. donald trump went through the primaries as essentially almost the only republican who said, we don't want to do anything to change social security. we want to make sure that this program stays basically where it
is. paul ryan has been a champion for entitlement reform, significant entitlement reform. so that's one issue. trade agreements are another area. republican orthodoxy is that free trade is good for this country, and donald trump has campaigned strongly with the idea that these trade agreements have been terrible for this country. i don't know how they reconcile that, either of those issues. on foreign-policy issues, donald trump is in a different place than many republicans are. take two examples. one, what he said about nato. say, thislicans would is one of the most important alliances in the history of the globe, and donald says we ought to rethink it entirely. also on the idea of a nuclear japan. he seems to have backed away on these things, but, charlie, one thing we have to keep in mind is that donald trump's a moving target on a lot of these issues,
and has been his entire life. he has been a democrat, or republican, liberal on certain issues, conservative on certain issues, and that is one thing that probably concerns a lot of republicans in particular. he could sit down in a meeting on any given day and sound like he has moved or is relatively close to where the republican leaders would like him to be, and he can go out on the campaign trail a day later and espouse something quite different. so that's one reason why these meetings, though important, are not necessarily going to be definitive. charlie: he also says he will have a different kind of campaign. that he is aint, presumptive nominee, and he has campaigned a certain way, with big rallies. he also doesn't have a huge organization. he has set the data does not mean much to him. he wants to get elected president in the same way he got the nomination. dan: if you are in his shoes, that is an entirely logical and rational position to take. he broke a lot of rules that
people said could not be broken, and he still managed to prevail in this battle. so in his own mind, he says, i have a sense of how the campaign ought to be run. without he has a communication style that is different than most candidates we have are at, and it has been successful -- we have ever had, and it has been successful to this point. but a general election is a much bigger enterprise, in part because you are the head of the party, not simply a person trying to become the nominee. it is incumbent on you to do some other things to try to make sure that there is a full-scale organization, an adequate amount the data and sophistication of a modern campaign a major political party should expect of its nominee. these a long -- he is a long way from that. they are moving to beef up the campaign, but when he talks about things in the way he does, he essentially says, i am so
prepared to run a much different kind of campaign then we have what the republicans might have expected with a different nominee. charlie: what kind of vice president is he looking for? he says he's looking for an insider? dan: i think that's obvious, that he will want to try to go inside. but he indicated he wants somebody with legislative experience. does that mean he will pick somebody currently in congress? doesn't mean he could pick somebody who has had legislative experience in the past? john kasich, who has said repeatedly he will not take the job, but john kasich has both executive and legislative experience. you know, i think he's going to want somebody who has some political chops, but as to who that would be, who is except the prepared to serve with him, i don't think we really know. he said he's got a short list of five or six people.
you have to take him at his word that he's got that. but i will be curious as to who it's going to be. he indicated we will not know the answer for that until the convention. so there's a long way to go on that. charlie: turning to the democrats, bernie sanders continues to win primaries. dan: he sure does, and he will probably win a couple more. he very well could win a couple more. i think the clinton campaign has always thought that until they get to that june 17 date when you have california, new jersey, some other states, some interim spots would be more favorable to bernie sanders. they certainly were on tuesday night. it keeps the energy going in his campaign. it provides him with at least some rationale to say he will keep fighting. he obviously has to make a turn at some point, to figure out what his convention strategy is going to be, and what his final strategy is going to be, because
it sure doesn't look like he's going to be able to convert superdelegates to his side. but it continues to cause a problem for hillary clinton, that she will have to resolve once they get to the convention and enter the general election. the sanders supporters are not fully bought in to hillary clinton's campaign. charlie: look at the exit polls. dan: yes. i think the longer this has gone on, the more fight bernie sanders has shown, and in a sense the more support he has been able to demonstrate within a big chunk of the party, makes it all the more difficult for her to have an easy time putting the party back together. you know, this is a normal process which any nominee has to do after a hard-fought campaign. but there is a gulf between the sanders supporters and the rest of the party, or the other parts thate party, and i think
has become a bigger problem over time than the clinton campaign would have thought, if we were talking two or three months ago. charlie: we saw her this week moving on medicare, to a position a little left of where she had been, closer to where he wants to go. dan: she has continued to do that. she has pushed her, pull her, whatever word you want to do, pusher to the left -- pushed her to the left. she has continued to do that. in some ways, that's the reality of where the party is. it also may be vital to what she needs to do to win the election. turning out the democratic vote will be first and foremost for priority, as opposed to trying to get swing voters, of whom there probably are not going to be that many in this election. we know that the democratic party is a more liberal party today than it was eight years ago, and certainly when her
husband was president. she has had to make accommodations to that. she is much more of a centrist, big,crementalist, not a bold person from the left. but she has steadily, over time, adopted a number of those policies, at least in spoken words -- she might have specifics that are different from bernie sanders. she has had to move left, and that may be a valuable asset for her in winning over sanders voters when they get to the convention. charlie: a lot of people looking to wi hillary clinton and donald trump as nominees. will this be a transformative election, or simply a blip in the political landscape? dan: i think, i don't know if it's a historic election, but a consequential election.
whether it is transformative, i don't know if we can answer that. if hillary clinton is sworn in in january 2017, many people would go back and say, what was all that about? we knew she was the favorite for the nomination. we knew she might well be the president, and we ended up in that place. it took a lot of unexpected twists and turns to get there. but what we have been through this year, charlie, tells us we are in a different place in our politics. the sanders challenge to clinton has been more successful than anyone would have imagined, and it says something about a portion of the electorate and the grievances they have, and their suspicion of establishment politics. certainly the trump success, in becoming the present of nominee, amounts to that in spades. what the republican party will look like after this election, i'm am not prepared to say at this point. we know it is right now badly
split. parties have a way of adapting, even after terrible losses. if you were to lose any significant way, they have to pick up the pieces and perhaps they are equipped to do that. but in all sorts of ways, this election is saying something about our political process, about the state of the country, that i don't think we were as appreciative of as we are today. charlie: thank you so much. a pleasure. dan: thank you, charlie. charlie: dan balz from "the washington post." back with you in a moment. stay with us. ♪
dley is: michael kin here, a columnist for "vanity fair." what garner of the new york times says "he possesses probably the greatest journalistic voice of his generation. in 1993 he was diagnosed with hidinson's, a disease he for eight years. he writes about that and more in his new book, "old age a beginner's guide." i am pleased to welcome michael kinsley. i second everything to white said. you view yourself as a kind of
scout for the boomer generation. michael: that is the gimmick of the book, that i'm experiencing what everyone is going to experience, unless they get run over by a truck. if they die the way most people die, with some sort of ailment, it will resemble parkinson's, which is very much like growing old. charlie: the tremor is one thing. slowness of movement. michael: slowness of thinking. charlie: thinking as well. , i figured i might as well make it useful. charlie: thank you, by the way. i am about two years earlier than the bloomberg, but i will take -- from the b oomers, so i will take any advice i can get.
michael: there is a lot of good there isgoing on, but also a lot of good research not being funded. charlie: research that would do what? help us understand what happens earlier in aging? michael: at all levels, you have your dna, and the key thing is, call --e, what do they this is one of the symptoms, the tip of the tongue. playing.ispl just charlie: this is part of the research, trying to understand the aging process at a cellular effectsnderstanding the on the brain, parkinson's being a disease of the brain, as is alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis,
als, and so many of those diseases. the brain affects muscles, affect the way you breathe. everything. the doctor who operated on me when i had my brain surgery says -- he's a great reliever in that -- believer in that. he says, they will be a 45 minute operation in a doctor's office, not even requiring a hospital. charlie: the operation that took you eight or nine hours. michael: they attached, will they drilled down from here and attached wire, which ends in a point, and then they come in from the other direction with a, with the thing i can't remember, and they attach those. if they get it right, it puts out a little electrical signal that blocks the electrical
signals that cause parkinson's. charlie: you set out to write about old age, and it turned out to be more about parkinson's, and this scouting expedition? michael: not really. that's the gimmick of the book, that, as i -- but, as i say in the -- anyone who wishes to buy it under this misconception, go ahead. [laughter] charlie: but people might think you do what you always have done in your career, able to look at something people have looked at and explain it in a way that is more penetrating and more interesting, written better, and to show us sometimes a contrarian point of view, or sometimes a view from a different perspective. michael: i will take that. charlie: let's talk about parkinson's for a second. what was the first symptom?
when did you know maybe something is not working? michael: i guess it was my right hand, it was stiff, and a little bit shaky. i asked my internist, should i do something about this? he said, you could go seeing are all just -- a neurologist. and neurologist took one look and said, you've got parkinson's. i have no idea what parkinson's was, except for the fact my colleague mort, his wife had it. charlie: he wrote a wonderful book about it. michael: that was how i found that. charlie: and you didn't come as you say, you did not announce it to the world. michael: no. charlie: you did not announce it to your friends, even. michael: one or two arbitrary exceptions. you don't wante anyone to think of you in a
different way. not who you have always been. michael: yet. -0- yeah. a women at a dinner party after i had gone public offered to cut at for me, even though i had just eaten the first course without any trouble. but she did not see that. she was well hidden meaning. charlie: of course. michael: were you angry -- charlie: were you angry? michael: no. i just felt i lost the lottery. and i have done pretty well with the lottery. charlie: you have, any sense -- in a sense. the accomplishments. you say all these wonderful things. you talk about the four
competitions. kinsleyan analysis. michael: you start out wanting things. "hefamous bumper sticker, who dies with the most stuff wins." but ask somebody five minutes before they die, would they trade all the maserati and everything else for more time? they would say yes. charlie: more time with their families. michael: right. things. it is not it is life expectancy. charlie: living longer. michael: but what good is life expectancy if you have lost your marbles? so what you really want is a long life, with your cognition intact. than you think, well -- then you think, well, you are going to be
dead longer than you are alive, and what really matters is the reputation you live behind. charlie: that's what stays. michael: a canadian scholar wrote a book last year in which said, janech she austen was nothing special but that she had people working for her, she had pr forces working to make her, make her reputation. for the half a decade before she died and this other woman died, she was regarded as number two. but fortunately for her, she had
her brother, i think. charlie: you also tell the story of a magazine you love, "the new yorker," and you are prepared to be the new editor, and you told them about the parkinson's. -- if suggested, because you don't want to go through with this because i have parkinson's, i understand. tell me. michael: basically, he offered me the job and then he was through it almost immediately. charlie: because of something you said? michael: it was, i think yes, i think so. i have no evidence, and i am really sort of a little bit sorry. i put this story in the public. charlie: wihy? michael: because i was really .ngry9 i felt it had been given to me,
then taken away. but in that respect, i got to finish creating "slate," and then i met my wife, and there's a lot of good things. and david remnick has been an excellent editor of "the new yorker." so it all ended up more or less happily. charlie: speaking of magazines, you also say you don't want to write another book, that books are not your best form, that you are a column man, a magazine man. michael: 1200 words is my ideal length, and i will stick to that. charlie: when you finally decided you had to tell people, why did you do that? because it would be obvious? michael: the symptoms do not stay still, but they move pretty slowly. but they have not stayed still, and more people were finding
out. also, the people i told were telling other people, and the secret was not going to hold. so i wrote a piece. that's what journalists do. charlie: you are best known for a piece about how hard it was, i think way back when, maybe for the "new york times magazine," how hard it was to find an apartment in new york, the most famous piece you have written, despite how many columns, how many things about politics, culture. michael: it was. someone tou can get write about a personal experience that has larger , that is the sort of piece that i like. charlie: when you look at this thing in terms of being a scout, and your friends say, what should i do? grin and bear it?
michael: there's nothing you can do about parkinson's, for the moment, except that the symptoms can be controlled pretty well. charlie: and that's what you have done. michael: yes. plus i had the operation, the brain stimulation. there will be big breaks. that's what i keep telling the doctor -- asking the doctor when i see him every six months. charlie: talking about baby boomers, you call for them to have a cause, to have purpose before they die. you want them to have some grand, generational gesture. mer choice is interesting to -- michael: a little boring. charlie: it's a little like when bono said that debt relief is what africa needs, and people
that a mansed, considered a poet was mostly interested in debt relief. michael: he's right. i have taken a lot of ribbing. five years ago, i wrote a piece saying that i think inflation will still be a problem, a terrible problem, unless we do something about it. i got beaten over the head by everybody, and so far at least i'm wrong. unlesshink, you know, you can spend as much money as you want and never pay it back and just live like that, -- charlie: there is a day of reckoning. what do you think -- i have never asked you this -- all of us within the range of your it that youwhat is
think you had? what was the core competence of michael kinsley? michael: gosh. i know what we had in terms of what we got for my parents -- from our parents. the 1950's upbringing looks pretty good. it's what i had. i feel extremely fortunate that i did. were you born with the ability to write? michael: no. writing is painful, no matter how long or how little you have been at it. charlie: let's turn a little politics. one word sticks out in your definition of donald trump, "phony." michael: does anyone want to challenge that?
he won all those primaries. he was voted by citizens of the united states. michael: yes. it's distressing, because it gapests there is a larger than people previously thought. charlie: this is just some -- not just some -- what do you think? michael: i am looking forward to voting against him. charlie: you think he will flame out? michael: yes. people say how exciting this campaign is going to be. i think the excitement is over. charlie: just his nomination, her nomination. michael: the convention will be entertaining. cearlie: if you had a choi to vote between bernie sanders and hillary clinton, which would you vote for? michael: i would vote for hillary, because i think bernie
sanders, although he's really the most remarkable person to emerge from this all, does not andrstand basic economics, hillary, i think, she is the establishment, and she will always compromise. charlie: that's what trump says he will do. heam a transactional man," says. i do deals. i negotiate. that's what they call the nuclear thing with iran -- the iran nuclear deal. he says in his case, deals are the way the world goes round, and there is something in that, i suppose. charlie: nuclear deals. deals between republicans and
democrats to get legislation, which used to happen. ichael: the nuclear deals, wrote a little thing in the post, "washington post" about this, it is reminiscent of nixon and kissinger thinking, this is a game theory strategy. it is not such a terrible thing if people think you are crazy, because, you know, -- charlie: unpredictable. michael: if you look, and there areutin, and both sides threatening to push the button, who are you going to believe? charlie: like what sonny liston said about muhammad ali after losing to him. he famously said to muhammad "i ain't scared
of no man except a crazy man." michael: that's it. charlie: and accident kissinger showed a bit of that? michael: kissinger even does not deny. charlie: this is a tough question for me. but you were very close to bill buckley. michael: well -- charlie: he liked you a lot. he respected your mind. you were one of the interrogators on his show. michael: i liked him a lot. charlie: he famously said to me here, on this program, "i'm ready to die." i said, how can you say that? he said, i'm not ready to commit suicide, but i can't do all the things that brought me joy. i can travel and make speeches. i can't run the magazine. all the things that brought me so much joy in my life, i can't do, so i'm ready. michael: well, i have a longer
list and him. i'm not ready. charlie: a longer list of things you can't do? michael: the things that i want to do. charlie: what are they? michael: i would like to, i would like to have another journalistic adventure, or something. create something again, like slate." charlie: give me what that might be? michael: i don't know. charlie: but you are open to the idea, a new storytelling form. michael: people are struggling to find it today, longform journalism and so on. i don't think anyone has nailed it yet. isrlie: you think jeff bezos trying to nail it at "the in someon post"
way? michael: yes. there's two types of proprietors. one who says, we are going to, i am just going to be happy with a small loss every in some way? year, and then there's one that says, i'm going to spend a little money and really make this good. usually, they don't last very long. but if jeff bezos is the second type, he has deep pockets. michael: he's also smarter than just about anyone you ever meet. charlie: absolutely. butact, not only smarter, he has a sense of being able to look around the corner. i mean, what started out as an online bookseller is now, and he just made another announcement where he will challenge you tube. -- hes taken that retail
has taken that retail of selling books to i want to sell everything to everybody, to creating an enterprise in the cloud, and now he says he will challenge youtube. michael: i would be scared if i were youtube. charlie: i would. but stay with fear, you have a long list. what else? michael: to see places i have never seen. in my career, i have not done a hell of a lot of traveling. like everybody, to see well,hildren grow up, and those are three things. charlie: do you have a sense of urgency about this? michael:, well yes. that's one of the good aspects of parkinson's, as i say in the book.
it gives you a sense of urgency, without really causing you to much inconvenience, at least in the beginning. charlie: what has been the most important thing in helping you deal with all of this? i mean, clearly patty and family -- michael: i don't know. att, i think i'm pretty good just taking what comes. this is what came. charlie: you said dementia is especially cruel. what you said about diseases of the brain. michael: well, yes. what i should have emphasized more in this book, you know, we take physical ailments in stride. you break your leg, so you broke your leg. in six months it will heal.
and no one gets turned down for a job because they have a broken leg, or it must be very rare. but mentally, caught miserabl cognitivly, it is a different story. i took a cognitive exam. i took several, just to see what was going on, if there was any progress, and they did show some regress, i guess you would call it. much.t all that it's like having a broken leg, or not even that serious, but it does exist. charlie: what brings you the most satisfaction? michael: the most satisfaction, in life? i guess i better say -- charlie: family and all that.
but is it finding a great book to read? having somebody tell you something you didn't know in an interesting way? a scintillating debate at a table, at a dinner table where you can argue your point, which you have done so well in so many different fora and mediums? michael: you are giving me too much credit. you are saying, because i like arguments that i win. [laughter] charlie: did he win most of the time? michael: you are talking in the past tense. charlie: are you continuing to win? michael: i do ok. charlie: you certainly do. the book is "old age: a beginner's guide." michael kinsley, thank you. michael: thank you, charlie. ♪
i gave the commencement speech. for an event called "the art of conversation." jon: i grew up as an only child, with huge curiosity. my father went to world war ii, and my mother went back to a small village of 100 and helped her father run a country store. when my father came back, he stayed for a while and commuted to a business he had about 20 miles away. between 2mative years and 12, i literally lived above the store. itt the store did for me, was a meeting place. it was a hub, place where people , with only 100 people and a
railroad through the middle. with the service station on one side and my grandfather's business on the other. there was not much television, so they would come to talk and share experiences. man, you had young to ask questions to be part, for them to listen to you. and if you knew something about sports, a little bit about politics, a little gossip, a little bit about crops and farming, you could do ok. i quickly learned that. so questions became my entree. you were always around older people. how did that affect you? jon: i don't know. i am much younger than my age in terms of my attitude. i always have been. i have always been independent.
in the middle of my high school years, i got on a greyhound bus and went north, and i ended up in hyannisport, when john kennedy was president, and saw him there. i got a job working at the hyannisport inn, where the press would stay. there is an independent spirit i had. it did nothing to diminish that. charlie: also, i would imagine it gave you a sense of a disposition to listen. i realized i learned more listening than talking, which is true of many people. not everyone [laughter] certainly not in this political campaign. jon: we learn to read and write in school. how can we teach listening? what advice would you give people to be better listeners?
charlie: i thought about this. it's also about interviewing. to be a good interviewer, you have to be a good listener, and to listen you have to be in the moment. to listen, you have to heart, , not just listen. let it wash over you in a way that you can't overanalyze it, but you have to see clearly. what is someone saying, and why are they saying it? jon: what was that? [laughter] just kidding. jon: this is from a graduate. when i read hunter thompson's "fear and loathing on the campaign trail," i read prose about partisan politics that would fit into today's discourse.
could it be that the discourse has not changed much, but rather that we look at the past through rose-colored glasses? charlie: may be. think? you jon: as i like to say about jefferson, at least my guy did not get shot in jersey. it has always been rough. one of the reasons we have hyperbole in american politics ee is a sewan particularly good place to offer this point -- there's two ways of looking at the american experiment. if you look at it from the theological point of view, the providential one, you may tend to believe we are a country that has been given extraordinary blessings and therefore has extraordinary obligations. much is given, much is expected. so our politics are hyperbolic if you view the world in a theo
centric way, because this is a quasi-divine project and the stakes are so high. for it around. -- flip it around. if you are entirely rationalistic, and you believe what i just said is wrongheaded, even if you are entirely a creature of the enlightenment, this is the most significant experiment in enlightenment-era thinking and in the creation of a system of checks and balances to try to maximize the possibility of reason operating on human affairs and human fashions. so you are hyperbolic about everything, and it is the most high-stakes project you can imagine. so from either worldview, either highly rationalistic or highly religious, it is incredibly important, each political moment is incredibly important. so we are forever at a turning point. jon: how many people -- charlie:
how many people in this audience have seen "hamilton?" i urge you to see it when you come to new york, except don't go for another year. [laughter] because you can't get tickets. you see a lot of that. it is based on that book on hamilton. it is a wonderful thing, because it has made people think about our history. people who have forgotten who owes under hamilton was, other than he was a on the $10 bill. they knew he was a financial genius, and they knew about the federalist papers, that he wrote at least 50% of them. yet he had this remarkable life. but, you know, they got him because of an affair. he was different in that he fessed up and insisted on writing a letter as to why he did it. schemed to when the president. you know that. jon: he planned strategically.
i don't think he schemed. [laughter] charlie: what comes out of his book about jefferson. politicalrson was a creature, and whatever else he did, he was a political creature. jon: and he was ambivalent about thewhich is -- remember, author of the declaration -- charlie: it is said about bush 41 that the bush family sort of wanted to say, we want a government that is really good at governing, but we will do everything we can to get elected. hiring the group of people he hired to run the campaign. roger ailes was a principal advisor to george bush. him, enjoying see his company, receiving letters from him -- but at the same time, to the point being made
here, coarseness in american politics is not new. jon: it is forever hyperbolic, and it will be forever hyperbolic, because evy moment feels so fraught. backdon't think we look with -- obviously, we have to beware looking back nostalgically. but at the same time, we should not be fearful and look back to say, this was a moment where congressman george herbert walker bush, when he was presenting the seventh district from houston, two years under lyndon johnson, two years under richard nixon, he voted with lyndon johnson 52% of the time. fromne today, a republican texas voting with barack obama 52% of the time. the absence of
bipartisanship, too. that has really been lost. even if you go back recently, to ronald reagan, ronald reagan and tip o'neill. ronald reagan was prepared to compromise. donald trump has said that's what he will be, that he is a transactional human being. jon: do you believe that? charlie: to a degree. saidr wendell holmes franklin roosevelt had a second-class mind and first-class temperament. bob gates will tell you today, and he has served lots of presidents, he will point to eisenhower, reagan, and say they had the right temperament, and that's what i think people miss with donald trump. i think trump is a product, he's really not a product of business. business was what he did.
he's a product of celebrity, a product of "the apprentice." he's a man who somehow got some invite, and this is what he has media,bout television, from the experience he has. and it is unlike any other presidential candidate. jon: you have interviewed how many presidents? charlie: back to nixon. i wasfamously said to me, one ofto probe into why, my favorite questions. nixon said to me, "i don't like this psychological stuff." [laughter] things might have been a little different if he had. [laughter] jon: where does obama fit, in
your sense? charlie: i am ambivalent. convinced, and his party believes he is the smartest person in the room, and he makes the decision that he knows what he knows and he does it. but gates, for example -- bob gates, for example, told me george bush 43, he would have the cabinet there and they would be lined up, and he would talk to them and ask what they thought. were as obama, this is the same bob gates in the same seat, he would have 10 other people, and you would see some staff member in the fifth row who has not raised his hand, to avert his eyes, and he will call on him and say, what do you think?
does this resonate with you? so there's a lot of things i like about him. i think he has brought dignity to the office. [applause] so a final question. you spent a lot of time thinking about long-term trends. economic, scientific, technological. how hopeful argue about the next and ration or two? charlie: very. andid to president obama, he has said this, we have the strongest military, we have the strongest economy, the most technological skills, 18 of the top 20 universities, all these things. what couldo him, stop us from owning the 21st century? not owning it completely, because it is not a zero-sum game and we should not be -- he
♪ donny: i'm donny deutsch. mark: and i mark halperin. donny: and "with all due respect," i got this. ♪ mark: on this special episode tonight the donald's do's and , don'ts, tonight with donny. but first, the damaging headlines about donald trump and hillary clinton published in the last 24 hours. each reinforcing, in some ways, their worst vulnerabilities. last night, the "wall street journal" reported that the clinton foundatiec