tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg September 9, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin tonight with politics. a new president will be elected two months today. polls showing donald trump making up ground on hillary clinton. the candidates squared off last night in a commander-in-chief forum about national security. clinton vowed not to send troops into iraq ever again, while trump said he would have a plan to eliminate isis in the first 30 days of his administration. the event was viewed as a preview of some kind of their highly anticipated debate later
this month. joining me now in washington is dan bolz, the chief correspondent at the "washington post" and we once again pleased to have him here again. dan: thank you. charlie: 60 days and counting. dan: 60 days and counting down. charlie: the first week after labor day. dan: it's an interesting week. the polls look tighter than in august. we had the first semiencounter with the two candidates. charlie: not together. dan: a preview, but not really, they weren't on the stage at the same time. it's a different dynamic. the race after labor day, as much as become before, things become engaged in a different way. we have seen hillary clinton out much more talking to the press that she hasn't been done. charlie: on the plane and elsewhere taking questions. dan: so she is more accessible than she has been. she was getting criticized for that. donald trump is trying to stay scripted and with teleprompters. charlie: is he better on the campaign trail with what he has
to do? dan: i think he is. it's a function of the new team that he brought on last month. charlie: anne conway and steve bannon. dan: and david. what they have done, they have one way in another calmed him down when he is out on the stump. he is less extemporaneous and less given to saying things that have gotten him in trouble in the past. but i don't know if he can keep that up for 60 more days. charlie: the effort is to get him on message and stay on message in terms of elements of change and how he would be different from her and make the issue her. dan: they want to make this campaign about change. if it becomes a campaign about change, he is in a much better position than if the campaign is about him. almost everything we have seen up to now suggested this was a referendum on donald trump. that's the worst possible situation for him because the more that focus is on him, the more people are reminded of the things he has said and done over the last year and a few months.
so if he can keep going after her and if the focus becomes her, he is in a better position. but we should step back from all of that. the electoral college is still different for him. he has fewer pass to 270 votes than she does. there are these kind of underlying realities that go along with what the candidates do as they perform. charlie: and the demographics favor her. dan: the demographics favor her. the biggest single factor that is different in this campaign and a real problem for donald trump if he can't solve it is white, college educated voters. they have been a republican constituency. mitt romney won them with 56% of the vote against barack obama four years ago. donald trump is losing that group at this point. we did a 50-state poll with survey monkey, the online polling operation based in silicon valley. we found that in most of the states, she is ahead among white college voters and particularly
among white, college-educated women. charlie: and they're in the suburbs in part. dan: they're in part in the suburbs and they're everywhere, not just in blue states. chris: if he cannot make movement into that, he is unable to put together a winning combination. dan: what is interesting, charlie, throughout the primaries, much of our focus was on white, blue collar voters and the degree to which he had tapped into kind of the resentment, the grievances that they had, the fact that they have done far less well with this recovery than people better educated and certainly more affluent and yet it's like it's flipped now. he needs either a huge turnout, a bigger turnout from that seenituency than we have in the past or solve the problem
with the college educated. charlie: one or the other is big. we don't know how to measure the discontent, do we? dan: no, we don't. we know it's out there. one measure is that the right track, wrong track, which is a standard measurement in survey research has consistently been, says people say we're on the wrong track. but that's been the case for years, for many years. and barack obama was re-elected with that. so, i think you have to take that measurement with some grain of salt, but one of the things we did in our 50-state poll is we asked people, do you think that this election will do anything to solve the political divisions that exist in this country. and in every state, it doesn't matter whether it is a red state or blue state, people said very little. it will do very little to nothing at all to solve that. there is a sense already that this election is not going to resolve that fundamental problem that we have been talking about for months, the gridlock and the causes of the gridlock, the red-blue divisions that have brought about that gridlock.
charlie: this election will not perhaps or likely to be able to make a difference so that somebody can come in as obama came in promising that he could heal that problem. dan: people will promise it. hillary clinton has talked about wanting to reach across party lines if she is elected. charlie: she will schmoose than obama did. dan: that might well be the case but she will start with a difficult environment to do that. charlie: if you look how they did in the candidates forum. it turns out by polling that trump does reasonably well with the military. i think he beats her with the military in some polls. dan: yes. charlie: are they voting for what? are they voting for strength or leadership? what makes them in the majority favor him? dan: it's a traditionally republican vote. republicans have traditionally done better with veterans and military people than democrats. i think that trump does have -- everything he suggests as a
candidate, whether it's on foreign policy or other policy is position of strength, make america great, america first. all of that message goes to a kind of a muscularity of leadership. now there are great questions as we saw last night in that commander in chief forum, there are great questions about exactly what those policies are. does the policy match the muscularity of the rhetoric. i'm not sure that it does. charlie: there are questions as to whether what he says he believes is in fact true, whether he has always been against the iraq war. he did interviews at the time. dan: we know he wasn't. and our fact checker gave him four pinocchios for that answer last night saying he was always against the iraq war. charlie: interviews in which he said he didn't. dan: if he wants to say i change my mind, fair enough. but to say i was always against it contradicts the public record.
charlie: does that matter at this stage? does that matter? dan: it's a great question, charlie. these are two candidates who have been out in public, hillary clinton for a quarter of a century and donald trump has lived on television for the last 15 months. everything he has said has been parsed and examined and fact checked. we know all of the things that he has said that have offended people. we know all of the things that he has said that damaged his opponents in the primary. he is an open book. he is not unexposed. so when things are said at this point, i don't know how much difference they make. you have to think that most voters at this point have a reasonable idea of where they're going to end up on november 8, but still because, you know, we know that these are two unpopular candidates. one factoid from our 50-state survey is interesting. 95% of the people across the country think either hillary
clinton or donald trump or both would be a threat to the well-being of the country. --, when you have with wet charlie: a threat to the well-being of the country. dan: either they say of donald trump or hillary clinton or 20% say that of both. these are two candidates that people are going to vote for with some reservations. we know that. we have tried to measure it in a different way and we came out with this fascinating, although depressing kind of answer that that's the view that people have. so people are conflicted, people cases, voting for the least unattractive choice. charlie: does that say our politics are broken? dan: oh, yes, i think there is no question that our politics are broken. i don't know that they're easily put back together. i think it's kind of pie in the sky to think that an election will solve that. my pal ron has talked about this phenomenon more articulately
than i do, but we're in the middle of a big transformation in the country. we know that demographically, culturally, we're seeing things change at a fairly rapid rate. there are some people who are fairly comfortable with that and some are not comfortable with that. the people less comfortable are in the trump camp. the people more comfortable are part of the obama coalition and with hillary clinton. charlie: part of it is the diversity of the country. dan: and how that is affecting the way we live. charlie: and how we work or don't work. dan: every corporation is dealing with this. every education system is dealing with this. the media is dealing with this. our politics is a reflection of that. it's not simply that the politics is absent or separate from that. the politics gets caught up into that. i think that is part of why it's difficult to solve this. so people are -- it's an unsettling time for a lot of people in this country and it makes the politics more intense
and also we know that the way politics is conducted today is much more adversarial and so it creates suspicions and it creates fears about the other side in particular, people who are supporting hillary clinton have great concerns about donald trump becoming president and vice versa. whoever becomes the president, there is a reservoir of antisentiment on the other side they got to deal with. charlie: some people are saying, look, notwithstanding the fact that i don't like donald trump as i should like a presidential candidate, i would rather vote for him because i'm simply tired of the way the country has been run and i don't believe it's going to change unless something dramatically different. while he may not be my perfect vessel, he is a better choice than the opposition. dan: frankly, that's one reason why you see the clinton focusing -- the clinton campaign focusing so much on the effort to disqualify trump in the minds of as many voters as they can.
they know that the environment is not as favorable for the continuity or the continuation of the democrats in the white house, so they want to make donald trump unacceptable -- charlie: and history not in favor of the continuation. dan: exactly right. to win three consecutive terms for the same party in the white house is challenging and we know that. and we know that while the stock market has done very, very well, we know that gross domestic product has been tepid at best. the second quarter gross domestic product numbers were weak and we know that there are a lot of people who, as i said earlier, have been left behind by the arrive. so all of that argues in favor of a change. allen abram witnesses, a smart political scientist has a political forecasting model that is called time for change. it's not based on any polling. it's based on fundamentals. his model predicts that donald trump will win the election. he is not favorable to donald trump. charlie: his model says he will
win? dan: his model says he will win a narrow victory. he hopes it's wrong. charlie: what's in his model? dan: gross domestic product and presidential approval and other things. it's not based on current polling. charlie: not based on current polling and not reflective of current polling necessarily. dan: there are a number of political scientists who do the modeling. some of them have polling in them, some don't. most of the forecasting that's been done shows that hillary clinton will win with 51% or 52% or 53%. charlie: not a landslide. dan: two models say donald trump will win and allen's is one of them. charlie: there is something called national polls, that's tight, within two or three points and then there are statewide polls. where, certainly in certain states, there is a margin of
five to six for her. it's a wider margin for her in selective states that determine the presidency. dan: right, right. well, in a sense, national polls are irrelevant, but we watch them because if the national polls move, we know that state polls will move along with them. campaigns, a big presidential campaign, they don't take national polls. they do not take a poll of the nation as a whole. charlie: they look at electoral votes. dan: they take a combined poll of battleground states and do individual battleground state polls. now, some of the battleground states have moved. the state of wisconsin, the most recent polling in wisconsin is much tighter than it was a month or six weeks or two months ago. charlie: what was it two months ago? dan: the marquette law school poll had it, as i recall, 15 points up for clinton and now a handful of points. trump gained there. the polling that we just did
this week or that we released this week showed trump in striking distance in a number of the midwestern states including michigan and wisconsin and actually ahead narrowly in iowa and ohio. charlie: those rust belt states are states that trump believes he has a chance because of the constituents, the blue-collar workers. dan: they're older, whiter and more blue collar. charlie: the democratic in some cases. dan: michigan, wisconsin have voted for democrats in six straight elections. ohio and iowa have been swing states and battle grounds. that's a region where he wants to, where he has to do well. he has to win ohio, i think he has to win pennsylvania. charlie: she can win the election without winning ohio and florida? dan: she can, yes. charlie: but he has to.
dan: it looks as though he has to, he needs it. his preferred route is ohio, pennsylvania, and florida. if he does those three and holds north carolina, which is a clear battleground and everything else stays equal from 2012. charlie: you can tell how the campaign sees these individual battleground states as to how they spend their money. dan: yes, although with donald trump, he spent so little money, this is one of the great anomalies of this election. up to now, hillary clinton has had a huge advantage in terms of advertising spending. charlie: how much money she has spent. dan: and also a huge advantage in laying the groundwork for get out the vote operation in those key states. i mean, she has spent much more money on advertising, up to now, trump had spent almost nothing in most of these states. he is beginning to spend now. she has opened many more offices and put more staff and put more volunteers on the ground in those states. but the advertising as we have
seen almost throughout this election, seems to have a smaller impact on voters than it sometimes has in the past. charlie: there is also a thing called ground organization. traditionally, that's been very important to a candidacy. donald trump doesn't have one. dan: well, he is counting on an organic surge of voters. charlie: the rallies in part, the sheer use of the coverage of him at rallies and interviews. dan: donald trump believes that the model he used to win the nomination is a model that can work in the general election. now, they are beginning with the help of the republican national committee, but also within their own organization to staff up in these states, but his view has been we do big rallies and we attract a lot of people and we attract a lot of attention and that will generate enthusiasm and we have, in the age of
social media, charlie, generating an operation is different than it was in the past. you can reach people in different ways and you can communicate in different ways and you can perhaps get them out to vote. charlie: you can change coverage and headlines by tweets. dan: that's been very important to him. sometimes those tweets have gotten him in trouble. charlie: indeed. e-mails. every time there is a disclosure, it seems to affect her relationship and her polling, is that a fair statement? dan: i think that's an exactly fair statement. charlie: what's to come? what is the talk in washington as to what might be there, might be damaging? the latest intonation, the latest revelation has to do with colin powell and what he may or may not have said to her. dan: right. and colin powell had suggested that what he had said was sent to her much after she had set this up. there is further evidence that he e-mailed with her early in 2009 and that she has always
said she did what others have done in the past. i think that is an argument that can be waged from here until two years from now and the general public will check out of that. charlie: you would think they would have already tuned out, except there are new revelations that come out. dan: part of the reason is that we know that people do not trust her. for her, the question of how honest and trustworthy she is has been a consistent problem. and i think that every time there is something that comes out that suggests it's different or contradictory to the public record that, as we understood it, she takes a hit from that. so what's to come, we don't know. the f.b.i. seems to have put out most everything, but, you know, i draw an analogy to the clinton foundation. a few weeks ago, the clinton foundation announced that if she becomes president, the
foundation will no longer take contributions from foreign governments. i think they did that thinking that that would help to alleviate concerns. i think it had the opposite effect. it generated a conversation about, well, if it's wrong to do it after she is president, why was it ok when she was secretary of state? why don't they make the change now? why don't they just simply disband the foundation, in other words, it raised a whole series of questions. they are difficult questions and i think if she becomes president will have to be addressed beyond what they already said they'll do. charlie: on the other hand, you have a foundation issue with donald trump in terms of what contributions may have been made to the florida attorney general. dan: you very much do have that. david from our staff has been on top of the trump charitable giving case and story for months and has shown how little donald trump has done in terms of charitable giving. this is a case in which the
trump foundation gave a $25,000 donation to an entity supporting the attorney general of florida at the time the attorney general's office was considering whether to have a formal investigation of trump university. donald trump bragged throughout the primaries that he was able, he gave money to people because when he did, they would respond when he needed help. charlie: always a pleasure. dan: my pleasure as always. charlie: dan bolz from the "washington post." ♪
♪ charlie: we turn now to other news, other news than the politics of america and there was plenty of it overseas. president obama made his first trip to laos and final trip to asia before leaving office. not everything went as planned. ian bremer joins me now from new york. he is the president of the global risk consultancy eurasia group. and i am pleased to have him back on the program. the trip to asia, how would you assess it? ian: the big question is how does the united states get better outcomes when its negotiating position globally is deteriorating and obama, yes, towards the end of his term, that's part of it, but it's broader than that. china always makes it hard on the united states to get what it wants, especially in china's backyard and that sparring is
only getting more challenging. we saw it. obama leaving out of the bottom of his plane and sort of you could only take one journalist with you to a meeting and all of these things that make the americans look weaker on the international stage than they have historically. the g-20 itself, of course, was not very much, but the direct bilateral meetings, the russians and the turks on the one hand having their bilaterals looking close, the americans also trying to work, curry turkey's favor, even if it throws the kurds under the bus, obama and putin with a 90-minute bilateral meeting. they were staring at each other like they were going to get into a cage match and afterwards, neither side particularly got what they wanted. this is not a united states that is showing up at the g-20 and setting down the rules and setting up the agenda and get what it wants. charlie: is it simply the united states losing that dominating factor, or is it a realization
that china is moving into that role? ian: i think it's a little bit of both. i mean, there is no question that the transpacific partnership which you and i have spoken about at length over many years, it's the single most important foreign policy initiative that obama has been set up over the last seven years and it now looks like he may well fail at getting it implemented. that is something the chinese are looking forward to and it's something that unnerves america's allies in asia greatly. if it fails, then i would say we would see a failure of the much vaunted pivot to asia. a big part of it, a bigger part of it, in my view, is that china is the dominant economic trading partner for every single country in asia. a bigger part is that their military is growing in much larger degree in asia than
america's is. and these countries in the region are going to have foreign policies that reflect that. charlie: and it's true also in latin america in many cases in which latin american countries, the primary export market is china. ian: that's true, although in latin america, the more socialist oriented policies of many of those governments have been seen as failing, and so you do have more political and ideological movement towards the old washington consensus, certainly in argentina we saw that with obama's trip in the last couple of months, certainly with the opening to cuba. we will see that in venezuela as maduro is just stumbling along breathing his last and even in brazil, with the successful impeachment of their president, mexico is really the only exception to that trend, but
you're of course right, charlie, that is happening despite the fact that china's economic influence in latin america continues to grow by leaps and bounds every year. charlie: and in africa? ian: and in africa, the chinese are one country that is writing checks. its true that if you look at it's true if you look at the china built and financed african union headquarters, it's falling apart, door knobs fall off. water is coming in. it's not h.u.d. quality build. people aren't happy about the fact that they're not necessarily getting grade a stuff and yet when you ask african leaders how do they think about the u.s. government vis-a-vis china, they say china is spending a lot of money. we would love to see the u.s. more in here. they're focused on the military. they're not as focused on building out our infrastructure. american corporations are doing a great job in africa.
the gates foundation and many others are doing a great job in africa, but the u.s. government is really seen as counterterrorism intelligence and security. charlie: there is this lead story in the "new york times" today. terrifying path of climate crisis weighs on obama. clearly the president would like to see part of his legacy, what he accomplished in climate change and what he was able to do with the chinese and others. how well has he done and will it be a commanding legacy of his eight years? ian: i don't think so in part because there are just other issues that are seen as far more urgent in a global economy that is moving towards secular stagnation where the growth is not what most people want it to be in most parts of the world with very little exception, especially with the inequality that is growing. the impact of displacement from globalization and technology. these are issues that are coming for many people in the world
with power now. where climate change is affecting hundreds of millions of people but they are people that do not have a voice globally. the welfare and the most important emerging markets, climate change becomes a dramatic impact over decades, not over an electoral cycle. so, there is no question that obama, with the chinese, have shown they can work together on areas of mutual interest and climate is one of those long-term areas. but i don't think you can say there have been big breakthroughs here from the americans or the chinese or the g-20. obama is going to have to look to other places for his legacy. charlie: where will that be? ian: you saw. obama, look, he's very frustrated on things like gun control, immigration at home. that despite the fact that it seems very obvious, and he is sure he is right, he has not been able to get it done. on foreign policy, he has been willing to take some chances.
look at the iran deal, look at the cuba opening. look at his trip to hiroshima. i think he's looking for other such things before he leaves office. he would like it to be the successful conclusion of a transpacific partnership at best, that is a coin flip right now. but he is going to surprise us on international relations. i will tell you one place i would not be shocked at all if after the election, and before obama leaves office, he decides he is going to recognize palestine. you know, he has been so focused on wanting to move the israelis to a better place. his relationship with netanyahu after a year and a half went nowhere. they are building, continued to build settlements. the two state solution is dead. israel-palestine is nowhere on the priorities for the europeans right now. the sanctions process is not really moving.
here is a place where obama could do something that many europeans have already done. he knows hillary or trump would not do it and he would have a leg. i think he is going to do things like that -- he wanted to make a trip to iran. politically he knows that is not feasible right now. but that is the kind of thing he is looking at before january. charlie: you leave us with a tantalizing idea. thank you so much. ian bremmer. in a moment. stay with us. mike allen has been a fixture in washington political coverage for a number of years. he was at the "washington post," and thenw york times he was at politico where had a popular blog called playbook which was required reading from the white house and everyone else in washington. then left that position and is now forming a new think tank. what are you doing and how did you make the decision and what should we expect? mike: thank you very much for
welcoming me in. i'm at politico through the -- i am honored to be with politico covering the most exciting race of our lifetime. politico, which started with three people. charlie: financed by the albritton family. mike: 460 people around the world. in florida, albany and new jersey. charlie: based on the premise that there was a deep interest in politics. mike: when we started come people thought we were nuts. for a a few reasons. one, they said we were "the" politico. we were like facebook. and people said, politico. what is that a spanish-language website? nobody knew what it was. but the gamble then was, contrary to what people said,
there is so much political news, it is overserved, it is too crowded a space. we said no. people like yourself, your viewers are underserved, that the coverage is not fast enough, smart enough, conversational enough, tough enough. very quickly we show that was a huge appetite for more. so, i will be with politico through the election. charlie: back to politico because it will give me some indication as to where you are now. one, it was based on the idea that we will have more political news for them. also based on the idea that we the political community like it has not been covered before. we will tell you about birthdays, we will aggregate all kinds of stories everywhere. and we will do original reporting. it grew into all of that. mike: and politico is based on the inside out strategy. it is the opposite of what i did when i was at "time" or "the new york times." there i took what people like
you were talking about and translated it for my mom in wilsonville, oregon. politico wrote very intentionally for the senator, for the chief of staff, for you. and the gamble at politico was if we tell the white house chief of staff something he needs to know that helps and do his job , if we are serving him, then all around the country there is going to be this massive almost voyeuristic audience that wants in on that conversation. politico's web traffic is outside the beltway because we reach the people who are making the news and then smart, interesting people around the country want to listen in. charlie: this was very successful. you were very successful. then you decided, you and jim, decided to leave. john harris stays. mike: john harris is running politico. jim is starting a new company.
it does not have a name because we do not have a url, have not worked out the trademark. but, the idea of the new company is that the smartest people in the world, your viewers, you, that media more broadly, beyond politics, is not serving them as well as it could. and so, the new company is going to take the world, some politics but mostly other topics including business, including tech, including media trends, media consumption, and look at a smarter way to present and deliver news. a game changing hire the new company has. this week you saw the story in "the wall street journal," saying that the new company formed by jim and roy schwartz, who was the chief revenue officer of politico, created politico pro. they've raised $10 million.
and have already started hiring. already working hard. charlie: these are the people who provided money for people like people like ken lehren who backed huffington post. comcast. mike: andy lack is going to be on the board. charlie: but your target audience is? mike: the target audience is you and your viewers. i was starting to say the game changing hire we had, "the new york times" had a fantastic r&d, and we have been able to hire the two people that ran it, the -- who are going to the hour directors of technology and design. what is great about them and what will be so different about our news business they've spent
9 years studying and experimenting with the architecture of news, how do people want to consume news, what are new ways to deliver news? charlie: what is interesting about this is that it comes at a time that the idea of how we present and consume news in the broadest definition, not just about politics, and not just about current events, but what is happening in tech and in fashion and in business and in science, and all those areas of great curiosity to have an impact on our lives. the broadest definition, how we consume that and how it is presented, we know is an entirely new way of doing that. mike: that is exactly right. this was the genius of robert albritton and that early band of 30 people who were there when politico launched 10 years ago in january. but the gamble that there is a better way to present news, that there is a more useful way to
cover news, turned out to be true. that is why politico is thriving. politico pro looks at 13 areas -- charlie: what was interesting. i was talking to some people about apple a couple nights ago. everybody there was talking about how fast, people including ."nry from "business inside how fast he is moving to video. you guys were also getting into video. you were also getting into the ofa of presenting interviews -- and original content with newsmakers and aggregating and doing everything else. mike: that is exactly right. and part of the genius of politico and where news organizations, some are thriving
and some are struggling, is that politico always has stuck to journalism we can be proud of. that's never change. john harris in charge of it now. brown, who did such a great job in politico europe. what they are doing, journalism you can be proud of. this is a mistake so many of our companies make because we had a strong business. because politico has always aligned to the business and journalistic interests rather than going from the big audience are going for the pot of money. charlie: thank you for coming. back in a moment. ♪
♪ charlie: catch me up on you. you are now, what, 80? 84. the tennis academy going strong. >> 8 sports now, charlie. charlie: 8 sports, not just tennis. >> 1000 full-time students, men and women. charlie: you have been inducted into the tennis hall of fame, that was 2014. so, what is the secret for nick bollettieri? nick: the excitement. i love life, i love helping children. to see a smile go home with a smile on their face and say i can do it and then want to come back and do things. being a coach of 10 number ones in the world, that is fantastic. but helping people, i'm with the usta foundation now, giving hope to inner-city children and concentrating on their education
and character. i like that. charlie: how do you teach them? nick: i teach them first of all, to know that you always say, i will, i can, and i will do it no matter what. but what most people do, charlie. most parents today grade children by their grades. vince lombardi said, "my teams never lost. we just ran out of time." even though the score dictates the winner, effort can also make you a winner. parents must understand that. , did you get an a? my grandmother when it came from from school, you were a good boy today? she did not ask me how i did in school. she asked me if i tried. and that is a message i think is
very important. charlie: the italians have given very important. you some awards. nick: the italian hall of fame and this week the sons of italy made me the michelangelo of the week. charlie: is serena the best woman ever to play? nick: we can say graff and martina and chrissie, but overall, because of her father, crazy richard williams who started the girls at 7 and 8 years old. he did not let them play in a tournament. people said, you are afraid to bring them out. you need a coach. you need a coach. but charlie, when they came out, looking what they did. i was honored to be part of the williams team for years. charlie, they were taught to run after every single ball. they said, daddy, suppose the ball is out? daddy said this, no ball out. charlie: this is fascinating. he was not a tennis pro. he didn't bring in tennis pros. nick: he did it himself and he
had a rule, charlie, that when they left the courts, no speaking about tennis. one time venus spoke about tennis, he made her walk home. the girls are fabulous. they're different players, charlie. venus is more beautiful and long strokes and graceful. and serena, i'm going to beat up on you. one time she got mad, busted a racket, started to walk off the court. yourd, serena, get backside out here. not even my daddy talk to me that way. but she was a pleasure, charlie. she played with the men. her and venus, one-timed tommy haas said, you girls got the number one court. and, we willd, play with you guys. they held their own. charlie: she has, serena, assessed her game.
nick: she's strong, number one. charlie: physically strong. nick: daddy taught both girls to stand very close to the baseline and hit the ball up on the rise and go for it. play very offensive. they developed a big serve, but in the last few months, their coach or serena's coach has added a little defense to serena's game. what do i mean by that? show me a deep ball once in a while. but with serena williams, you hit a short defensive ball, it is all over. she's going to kill it. and her serve. but charlie -- charlie: you cannot hit a weak shot. give us a tennis primer. what is it that most average weekend players need to know, need to learn? nick: learn how to read the ball before it crosses the net. that's it, charlie. most people let the ball bounce.
do they have spin? charlie, when you warm up with that's it, charlie. an opponent, you already know what you can do. hit a ball down the center. take a forehand, take a backend. now you know they do not have a weapon. see if they have spin on the ball or hit it flat. when they warm up there serve, see what they do. charlie, you have got to know a little bit about the opponent or what type of ball they hit. because you already know what you can do. charlie: and what do you tell them about that hand -- backhand? them about -- everybody is troubled by a backhand. for most players, regular players, a billion players, backhand is a troublesome shot. nick: first of all it is from the weaker side of your boyd, but it is -- of your body, but it is the most natural side. the question is, do i play one hand or to have?
i never say what to play. i look at the person. but that grips today for the one-handed backhand is no longer the eastern grip. it's way over. that said, why? because you have got to be able to roll and have racket head speed. you have got to roll it now. but today, people say, nick, are you teaching one or two handed backhand? i look at the person. charlie: what do you say to them about a forehand? spin it? nick: you have got the development of bollettieri forehand, baby. charlie: what's that? nick: be able to hit it flat, be able to hit it soon and great racket head speed. you cannot guide a forehand. you have got to have quick hands-on contact. remember, charlie, your foundation is where you get your power and balance. that is why djokovic is so good. why federer, their foundation. charlie: their core. nick: from the waist down. when you have good balance and good weight transfer, the same as in golf, you have a chance to be a good player.
charlie: somebody said to me once, in tennis, people just do not appreciate how important your feet are and how important your body is. your lower body. feet get you there in anticipation and your body gives you power. nick: when you do not have balance, the racket head opens, closes. charlie: you have balance -- and you have power, too. anticipation and your body gives you can move it. today, are you teaching differently than you did when you taught agassi? nick: yes. i'm teaching more of coming in and take advantage of every defensive ball. i am teaching different. i am teaching to try to play the whole court game today. not just one segment of the game. charlie: most of us to not think about strategy and playing from side to side to side to side. if you think about it that is what makes the game exciting. nick: that is what makes sports
exciting. charlie: what are you teaching them about serving? nick: everybody tried to hit that, excuse me. the majority of people try to hit down on a serve, charlie. you have to be 6'10" with your racket extended to hit down. you want to be fully extended and learn how to pronate with the palm of your hand to the outside. also remember, charlie, the elbow comes down less not first -- comes down last, not first. the followthrough, you want to have follow-through. also, remember this, charlie, your weight transfer is important. a lot of people when they serve, they are almost moving backwards to protect the return. let your body go into the court, and then come back to the return of serve. charlie: do you hit balls much anymore? nick: i teach a lot but play a lot of golf.
i teach 6, 8, 10 hours at the academy. enough teaching. it has been fun for me all my life. and working with my two new sons. charlie: how many children? nick: five biological, and two adopted. charlie: you are a good man. what you want people to think of in terms of the bollettieri legacy? nick: i made an impact on their life. people become doctors, lawyers, a good mother. that i inspired them to do things that will leave an impact on their life, their children's life, not the champions, charlie. i want to be able to do something for somebody that helps them get through this life. build characters and young boys and girls to stray from drugs and alcohol and have strong character. charlie: character and a winner's philosophy. nick: absolutely. charlie: nick bollettieri. back in a moment.
stay with us. ♪ jay: if you had asked me about my life, i would've said blessed, remarkably blessed. i would've told you a hundred reasons why -- family, intellectual engagement. good stuff. i quickly said it was not going to let the end of my life choose the definition which -- in how i looked at the rest of it. i was not going to let that happen. we are all going to face death. maybe not this disease. but no one gets there alive. we are all going to face it. so, i didn't. i pitched up my tent and said, how am i going to use the time i have left? charlie: grew up in the bronx. did not come from a rich family.
>> my father ran a printing press. charlie: what did you want to do? jay: so, i was, by the way, i don't mean to demean running a printing press. my father sent his kids to school by running up a printing press. i didn't have the growing up experience to aspire to much. i know that may sound funny. but my world was pretty narrow. i wanted to get out of college and get a job and put food on the table. that was the mission. and the fascinating thing to me is the connections of my life and how things changed, how i began to perceive the opportunities that were out there and what i could do to access them. i do not mean to sound selfish. but i went from just getting a paycheck and putting food on the -- to i can really do something.
charlie: i can be competitive. jay: that was a big deal. that was a big deal. it took a lot of years before, not one of the benefits of having this disease is that i have nothing to hide. it is all out there. so, i went through a long time as a kid from the bronx. i find myself years later now working for sandy, jamie dimon and bob lipman. i'm succeeding, much to my own surprise. i have grown up thinking, i'm a bookkeeper. i am an accountant. i studied accounting. i find myself in this crowd and the world began to change so much for me. charlie: that is fascinating. in other words, you realize that, i want to say, i belong here because i have shown that i can do the same kinds of things these mentors can do. jay: yes. and it took hooking up with the right people at the right time. i had really good jobs before. and had been successful, but it was of a different nature.
when i came to work for that group, things really did change. i learned quickly what it felt like to go to work somewhere and it felt good. it felt good. all the work i had done before that, it was largely adversarial places. highly personally competitive. what they created was not that way at all. it got rid of all of that noise. it got rid of that personal dynamic of am i good enough or smart enough? ♪
>> let's begin with the check of your first word news. condemns northal korea's latest nuclear test as a brazen breach of resolutions. he called on a security council to take your -- urgent accent -- action. this was the north's fifth atomic test in eight months. john kerry met in geneva with his russian counterpart. officials are downplaying chances of a cease-fire in syria civil war.