tv Charlie Rose PBS August 11, 2015 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
>> rose: welcome to theprogram. we begin this evening talking about politics, and we turn to mark halperin and john heilemann, of "with all due respect," looking at the fallout from the republican debate. >> in the end, you've seen a lot of candidates who were populous, a lot of candidates who got a lot of media attention, never anyone quite like donald trump and they've never been the nominee. the nominee's always been the establishment candidate who raises the most money and seems the most electable in a general election. that's not currently donald trump but this is an unusual cycle. >> rose: we conclude this evening with senator claire mccaskill, her new memoir is called "plenty ladylike," a memoir. >> i learned how to navigate. what i want more is more young women to embrace being strategic
and ambitious. >> rose: mark halperin and john heilemann and senator claire mccaskill when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we continue with our coverage of the 2016 presidential election. donald trump continues to lead the republican field. he stayed on the offensive this weekend amid backlash from republican party leaders and others over his comments about women. meanwhile, hillary clinton proposed a ten-year, $350 billion college tuition
plan that came under criticism from republican contenders including marco rubio and jeb bush. bush. joining me are mark halperin and john heilemann, managing editors of bloomberg politics and host of "with all due respect." i'm pleased to have them here at this important moment that big debate on thur night. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: tell me about donald trump. now that we've sa had some days since the debate and his comments afterwards, has it done any damage to him, or is it too early to tell? >> well, we don't know, there's not been any conventional national polling since the debate. >> rose: why not? does it just take too long? >> it takes too long. it's summer, polling's expensive. there should be, because i hope someone does one soofnlt if you look at the fundamentals of the trump campaign, core supporters
bring in new people, message, ability to draw media attention, money, name i.d. and his ability to dominate the race in a variety of ways, i think the fundamentals of the trump campaign are pretty much where they were before when he was the national frontrunner. >> rose: so he continue to be the national frontrunner and has a chance of winning the nomination? >> i think if he won the nomination, it would defy modern republican presidential history. so you still have to bring some skepticism to it. but in a 17-person field, a guy who seems to be able to hold a fifth of the vote and has unlimited -- >> rose: 20%. yeah, 20%, and has unlimited resources in the ability to dominate the news, in an unpredictable cycle, who knows. >> rose: but if the issue becomes content of message, will that make a difference? >> in tend you've seen a lot of candidates who were populous, who got media attention but never anyone quite like donald
trump and they never have been the nominee. the nominee has been the establishment candidate who raises the most money and is the most electable in a general election. that is not currently donald trump but this is an unusual cycle. >> rose: what could slow him down, john? >> who knows. >> rose: what if the other candidates began to say, this is not a temporary phenomenon, we have to speak to what we think is bad for the republican party. >> well, that's starting to happen a little bit, already, and it's a little unclear whether that will affect his current level of support because a lot of people who are his current supporters do not care about the republican establishment, in fact they don't like the republican establishment. i think the question is whether -- as mark said, he's got about 20% now, maybe a little more than that. the question is that may very well be his floor which is to say he may never lose those people because he's done things that offended the sensibilities of the establishment, bassent changed their opinions. when i talked to a focus group
of people in new hampshire who are trump supporters and leaners towards trump, you could tell them all kinds of things -- >> rose: after mccain. after mccain, before the debate, they would say, i don't care. he gives money to hillary clinton, well, everybody does. he's a businessman in new york, they're all democrats there. they would find a reason to rationalize and excuse things that would be apostasies for many other republicans. if that's what his floor, is 20%, how much above the 20% is the ceiling because eventually the fitsics of any race comes down to two people and 20% is not enough to win you the nomination. so the question is how much can he grow beyond 20%, and that is what we do not know. you know, the thing that all the polling shows right now is he's the most popular and unpopular republican which is to say by and large most republican voters say they would never vote for him. half of them, you know, around that number say they would never vote for him under any circumstances, but that 20% seems like they might vote for
him under any circumstances. so that's at the early phase of this race in iowa and new hampshire, win the field 16 or 17, he could cause havoc in the party by winning early contests. >> rose: mostly in iowa and new hampshire. >> suppose. would be hard to stop his momentum in the short term, but eventually the establishment quickly rally behind one other person. >> rose: marco rubio, john kasich, jeb bush. >> the thick we haven't talked about with trump, with a normal candidate, we assume they could change, get better, improve. trump's doing well in the polls. he's not actually performing that well as a candidate. he's not doing the things a normal candidate would do and you're saying you're doing well, primarily message discipline. when he talks about jobs and economy and trade and the border, he does better. when he picks fights with megyn kelly of fox or john mccain of
the united states senate, the perception is he does worse. the campaign's intention is to roll out policy papers, have him talk about the issues he's been talking about for 30 years. >> rose: you're suggesting that's what the campaign is thinking right now. >> right now. so the static analysis of it, we all say trump will continue to fight people and get side tracked on he's petty things. what if he starts to talk about jobs, economy, trade, leadership, attacking the establishment. you look at the polls, ted cruz, ben carson, carly fiorina, they're all hot candidates. what do they have in common? three along with trump have never held elected office, all want to fundamentally change washington. if trump can get on that message and jobs, john's right, i think now we see what his ceiling, is then i think he could grow higher. >> the question to mark's point, the other peace of that is, so
far, he's exhibited no capacity for message discipline at all which is to say anybody that raises an issue that can bait him in talking about tissue even when it's not in his best interest, the specific issue now is he should have at this moment, even if he doesn't want to apologize to megyn kelly, after saying that, he should have moved on. any normal candidate would say -- >> rose: he has moved on. this morning on television he was asked about megyn yell and went back in for another five minutes. >> rose: he said he's very supportive of women. >> if you were sitting here now and you would say i want to talk about megyn kelly and what you said, he would plow right back into it. >> he would say, i deserve an apology from her and go right back into it. >> rose: i think one or two of you were on the program. i watched scarborough the next morning, and the complaint was as you well remember in the
first seven minutes was that 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. >> and he had some validity to complain about the way he was treated. but jeb bush says politics is about addition not subtraction. trump is pusher people away, not just the establishment burks some people. when instead if he talked about leadership, economy, trade, china, again, that's what a normal candidate would do. people around him say trump must be trumped, you can't control him. but he's not a disciplined medged candidate and when he does he does better. >> rose: when push comes to shove, was that a bat debate, donald trump? >> i don't think he did much to dramatically help himself but i think he did. >> rose: was that a bad debate for jeb bush? >> yeah, not a disastrous or calamitous debate burks he to my
eye on the basis of is scattered and not totally reliable data suggested he did nothing to help himself but hurt himself, i think his supporters and advisors did not think he gave a quality of debate performance he will need to give to be the republican nominee. he was flat, uninspiring, not particularly optimistic, he did not come across as the best jeb bush. >> rose: but marco rubio did? i think he did. >> rose: do you agree? i think if hi performance moves the numbers. i think he impressed a lot of elites. >> rose: he's done that before. >> that's right. you would agree the performance was better. >> rose: john kasich. certainly helped his cause. barely made it into the debate, had a hometown crowd but he was not very well known in the country, and he did give a perfect representation of who john kasich is. whether like him or don't like
him -- >> rose: he didn't do anything not to like him, did he? >> no, he showed his trueself, optimistic, inclusive, bubbly, the demeanor, he gave, some people said, and i think this is kind of true, he did -- he gave jeb bush's message with enthusiasm, fire and optimism that was lacking on jeb bush's part. >> i thought jeb bush was not as good as he need to be to win. he need to show three things i don't think he showed in the debate. one is he's going to fight to change things and he's not just a father, son and brother. two, he need to show energy and passion. that he's not just an intellectual, but he wants to get in there and really change things. then he need to show, i think, he is first among equals in this group of 17 has to be president. romney had to stand out and show i'm rising above this, i'm the
adult and mature person. i don't think jeb bush did any of those things consistently and i don't know if he did the first two at all. >> rose: do you know if he has the plan or know-how to do that? >> it was his first presidential dewait. he's very self-conscious performer at times and i think he will get better as the field winnows eventually and will be in better standing and i think he need to practice. in the red state conference saturday he did much better. >> rose: who was in the red state conference. >> ted cruz. he was also underrated at the debate. he's got money, organization and fire in a way that i think, right now, if you're talking about who can be the nominee in this crazy, 17-person field, i think he's undervalued. >> rose: you share that view? i think ted cruz did himself some good in that debate. >> rose: you're not quite as enthusiastic as he is. >> i think he did himself some
good. i think -- i still think -- i do not think -- i i think the party has changed a lot but i don't think the party is quite ready for either a tshz, mike huckabee or -- a ted cruz, mike huckabee or ben carson. they won't have strength to prevail over people in the establishment or cross over between the two wings, whether marco rubio, scott walker, john kasich. to your kasich point about whether some people like him or not, there are things that kasich did that night that would make people not like him. he defended taking medicaid money under obama care. >> rose: something could be said about being able to take the position -- >> my point is there are people in the republican electorate that thinks that's anathema to them. he spoke in a sympathetic way about gay marriage and there are people in the republican electorate that think that's anathema. >> there is lots of ways to
slice and dice -- >> rose: i should be on "with all due respect." >> you should! there is the momentum of the first four states then the long-term gain of delegate accumulation. so ideally if you want to become the nominee, you would have both. you will have early states that you would do well and maybe win, and also have the money and a plan to win states down the line. ted cruz looks strong potentially in three of the four states and this week he's on a bus trip in the southern states. putting in place leadership teams to be available down the road. again, except for bush, right now, cruz is the fundraising leader if you look at the campaign and the superpack. >> rose: busch and walker. bush. >> rose: we talked about the debate performance of walker but in terms of going forward, is scott walker better off today than a week ago? >> i think hest not better off
than a week ago because he continues to have the problem they all have. on the debate, he did not do anything bad, he did not really stand out on that stage, and all of them have the same problem, struggling with trump, and he has decided, walker -- i said he could straddle between the establishment and the debate, he's catering strongly to the base and making a strong play in iowa. and right now in this era, in the thicker ray of trump-ism, it's hard for people with that message to break through. >> the problem is none of these people, even jeb bush, none is well-known. >> rose: because we've all been talking donald trump. >> in that debate with 24 million watching -- >> rose: but john kasich got better known -- i'm basing this on what people said since the debate -- john john kasich. >> but this is the case with walker, rubio and stylistically
bush, if john kasich is the nominee, it will be the exact john kasich you say on the stage. he's not growing or changing. he's been in this game for decades. walker and bush have to change and grow and do what john kerry did when he ran, george bush did, get better, grow bigger. it happens every cycle. >> rose: did john kerry get better? >> yes, he did. the staff around the president who gets the nominee invariably say, wow, one day i looked up and the guy i was working for stood up taller, seemed more presidential. john kerry definitely got better as a candidate, went into iowa and became a different kind of candidate. he fought for it. right now, these guys and carly fiorina, they're having trouble growing and getting that trial by fire because, for weeks, it has been trump. >> rose: what about carly fiorina. >> what about her? >> rose: is she getting better on the campaign trail?
>> i think you saw her -- >> rose: because we read about her trust -- >> you saw her give today a very fiery, passionate and i think very authentic attack on marco rubio and the republicans and women's issues coming out of the debate. the republican party now is giving hillary clinton the thing she needs which is someone to run against. you could say she should be focused on bernie sanders. it's not going to inspire the kind of visceral impulse to go on offense that this republican party does. she thinks she's going to be the nominee and as they behave in ways to give her what her and her strategists think are rich targets, she could come out and be on offense, and that's the worst part of this stretch is as long as she's basically running against herself and the press and the email scandal, that's a bad place to b. when she has a republican party to run against, she is in a much better place and looks better than in months. >> anyone who knows her should
look at what she did today in new hampshire because it was her, and it wasn't scripted. i watched the video. i'm sure people can watch on youtube. in talking about reproductive freedom, and marco rubio and his position on knoll exceptions for rape and incest. >> rose: i didn't know that with you his position. >> that's scott walker's position. rubio's position was fuzzy up until the debate and subsequent interviews but he's taking that position and cam t campaign isn't denying it. he struck back late in the evening on her positions on late-term and partial-birth abortion. but there has been widespread chart for a couple of weeks based on her performance. >> rose: she's getting better? no. bad shape.
>> it's beyond the question of the polling. what people are alluding to is people looked to her and said she's going through the motion. it's perfunctory to her. doesn't seem like she's in this. today in the question and answer session in new hampshire, she was in the moment, she was in that campaign. >> i mean, it's rare that all three of us, some more than others, have spent time with her and listened to her talk like a normal person, it is rare she displays that in public and she did today and i think that will help her, not just against bernie sanders but against the republicans, because he needs authenticity, compassion and engagement and showed that today. she had good moments in the speeches, but in terms of being out there by herself, no script, just performing, best day i've seen her have as a candidate in this cycle. >> rose: what roll has president clinton played so far in this campaign? >> i think thus far, it has been fairly minimal. no doubt they're having many
conversations none of us are privy to. if you talkpto people who are around her in brooklyn, they say he's in and out, not a domineering presence that they hear from him occasionally, meetings now and then. it's clear she talks to him and they will hear her say things that are clearly a reflect of his views about various things. but i think the one thing right now in brooklyn, from what i could gather, they know they have a lot of problems, but that's not a problem they think they have at this moment is either he's too much or too little involved. they seem to feel okay with that at this moment. >> rose: thank you for coming. pleasure to have you here. >> thank you. always a pleasure. >> rose: we'll be back. senator claire mccaskill is here and we'll talk about her new book and the vote in the senate over the iran nuclear deal and much more. back in a moment. >> rose: claire mccaskill is here. she was the first woman from missouri elected as a united
states senator. she continues to serve in that position today. her new memoir tells the story of her life in and outside of politics. also called "plenty ladylike." i am pleased to have senator claire mccaskill at this table. welcome. >> thank you, i'm thrilled to be here. >> rose: the table welcomes you. >> i have been excited. i wanted to get at this table for a long time n. >> rose: ferguson. we just had another act of conflict there last night. >> it's really hard. this is really, really hard. a combination of things. the narrative that the media took up immediately that it was the police versus the protesters. it's not that simple. the incident of michael brown's shooting, the facts of that case, the physical evidence -- 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 with unleashed but a there is a pent-up frustration with an institutional bias in our justice system. it's real. >> rose: what's the bias? well, it has to do with marginalizing african-american people, assumption of guilt sometimes, a lack of resources to defend themselves in a system that can be byzantine and difficult to nav date -- navigate even with the best lawyer, a criminal justice system that has go gotten off te path of drug court and reentry courts 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 really weren't the facts that supported the frustration that is 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 vast majority of the african-american community wants to come together and wants to have a system that people can trust and feel like justice can, in fact, be blind, but we've got work to do on that. >> rose: but is there something -- i believe that as well. is there something about the the way, on the one hand, we train police officers and, on the other hand, what happens in neighborhoods so that young african-american men become frightened and respond to force. >> frightened and cynical and
they -- and this is one of the problems we have now with these homicide rates, people in the community don't trust the police, and they're not going to come forward and tell what happened when there is an act of crime if they don't believe the system is fair or just to anyone. so the stakes here are pretty big. the stakes here -- because our criminal justice system doesn't work if people don't have faith in it. we won't be able to hire enough police officers if people don't believe that the law is going to be enforced fairly. so this is something we have to get after. that's why you're seeing i'm optimistic, this is the first time i'm seeing some bipartisan support for criminal justice reforms. >> rose: over the years since michael brown's death. >> yes, bipartisan support for criminal justice reforms. >> rose: like what things? we had a hearing chaired by a republican on a national level looking at the prison system and the failures -- the failure of the size of sentences and is it
meaningful. we've got 95% of the people in the federal penitentiary are there for non-violent crimes, and we're spending $7 billion a year. >> rose: the president is trying to do something about that. >> he is, but the good news is so are in republicans. d anger that you see in thet protest community, it is going toward a good purpose, i believe, because i think it's forcing our attention to a problem that we need to get after. >> rose: what's changed in ferguson since the one year ago that michael brown died? >> we have reformed the municipal court system, we have acknowledged that we have to do a better job recruiting african-american officers. you're seeing -- >> rose: a year ago versus today, what are the numbers? >> i don't know the exact numbers. i know now the police chief is african-american. i know we elected more african-americans to the
ferguson city council in a community that's majority african-american, there was only one member of the city government that was african-american. we have improved that in the last year. we have done things with housing, jobs, education. we still have a long, long way to go, but there are people of good will, white and black, that are working very hard to do better in ferguson and st. louis. >> rose: how do you explain last night? >> what happened yesterday was a peaceful protest during the day, and it got very late. there were 100 or so people there. this was after midnight, around midnight. the police knew that there were people in the crowd that were armed and, of course, shots began to ring out in several different places. the young man shot by the police last night wasn't the only person shot last night. there were rival groups shooting at each other, a drive-by shooting nearby, and, so, the police were responding to that. at the time it occurreddish there were more tv cameras and
journalists than protesters. i saw that as a theme, by the way. but most of the problems in ferguson. at the beginning, that wasn't true. i saw one day there were literally four or five times as many satellite and camera crews as protesters. so the media narrative -- >> rose: what does the presence of that much media do? >> i think it fosters some folks acting out, and 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 really that kind of thing most of the time. most of the protesters yesterday and during all of the weeks of the ferguson turmoil were, in fact, peaceful. it's just a few outliers that the police have an obligation to protect everyone from the
outliers. they have to protect the crowd. they can't deescalate when someone is shooting in a crowd of people. they have to act on their training and move to try to apprehend those folks and they do so at great danger to themselves. >> rose: do we need to change the grand jury system? >> i think the federal investigation showed the grand jury system was not the problem. they reached the exact same conclusion that the grand jury did in their independent investigation. i think no matter what had been presented to the grand jury, it would have been criticized. the physical evidence was the physical evidence and as somebody who's been a prosecutor and spent a lot of time in the courtroom prosecuting cases -- >> rose: and you knew the people involved. >> and i knew what the physical evidence was saying. there was ballistic, blood, dna evidence, there was a lot of physical evidence and, when you're a prosecutor, you long for that kind of physical evidence because that's how you test the credibility of the witnesses. which testimony of the eyewitnesses matches the physical evidence and which
doesn't, and that's how you can tell about who's telling the truth about what happened because if it matches the physical evidence, it heightens the credibility of the witness. that's what the frj sorted -- grand jury and the federal government sorted out and came to the same conclusion. >> rose: you think this is getting higher on the national agenda. >> i do. i think the pattern of practice and problems found in ferguson are real and true in many police departments around the country and one thing we need to do in washington is get back to a community policing model. >> rose: putting more police in the communities per se. >> getting to know the community, walking the streets, knowing the community leader, the ministers, the people, the teachers, the kids. that works. i watched it work in the '90s during the first wave of getting back to the cop on the beat. we've got to get back to a community policing model. >> rose: i talk to a lot of my african-american friends and they all talk about the talk. they have to talk to their kid
and say, be careful, be careful. >> no question about it. >> rose: nothing tougher. no question about it. there still in this country are two standards for a young white man and young african-american, the instructions from their parents are different, and we cannot have that in terms of their interactions with police. we need to have the same loving instructions from white parents and black parents to their kids. >> rose: we'll come back to the book in a second but let's talk about big issues that are also like this, a huge issue facing the country. it is the iranian nuclear deal. you have not yet decided? >> i haven't. >> rose: chuck schumer has decided. >> correct. >> rose: some others have decided. some people from predominantly jewish communities have decided both ways, some support, some against. you acknowledge that you have been reaching out to those countries which will be affected by and have sanctions against
iran and what would they do. what have you discovered? >> well, i don't think a lot of people realize that we don't have the money. other countries are holding e of the biggest arguments against this deal is they're going to get, they say, $150 billion. it's really closer to $60 billion. >> rose: is it closer to $60 billion in toto or closer to $60 billion that they will have ablavailable to use, as the cris fear, to expand their support of hezbollah, ha assad -- >> $60 billion that could flow to iran if we did this deal. >> rose: what happened to the 150-plus? >> i think people were making estimates. >> rose: so the $60 billion is rather soon? >> not at once, but fairly
quickly. the question is the deal has problems. i don't trust iran. >> rose: the president doesn't trust iran. >> nobody trusts iran if they're smart. what happens if we don't do the deal? what did it look like if we don't do the deal? will they get the money? will the worldwide regime of gangs remain? we got to the table, everybody worked hard at it, everyone united, even putin, china, everybody. >> rose: was the goal of bringing iran to the table and getting a nuclear deal? >> correct. >> rose: nothing else, a nuclear deal? >> a nuclear deal. we got a nuclear deal that's not perfect, that's got problems, so, now, if we walk away, what about the countries that hold the money? primarily, the countries that hold the money are india, china, south korea, japan. so i'm calling those countries. >> rose: what are you finding out? >> when a i talk to the chinese ambassador, he was pretty clear to me that while they would always respect sanctions imposed by the security council of the united nations, china does not
recognize, he called them secondary sanctions imposed by the united states through their congress. so it's pretty obvious to me that china is going to fray in terms of their willingness to not do business with iran. >> rose: nerd, if this deal does not pass congress and a veto is overridden as the way the deal is destructed, china says we're not going to do sanctions anymore? >> we're not going to do any sanctions that are not imposed to the united nations. we will not work with -- and that's the way japan and other countries talk -- we're not going to warrick as closely with the united states in terms of -- we're not going to work as closely with the united states in terms of voluntarily -- people who do trade with iran voluntarily respected -- do we still have power?
yes but at some cost. we have power to say if you do business with iran, we won't do business with you, but i want to be realistic about how effective that's going to be. not be abler build back? >> that's the argument he's making. i want to check for myself, if i can. >> rose: is that what is crucial for you or is it some of the aspects of the deal that concern you more? >> i don't like some aspects of the deal burks what i'm most concerned about are they going to get $60 billion with us putting cement down their centrifuges or 60 and be three months, six months to breakout? and there's no question that they will race towards a nuclear weapon. >> rose: they're a month and a half to two months as we speak. >> correct, and they still have to do the last piece.
>> rose: and attend of the deal -- once the deal's imposed, they will be moving towards a year. >> i asked is, moniz, if we don't do the deal, will iran have a nuclear weapon by christmas? he wouldn't answer me directly yes or no, but certainly taken as a whole his answer indicated they would certainly be -- >> rose: have one nuclear weapon. >> -- careening toward that reality. >> rose: have enough fuel to do it and the delivery potential. >> the delivery potential and pieces of the actual -- they'll have enough uranium, enough to have the raw material to, in fact, do a weapon. so this is -- listen, you know, chuck schumer made his decision, the president is full-throwed id in his support for the deal. >> rose: and in his anger at schumer. >> one might gather that from looking from a distance. >> rose: yeah. but i'm trying to keep the blinders on and try to figure
out -- >> rose: does schumer have influence on other senators? >> no, he really doesn't. i don't want to say chuck schumer doesn't influence anyone. >> rose: this deal is beyond that. >> hopefully we all think we influence each other in the senate but this is a situation where this is a tough call. this is hard. this is not an easy -- >> rose: the toughest call you've had to make once you've been in the senate? >> one of the toughest. there have been others in the state i represent. there have been changes on climate change because my state is coal dependent. >> rose: these are decisions that might affect your reelek. >> and also affect costs in my state for people on fixed incomes, so those decisions have been tough for me. this is really tough because there is so much riding on this one way or the other in terms of the power of iran and the safety of i recall. >> rose: people have sat where you're sitting and hours and
hours of conversation about this and said they don't think the president negotiated well. richard haas and others thought they were too quick to negotiate. do you buy that or do you think the president simply got the best deal that was gettable at this time and could have walked away and said no deal is better than a bad deal, though my impression is he thinks this is a good deal for the united states, and that's what muniz and kerry and the president and vice president are all saying, this is a good deal, this was the best way, and the alternative is a bad deal. >> i think the 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 is played. fink you're in the negotiations and sitting across the table from the p5+1 and all the countries are represented -- and keep in mind the other countries that embrace this deal, many of
them are best friends in the world, i mean, you know, i talked to the ambassador from great britain -- >> rose: p5+1. and his concern was the diminishing of the 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. and regardless of who's president, that just for the united states, it diminishes the united states. that's something i think about, too. our friends are for this deal with the exception of israel. >> rose: right. and i think what bibi netanyahu has done in injecting partisan politics in israel is terrible for israel. >> rose: it's not to the benefit of israel to do what he has done because he's been too what? >> parpartisan.
this has been an oasis of bipartisannenship. there was always we are united in our support of i recall and the way he came in here before his election -- >> rose: two weeks before. -- it felt he was trying to get political advantage in his own election, it felt incredibly partisan. i think it was very damaging to this wall that has been built around israel in terms of bipartisanship and i think history will say it's something that i hope he pays the it mr. the price for because i don't think it has strengthened earls in this country and that's too bad because i think people are looking at this through a partisan lens. >> rose: he did not help chances of influencing the congress by speaking before congress at the invitation of the speaker? >> he helped himself with the
republicans of congress. >> rose: they pretty much decided. how many republicans do you know will vote for the deal. >> maybe one. >> rose: who will that be. maybe jeff lake. i hate to say his name out loud because i think pressure the raining down on his head. i would not say if it hadn't been said publicly, already. >> rose: will this hang on a few democratic senators in what will make the difference? >> you have to have 34. 41 would be a win in terms of the disapproval not going forward. 34 means his veto would be sustained. >> rose: explain this for everybody. in order to filibuster if the democrats are a minority, they would have to be able to keep the republicans from getting 60 votes. >> correct. >> rose: for the passage of a resolution. >> to disapprove. >> rose: to disapprove.
then if it does pass and the president vetoes it, you need two-third. >> correct. >> rose: and that's where it could really be very difficult? >> right, because that would mean the president would need only 34 of the 36 democrats. >> rose: how hard is it to get 34 democrats? >> i think he will get 34 democrats. >> rose: so this will be approved? >> i will be surprised if it's not. >> rose: first, national politics. you're very strong in support of hillary clinton. >> i am. >> rose: i want to know what the conversation was like after you went on "meet the press"? >> it was very short. it was not pleasant. >> rose: it wasn't pleasant? no. >> rose: you basically said, i have real questions not about the politics of bill clinton but about his personal life and i'm not sure -- >> i made a gratuitous comment on "meet the press" during my debate running for the senate in 2006 and it was hurtful and dumb for me to say it and i
immediately made every effort to apologize as i talk about in the book. >> rose: was it hard to get through to him? >> i didn't get through to them on the phone. >> rose: right. but i did write them both personal -- >> rose: did you just decide to write? >> i decided to write first. >> rose: did you know it immediately, within hours after you said it? >> yes. >> rose: or as soon as you said it? >> i felt good about the debate because i thought i had a strong performance and my team was elated over the debate. but i knew. my mouth gets me in trouble. i say what i think many times, and i don't have -- always have a filter. it has served me well in the long run, but sometimes, you know -- but i know when i've said something and i kind of go, ooh, why did i do that? it was unnecessary and dumb, but i said -- you know, i wrote and the first time i saw them i obviously went up to each one of
them individually and said how sorry i was. >> rose: what did they say in. they were both very professional and pleasant and cordial and nice. >> rose: you supported barack obama in 2008. >> i did. i was honest with hillary clinton. i said, the best you can hope for is me being neutral because i have worked with barack obama. he was in my state. i believe that there is something extraordinary. they both did and bill clinton, everybody helped. >> rose: i thought you said it was an important issue. i understood you to say that it was important that barack obama had been there campaigning for you and that was one of the reasons you felt like you had to support him. >> he was there more. i worked with him as a senator. we worked together on legislation, and i thought he was something aspirational for
our country. >> rose: more than that. you say your daughter said to you, you can't not support barack obama. >> correct. she knew i wanted to support him, and i was not doing it, and she confronted me, as children have a way of doing in terms of grounding us. >> rose: so here's this interesting picture of you. on the one hand, sometimes your mouth gets in the way or you say too many things unedit and unchecked -- >> correct. >> rose: on the other hand there's a certain part of you that's conservative, too. >> correct. and, you know, she figured out that the reason i wasn't endorsing barack obama had to do with the -- i knew i was going to get a backlash from women. i knew my women supporters would be bitterly disappointed. many of them were all in for hillary clinton and had been my supporters for many years and some of them for not so long and they really supported me. melanie malcolm has been terrific to me and the
organization helped me so much. i knew how upset she would be. so all of that was playing in my head and my daughter confronted me and said, wait a minute, all these years when you've missed our events you said it's about doing what's right and making a difference and you know you should be endorsing barack obama and you're not doing it because you're afraid of the political price you're going to pay. >> rose: and she was right. she was right and i called the next day and said i'm in. >> rose: your parents gave you huge amounts of confidence. >> they did. >> rose: tell me about it. you know, my mother was very embarrassing to me as a child because she was outspoken and opinionated. she would walk up to somebody, before she was on the city council, she would walk up to a city councilman at a p. the t.a. meeting and grab him by the lapel and give him what-for about whatever problem she thought he wasn't solving and we would walk around like, oh,
mother! and i realize now what an incredible role model she was for me, that she wouldn't let us be barbee queen of the prom game but a she said this is a stupid game because you get a dress and date and you don't win anything. >> rose: not for her daughter. no. >> rose: she gave you the confidence to get into politics. >> she did. >> rose: the stories, like knee pads, all the stories, how can i get the supporter of the state legislators, some of the things said to you -- >> unbelievable. >> rose: -- unbelievable. but i learned how to navigate and that's probably what i want more from anything in this book is young women embracing being strategic and ambitious. >> rose: what does strategic mean? >> i think the todd akin primary is a good example. that was high risk. it was very strategic and it worked. i think women have been h hesitt
sometimes to get into the bare knuckle world of tactical politics, which, by the way, is politics. >> rose: you don't think that about hillary clinton. >> i think hillary clinton is very smart and strategic. >> rose: i know you do. and i think that's why i think she'll be elected president of the united states. >> rose: you are out to support her this time. >> i am. >> rose: what did you say about bernie sanders? too liberal for the democratic party? >> no, i think what i said, and it caused a huge ruffle of many of the people that are my supporters, a self-identified socialist, i don't think, can get elected president of the united states. >> rose: he's for the same things you're for. what are things he believes in that you don't? >> i think 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, you know -- at times, he's talked about having the workers
all own the corporations. he sees himself as a socialist, and i see myself as a capitalist who sees we've got to fix some things that are making the playing field unlevel. >> rose: and why is he renating so well -- resonating so well in iowa and new hampshire? >> i think a lot of young people, liberal people are frustrated at the inequality gripping our nation now. i think it's good he's in and talking about it. i think in the long run it's good for hilary because she need to show she's a fighter. >> rose: some thinks beyond that. some think what is resonating is they're looking for someone who speaks truth to power. >> bernie is sincere and these are beliefs he holds deeply. very different than donald trump. don't think i'm comparing derny to donald trump. i'm not. what i'm saying is they're both tapping into people who feel
disaffected, who feel cynical about our government now who believe we have to shake things up and do things differently and that's what's going on, i think, in both camps. one is bluster and a buffoon, donald trump tarntiond other is bernie sanders who is sincere and cares deeply. >> rose: but too liberal for america. >> too liberal to get elected in november 2016. but i'm grad he's there. he's my friend. he's terrific. >> rose: he's drawing huge crowd beyond anything you might expect. >> yeah, i think he is. >> rose: what do you make of the fact that many people -- that hillary is polling negatively on the trust factor? >> well, i think people -- you've got to take it in context. everybody's all in on negative on hillary. i admire bernie because he has not been critical, especially in
the same way that the republicans have been critical. he talks around issues he thinks he contrasts with hillary, but the republicans, i mean, think of all the candidates that are doing nothing, think of all the money and power in this country that is all aimed at hillary clinton. it's formidable everything that's aimed at hillary clinton right now. >> rose: all the money and power in this country that's aimed at hillary clinton? >> look at all the money raised in super pacs so far. >> rose: on the republican side. >> correct. i think it's 200-some million dollars. the candidates have only raised, like, $78 million, and we have all the money being stockpiled in the super pacs by all these billionaires. i think close to half of the money is just from 67 people. so there is a loft big money power that wants to make sure hillary clinton does not become president. >> rose: she's late to that game of criticizing wall street, though. >> well, you know, i think she
has -- if you look at her record fairly, this is a perception thing. people who look at her record fairly, she's someone who's been there on the front lines. go back to "it takes a village." go back to her work on healthcare, her work on behalf of children, her work on behalf of raising the minimum wage. >> rose: when she was in the senate or -- >> her entire career. etch has she came out of law school and could have commanded a big sal rirks she was working for not for profit children's groups. >> rose: that's true about obama as well. >> but i'm saying this is someone who has shown throughout her career she cares deeply about. ♪ families in this country and about the issues bernie sanders cares about and if we look at her record fairly, this is not somebody who's been toady for
wall street. >> rose: it's somebody who can have a theory that somehow middle class america will see it as an avenue for them to regain a plays had in the american community. >> i think she's smart in rolling out a plan for access and affordability to college. i look for her to do the same thing for drug addiction and mental health services. it's gripping our country now. she's been talked -- talking to people and heard about it. at people's kitchen tables -- as i listened to the republican debate, none of the issues were dued. >> rose: i thought the moderator did a good job in terms of holding people's feet to the fire in what they said and follow up. >> i think so, but they didn't touch on the economic issues. >> rose: that's true, they didn't get to the economic
issues. i thought megyn's question was perfectly legitimate, didn't you? >> of course. i tell you what's shocking to me is she would pose that question with all the adjectives he used about women that showed disrespect and a lack of civility that no one else on that stage spoke of and said anything anything. that was an opening a mac truck could have driven through. why didn't anybody just speak up and say, i want to say for the record that i disagree with characterizing w men in that way in any circumstances. that's one to have the problems i have. they think we're making up the war on women, there was nothing in that debate that gave america a sense they would fight for women in any way, shape or form. >> rose: the book is called "plenty ladylike." tell me the story of the title. >> after the first debate with todd akin in 2012, he told the press i just had not been lady,
like and it stuck. i had been told by the teach for when i was young that if i didn't quit speaking so much the boys wouldn't like me, it wasn't lady like. after that and the senate race i wanted to tell women it's plenty ladylike. >> rose: your mother died a month before the election? >> a week. she campaigned with me. she was a miraculous politician in rural missouri. she could get out at a gas station, by the time we got back in the r.v., every good old boy in the place had taken a bumper sticker. she was an amazing woman. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes,.
>> explore new worlds and new ideas through programs like this, made available for everyone through contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. (mournful folk music plays) >> the centrality of the civil war in our lives and in the meaning of who we are as americans, we were able to touch a chord, and the response is based on that. >> the response to the civil war was utterly shocking and overwhelming. people were talking about it everywhere. >> of all of ken's films, i think it's the one that people remember the most and embrace the most. >> as somebody who's done history of one kind or another for years and years and years, to be able to reach that many people is just a dream.