tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg February 3, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin tonight with politics. last night, the iowa caucus raised questions about the race for republicans and democrats. senator ted cruz took first place, beating donald trump. >> tonight is a victory for the grassroots. tonight is a victory for courageous conservatives across iowa, and all across this great nation.
>> we will go on to get the republican nomination, and we will go on to easily beat hillary or bernie, or whoever the hell they throw up there. iowa, we love you, we thank you. you are special. we will be back many times. in fact, i think i might come here and buy a farm. charlie: finishing in third place, a surprising strong finish, was senator marco rubio. many establishment republicans hope he can consolidate support. on the democratic side, senator sanders fared very well against hillary clinton. she won by a narrow margin of .3%. hillary clinton: it is rarely to have the opportunity we do
now, to have a real contest of ideas. to really think hard about what the democratic party stands for, and what we want the future of our country to look like if we do our part to build it. i am a progressive. i get things done for people. charlie: joining me is the chief political analyst at abc news, frank from the new york times, david axelrod at cnn, and from washington, the editor of wood ago -- politico. i'm pleased to have all of them. let me start with democrats. it was a surprisingly close race. what does it say about hillary clinton and bernie sanders in new hampshire, and the rest of them? >> part of what it says isabel -- is about iowa. nothing ever good happens to hillary there. she approached it with caution. they pour themselves into iowa, and she ground out her vote through organization. bernie sanders inspired a lot of
people to come out. it was sort of perspiration versus inspiration. he beat her, six to one among young people. this is a cautionary note for her. this is exactly what happened with barack obama in 2008. he also did very well among working-class voters in eastern iowa, which should be a cautionary note as well as they move into other states. i don't think it changed fundamentally -- one other thing, he did very well among independent voters who cannot opt into the caucus. it is one of the reasons why new hampshire is so promising for bernie sanders, were independent voters can choose whichever primary they want to participate. he's doing very well. ultimately, he still has to solve the question asked whether he can make inroads with minority voters, of which there are very few in iowa and new hampshire. that will come in nevada and south carolina. charlie: and what does he have to do in order to make inroads into minority voters?
>> it is hard, charlie. he does not have the history of relationships. he does have a story to tell. interestingly, he rarely tells it, about his early years. at the university of chicago, he led the first sit in of the separation of black and white students at student housing. he rarely talked about himself. it is an interesting distinction between them. i think it goes to another vulnerability, potentially, for hillary clinton. bernie sanders never talks about himself. he talks about what he wants to do and challenging inequality. hillary clinton talks about her own experience. that is a big advantage for her, but it necessitates she talk about herself. when you ask voters, who believe they want a candidate who cares about people like them, bernie
sanders peter three to one -- beat her 3-1. he projects that he is intensely involved in people's problems. she projects that she is selling her own resume. charlie: i hear you. tell me about republicans, and what happened about the surprising showing, not so much about ted cruz because we knew he had a strong ground game, but marco rubio. >> i think the real development was donald trump's opportunity to start closing the field. if he had one there, he would have begun the table. that did not happen. now it is wide open. charlie:? is he wounded? >> he is, that he has to recover quickly. if he loses new hampshire, it will be a two weekend movie. marco rubio is gaining ground, and you can see it.
because of his rise, he is consolidating the establishment. which is funny, because he was a key party candidate. -- tea party candidate. i think each one of those three has a path to the nomination, but each one has a problematic struggle. donald trump has to win new hampshire. he has to get a victory. i think marco rubio has to figure out where does he win. he cannot finish in a series of second and third. ted cruz, he has to win in places that do not have evangelicals, and where the turnout is massive. charlie: what is the best state for marco rubio to win, and where can ted cruz find victory in a state without evangelicals? >> marco rubio has to hope donald trump does not run away. he has to finish second. and hope ted cruz either is very competitive in south carolina with donald trump, or beats donald trump in south carolina.
he has to hope it is totally broken up between donald trump and ted cruz. charlie: should we expect john kasich and christie and bush to gang up on marco rubio in new hampshire? > i think that is already happening today. they read the results, and saw as the only guy who could interfere with their continuing -- and saw a guy as the only one who could interfere with continuing in the race. it will be a real question, is this a rubio surge or a media search? charlie: what surprised you? >> i think rubio surprised me. there is no overstating what a strong night it was. for months, people have been
saying he is the one to watch, and there were no numbers to back it up. a new narrative of great doubt about rubio is developing. he had a lot riding on last night. he was only one point behind donald trump. compare that degree of media attention they got, compare how assaulted marco rubio with three weeks from his rivals, whereas donald trump had a long time where nobody was going after him. i think that is impressive. >> part of the problem donald trump has is he did not manage expectations during his you were to tell me he was going to get 45,000 votes, you would have said, that is great. he did not manage that well, because he basically set up a scenario where he said, i am going to win everywhere. i think as he did not win, it is problematic.
charlie: and the fact he said he was a winner, winner and yesterday he was not. > he flew all around the state saying, the polls show me winning. it wasn't even on the run up. even on the day itself he seemed to be not very connected with what was happening on the ground. charlie: not only that, he said if i don't win, this is a big waste of my time and i and a lot of money -- spend a lot of money. [laughter] >> which is probably accurate. >> i think he got into a fight in iowa he was not going to win. iowa is an organization intensive state. 63% of the voters describe themselves as evangelicals. it was a mistake to invest himself and raise expectations, as matthew said, in iowa. the real question for donald trump, who just recites poll numbers reverentially wherever he goes, that is how he starts speeches -- if he starts to lose, how long does he have an appetite to stay in the race?
i don't think he has a very voracious appetite for that. is not just the image he is trying to project. his own self image is he is a winner. he is not a winner today. charlie: david, you run big campaigns. was ted cruz' campaign, a very smart, well executed, well-thought-out political campaign? >> without question. i think he is the most strategic. i have to give marco rubio credit, because he has done a good job gaming the system, and not being everyone's second choice. that is beginning to work for him. ted cruz has-be -- has been very strategic. he talked about his father who was a preacher, he plugged into the evangelical network. he organized in a prodigious way, using the kinds of techniques that frankly, the obama campaign pioneered in
2008, and perfected in 2012. he has combined a very shrewd strategy with the technology of modern politics. now the question is, where does he take it? i think he has an opportunity in new hampshire. you have a pile up in the establishment lane, the moderate lane. he's the only guy fundamentally focused on conservative voters. although they are not a majority in that primary, the sort of voter he is accustomed to, he can do better than people anticipate in new hampshire, and then move on to south carolina where i think he will win. charlie: but is his campaign a movement? he really speak to it every turn, conservatives, we don't want to be denied again. >> i think there is a ceiling tears support -- to his support. we started with jeb bush saying you have to be willing to lose the primary to win the general.
ted cruz is the opposite. he has moved as far to the right as you can go. charlie: and his campaign are political career before? >> in his campaign, for sure. it was like going to biblical revival on his campaign. >> this is almost exactly the campaign he ran as an upstart for the united states senate against the dominant establishment. almost exactly the same. charlie: how? >> he appealed to the most conservative voters, the evangelicals, and he's doing it the same way. i was surprised most about ted cruz. i agree he is probably the most strategic and tactical. he did not give a speech last night. that was a broader look, he basically did the exact same message, very religious and conservative. it was not expensive at all. it was like, this is you i am and i will fight it out here. >> the republican base is fundamentally aggravated that -- against people in washington who
believe have compromised with the president, who are part of the process. ted cruz has stood in opposition to them, very self-consciously, obnoxiously at times. that plays with the base. i wonder with the run up to iowa, whether all this talk about how the establishment was worried about ted cruz and the establishment wanted to stop ted cruz in iowa, was not working to his benefit in some way. i think he will continue to cultivate a very aggrieved republican base for as long as he can. positions the candidates took, they cannot change, as hillary clinton did on tpp. >> hillary showed an ability to change just when you think she can't. i think we are ignoring her in terms of, she is the big story of the night besides ted cruz.
it has been said a million times, bernie sanders is a 74-year-old self-proclaimed socialist, who is little known outside of new england until six months ago. the former first lady and secretary of state, senator of new york, one of the most iconic women in this country, she just fought him to a draw. this is a very bad night for her. she comes out of it looking weak. she's going to get the democratic nomination, but what does this say about the candidates democrats are sending into the election? charlie: what does it say? >> her speech is going to be known as breathing a sigh of relief speech, that's not exactly a positive message. i am struck by the fact that both parties do seem to be in an anti-mode. that competes against our very cherished notion that the person who wins the general election is always a person who also is for
something, not merely against something. charlie: and optimistic and aspirational. remember that? >> yes, i do. if you listen to bernie sanders, whether you agree or not, he gave a very inspirational speech. you would not say the speech hillary clinton gave was inspirational. this is what her candidacy lacks. she has to find a way to translate this experience into something that means something to people in their own lives, and is not just a reflection of her life. that is what she has not yet figured out. charlie: the question for all of you, why not? at her right hand is everybody's judgment as one of the shrewdest politicians of the late 20th and 21st century. >> people like david and matthew have taught me well, the greatest truism of politics as that elections are about the future. everything i listen to her, everything about her campaign says the past. i will be the continuation of obama's unfinished business.
at a campaign event of her, it began with a highlight of her life. like a retrospective. the semiotics of her campaign do not say i am creating a new future, it is saying i have a past that makes this something i deserve. >> it's one of the key attributes everything is -- everyone is hungry for. it is the authenticity. bernie sanders conveys great authenticity. charlie: and the unemployed revolution. >> a lot of it is, he is a ruffled guy, it is who he is. there is a barrier voters don't feel they can get through with hillary clinton. whatever reason, it exists. >> she has a filter which she seems to speak, and words come out that sound very political and calculated. i think there's no doubt young people gravitated to bernie, not just because of what he is saying, and what he is advocating, but because they believe he believes it, and he's
real. she seems to be looking for the political language all the time. i do think in the final weeks of iowa, she began to do it she hasn't done in the past, which is fully embrace who she is. who she is is an institutionalist. she is a tenacious, three yards and a ground of dust -- cloud of dust person. she has to take that and stick with it, but explain how that pays off for people, and make it more frank. she talks about i did this and i did that. when we ran the obama campaign, our slogan was yes we can. not yes i can, yes we can. people want to believe they are part of a project larger than themselves and larger than you. it has to do with the future. she needs to project that. charlie: but do you think she can? >> it is striking how much we are having a circular
conversation. we were having the same conversation in 2008. remember when hillary announced in 2015 that this time around, she was trying to beat herself? she gave a very long, boring policy wonk speech that we did not like, and we did not like that, because if that is her true self, we didn't like it. i think she gets caught on both sides. david's point is really important, in the end, hillary clinton is authentic and she is an institutionalist. she is a steward of a process. she is somebody who is a good student, who wants to show up and get it right. that is not as exciting to have a guy, even a 74-year-old, in front of college students and say the revolution has begun. that is what he said. [laughter] i don't think there are a lot of americans who want a revolution. >> i think she may become president, but she is a very
weak general election candidate. she is going to go into it disliked and distrusted by a majority of the country. but the problem is the republicans are in the same place. the nominee of their party is disliked and distrusted. charlie: if it is donald trump or ted cruz, or are you including all of them? >> i have to give marco rubio a little credit. david, the presidents that have gone on to win and win two terms, are the ones that ran a general election message targeted to their party's note. -- vote. barack obama started in the primaries, and targeted it, and ran a message start to finish. charlie: yes we can. >> yes, hope and optimism. george w. bush had the same thing. and bill clinton and ronald reagan. today, marco rubio has begun to sense that if he is a hopeful
and optimistic, it may help him win. those are usually the ones that win. >> the problem in the republican party is though, to win the nomination, and optimistic message is not necessarily a winner. he has at times turned very dark. he has taken very logical -- ideological. positions on abortion, and other issues, i will rip up the iran treaty on the first day, we will grow back various rights. basically, anti-obama positions that play well in the party, but not in the general election. all of that stuff is on tape, all of that will come back . that is the problem for the republican party. the internal pressures united deal with to be the nominee of the republican party make it a very tough way to win. >> republicans may be faced with the idea that maybe the top three candidates are basically
-- tea party candidates. they were all in many ways, beloved by the tea party. we thought republicans have learned their lesson, but they are picking between three of them. >> i think they are hoping the tone marco rubio strikes will it clips his -- will eclipse his social issues. charlie: i wish i could assemble all of you every night. this is a learning experience for me. thank you david, susan, matthew and roger. we will be right back, stay with us. ♪
charlie: michael milkin is here, one of the biggest medical philanthropists in the country. this month, the senate is scheduled to evaluate the 21st century cures bill which would accelerate regulators review of new medical treatments and boost funding for the national institutes of health, by nearly $9 billion over five years. i am pleased to have michael milken back at the table. welcome. where are we? i want to talk about public health and where we are in terms of combating major illness in 2016.
>> you have had a front row seat in the last 20 yard -- 20 odd years of amazing developments. with the help of thousands in march of 1998, the tripling of the national cancer institute budget, and more in the nih budget. this is paying off and we are seeing the benefits today. there have been many heroes along the way. one of them was elizabeth glaser, who founded the pediatric aids foundation. an unbelievably brave woman. she caught hiv-aids from a transfusion. she passed away. her daughters passed away. her son lives today.
but the legacy today, a woman has a 2% chance of passing aids under her child due to modern science, versus over 90%. it has changed the world. two thirds of everyone living with aids in the world live in sub-saharan africa. we are going to see life expectancy in sub-saharan africa potential he double -- potentially double in one generation. it is an amazing thing to see. charlie: because of the development of -- michael: treating aids, not passing it on to your children, dealing with other diseases. median age in uganda is 15. the median age for all of sub-saharan africa is 19. many of these diseases, by applying treatments and public health, diseases we now have solutions for, they will be able
to deal with many other challenges of life, but not what has been killing them for the last century hopefully, they will have good governments. charlie: i just read, because of what is happening today, the mosquito is the most heinous, disease causing species on the planet. michael: well, it is passing on disease. but modern science and technology -- and it is an issue of what we are going to do. you can develop ways a mosquito cannot breed. the question is, if you eliminate mosquitoes, what else have you done? what other roles have they played in our -- in life. we need to make sure we have figured out, when you eliminate
what they are doing negatively, is there anything they have been doing positively? obviously, the questions surrounding a virus in south america and central america, and what is going to occur here, surrounds with mosquitoes today. there are two forms. do we know how to stop a disease? known solutions today. and much of what has occurred in africa and south asia has been applying things we know, like the polio vaccine, etc. the other element is, there are thousands of diseases we don't know the solution to today. but we are on the doorstep today of bringing those under control. so if you remember, the first sequencing of the human genome took 13 years, and cost over $3 billion.
charlie: by the college of the president of the national institute of health. >> some young phds sequenced a genome in seven seconds in the fourth quarter of last year. down at georgia tech. charlie: therefore, the sequencing of the human genome is all of a sudden becoming affordable and fast? michael: my guess, within a year or two, you will not be treated for many life-threatening diseases until you are sequenced. i believe in the next 12 months, we will discover, which we already know from our scientists, that you don't have breast cancer, you have a mutation. you don't have prostate cancer, you have one out of 28 types of mutations. we know that for many as many of 70% of ovarian cancers, they had similar mutations to a form of prostate cancer.
now know that for maybe 70% of ovarian cancers that they have similar mutations to a form of prostate cancer. there has been an effective drug for that cancer that women will be taking. we also know those with a certain gene with a risk for breast cancer those mutations they have also matched with a form of prostate cancer. we will be treating you for your disease not the location of it. many of our scientists will relearn about treatment because we will be able to sequence you and tell you what is your disease not where your disease is located. you will know the diseases genetic makeup. it would change the way we treat people and one of the greatest advances we have had has been the reopening of phase two failed clinical trials. only 4% to 3% or as little as 1%
of people had a positive outcome. all those drugs were never approved. we didn't know who they would work on. now when you reopen them and sequence them and you find in the case of cystic fibrosis if you have this mutation this pill works for you. it will not work for anyone else. you now know what a high degree of accuracy that you can approve things that may only 1% of the population as a positive response for. because you know it will work. we are so optimistic about death rates dropping from melanoma and prostate cancer and other kinds of cancer. other types of life-threatening disease. charlie: combating cancer with immunotherapy.
michael milken: it is hard not to be excited about it. i first engaged with it in 1995 or 1996. jim was at berkeley in his funding was running out and his concept was our immune system is smarter than any disease. it is been doing a fantastic job almost our whole lives. somehow it has missed this mutation. if we could energize our immune system or train it to kill that disease or make that disease look like the measles or some of -- some other disease. when it be great someday if we
substantially had a reduction in chemotherapy and we just energize our immune system. charlie: what we know about genes. michael milken: understanding our genes, understanding our disease. it is more the second area let's call it precision medicine. we are going to define who you are at a molecular level and what your issue is that we will deliver something. immunology will energize your immune system to deal with your disease. the third area is what is happening in stem cells. those three will revolutionize the way we are treated. charlie: what is your role in all this? what is faster cures?
michael milken: cure all life-threatening diseases. after the government increase in funding between 98 and 2004. what can we bring to bear to accelerate the solutions for life-threatening diseases. it involves the building of disease specific research organizations. the training of those groups. it involves a lot of education in congress and government. convening of our leaders to solve a problem. try to get academics and disease groups and pharmaceutical companies.
we have a conference every year here in new york. party for cures. everybody comes together to see what can we do to accelerate the process. what our major efforts was to educate and show the importance of getting the government to approve the national center for advancing translation of science. that was approved. they got through the senate with the leadership of harry reid and through the house with the leadership of eric cantor. it was signed by the president. no one took credit for it. it has a chance to greatly accelerate science. i think there is a promise that this enormous investment by americans and others around the
world is paying off as meets needs technology. computers and million times faster. storage costing one billionth of what it costs. focusing on public health. 50% of all economic growth in the world has come from public health advances and medical research. charlie: we talked about collaboration of academics and philanthropy and government and the private sector. both cures and preventions. what is this conference about on march 1? michael milken: the same coordination that occurred in medical research you want to see in public health. the world's leading schools of public health, the people that are training the next public health officials.
instead of competing with each other how can they work out together to create best practices. consumer products companies. unilever, nestle, kraft, coke, pepsi. we can sequence your genome and we can see what the genes are in your body. if i am a consumer products company and someone said taking this product was doing damage or was doing good, well prove it. tell me what is happening. because we can sequence your biome we can start to see the changes in your body just a couple of months from what you
are eating and what you are drinking so that the consumer product company, the retailers, the products they are selling, the insurance companies, the parent companies what are they serving in the cafeteria? not everyone has healthy vegetables and fruit in the cafeteria. charlie: what you are looking for this conference is to focus on public health and better approaches to issues like obesity, global health security, ebola, zika virus, hypertension, chronic diseases, brain disorders. those kinds of domestic issues. as well sustainable development efforts. the wide compass of public health. michael milken: 70% of all health care expenditures, the largest part of our economy, our
-- are lifestyle related. how you live your life. charlie: this ought not be a part as an issue. michael milken: it isn't. we should get collaboration. this is in one group against another. as a group we have enough knowledge now and we can prove it due to molecular science and technology that we can help you help yourself. what is so amazing is the number one cause of obesity is depression. it's not diabetes and is not cancer. there are so many challenges. we have solutions to obesity and what we need to do is to have an approach where everybody is involved in that process. charlie: thank you for coming. michael milken: the conference
drug war over the past decade. a new documentary shows the struggle to end the violence. here is the trailer. ♪ there is an imaginary line out there between right and wrong, good and evil. i believe what i'm doing is good. what i'm standing up against is evil. it is the cartels. they are terrorizing their own country. now they're starting to do it over here.
nothing about. i knew nothing about the drug war. there has been so much coverage of the drug wars in the media and many glorified in the media and tv shows. what i want to do with cartel land is to put a human face on it. through the eyes of the very people who are affected by the violence. i reached out to the journalists. he introduced me to a group called arizona border recon. my father sent me an article about a group of citizens who are rising against the cartel on the mexican side. they are associated with a larger group.
i knew i wanted to create this parallel portrait of vigilantes on both sides of the border. i thought was going to be there for about one or two weeks but it turned into nine months. i am not a war reporter. i've never been in any situation like this before. it was absolutely terrifying journey, i was in shootouts between the vigilantes and the cartels and the meth labs in the dark desert night. places of torture. places i never could have imagined i would be in. part of what happens in the story is that at first it seems like good versus evil, everyday citizens rising up against this
evil cartel. in the face of ineffective government. over time, that's the romantic story. over time the lines became blurry. that is part of the unfortunate tale of what i experienced at least which was this goal to get rid of the knights templar cartel created a vacuum and somebody needed to fill it. we see by the end of the film the cycle repeats itself. charlie: how close could you get? not in terms of seeing the action but getting them to trust you so that they are unrestrained and uncensored and what you hear and say. matthew: i was down there for nine months.
so much of what i was able to get was through the rapport that i was able to create with my characters. the time that i spent to let them become comfortable with me being down there. that includes our main character jose manuel morales, the leader of this group. people on all sides of it. everything in between. one of the things i tried to do was to tell them i have no agenda no goal in mind, no preconceived notions of what i the story to be. i'm here to find the story. that allowed me to get in with all different sides. charlie: is a story that everybody is corruptible? matthew: i don't know if everybody is corruptible. it does corrupt some. i don't think everyone was corrupted.
there are many many good forces. what drove me to keep going down there and make the film was that i fell in love with the people. i was deeply saddened by what i saw. the government was failing to protect them. they were living in a lawless society. for many reasons. you really felt, the title of the film is not an accident. you felt like you were in cartel land. a place controlled by the cartels. they acted with impunity. they controlled every aspect of society from the local judicial system to local police, they extorted everyone from the local tortilla makers to multinational corporations. money and fear.
that is why this movement rose up. in some ways it is an incredible timely story. in some ways it is a timeless story. it is hard to say whether the cartel is always going to win. i believe in the goodness of humanity. i wanted to believe in the story. unfortunately my optimism was beaten out of me over the nine months i was down there. i hate to say that but i think it is a deeply complex problem. we are all complicit in some way in the problem. one of the things i tried to do in this film was you become obssessed with isis and always conflicts. there is a war that is happening in the country just south of us. 25,000 people disappeared, never heard from again. including journalists.
and they have been working there a long time trying to tell stories. we are connected to this war. we are funding the war through our consumption of drugs. i really wanted to shine a light on it. provide a window into this world and to see how it is affecting everyday people. at first he was a bodyguard essentially for a main character the doctor. ultimately about halfway in the film the doctor gets into a plane crash.
he almost dies. he is forced to going to hiding in mexico city and recover. in almost shakespearean way, papa smurf did the best he could. what ended up happening many of the auto defenses started to fight the power. with the dr. gone. the doctor was the glue that held the factions together. the government started to infiltrate the group. as the doctor says the old roman concept of divide and conquer. the group became fractured. that is what led to their downfall. charlie: this is clip number two. the doctor calling on citizens to arm themselves. ♪
much taller than most of the people in the town. everyone knew who he was. he decided to take off the mask. he became the de facto leader. charlie: is part of the story that you don't know in the end who you're talking to? matthew: as a filmmaker that was the scariest part. by the end i really didn't know who i was dealing with. i did know if it was the cartel or the auto defenses or some version of all three. i don't know who owns whom. i don't know who is paying who. the mexican government basically
legalized the new cartel. one of the sad stories is that unfortunately what everyone feared which was anarchy and revenge has taken place. killings continue, kidnappings continue. criminal enterprises. it is incredibly resource rich. if you go out tonight and have a taco the avocados probably came from this region. if you do meth that is from this region. charlie: thank you so much for joining us. see you next time. ♪
with an update of the top stories. a sharp sure -- a sharp surge. there is a rescue plan by taiwan foxconn technology. that would be a surprise for the japanese. they have denied that they have opted for foxconn's bid. a full-year forecast for the commodity market. cheap oil and is selloff of u.s. credit.