tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg November 9, 2017 10:00pm-11:00pm EST
♪ brexit from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charlie: democrats won elections city onnia, new york tuesday. and virginia. also swept elections in the virginia state legislature and won a tight race in new hampshire. erry, susan, and hugh join me. i am pleased to have them here. what happened?
republicans got wiped out in virginia. and i mean a total and complete wipeout. when one looks at what happened in the virginia house and delicates, they were only a headed by one when the vote counting was done. of the depthsense of the projection the republicans ran yesterday. gillespie has recently run in virginia. county -- latham county is one hour outside of dca very wealthy. that county ine a senate race by 500 votes and by 23 thousand last night in the county. this is a stunning repudiation.
there is a paternity suit over who is the orphan, but most will agree it is president trump. >> we will come back. what happened? this was an election that was designed to send a message to the white house. he has lost the support of those light of those key suburbanites, better educated white voters -- white voters and asian-americans. sex and here in new york. what happened? >> we saw the emergence of an antitrust coalition. millennial's, minorities, suburban women, and single women. single woman and unmarried women went for ralph northam, over at gillespie by 77-20 2%.
that is a stunning margin for any progressive group. what you see there is an energized base for the democrats. theseutionary note -- figures represent big turnout in what should be areas of virginia where the democrats ran up big numbers. but you see the democrats running up big numbers in central and southern virginia. this still looks like trump country. running a big numbers in areas democrats should win is great. eastham these democrats present a positive case, -- did these democrats who won present a positive case rather than just a case against the president? hugh: i don't think so. i am a virginia voter. i voted for ed gillespie, full disclosure. the house of delegates, that is a measure of not much because it is a 30-day job in one year and
60-day job in another and pays $18,000 a year. it is not something on which a lot of effort, time or effort is -- or strategically is invested. the northam-gillespie campaign, it depended on where you were in the state what kind of campaign you saw. up in the suburbs of virginia where i live, it was a campaign about tax rates and about traffic. in other places, about confederate memorials. it was a melange of different campaigns. i find it difficult to characterize governor-elect northam other than a gentleman in the southern style and ed gillespie as other than a gentleman in the southern style. they are both very affable. neither of them are trumpian. neither of them are like secretary clinton with long and fixed images of them in the public. i don't think there is one campaign we can tee off on. charlie: what about the fact that the gillespie commercials in the last several weeks of the campaign seemed like trumpian commercials? susan: i think that ed gillespie
was trying to be trumpian without being trump. trying to get trump's issues out there without embracing the president too closely. it did not work for many. it worked to galvanize some of his voters. but it did not get him even near a majority of the vote. it turned off some people. ed gillespie's tough ads on immigration and gangs helped to galvanize democratic voters that in some ways were not that enthused. the progressive wing of the democratic party was not that enthused about ralph northam who is a pretty moderate guy. he voted for george w. bush twice for president. i think the fact ed gillespie used some of trump's cultural issues got some of those voters out. charlie: hugh, if gillespie had run as a moderate republican the place that he came, moderate to conservative republican, would he have fared better? hugh: it was a nasty primary. he could not do it. he ran against a pure trumpian candidate. i interviewed ed gillespie and
number of times on my show. he always talked about jobs, 50% tax cut or a 5% tax cut -- i can't remember. that is part of the problem probably. and in the military buildup possibly for northrup. it was a very a, b, c republican center-right campaign. there may have been other ads playing in other demographics but i think he ran as a traditional republican. some of the trump critiques of him is that he did not embrace the president. part of the problem, the republican party as a whole has an image problem. they have not gotten anything done in the united states congress. zero, zip. other than the confirmation of justice gorsuch. this tax bill becomes a must-have if they want to avoid having what happened to their republican congress what happened to the virginia house of delegates. charlie: has the president responded to these election results yet? gerald: well, he has responded in somewhat typical fashion by essentially distancing himself from ed gillespie, the loser. the president does not embrace losers very much. saying essentially ed gillespie
did not really embrace me. he worked hard but not fully embraced me and that is the reason he lost and we republicans are going to win plenty more because the economy is great. and we will see how that works going forward. there may be something to that. the economy is great right now and that tends to work to the benefit of the party in power. there is one other issue we have not discussed yet, which was important last night -- health care. it was on the minds of voters more than any other issue and it worked to ralph northam's benefit. and it suggests there is a conundrum on health care for both parties, but more for republicans now than perhaps we thought. people don't like obamacare, it is unpopular. they are scared about the world without obamacare at least as much. i think health care turned out once again much as in 2016 and 2012 to be a big issue and one that probably worked to the
democrats' benefit. charlie: does that mean the republicans should not have touched health care until they had infrastructure, tax reform and maybe then turned to health care? gerald: i think you can certainly make an argument to that effect. i think you can also argue if they were going to touch health care, they should have gotten it taken care of and disposed of quickly and moved people into a place where they can feel comfortable and that clearly has not happened. we are basically in the middle of the river with republicans on health care and that is not a good place to be. the currents are pretty strong. so having engaged on health care and not having accomplished anything on health care is the worst of both worlds. charlie: some say it is also dangerous ground when you give something to somebody and they like it in part and then you take it away and they don't like you in part. hugh: that is absolutely true. they are facing this in ways and means as we speak, charlie. the markup is going late tonight. the divide over whether or not to get rid of the obamacare mandate ought not to be difficult. republicans should get rid of a mandate that has been unpopular, on which they have promised to act on over eight years now. the senate is thinking about doing it led by tom cotton. the president has endorsed it.
the perfectly executed half charge gets a kill in the middle of the hill. that is a variation on gerry's analogy. it is absolutely true. they have got to get their act together because they are not delivering, which demoralizes the traditional republican electorate, at the same time that the trump campaign -- this is a coalition government. the congressional republicans and the trump republicans. both sides are blaming each other tonight and not without good cause on both sides of that coalition. they both need wins. they both need to come together and win things. a year is a long time. two more data points. the republican won handily in utah in an open congressional seat just like they have had in every other red, off-year congressional election. and ohio measure number one, the get tough on crime measure, won overwhelmingly, 84-16. what you see, the constellation that appears depends on the stars you look at. those are two more data points we should not pass by. charlie: what does this do for the democrats other than make them believe that something might be really, really possible in 2018?
susan: i don't think it solves all of the democrats' problems. democrats are still divided, but we did see progressive democrats turn out for a moderate candidate in virginia. liberal turnout was up eight percentage points from four years ago even though the candidate was more moderate than the candidate who ran four years ago. that is something that is encouraging to democrats but that is not to say this is a party united. charlie: that's also a question on whether they were mobilized against something or for something. susan: yeah, that's right. history tells you you need to be for something, you can't just be against something. gerald: i would point to one other group that was mobilized -- millennials. there is always a question whether they vote in big numbers, midterms or off-year elections at all. there is a group called nextgen america, which picked nine precincts in virginia around college campuses to see what happened to turnout yesterday. in all nine of the precincts, turnout was up over four years ago, the last gubernatorial election.
and in most cases, up a lot. in a couple of the precincts in richmond around virginia commonwealth university, it was more than double four years ago. there are some signs that millennials got energized and did show up. ralph northam was not their kind of guy, necessarily. millennials are progressives will want a party that moves to the left more than others in the party are going to be comfortable with. charlie: let me ask you about two people. donald trump, what does he do now? hugh: i think the president has to take the message away from this that he is not winning the future elections. his style of governing is going to generate more turnout in the blue states and not as much turnout in the red states. it has been said that blue is getting darker blue, and red is getting darker red. but there aren't enough reds left demographically to win his congress. he could become a loser and he has got to emulate what he does abroad. he has given his best speeches in saudi arabia, poland and yesterday in south korea.
and if the president imports into the united states a little bit of what he exports abroad, he would be a lot better president and the party would be in a lot better position. no way not to read this election as all about the president. charlie: say that again. hugh: no way to read the results of yesterday, other than in virginia, other than a referendum on the president. charlie: go ahead. susan, before you say that, let me quote you from a column. you have said "trump has changed washington more than washington has changed him." susan: this is not what we expect to happen with new presidents, especially new presidents without a lot of experience. this president has not been reshaped by this town but this town is a different place now than it was a year ago today when he won the election. it is faster, it is louder, it is fiercer. the divisions are wider. he has had a huge effect, but not to the extent he has been able to deliver on the campaign promises he made.
you look at what happened yesterday, democrats are encouraged after being spooked by donald trump's victory a year ago, they are increasingly convinced they will be possibly able to win control of the house. donald trump does not know what trouble is like until the house or the senate is under opposition party control. that is a different landscape for him. charlie: when you look at tax reform, gerry, is it likely to pass? is it going to be that close? what has to happen for it to pass? whatever you want to call it -- tax cuts, tax reform. gerald: all predictions have been perilous for the last two years, so i go there with great trepidation. i think the imperative to do something on taxes is so high for republicans. it was high before yesterday and higher now. i think they will find a way to get something done. what that something is i don't know exactly. it may in the end more look just like a plain-vanilla tax cut than real tax reform.
it might not happen by the end of this year. it may spill over into early next year. i do think that in the end they have to get something done on this and i think they are on a path to accomplish something probably almost entirely on party lines, but at this stage in the game, that would be fine for republicans. if i had to put money on the line, i would say they will get something done. charlie: will this result in a challenge to donald trump or was there going to be a challenge to donald trump in the primaries regardless? hugh: what a great question. yes, i think john kasich will run against him one way or another. i want to add this comes after three deadly hurricanes, fires that were deadly, after the las vegas massacre, after the new york terrorism act, after the sutherland springs massacre. i don't think we ever had an election after two months of sequential disasters of this sort and after the confrontation and collisions that susan described and the stakes that gerry laid out there. i think the prediction business
is a dangerous thing to be in. the republicans have to pass this tax plan, but as a former member of congress john campbell said to me -- and the confederacy had to win gettysburg. sometimes you lose what you have to win. charlie: thank you, hugh. thank you, susan. thank you, gerry. we will be right back. ♪
she has worked on every presidential campaign from 1976 through 2000. she served as al gore's campaign manager. she has twice served as interim chair of the democratic national committee. her new book takes a critical look at the 2016 presidential campaign. it is called "hacks: the inside story of the break-ins and breakdowns that put donald trump in the white house." i'm pleased to have donna brazile back at this table. welcome. donna: it is good to be back. charlie: i don't know where to start. i want to come to the book in just a moment, but what is the state in your judgment of the democratic party today? donna: you know, you cannot separate the state of the democratic party from the state of our democracy. for two reasons -- one, what we saw in 2016 was a disruptive political season. it was a season in which voters were taking a stand against the establishment in both political parties. inside the democratic party, we
had bernie sanders who was an outsider taking on the democratic insider hillary clinton. likewise in the republican party, you saw donald trump take on many of the so-called insiders. i think we are at a point in the democratic party similar to the republican party where the party needs to sit down and figure out not just what are our core values, what are we saying to the american people? how do we get rank-and-file democrats to get back on board? more importantly, we need to look ahead in terms of the 2018 midterm elections and 2020 elections to ensure that we have new voices and fresh blood to the table. charlie: what's happened? you had barack obama for eight years. you had bill clinton for eight years. we had george bush for eight years in between the two of them. but you have had democrats constantly losing state legislatures and state houses. some people say that is redistricting, but it is evidently something about the message. donna: it is gerrymandering. it is also the republicans investing in down ballot races. not just focusing on the
so-called battleground states or the 18 states and the district of columbia that leads to 270 electoral votes. the difference in my judgment is that the republicans spend money not just recruiting but training candidates at every level, while on the democratic side -- charlie: they had a plan. donna: the democrats, we have failed to move beyond what i call beltway politics. we focus all of our attention on winning back the house or the senate and winning the white house, but not focusing on winning legislative seats across the country. charlie: so the democratic national committee has failed the democratic party? donna: well, look, howard dean had a 50-state strategy. once president obama got into office, we dropped that. that was a huge mistake because we didn't have resources to go into states like mississippi and louisiana. look at what happened earlier this year where we had congressional candidates in georgia and kansas, south
carolina and montana. they did very well but over the last four years, we probably put less than $30,000 or $40,000 in those states. we put more in georgia because georgia became an expansion state. i think the party -- tom perez is doing a good job, the new chairman of the dnc -- i believe the party has to invest in critical races, down ballot races in the future. charlie: how could barack obama be such a good politician and be so unsuccessful? donna: barack obama came up against the establishment too. he was an outsider. he was not a democratic insider. charlie: but barack obama, in 2009, when he began governance. donna: right. i remember that. charlie: you should. he won by a huge majority. donna: that's correct. charlie: he had defeated the clintons. donna: that is correct. charlie: showed some political savvy there? donna: that's right. charlie: the majority in the
house and in the senate. and so you would assume, therefore, that this was a time to build, to spread out, to organize your message. donna: consolidate your gains. charlie: consolidate your power. donna: as you come up. charlie: why didn't he do that? donna: he faced a terrific head win as a leader of the country, and also as, i believe, the leader of our political party. because it wasn't just the policies and the obama agenda and obama coalition. i think the party after his victory decided that they wanted to go back to doing things the old ways, and as a result of that, we started losing political seats. charlie: he was the leader of the party. donna: i understand. but he was invested, and the team was invested in osa. his own "version of the democrats' grassroots apparatus." that split the party. that caused a lot of divisions within the party. but nevertheless, he won reelection in 2012. charlie: but, see, that's the point. some will argue that what he did was, in fact -- and also be true, you know, with bill clinton, i assume, and george bush when he was reelected. if you are running again, your primary focus is to get reelected. donna: absolutely.
charlie: you don't get reelected , nothing happens. donna: to get back to 270. charlie: and you assume that the more -- the bigger your victory is, the more democrats you'll pull in. donna: that's correct. charlie: so that's -- and if you're out there using the most modern political techniques, that should help you as well. above all that. donna: yeah. but if you recall, in 2014, because i was out there, again, helping my party, many democrats ran and they ran away from president obama. they told him not to campaign. charlie: that was the last two midterms that he faced. donna: that was in 2014. so, i think president obama faced a dilemma in helping the democratic party. he encouraged the party to take him out loans to help the dccc, the democratic congressional campaign committee, the democratic senatorial campaign committee. i don't want to sound like i'm an inside-the-beltway person, but i am. but he took out loans -- charlie: you sound like it. i'm guilty. donna: yeah. i'm guilty as charged. but he took out loans to help the party, to rebuild the party, to re-staff the party.
but at the end of the day, it left the party in a lot of debt. charlie: here's my point about the book. this is a fascinating book, "hacks: the inside story of the break-ins and breakdowns that put donald trump in the white house." you have a couple things here, and this appearance this morning on my show with my wonderful colleagues, were trying to get you to confirm what you had said in book. donna: right. charlie: they could not get you to confirm. gail thought you were walking away from the book. nora was raising questions as to what, in fact, about the democratic party, and whether it was not a fair primary election. donna: right. charlie: do you believe it was fair or not? was the question nora asked you. donna: the primary is run and maintained by the state him and him government and the state party, and i concluded -- when i told bernie i would figure out if the system was rigged, i concluded that i found no evidence that it was rigged. although, some people from bernie camp believed it was rigged. i also concluded that there was
a cancer inside the party. charlie: what was the cancer, which was a question that was not asked this morning. donna: well, the cancer was the joint fundraising agreement that had an addendum or memorandum that gave secretary clinton, who by the way, and i said it this morning, she bailed the party out. she helped to raise sufficient money to put the dnc back on -- what i call back on its course. charlie: but you're saying the cancer made it more favorable to her. donna: well, the cancer was donna: well, the cancer was taking away of the power of the chair of the party and the office of the party. i was an officer of the party. charlie: giving the power to the person who is providing the money. donna: thank you. and hiring a staff. charlie: yeah. i found that to be odious. you're saying the party needed money. it favored, by giving power to secretary clinton, right? i mean is that a fair statement? donna: it's a fair statement. charlie: is that what you're saying in the book? donna: that's what i said.
i said in the book that i found that to be odious and that i wanted to get rid of the cancer, but i could not kill the patient. charlie: but the cancer made it an unfair primary election for intenders, and you did find the evidence. donna: i found the cancer that i believed would have led people to believe that the dnc was tilting the scales for one candidate over the other. but i found no evidence of rigging, no evidence that dnc staffers rigged the california primary or rigged the -- charlie: what does "rigged the primary" mean to you? donna: well, to rig is a term that donald trump used. charlie: it sounds like a criminal term. donna: so it sounds like -- no, it's a term that donald trump used. and because donald trump was out there saying, "the process is rigged." now let me tell you what is rigged. charlie: but he also basically said that, in fact, he wouldn't necessarily accept the judgment of the vote because it might be rigged. donna: that's correct. and so the word "rigged" came from donald trump. charlie: exactly. donna: and what i said in the book was i found no evidence of rigging. what i did find evidence was a cancer that i would not -- because -- charlie: but the cancer was
something that gave more power to the clinton people than to the bernie sanders people because they loaned them more money -- raised more. donna: well, they were able to get the dnc out of debt, and they put the dnc on -- i'll use -- in the book, i describe it as the starvation diet. and i didn't like it. charlie: yeah. so today -- today -- now, go back to my first question. is there a fundamental battle for the soul of the democratic party taking place now, and if there is, who is on what side? donna: i do believe, internally, the party has to come out of this, the 2016 election stronger. we have to unite. and i think the place to start is with a unity commission that tom perez has put together. i was not able to put the unity commission because i was an interim chair. i was not a permanent chair, and i wanted the permanent chair. this table now includes people from both the sanders campaign, as well as the clinton campaign. and they're going to take a more forensic examination of what the party is doing. that's number one. number two, on the message side,
i think the party has to come up with something that is clear, concise, and compelling so that him and concise, and compelling so that ordinary americans understand what the democratic party -- you say, what does the republican party stand for? well, let's just say the republican party before donald trump, we knew, you know, less government, you know, less taxes, etc. the democratic party -- charlie: and defense spending. donna: and defense spending. the democratic party has to, you know, get it down to opportunity, opportunity, opportunity. but we have to come up with a message that is compelling, concise, that people know. charlie: it's primarily an economic message, isn't it? donna: it's always going to be an economic message, a fairness message, a message about opportunity, about fairness, and level the playing field, so that every american, regardless of your zip code, has an opportunity to live out his or her life. charlie: steve bannon said to me in an interview that anybody who plays identity politics rather
than economic politics will lose. you probably agree with him. donna: i agree with him, to a certain point. but as a black woman who grew up in the segregated south, in my lifetime i've seen the doors of opportunity finally open. and it is my -- charlie: because we recognized the termination and realized that we had to take the responsibility. donna: right. and also as a black woman growing up in the segregated deep south, it took us until 1965 for people of my generation and my parents' generation to have access to the ballot box. and so identity politics is rooted in our history, but it's not rooted in such a way that we -- we don't use it in the democratic party to divide. we use it to say that you are welcome, that you have a place at the table, that you are part of this american family. so, i disagree with mr. bannon in terms of is that the only message? no. we have -- i thought hillary had a good strong economic message, but nobody heard it because everybody was talking about her damn e-mails. charlie: is that right? so that's what happened.
donna: they heard it, and the russians made -- charlie: her whole e-mail controversy has since prevented about what she would do for the middle class and the lower middle class. donna: every day, i heard her message. i heard it on the conference calls. i heard it through the material that was being put out. but you never heard it on tv. charlie: there seems to be, clearly -- and once you wrote this book and all these things came out and we all were on twitter over the weekend, in one way or another, because of things that you had said, and they, therefore, the democrats, who work for hillary clinton, probably mook and john podesta, and some 70 or 80 others said she's talking about a campaign we don't know. donna: well, write your own book. i mean, they were in the campaign. i didn't run that campaign. charlie: they say you don't know what her campaign -- their campaign was and the campaign that you ascribed to them was not their campaign. donna: well, then, they should write their postmortem. it was a campaign. charlie: well, it is a postmortem shattered. donna: well let me just -- let me just say this. 56 congressional campaigns, 19 state and local campaigns, seven presidential campaigns, 49
states, i know campaigns. i may not know a lot about, you know, anything else, but i know campaigns. charlie: right. donna: when you walk into a campaign and you are told that everything is under control, is under control, that madam chair, you don't have to worry. charlie: is that what they said to you? donna: we're going to win this, yeah. a year ago, charlie, i was up here in new york, and i was up here saying that we have problems. i'm already hearing from voters who are at the -- who are at the polls and their names have been taken off the list. i'm hearing from voters in detroit that they still need yard signs because they're trying to build up enthusiasm. and i would go to brooklyn, i would come up to brooklyn and say we need help. charlie: brooklyn is the headquarters of the clinton campaign. donna: i used to call it the high command of brooklyn. because, look, i worked in nashville for al gore. and i said, we need help, we need money, we need resources. and you know what they would tell me? don't worry, madam chair, don't worry. and i'm like, i am worried.
i am worried. i worried every time i left washington, d.c. to travel to florida, colorado, pennsylvania. i worried. i worried when i heard from my family all across the country, there are no yard signs. charlie: you're saying they were too complacent. they took it for granted? donna: i think they believe they had it wrapped up. i do believe that. i think they looked at their computer models and they said, it's fine. see, i come from the old school where i want to know. i want to know charlie rose, and i want to know talk to you. charlie: right. donna: i want to hear from you. charlie: you want to hear where i'm going to be on election day, if, in fact, i'm a democrat. donna: right but also independents. i want to know. i want to hear from you. i don't want to look at some computer and determine that charlie rose is going to vote for me. i'm old school. i'm old fashioned. i plead guilty. i want to say, will you vote for me? will you support my candidate? charlie: did you think she was going to win? or did you think the outcome was in doubt or questionable or not necessarily wrapped up? donna: here's what i believe. him when i left the set of abc that morning, and got a phone call two hours later to become chair, i was excited about helping hillary clinton. i've known hillary clinton for over 30 years. charlie: you wanted to see --
donna: wanted to see it? i gave up everything. i gave up everything but teaching my students at georgetown, because i thought it was unfair to quit. half but i gave up everything. i traveled. i can't tell you, i just traveled nonstop. i wanted her to win. the last thing i wanted, and i said this in the book, the last thing i wanted was to see donald trump in the white house. i knew if hillary got into the white house that she would take on the russians, she would clean up our democracy, and, yes, clean up her political party. i wanted her to win. charlie: why did he win? donna: they saw him as the outsider who would go into -- come to washington, d.c. and remove the establishment. they wanted the same type of leader that they saw in barack obama. change. they saw him as a change agent. they saw her as part of the status quo. i also believed that the russian interference played a role in meddling in our election, so discord. it kept our primary going on, and -- charlie: do you believe it affected the outcome of the election? donna: you know, that's still in doubt, because the corruption -- i also identify in the book that we didn't get the russians out of our system until october 21, october 21.
they kept coming back. charlie: you mean they kept hacking and hacking and hacking. donna: they kept hacking. i mean, they had a sophisticated military-style cyberattack. charlie: so, if president obama had been more aggressive based on what he knew to say that the russians, we have evidence from the normal authorities that i look to, the fbi and the cia and the national security agency, we have evidence that the russians are trying to affect our democracy. donna: he went to the i had congressional leadership, and it was my understanding that they told him not to tip the scales. charlie: hillary clinton believed he did not do enough. said so in her book. donna: well, again, see, she's right to say that. i believed that more should have been done to protect our democracy. and, personally, as someone who had to go to work every day with death threats, to get up every morning knowing that i had to protect my staff, my colleagues,
my friends -- cap charlie: death threats? donna: death threats. i mean, people who -- charlie: from? donna: who knows where these trolls and bots came from. you know, i -- charlie: these were internet death threats? donna: they were internet. they were personal. they were on my phone. they came every which way. and, you know, charlie, i worked on enough campaigns. i've been called a lot of things in my life, but i used to say to myself, now that doesn't sound like what americans say. and i didn't know at the time why many of us were targeted by some of the trolls and the bots. now we know. they were on twitter. they were on facebook. they were paid with rubles, and they created fake identities and they came after us. and once your e-mail is out there -- i've been had by both the chinese and the russians. and if there's one thing i want to leave with your viewers, i want to work hard so the north koreans, iranians, so anyone else who hates america don't
come after our country again. charlie: you ever think about what america -- how america might have been different if al gore, your candidate, had been elected? donna: i think about that a lot. and i also think about what the country would be like today if hillary was in the white house. i still believe that i would be out there trying to clean up the democratic party, clean up the mess that the hacking left. charlie: you were the chair of the democratic party. here's what i don't understand. you described -- i mean, you've said some really tough things about lots of people in this book. donna: of course. charlie: you literally said that barack obama and hillary clinton had left the democratic party that was weak and in debt, and weak and not in positions of leadership. donna: correct. charlie: that's what you -- and you said that the campaign staff of hillary clinton was self-satisfied and had a feeling of inevitability. donna: they did. charlie: that's not how you win. self-satisfaction and feeling -- but my point is, couldn't you pick up the phone? couldn't you, donna brazile, with all that you have done and with the title of chairperson of the democratic national committee, and say, "secretary clinton, i've got to talk to you?" donna: let me tell you, the one thing i did was i screamed. i shouted. probably did a little cursing.
charlie: yeah. donna: and i found myself, like, donna: and i found myself, like, cap him talking to an empty room. charlie: nobody would take your calls. donna: well, put it this way, i was not running her campaign. and no matter how many times i complained and said people are not getting yard signs, people are not, you know, hearing your message on the radio, etc., etc., the campaign kept telling me -- and this was the way they treated me -- madam chair, it's going to be ok. charlie: a little bit paternalistic. donna: oh, it was so condescending. i screamed every night, every day. and you know what i finally did, i stopped moaning and whining and went out and raised money and tried to do my very best to help her. charlie: the book is called "hacks: the inside story of the break-ins and breakdowns that put donald trump in the white house." donna brazile, thank you. donna: god bless. thank you. ♪
charlie: bruce dickinson is here. he is best known as the lead singer in one of the most successful heavy metal bands of all time, iron maiden. throughout their 40-plus-year career, the band has sold over 100 million albums, they have played more than 2000 shows around the world. their most recent tour took them to 39 countries across six continents. him him theynd him
him traveled in a custom boeing 747 piloted by dickinson himself. here's a look at iron maiden performing "speed of light" from the newest album "the book of souls: live chapter." ♪ ♪ charlie: dickinson's solo career has spanned 15 years and six albums. he writes about everything from being a front man to flying in his new book called "what does this button do?" i am pleased to have bruce dickinson at this table for the first time. welcome.
bruce: thank you very much. a charlie: so many people i know thought if i could have one thing, if i can have all of this success, all of these accomplishments, all this money but i would have loved to have been a rock 'n roll star. and you have both. bruce: yeah. charlie: the business success -- which came first? bruce: no, no. the singing, the iron maiden success was absolutely the first thing that happened. it is still the ongoing thing that is happening to me. charlie: that is where the passion is. bruce: the passion is everywhere. i don't do things i am not passionate about. obviously, passion sometimes varies. you think i really don't want to get out of bed this morning but that is just being a normal human being. i -- the book, "what does this button do?", my father always told me have a go at everything, when you are a kid. you never know what is going to stick.
the other thing that i got from him was finish what you start. and so, when i have started on him things that i feel really passionate about like flying little airplanes, i never had any idea. it was not an endgame that i was going to be captain of a 747. if you asked me, no, that is never going to happen. the same thing when i started singing. i had no endgame that i was going to be one of the biggest rock 'n roll bands in the world, age 59. what, are you kidding me? that is not credible. just one thing happens after another and suddenly you end up on life's biggest roller coaster. charlie: what is your definition of heavy metal? bruce: i have not got one. i have given up. there is no prerogative in trying to define it. it is defined more by other
people that it is defined by me. because when i started out listening to music, there was no such thing as heavy metal. it was a term coined by a journalist actually. metal came out of something that was called heavy rock. heavy rock was simply an offshoot of blues rock. led zeppelin, deep purple, free -- all of those bands weren't heavy metal, but they came into heavy metal orbit. the whole world of music became polarized. it became very niche. everyone was put in their little silos. that was as much a fact of life because of the media, because the media did that. the record companies figured out they could market it and yada yada yada, so on and so forth.
we have managed to survive, not in just survive but to thrive outside of that system. people call us heavy metal and we say fine, we are. charlie: how have you been able to survive and prevail? bruce: first of all, we don't ally ourselves to the media. we are not part of the cult of celebrity. hopefully, if we end up having any kind of notoriety it is because we have actually done something. as opposed to having plastic surgery or whatever or being famous for being famous, exactly. so, we do what we say. we do it with integrity. we do a lot of touring. we tour fairly intensely and we hope to do really good shows and be engaged as much as possible with our audience, which is increasing. years ago in the 1980's, we did
one show in the new york area, maybe two. we are now doing four. it is a global band. our niche has grown. i like to say our fans are like plywood. we grow a new laminate of them every generation and they stick to each other. charlie: what is the size of the venues you do now? bruce: anywhere from 10,000 to 80,000. charlie: so stadiums too? bruce: yeah. we tend now, i think out of preference if we had a preference, i loved this most recent american tour because a lot of it was indoors. it just makes the show more effective. outdoors is always a compromise with the lights and the sound. whatever special effects you have. indoors, you get much more impact with a show. we are a very theatrical band. it is as i describe in the book,
when i started doing music, i was this curious mixture. i started out doing theater and doing acting and then i discovered i could sing after deciding i didn't want to be a drummer. charlie: you discovered you were a singer because somebody listened to you and said you could sing? bruce: that's right. that person, that one little moment -- it is a spark that just gives you that enthusiasm. it can be one thing in your life in childhood that flips the switch and you think yes, i can. i was really under-confident for a long time because being a singer, there is nowhere to hide. you don't have a plank to hide behind that you can blame. if you play a wrong note -- the guitarist, they play a wrong note and they look at the guitar, how dare you? you did it. as a singer, you got nowhere. people throw tomatoes at you if you sing bum notes. you have to have this confidence.
you have to grow a thick skin. charlie: tell me about this. bruce: that is the new live album. i only listened to it myself a couple of days ago. i was surprised how good it sounded. i really like it actually. i'll be honest with you. live albums, for me, they are mementos for fans honestly. that is the way i think about it. we've done the bootleg work for you hopefully and done it quite well because we record every show. we have access to hundreds of hours of tapes to put what should be the best performances together. charlie: you consider yourself more now as a front man or solo artist? bruce: i am the lead singer for iron maiden. i quit the band for five years. and i did that because i was having my little artistic dark night of the soul and i was in
l.a. doing a solo album and i realized i had no idea how to be creative outside of the framework of iron maiden. it terrified me. i think i am in an institution. i will die in this institution if i don't do something about it. what can i do? there was a quote from henry miller in "the l.a. times," just the thought for the day -- charlie: do you remember the quote? bruce: it is in the book, but it is something like "all growth is an unpremeditated leap in the dark with effectively no idea where you are going to land." and i went god, he's right. every bit of my life that has ever produced anything of any worth has been that hanging by your fingernails going oh, i hope this works out. and somehow it does.
like you throw a cat out of the window and it always lands right side up. i realized that i had to do that to figure out whether or not i actually belong in the universe as a singer anymore. so i quit. it was a little bit difficult explaining i had quit because of a newspaper clipping out of "the l.a. times." i got various things like he has gone mad. i did. i flailed around for a year or so not knowing what to do. finally, i came out with pretty good stuff. i did six albums and finally they asked me to rejoin the band. so at that point -- charlie: that was an easy decision? bruce: yeah, it was relatively easy. i was with a band at the time
who i loved. i adored these guys. they were from l.a., they were from the valley. we'd done like three albums together. and we really had a bond. i had to sit them down and say look, guys, they asked me to rejoin iron maiden. i know what's going to happen. i'm going to rejoin iron maiden and my feet are not going to touch the floor. i'm going to be busy, busy, busy. we are not going to be able to make any more music, in practical terms. what do you think? and one of the bass players said to me you've got to do it. i said, yeah, but why do you say that? self-interest? he said no, man, you are putting iron maiden back together. the world needs iron maiden. i went, this sounds like the blues brothers, we are putting the band back together but you know what, you are right. charlie: why do you think he
would say that? bruce: because he was a big iron maiden fan. and we -- people underestimate what the band means to people. we are a band that really means something. people come up to me and say this band changed my life or saved my life. the really deep and extraordinary experiences people have had listening to the band. it is difficult to explain that to people who think people only have those kinds of experiences listening to u2. we do have that effect on people and it is amazing. charlie: do you understand what it is? bruce: not necessarily. charlie: you know it is a fact, but do you understand what it is? bruce: not necessarily. it is because different songs speak to different people at different times in individual ways. you cannot fathom it. we don't design the songs that way.
it is like different songs speak to me in different ways at different times. you can't design it that way. when i was at boarding school, there was a song that always used to be playing. i felt -- i was beaten up, bullied, i felt really lonely. i would hear that song for years afterwards and i would be right back with that set of feelings. so, songs really have a massive power to recall emotions and powerful moments of your life. charlie: did you ever imagine you would be a rock 'n roll star when you approached your 60th birthday? bruce: no. no. charlie: that is incredible, isn't it? bruce: i never imagined i would be a rock 'n roll star, period. i was thinking as far away as maybe a 3000-seat theater would be like oh, my god. i was a kid underneath the bed sheets with a torch and drawing little fantasy stage sets in an exercise book when i was 16. and then i got into iron maiden and like i said, the world's
biggest roller coaster except the roller coaster never got to the bottom. charlie: why the title "what does this button do?" bruce: funny you should say that. the book is being released in germany. the german publishers had a real problem with the title. charlie: why? bruce: they said we don't like the title. what's wrong with the title? they said we don't understand it. what don't you understand about the title? "what does this button do?" let's press the button and see what happens. yeah, you don't do that in germany. you only push the button if you know what it does. [laughter] bruce: we need to talk. charlie: did you change the title in germany? bruce: no. we said the book is going to be called "what does this button do?" in english and then underneath you can put whatever it is.
that is what we have gone with. i think it is a bit of a nonsense they don't understand that concept. yeah, it is very much have a go at everything, "what does this button do?" and there is a little bit of mischief about it him as well. him mystery and mischief. him mystery and mischief. don't push the red button. well, every child on the planet is immediately going to push the red button. charlie: did you like this writing? bruce: i did enjoy writing it actually and i strangely enough did write it. there was not a ghost writer. charlie: i was looking -- there is no "as told to." bruce: no, i hand wrote it on seven a4 pads. i did 160,000 words of handwritten script. i'm a hunt and peck typist. i cannot stand spelling mistakes. they really upset me. there would be loads of them if i typed it and it would interrupt the flow. that was it. i did 160,000 words, we took 40,000 out otherwise the book would have been a doorstep, not a book. and it is me.
that's it. i tried to cover all the bases from getting rid of throat cancer at the end of it. that was a good stopping point. the starting point of the rest of my life. charlie: total remission? bruce: yeah. the word on the scan was total clinical response and i said to the oncologist, i went, it is gone? yeah, it's gone. it's gone? yeah, gone, gone, gone. i went wow, that's good. charlie: some of the best words you ever heard in your life. bruce: it is very hard to encompass it. you almost get survivor's guilt. charlie: the book is called "what does this button do? -- bruce dickinson: an autobiography." as well as iron maiden's live album. thank you. bruce: cheers.
under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver.
♪ alisa: i'm alisa parenti in washington, and you are watching "bloomberg technology." let's start with a check of your "first word news." the house ways and means committee has approved the gop tax plan, voting along party lines to deliver the measure to the full house. the $6 trillion plan limits the directions for home owners, increases the child tax credit and lowers the number of income brackets. republicans say it is a boon to the middle class. the democrats call it a tax bounty for the wealthy. senate republicans released their vision for a tax cut plan that cuts the corporate tax rate to 20% with a one-year delay to 2019. key provisions include retaining seven tax brackets and preserving the existing mortgage