tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg October 17, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this week with politics. with just 24 days until the election, donald trump has sent the republican party into crisis mode. the republican nominee's demeaning comments about women and allegations that he did more than just talk have offended the presidential race. joining me from washington, john dickerson, the anchor of "face the nation" and political director of cbs news. john, give me a snapshot of where you think we are on this friday night last weekend before the final debate. >> well, we have two
competitions going on. one is donald trump versus hillary clinton, and one is donald trump versus the republican party, or the republican party officials who have been either rushing away from his campaign, leaning away from it, and some are frozen in limbo. but it was telling on the night that donald trump, in some people's eyes, righted his campaign in that second debate, or at least righted it for some nervous republicans. the next day he came out and went on a really strong whirlwind shooting match at paul ryan and john mccain and republicans in his party. as newt gingrich pointed out, if he wants to win, he needs to focus on hillary clinton and not keep his fire aimed at those republicans who he thinks of the -- who he thinks have betrayed him. charlie: so, why does he do it? >> because he is a counterpuncher by instinct. in all the reporting i have done
for donald trump, there has been time and again, stories of him, from people who have talked to him off the record and behind the scenes, where they say he is fixated on people who have him, people who he things have been offensive to him. this is in keeping with that. and also when he talks about being unshackled, i think there has been a constant push and pull ever since he won the republican nomination between donald trump as he wants to be, which is what he thinks brought him to the dance, which is to say his full 100% donald trump, and the establishment of the party, which asks that he reined himself in some. he thinks that is not only uncomfortable from a personal level, but also ineffective, and not going to be what gets in the nomination. -- gets him the nomination. there are obviously a lot of people who disagree with that. charlie: when he reads the polls, what does he see? >> the best case. what he sees in the polls, if he
by five to six points nationally, depending on which average you take. then he's down in enough states where he is not going to get to 270. he's close in ohio, doing well in iowa, and in nevada, but in places like virginia, north carolina, colorado, where it hillary clinton wins those plac es, it is over, assuming she wins the traditional democratic states. i think what he thinks is -- two, ther arere are strategies. it's hard to tell how much he is embracing both. one is he turns out so many of his own base that all these models doing the polling are wrong, that there are voters who voted for democrats in the past or who haven't voted in 20 years. there is not a lot of evidence that there is a huge group of those people, or there are another group of republicans who are traditional voters who are not voting for donald trump. the other theory is the one that he has put in place this week,
which is that if he runs a full force campaign, hitting hillary clinton, bringing up every one of bill clinton's character flaws and women he had an encounter with, or election encounterlledged with, that it will depress turnout among democrats so much that trump's core base against a depressed democratic base will give him the win. that is essentially a scorched earth policy. it's hard to imagine how that would work, and you could wonder what kind of a country would be left even if he were to win. charlie: what is the impact of the wikileaks disclosures? >> the hacked e-mails from john podesta. troublee two baskets of for her. one is you see how hard her aids were working to confuse the public about her positions on things like the keystone pipeline, or launch diversionary
efforts to keep the conversation offer e-mails. so you see a lot of diversion, and not being straight with the voters. when you talk to people in both parties, a lot of them recognize this as the behind the scenes activity that campaigns go through. it's regrettable that in modern politics there is so much time and effort spent trying to confuse the voters, but that is a bipartisan thing. charlie: with respect to women, clearly donald trump had to win college-educated women in order to find a path to 270. what do we know about the impact of these allegations, about sexual predatory activity, and that vote? >> what we know, as you rightly pointed out, that was the portion of the electorate he was trying to improve his standing with. a lot of those college-educated republican -- a lot of those college-educated voters are
former republicans, or have voted for the republican party in the past. mitt romney won with college-educated white women, and donald trump is doing worse with that group by 15-18 points, depending on which poll you look at. he really needed to fix the situation there. what we have seen from a preliminary cross tab is that he is still doing very poorly with that group of voters, and then we will see in the coming days the votes -- or i should say, the opinions of that same group as they have dealt with and processed the allegations that have come, charging donald trump with actually behaving in the way that he was talking about on that tape. charlie: is there a possibility he will not show up for the debate? >> with donald trump, anything is possible. i think the third debate is his last big chance. i think it's not even possible to recoup in a single event. but there is a chance for him to come forward and make his last
big case to a big audience. so whether his strategy is to keep burning things down, which is where they appear to be going now, and it's another chance for him on a big stage to keep making the assault he did in the second debate, or if he pivots yet again, it would be the biggest stage where he could put that other face forward. i think it is in his interest to participate in the debate. democrats have been arguing this week that it's not in hillary clinton's interest, because she will just -- it's very unpredictable how to deal with him. charlie: what does conventional wisdom today, as we go into a weekend, say about the senate and the house? >> i think the conventional view is that the democrats don't have a chance of taking over the house, although there is a lot of chatter. one of the things paul ryan has done with his no man's land position -- he said he won't defend or work for donald trump,
but he is not unendorsing him. he's trying to have it both ways, but there's a way in which that helps as members. those members and districts with trump voters get to beat up on paul ryan, say this is an outrage. that helps them in their district. for anybody who has more moderates in their district, they can try and use what ryan has done as cover to say, look, if you sent me back to washington, you will send me back to a place with the speaker who's not completely in the trump camp. the republican party that you grew up with, and i am now channeling one of these members, is not the party of trump. that's a tough thing to do, for a speaker to be in those positions, but he is trying to do it to get his members maximum flexibility. i think there is still the view he will be able to do it. the question is whether there is a big anti-trump wave, a lot of the house members that will go
down will be those who have more moderates in their district. the republican majority that returns will be more conservative than the one there now. in the senate, they conventional wisdom is that it is trending the democrats way. there's a big -- rob portman in ohio is up by 18 points, but for somebody like pat toomey in pennsylvania, who won't say where he is on the trump question, he's in a real pickle. because if hillary clinton wins pennsylvania by three or four, pat toomey might survive. but if she wins it by 10, that's hard for pat toomey to survive, and that means the democrats will be back in control of the senate. charlie: finally, assuming there's a possibility of a wave election, is she missing an opportunity to articulate a governing vision, so that she can argue that she has a mandate for change? >> i don't know if she is missing it.
i don't know if they can get through. her pitch, as i have been listening to it over the last few days, and they have been trying to get to this place for the last many weeks in the clinton campaign, which is a much more positive vision, a sense of what she will do with the office once she has been in it. that has been the challenge of her candidacy overall. what she is trying to say now is you may find what he's doing objectionable, but you can't just vote on that. we want to take america somewhere new and better and give people something to vote for. that's a political necessity she feels, to get voters to turn out for her and not against donald trump. but also to your point, there is a governing benefit to it, which is you can say, hey, we ran on something and we had a set of policies here. and once we get elected, let's enact them. i wonder if that is even possible, given the state of conversation we are in right now, where it's so far off the concept of issues.
i think this will be seen, in the end, as a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on donald trump. if hillary clinton wins in that kind of an election, her best work in terms of trying to build a mandate is going to be after the election, in terms of reaching out to the other side, in terms of doing fast moves to try to build something in the wake of what's going to be an election where there are a lot of unhappy people. charlie: back in a moment. stay with us. ♪ charlie: ernest muniz is here,
the u.s. secretary of energy. he was a lead negotiator in securing the iran nuclear deal in 2015. that agreement lifted economic sanctions in exchange for controls on iran's nuclear weapon capacity. the department of energy is leading several initiatives in order to align with this deep carbon pollution standards. the landmark paris agreement on climate change is set to take effect on october 4, aiming to keep global warming below two degrees celsius. pleased to have you back. >> "bloomberg markets: good -- >> good to be back. charlie: are you thinking about the end of the human straight and what you might hope to accomplish between now and that short time in the future? >> sure. we're within the last 100 days, and with the election coming up, we expect the transition teams
to becoming an. we are teaming up -- we want to finish a number of activities, as you mentioned, continuing serving with the iran deal, continuing to develop a clean energy agenda, but also we want to tee up the priorities for the incoming team. charlie: what are your priorities for the incoming team? >> first of all, you alluded to what are two of the major areas, which have aligned with president obama's highest priorities. the highest priorities, the climate, clean energy innovation agenda and we have a number of specifics to advance. for example, working with the congress to complete the budget in a way that supports the innovation agenda, and teeing up what we expect to be a much more aggressive agenda in terms of defunding in the next five years. of course, nuclear security is a major focus. the iran deal is one part of
what i would call the president's agenda, which was much broader. it involved arms control, controlling nuclear materials, and the iran deal is very important, but so are things like looking at our nuclear deterrence posture in the context of strategic stability, given current events in the world. that will be important. i would like to see in the next few years of the ministration the congress returned to a cooperative test ban treaty, where i believe the arguments for that are even stronger for the united states. we'll be setting up those priorities even as we finish some of the business we are doing. charlie: if you look at the stories coming out of russia, they not only have a more aggressive attitude and action, you see possibilities of returns to the cold war, which i guess make a nuclear agreement even
more imperative. >> you're absolutely right. obviously, our relationship with russia right now is, to say the least, not in good shape. charlie: and not heading in the right direction. >> in many ways it started in ukraine. andof course now, syria other issues. i might add that there are two areas where their relationship is having major effects on the doe. one is initial deterrence. i'd suggest that i would not make the analogy too closely to the cold war in the following sense. in the cold war, the major issue was obviously, the concern about the exchange of very large numbers of nuclear weapons. i don't want to denigrate that concern, because both sides
still have large arsenals, but i would say if you look at the evolution of what has been happening recently, there's probably a higher risk in terms of regional conflicts, and perhaps the use of a so-called smaller nuclear weapon, quite big enough to ruin a good day. that remains a concern, and you mentioned russia, and russia has explicitly talked about a philosophy of escalation, to deescalate. it's a new condition, and one that we have been evaluating and the next in ministration will have some difficult decisions. but a second issue that has really been elevated in our attention, especially starting with the ukraine incursion, is
the whole issue of energy security. charlie: i want to come back to the iran deal, but first, i want to talk about the paris deal. november 4 is the date it goes into effect. >> which is quite remarkable for a deal on this scale. getting the paris agreement was quite a substantial achievement, a very big first step. i do want to emphasize both "big" and "first." but then to go from an agreement in mid-december to implementation coming into effect in less than 11 months, when you have almost 200 countries involved, is quite significant. i think it shows that the world is ready to not only acknowledge the issue, but to address it by having everybody pitch in. in terms of having a lower carbon future. charlie: and what would be the impact?
well, lethe impact -- me go back to the statement of big first step. it's big because the kinds of commitments made in paris by essentially every country in the world will put us on a trajectory over the next 10 to 1 5 years of what i would call deep decarbonization, let's say mid century and beyond. however, the next 10 to 15 years is not "the answer." that will not clearly get us to our 2 degrees centigrade or lower goal. we're going to have to push beyond that time, and we think, and the department of energy has a very important role, that innovation in clean energy technology both continues to lower costs of renewables and lights, lower those
costs, and in addition open up brand-new areas of carbon dioxide management. for example, can we capture carbon dioxide and use it in large commodity products throughout the world? that kind of innovation is going to be very important to carry us not just 15 years, but 50 years. charlie: is the united states in the forefront of that innovation, or is china, or other countries? >> i believe we are in the forefront. charlie: in terms of wind, solar, and clean energy? >> and pushing on carbon capture, which could allow us to use coal. we are pushing on advanced nuclear technologies. we are pushing hard on efficiency gains in all sectors. electricity, manufacturing, vehicles, etc. however, we cannot be complacent, clearly. other countries -- we are pleased about it. other countries have joined us
in another initiative starting in paris. that is the first day of the paris meeting, november 30, 2015, president obama and senior leaders of 19 other countries stood up and committed to what is called mission: innovation. it is a commitment by those countries, and now the eu, to double clean energy r&d over a five-year period. i will give you the scale. that would take us from $15 million a year to $30 billion per year. the united states is by far the biggest player in that. it signals two things. one is this innovation agenda is something that countries across the world intentd to pursue. -- intend to pursue. and secondly, it is also a signal that when you take the paris agreement and every country in the world commits to a low carbon trajectory, that means we are seeing the
formation of a multi-trillion dollar clean energy marketplace. it's important for carbon, and frankly, it is important for economic competitiveness, that we keep pushing on the frontiers, maintain what i consider to be an edge in at least most areas of the clean energy transformation that's coming. i think it's very much in our interest to get the signal straight, get industry, get utilities, get investors, bankers, understanding that this is the direction. one of my ceo friends likes to say, and i would apply it to the paris agreement, you can't keep waves off the beach. that is where we are going. canuteue is, like king suggested, we have to deal with that and manage it to our benefit, both environmentally and economically. and in terms of security as well. charlie: are we energy independent? >> yes and no. the issue of our being net 0 in
yeart btu zero in the next is certainly a possibility. but what i think is important to understand is that does not mean that we are isolated from the global market. and that is especially true in oil, because it's a global price. if the price spikes internationally, let's say because of a major disruption, and certainly recently, the rise just above $50 i would not call a price spike. charlie: are we talking about geopolitical event? >> yes, but it could be something else. we have had expert solicitation looking at risk, and certainly the risks of a few million barrels per day, reasonably sustained disruption, it's not that small. just look around the world. a price spike internationally would propagate right to the american consumer price.
we have had plenty of evidence for that in other countries. that is why we continue to require a petroleum reserve. charlie: if you had no political restraints, in terms of having to deal with congress and all that is necessary in a democracy, is there policy you would like to see instituted tomorrow? would it be, for example, an all carbon tax? would it be a larger imposition of initiative standards? where would the secretary go if he did not have political constraints that exist in a democracy? >> what i have said consistently on this, and by the way, the president said the same thing last week in an interview with today werio, look, have a strong climate program in the united states.
the president put it in place in 2013. we are executing it. we feel pretty confident that with that program we can reach the kinds of goals that we have in 2020 and 2025 in terms of carbon emissions. charlie: are those compromised goals? >> i will come to your question. however, the fact is, this program, in the absence of congressional action, is based upon existing administrative authorities and consequently, the program has to be, in some sense, sector by sector. you do a clean power plant, efficiency standards for vehicles, etc. and we can get there. at least for a while. however, certainly for the long-term, going to something like a nice, efficient, simple, economy wide approach like the price of carbon emissions, is clearly a much more efficient
way to be able to address this, and i think there is a way, when combined with innovation, to address longer-term needs. so, the president always said, in 2013, it is kind of forgotten perhaps, but when he announced the climate action plan, it was prefaced by a statement. we would love to work with congress in getting economy wide legislation. i believe we are going to get there. i believe we are going to get there personally, and in the not-too-distant future. charlie: what does that mean? not the too distant future? >> this is not just me, the secretary of energy. i think we are going to get there in a few years. five to 10? mean >> the lower side of that range. for one thing, i think industry needs to get a clear signal about the direction we are going
in. the low carbon directions, we cannot keep waves off the beach, we are going that way. but exactly how the fiscal policy is going to be structured, etc., tax policy, let's get clear signals. the capital investment decisions that these companies make in the energy business, utility business, we are talking decade scale. that is why i think in the next few years, we are going to see, a coming together around a nice, clean approach -- it doesn't have to be a carbon price, but that is one example that economists have said would be an efficient way to go. charlie: the president believed that what we do in energy is a crucial national security issue national security issue. national security issue. in terms of recognizing the threat to the planet.
has he ever said to you, this is my most important priority, that this is what i am most proud of in this administration, that finally we seem to be making some progress? >> well, the president has many priorities, but he has made many strong statements about this. i'll be perfectly honest, i don't know if i'm supposed to withhis, but when i met the president prior to being offered the position, the first issue out of the box was to talk about the climate and clean energy and clean energy as a solution to the climate challenges. he made it very clear that his second term in particular, that this was going to be raised dramatically. charlie: do you believe his priority -- and you need the public political support, even though there is action that you can take -- has come to understand the severity of the threat to the planet?
obviously, it is more today than it was 10 years ago, more today than it was five years ago. but has it precipitated at a -- precipitated a consensus that this is an urgent national priority? >> i would be hard-pressed to say consensus, but i think the vast majority of the public. charlie: i was thinking literally. i think the vast majority of the public -- first of all, the slope is clearly going there. the issue of whether the climate is changing, a great preponderance of the public recognizes that. still some additional arguments made by a lot of misinformation as to the role of human activity. you can also say, well, if the world is warming, the climate is changing, we should be addressing it.
certainly, the issue of carbon emissions -- charlie: whoever created it, we need to deal with it. sec. moniz: there is no issue about the very significant major driving role of human activity. i have said before in a congressional hearing, you really do not have to know much more than counting to understand. using results obtained in the 19th century, the rate of emitting co2 takes us into this realm of degrees of centigrade warming if we do not address it in these next decades. charlie: it takes us into the range of centigrade warming -- sec. moniz: there is an international, pretty much,
consensus that two degrees centigrade -- if you go beyond that, we are getting into much serious categories. charlie: bill gates said we need an energy miracle. anything that is half the price of today's energy, cheaper than coal, totally reliable, that is an energy miracle. sec. moniz: that statement by bill gates has engendered two kinds of reactions.
one is we agreed and the other is we do not agree. one argument is that we have the technology now and let's just deploy them. when i am asked which one i subscribe to, my answer is yes. [laughter] the next 10-15 years, i can see us getting there as we continue to drive costs down the way we have been doing with the various technologies and have the appropriate policies in place. if we talk about really deep decarbonization, 80% reductions, etc., and we remember that to do that, it is not just the electricity sector, where we have a lot of options. it is also the transportation sector. it is also the industrial sector. that is why -- that is where i
started agreeing with bill and say, we have to do the research now in order to have these breakthrough technologies if we are going to have them in 15-20 years. we need to proceed in both directions. charlie: the next energy review focused on a like -- on electricity. bono was just here discussing it. sec. moniz: in some sense, we have many infrastructures we are concerned about but two that i would argue permeate every other infrastructure, electricity and telecom. the convergence, the greater convergence of those in these
next decades is going to be a very big story in terms of -- charlie: suggesting what? sec. moniz: much more collection of data throughout the electricity system, transmission system, generation, but potentially going behind the meter into the customer's house, managing all of the smart appliances. how do we optimize all of that? it is going to be a big deal. a second big deal would be distributed generation technologies which will be opportunistic for societies that are currently badly underserved in terms of having electricity, like sub-saharan africa, parts of india. we may be able to provide those
for the use of information technology in ways that suit a resilient architecture. it does raise the issue of cyber. the more you rely upon the i.t. structure, the more risk you have to address. so far, we are doing a good job of that. make no mistake about it, the energy infrastructure is a major target of cyber attacks already. charlie: meaning they have tried to make the attack and it has been thwarted? sec. moniz: correct. looking at various control systems in the grid and we work very closely with industry, including at the classified
level in terms of threats and in terms of response, how to make them more secure. charlie: let me go to the iran deal. have they lived up to the deal? sec. moniz: yes. i do not want to give the impression that we are on cruise control. it requires active interactions. the iaea inspectors are doing a really good job. the deal gave them a whole set of new challenges, new activities they have not done elsewhere. they are doing a great job and the iranians are complying. charlie: what happens after 10 or 12 years? sec. moniz: we want to emphasize, there is no one time frame.
the fundamental structure is that there are some significant restrictions on iranian peaceful nuclear activity for 15 years and the transparency and verification, which is central to the agreement, that goes on forever. that is the idea. for 15 years, there are restrictions on what they can do in nuclear and then we go into a greatly elevated verification and transparency regime to make sure there is still no weapons program. charlie: are you convinced that deal will prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon? sec. moniz: yes. the deal builds in a lot of transparency and verification, and that is supplemented by our so-called national means and it
builds in a significant response time if we have to take other actions. personally, right now -- charlie: now it is at least a year? sec. moniz: a minimum of one year. charlie: what did you learn about negotiations? you are said to be very good at it. was it the capacity to stay engaged and to listen and know where you could go and could not go? sec. moniz: i think -- look, we know the negotiation had not gone very far and then when we got together and compared notes
-- frankly, i want to make sure this is understood. we say, we have always said, and we still say, the deal is not based on trust. it is based upon verification. having said that, there is a distinction that i would say for myself that we did trust each other in the sense of negotiation. that is important as well. the important thing is very early on, at a technical level, we understood what exactly were our absolute needs and what were his absolute needs.
we came to the realization -- and this was probably one to two months -- we came to the realization that there could be a deal. our fundamental needs were not in fundamental conflict. charlie: what are you going to do in this administration comes to an end? sec. moniz: flyfishing. we have a lot to do and we want to run through the tape on this and an figure it out. a little downtime would help. charlie: thank you for coming. back in a moment, stay with us. ♪
i want to be frozen. do they have that as an option? >> new york city boy in the house. you are not too good for us, are you? >> your mom is going to need a lot of help. >> don't look at us. we are drug addicts. >> i thought you did not want to try medical marijuana. >> well, i tried it. >> your mother was supposed to be born dead. she is still very, very lucky. ask her doctor. he is dead. ♪ >> stop it.
>> does anybody have any questions? >> when i die, you have to live your life, but you cannot date anyone for a year. >> can we just travel the whole world real quick? >> all i ever wanted was to be a mother. >> everything becomes clear. ♪ >> now you are other people's other people. >> remember that wine i bought on the internet. i looked it up and it does not cure cancer.
charlie: joining us is chris kelly and the star of the film, molly shannon. molly: what an honor for us, charlie. charlie: what does it say about grief, this film? molly: it is a complicated time, not just one thing. the characters go through different emotions -- anger, sadness, hysterical laughter. it is a complicated time and chris really grasped that in the movie with all of the characters going through complicated feelings as this woman slips away. chris: people have asked me, how did you know what percentage to make it sad or funny. i am pulling from my real life experience. i would not know how to write
this movie as only a drama. my mom was so funny and my family has a strong sense of humor. we laughed a lot of the days. there were moments of levity. charlie: was this experience with your mom dying, was this such a profound experience that you said, i feel compelled to write about this? i feel compelled to make a piece of art. chris: yeah. not right away. i have written tv and sketch comedy and it was not until years later, when i was thinking i wanted to write a feature that i started -- charlie: the idea of writing a feature brought you back to this? chris: i kept just coming back
to that time in my life. i was nervous about writing about that time because it is autobiographical and i did not know if i wanted to be that personal. i had a thousand reasons why not to do it but at the end of the day, i thought, i keep thinking about this time in my life for a reason. charlie: why molly? chris: she is so good. charlie: you saw some essential quality? chris: i was not trying to say, this person looks exactly like my sister. for my mother, i wanted to capture her essence, someone who is very funny, someone who lit up a room, someone you could be loud and stubborn and graceful and sweet.
i wanted somebody who was funny, someone who would bring levity to the movie but when she was getting sick, it made it sad or in some ways. she is just the best. molly: it took my breath away. i was so moved by the material and i felt so lucky to be up for such a fantastic part. charlie: what was it about his mother you thought, i can really get inside this character? molly: i really related to how close she was to her kids, to her son especially, and how much she wanted to be a mom. i personally really relate to that. all i ever wanted, i lost my mom when i was four. i used to play on the playground and i would be the mother and i dealt with grief through been the best mother to all of the kids on the playground.
i would play this game over and over where i was the best mother and a fun mother. the line that says, i get to see my whole world at dinner. that is the line -- i felt like my heart burst when i read it. i found it so moving. charlie: life is about friends and people and family. when preparing for this role, did you go from personal experience? molly: i spoke to chris's mom's best friend. i spoke a lot to chris and i pulled on my own experiences, my father died of cancer and i lost my mom when i was really little in a car accident. i mixed it all together.
charlie: this is what you told esquire. with all the cancer movies i have seen, where are the beautiful lessons at the end? i wanted to be more poignant and more overwrought. the truth was it was often so matter of fact. it was brutal and so boring at times. my father died unexpectedly when i was in another city. my mother died over a year period of lung cancer. it was boring at times, simply matter of fact, it was unknown, all of that. chris: a very scary limbo.
i had moved back from new york and put my work on hold and i was so glad to be there. i was very lucky and grateful i could be there for that time but you have so much time, you want to be there and you want to be present. there were times when she was resting and your mind wanders. you have so much time to think about the worst case scenarios. it is horrible but it was lovely -- it was sort of a lovely time in my life to spend so much time one-on-one with her. charlie: that is what a lot of people say. get a chance to talk about the meaning of life. chris: people ask me how much of the movie is autobiographical. it is not that every scene is true. those conversations with my mom are the most autobiographical. the line you mentioned is an
actual memory. the small moments and the specific things my mom said are the truest things. charlie: you consider yourself a dramatic comedian? molly: i do not -- i always took the emotional truth of the characters. i never wanted to act silly or make fun of the characters. mary catherine gallagher, that was a girl who had such a big heart, just wanted to be kissed. it was emotional for me even though it was a big comedy character. it always felt so serious to me. i went to nyu drama school and i just happened to get into comedy. somebody in los angeles said, comedy is king. is it?
maybe i can get started this way. i was a very serious dramatic actress, charlie. charlie: what does that do for you? your sense of essential experiences -- molly: there is nothing like it. lorne michaels is the best. the adrenaline, the live performance, getting to create your original material. you write yourself to get on the show. the most creative, it is like a comedy boot camp. i was struggling doing stage shows for so many years, performing for 100 people at a time. i remember thinking, this is so great. when i did my stage show, i had to pay for the band. if you strike a cord and people
relate to your characters, the response you get back is -- i was not prepared for that. charlie: what is the challenge of being a writer? chris: so much output. it forces you to write so much under such intent pressure. you write everything on tuesday night. it is great because you write 3, 4, 5 sketches a night and you have to turn your brain off and go with your gut. it gives you a thick skin. you write sketches and sometimes they work and sometimes it tanks so hard at the table. molly: i had a joke with will farrell where we wrote a sketch
nina: i'm nina melendez and you are watching "bloomberg technology." here is your bloomberg news. the latest university poll has a hillary clinton leaving in the battleground states of florida and pennsylvania. the offensive to retake muscle is officially underway. the key iraqi city has been occupied by the islamic state since 2014. more than 125,000 -- troops are involved.