john: i'm john heilemann. mark: i'm mark helprin. with all due respect to alexander hamilton, this is the second time you have lost the duel. second time you have lost the 14 times the president of the united states has made a statement about a shooting. today, the news out of charleston was on tv screens across the country prompted elected officials, whether running for president or not, to respond with statements. at the white house today president obama turn the conversation to an issue he has been unable to make progress on in office, gun violence. president obama: i've had to

make statements like this too many times. communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times. we don't have all the facts but we do know that once again innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting your hands on a gun. mark: in this story that implicates race, gun violence, and an important political state, what are the implications for politics in charleston? john: this is a tragedy, obviously. we have had too many of them. we have seen pretty much every presidential candidate express condolences to the victims and victims families. people have canceled their events in south carolina for today, tomorrow, and probably for some days going forward. sadly, the political implications of this will are going to be pretty small. bernie sanders has gone farther than anybody else at labeling this an act of terrorism.

and that will put pressure on hillary clinton. there will not be many political applications and that is too bad. mark: i said what happened today. it happened last night. i think there is a chance this could be a little bit more resident within the context of a discussion about the future of the country, because it is south carolina. i think it is going to be a long while in the primaries on both sides, it will be a long while before anyone goes to the state talking about winning support and talking about the future of the country without referencing the events there. i think whether they are specific or not about guns or race race relations, there will be a sense in which the country needs to be introspective. i think the smart and strong leaders will talk about that. mark: the white on black nature of this is almost historic in that there have not been that many lives taken. this may enhance the discussion. also going on in washington,

ralph reed is hosting his faith leadership conference. this one has more extra emphasis on piety. here's a taste of how they carried the banner of religious freedom. senator cruz: religious liberty has never been more threatened that today. senator paul: we are borrowing $1 million a minute. we hardly have any money if you look at it. couldn't we start by not giving money to countries that hate us, burn our flag and persecute christians? senator rubio: the government is not meant to marginalize churches and synagogues. it is meant to protect them and their rights. senator cruz: i believe 2016 will be the religiously the election.

john: ted cruz talked briefly about the gay marriage case in which the supreme court is about to rule. for the most part, all three of these candidates avoided directly engaging with it republican hot button issues called the like abortion. there are a bunch of republican hopefuls. on basis of what we heard today, what can we discern about the shape of the 2016 debate on social issues in the gop? mark: it is not just today, but if you look at the announcement speech is of most of the candidates in the race and the rhetoric of the others, they are in terms of their rhetoric, they are playing up religious liberty and some of the controversy we have seen in the last two years. they are playing down right to life. they are playing down gay rights. i think that is because the pollsters are telling them your chances of winning the election hinge on even if you care about

these issues, talking about them less and the religious liberty issue is a hot one that serves people up. john: religious liberty is obviously in a lot of cases, not all, but a kind of coded way about talking about the gay marriage debate. republicans recognize for where the country is, to move in favor. it is about to be the law for lamb. -- the land. i agree with you. there is no doubt this will be a less social issue drenched election than some in our recent past. mark: the candidate who is most aggressive carly fiorina. donald trump said something somewhere out there about mexicans coming across the border. hillary clinton said some things that could be interpreted as a reply. hillary: i do not have to wait to become present to take a -- to become president to take a

stand right here and right now against divisive rhetoric that demonizes immigrants and their families. it's wrong and no one should stand for it. to the people who feel so much hatred and anger never look in the mirror and realize that they, too, are fellow human beings? mark: that was an apparent and thinly veiled shot at mr. trump. in an interview with john ralston in las vegas, hillary clinton was taking on trump. is hillary clinton politically smart to take on this issue through the prism of donald trump? john: yeah. i thought she was very strong on this. i think she seemed like she really means it. i think that is good for her when she seems authentic. in terms of democratic nominating electorate and the dynamics there and in the general election and her connection to hispanic voters, this is all good politics for her. mark: we have seen her before

talk about immigration and be fired up. i think while it is a base issue, it is something she believes in. lastly, it is clear that she and her advisers feel even in the context of the general election, this puts her on the offense. and whether it is marco rubio or jeb bush, it is going to be hard for republicans to keep up with her on immigration without risking backlash. john: to be clear, what trump said was outrageous. here is a headline that is long overdue. there is finally going to be a woman on an american greenback. since the news broke, everyone has been speculating about who it might be. some suggestions are possibilities -- harriet tubman, harriet beecher stowe and other women's rights activists. other suggestions? more fanciful. but this race is as wide open as the republican primary. a woman on the 10 spot.

who you got? mark: there are a lot of great choices and this is a fantastic development for the country. i say eleanor roosevelt. may be controversial, but she is a historic figure and leader in her own right. and she stands for a lot of great american values that will long be part of the american tradition. she emphasized and amplified others. john: i am interested in a two-fer. i want to get a woman on the 10 spot and an african-american on currency. harry tubman is the favorite to a lot of people. she is great, but i want to go also for modernity. so i'm picking rosa parks, the woman who would not give up the seat on the bus. i think it would be awfully great to see her on a $10 bill. mark: that is a great choice. and i have got to say, you know, this is the kind of thing that you think in this country long overdue. amazing it has not happened before. at fantastic it is going to happen now.

i think the debate is great, because they will be a lot of discussion about the relative merits of a lot of truly historic significant figures who happen to the women. john: it will be a few years before we get these bills, for this will look good on barack obama's legacy that he got this done. mark: two historic women in their own right. carly fiorina. first, susan rice pays us a visit after this.

john: president obama's national security adviser susan rice came by our studio yesterday. we talked to her about her job. the first question is about iran. how firm is that deadline?

ms. rice: look, we have made june 30 a serious deadline and target. we are trying to get this done by then. however, if you look at what happened the last few hours, and we did the interim agreement and in april when we had the agreement, the framework agreement that was signed its switzerland, it ran a few days over. so i don't think anybody should anticipate that that could not happen again. john: there is a lot of pressure on you guys to get a better deal. if congress were to say, we will not initiate new sanctions if we go past the deadline, with or not be a case for extending the deadline and try to get a better deal? ms. rice: the only deal we are going to get is a good deal. if we do not get a good deal there is not going to be a deal. and we have been very clear if we are able to get the deal implemented and finalized, that meets the same parameters we are - -that were agreed in april, it will be a good deal. it will cut off all of iran's pathways to a bomb. it will ensure that we are able to validate they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

if, however, and it is still possible in the context of our negotiations, we are not able to get all of the elements that we believe were agreed in laussane formalize, or if they backtrack, or if we cannot bridge the gap there might not be a deal. mark: let's talk about russia and vladimir putin. there are two schools of thought. more american troops, there may be weapons there. would that deter putin or provoke him? ms. rice: nato partners collectively have increased the rotating continuous presence in the baltics and poland. we have already pre-positioned additional equipment. but this is not to threaten russian. that is not the aim. it is to give our allies confidence we will be with there with them and for them as we are committed is 28 nato allies. mark: what would you say are the

three biggest cost of secretary -- three biggest accomplishments of secretary clinton when she was secretary of state? ms. rice: you would have to put them in the context of the administration's accomplishment. she participated in everything we did in the first of. in a meaningful what-if first of all, in the first term, we were able to bring to conclusion two long and costly wars in iraq and afghanistan pressure was very much involved in supporting those transitions in the president's first term. also, we initiated and now have sustained what we call the rebalance to asia, the asia-pacific, where we have increased our security commitment, our economic engagement. we have been negotiating the transpacific partnership agreement to bring that to fruition. we are looking forward to

obtaining trade promotion authority from congress. that is another significant competent. and then, since you asked specifically about secretary clinton, she, along with the president, was very much engaged in some of the signature development initiatives of this administration. i think when all is said and done, will be things we look back on with pride. we have elevated the role of the relevant, support for civil -- role of development, support for civil society, for women, for voices that have been left out, and we have launched critical initiatives that have been life-saving in the realm of health and food security and power africa, which is an electricity initiative. so, she was integrally involved in all of the major initiatives of the first term of the ministration. mark: so, she was instrument till in moving the trade agenda forward? ms. rice: she was instrumenting

-- instrumental in reformulating the rebalance to asia, of which the transpacific partnership is a part. in the years that she left ambassador furman has been leading the effort to get the deal done. it is almost done. and when it is done, we will want to be able to submit it to congress for their approval in the vein of trade commotion authority. -- trade promotion authority. john: not that much time left in this administration, one of the things was that gitmo be closed. will it remain open? ms. rice: we are deeply determined and the president more than anybody to close -- to close guantanamo. we can do everything we possibly can to get that done. john: what has not been done over the course of this administration that could have been done, and what is left to do? ms. rice: what has been done as we have managed to transfer the prisoners that have been cleared for transfer, tens of them, to third countries where we have

confidence in the assurances received that they will be monitored. the population of guantanamo is down. there are more that have been cleared for transfer that we want to be in a position to repatriate or resettle to third countries. then there is a hard core that we believe are too dangerous to be transferred. we had great difficulty with congress that has imposed additional restrictions at various points. at some point, it made them harder. what we would like his to work with congress to arrive to an understanding as to how to reach a final disposition, for those hard cases. john: there is no hard assurance that we look at this done by the time the president leaves office. ms. rice: we will do our best to get this done. the president more than anybody

else is committed to do so. mark: susan rice, thank you very much. john: we will be right back with the conversation with carly fiorina. ♪

mark: last weekend mitt romney's e2 summit was set down with carly fiorina. she is towards the bottom of most polls right now but she hopes to get on the debate stage and the other candidates want that, too, so debates do not look like a private meeting at augusta. we started our conversation by talking about how she wants to be the first female president of the united states. you will be the first female president. you are not running as a woman. you are not emphasizing that but how would you feel about being that historic first person

if that should happen? carly fiorina: perhaps the way i felt when i became the first woman ceo to lead a fortune 50 company. i was quite unprepared for all of the media attention that historic first drew. shame on me, i guess. but i'm sure what i would feel is i have a heavy responsibility now. and i have to execute that responsibility on behalf of everyone, men and women, republicans and democrats for that matter. mark: in 2008, when i covered hillary clinton on the campaign, women would come up to her, old, young, and they would say with manifest emotion how excited they would be to be able to cast their vote for the first woman president. i have not seen that happen to you but i'm sure it must. again, does that touch you in some way? enunciate how you feel. carly fiorina: of course it does. i will tell you how it shows up. i have a lot of men come up and

say they are excited about your candidacy. they are excited because i talk common sense. when women come up to me, they say all those same things but they will have a different look in their eyes. sometimes they will have tears. mark: you mention the playing field not being level. there are some laws on the books and court decisions that are intended to, federal laws, intended to level the playing field regarding gender. some people, a lot of democrats, would like to see more. is there any area in which you think the national government should do more to create a more level playing field on the issue of gender? carly fiorina: yes. they should move to a meritocracy in the federal government instead of protecting seniority. every federal government bureaucracy is a seniority system. every union is a seniority system. mark: benefits men who have been there longer. any others? i'm not dismissing that one. carly fiorina: i think that is a huge one. it would have enormous ramifications. we have seen, by the way, when

government overreach is to try to help women by, for example, mandating too much paid leave, we've seen in places like chile or europe were that backfires on women. here is the thing. here is a statistic. male-run companies receive $1.9 billion in venture capital money from silicon valley. women receive 32 million. a lot less. government can't fix that. that is about attitude. here is another interest in fact. 84% of women agree that a woman is just as capable of holding a senior executive position as a man. 43% of men agree with that state. this is about attitude -- 42% of men agreeing with that statement. mark: a lot of people would say there is no government role in

that. let me button up that issue. are there any other laws you would like to see that would be aimed at dealing with any aspect of a lack of level playing field on gender? carly fiorina: i think most of the government actions that should be contemplated in my mind would have two characteristics. one, it ought to be contemplated at the state level, not the federal level, because we are a very diverse country with very diverse economies. one size never fits all. second, i believe it is important for the federal government, if it is going to intervene, to regulate or legislate the floor, not the ceiling. the minimum necessary, not the maximum necessary because one -- when government overreaches and goes for the maximum, which is what democrats always want to do, it ends up backfiring. we see it in every case, including now with obamacare. mark: there are several ways of feminism in america. is there anyone you would site is a hero?

carly fiorina: of course. look, women -- mark: cite someone specifically. carly fiorina: gee, susan b. anthony, gloria steinem, they are all heroes in their own way because when someone challenges the status quo, that is heroic even if i do not always agree. but i think what is happened is that that heroism to challenge the status quo and stand up and say, women are equal to men, so we should have the same opportunities as men. what is happened is that has turned into a political ideology. and that political ideology is very specific. so when women of the left tell me i am a threat to women's health or i'm offensive as a candidate. that is not about women. that is about ideology. mark: a lot of republicans think that democrats have a craven political purposes have created this notion of a war on women.

i would like to do a macro analysis of politics, media and culture, assuming the premises holiday got away with it? carly fiorina: they have gotten away with it because the two long we have not taken them on. we let that narrative play out. we should not and we cannot. mark: you and i have talked about other issues and we will again, but i appreciate the chance to visit with you on this topic. thank you. thanks to carly fiorina. we will be right back after this. ♪

>> we are live television, but always on 27 bloomberg politics.com. using data new ways to win voter

s. john: tomorrow, we will have a personal conversation with senator lindsey graham. with all due

emily: a vc legend tells me why he feels betrayed by ellen pao's tales of gender discrimination at kleiner perkins. ♪ emily: i'm emily chang. this is "bloomberg west." coming up, fitbit jumping in its public trading debut. what it could mean for the world wearable tech market. and a chipmaker with a $10 million bet on china. all of that ahead on "bloomberg west." first to our lea