♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with politics. house speaker paul ryan ruled out a 2016 presidential bid at a press conference today. the announcement comes after weeks of speculation he would accept the nomination at a contested republican convention. addressing the republican national committee, speaker ryan said delegates should choose someone who participated in the primaries. >> count me out. i simply believe that, if you want to be the nominee for our party, to be the president, you should actually run for it.

i chose not to do this. therefore, i should not be considered. period. end of story. charlie: joining me now from washington is al hunt of bloomberg view. here in new york, dan senor, an advisor to mitt romney and paul ryan's campaign. he and paul ryan are good friends. i am pleased to have both of them here. al, i go with this one question. one, why did he say that today? and, b, does he mean it? if in fact, the republican party came to him and said, you have to do this for the sake of the party and for the sake of the country? al: he does mean it. he did it today not as news but as a confirmation of what he believes is reality. he thought it was getting to the point where the speculation was becoming injurious because here is this big shot in washington that would steal from the convention from someone. and probably not helping him is

his day job, speaker of the house. i think paul ryan is absolutely right today. it is virtually impossible for someone who did not run to be nominated. i think it could go to four, five, six ballots. i don't know that it will. but i think the nominee will be one of those three. more importantly, that is what paul ryan believes. i think he was quite sincere today. i think the chances of a convention turning to him are nil. charlie: and he would say no if they do. is that what i hear him saying? al: i sound like i am evading the question. charlie: you are. if nominated, i will not run. if elected, i will not serve. it is easy. al: cannot get more sherman than that, can you? charlie: you know this guy. you know where he is. he said he was not running to be speaker of the house. the party needed him, and then

he took it. he is also a man of ambition, a man of politics, and a man of policy. all of that. tell me what you know about how he approached this and what he means. dan: first of all, if you look at his career, he has been a successful player at the elite level of american politics, republican politics. he came up the ranks he is a , grassroots guy. janesville, wisconsin, that is very much who he is. that is very much where he is from. he is very connected to that political community. he has an amazing grassroots support network in janesville. he really believes candidates matter, the process matters, that the volunteers matter. i talked to him about this over the past few weeks. there was a general sense that some 17 candidates run for president. think of the tens of thousands of volunteers involved with those campaigns across the country. supporters, activists -- it is just not right, at the end of this two-year process that we say, all your work -- the

candidates, the donors, the activists, the volunteers, all of it is being muted. and we're just going to parachute in a new candidate. he thought there was something fundamentally wrong with that. secondly, he thinks this political environment is incredibly volatile. and, he is concerned that house republicans could be collateral damage in this chaotic political environment we are living through, depending on who was at the top of the ticket. the last thing he wants to do is inject more volatility into the environment by leaving open the option that he or someone else could parachute in at the 11th hour. charlie: i know a lot of republicans, talked to several republicans, and they are of several minds. one is that the party must be saved. they are prepared to lose the election to save the party. dan: meaning let the whole thing burn down? charlie: let one of the two candidates most likely to be the nominee, ted cruz or donald trump -- if they run, the party is going to lose. dan: i think the party, if either trump or cruz is the

nominee we lose. that is definitely the case with trump. charlie: if trump is the nominee, you lose. if cruz is the nominee, you likely lose? dan: likely to lose. although i could make the case, depending on who his running mate his, depending on how hillary is doing, it is not as dis-positive as if trump is the nominee. if trump is the nominee, we lose the senate. say goodbye to seats like pat toomey, kelly ayotte in new hampshire, rob portman in ohio, ron johnson. i think if trump is the nominee, the map for democrats in the senate could expand. john mccain could be in trouble in arizona. richard burr could be in trouble in north carolina. it could be a down ballot disaster and we could lose a lot of seats. here is paul ryan, who said, when he agreed to become speaker, he would build a policy program for the house republicans, build a communications program, raise a lot of money. he has raised far more money for house republicans than anyone expected. those numbers will be coming out soon. he has built this

infrastructure, messaging, policy, and financial, for republicans to be competitive. almost like an insurance policy, depending on who the top of the ticket is. it could be a terrible top of the ticket, and he wants to make sure republicans hang on to the majority. charlie: what was his specific language that he said? dan: he said he would definitely not do it. there was no way. here was the key point he had not made before today. he said the key point today was a message to the delegates. he was not only saying, i will not do this, he was also saying you should not select someone who did not run. he is not only taking himself out of it, he is being so sweeping and declarative that he is taking all the white knight scenarios out of it. charlie: the three choices right now are john kasich, ted cruz, and donald trump. dan: or, if you get in a multi-ballot situation, let's present a scenario. say donald trump cannot get 1237 on the first ballot. it goes to the second ballot. ted cruz tries to organize and cannot get it. then you are on the fifth,

sixth, seventh ballot. you could see candidates that ran and pulled out reemerging. scott walker. just using him as an example. you could see someone who is liked by the grassroots, liked by conservatives, who has had a good moment recently. scott walker is viewed as being key in helping ted cruz win wisconsin. i'm not saying it is going to be him, but someone like him could be reemergence. it could be marco rubio. ryan's key point was it cannot be someone who does not have skin in the game. all these other candidates have skin in the game. charlie: what do you think of that, albert? al: he made another subtle point when he said that, if no candidate wins on the first ballot, it ought to go to someone who has run. that is not the donald trump view. the donald trump view is, if i finish ahead of everybody else, it ought to go to me. i thought that was a subtle swipe at trump. you talk about the future of the party, and where paul ryan is.

there is a schism that is so profound between the rank-and-file voters this year, who have voted for trump and cruz, and paul ryan's brand of conservatism on trade. -- on issues like immigration and trade, and to an extent, budget policy. ryan has more in common with obama than with trump hearing -- trump. charlie: on poverty? dan: after the 2012 election, he spent an enormous amount of time and resources on a re-think, reform program, on how we can turn around the war on poverty programs and dedicated enormous resources. that is what he wants to be talking about. he wants to be talking about the issues he thinks should be about the future and the inclusiveness of the republican party. it has been a real struggle for him, watching the chaos of this primary process and watching these ideas that he cares about being subordinated to madness.

al: one challenge he has is, for two or three years, paul ryan has promised an alternative to obamacare. he has not delivered on it. the goal post keeps moving. if he really wants to talk about an alternative republican agenda, he has to start there. it's fine to talk about poverty. i give him credit for being sincere on that. but at some point, you have to deliver on specifics. smart as the speaker has -- might be, he has not done that on issues like obamacare. charlie: why not? dan: he is committed to specifics on policy. his medicare reform proposal, if nothing else, it was very specific. some critics would argue on the right, specific to a fault. it opened him up to be a big target because he was so specific. on poverty, he is very specific. on obamacare, he is the leader in one house. and mitch mcconnell is the

leader in the senate. paul feels more strongly that republicans need to put forth an alternative to obamacare than some running for reelection in the senate do. because they think it exposes them. you have to do it with a presidential candidate, republican candidate, a really comprehensive alternative. he has been working on it. he has a lot of views on health care reform. he has worked with a lot of members on it. i think, depending on who our nominee is, you will see something. al: dan, wait a second. obamacare passed six years ago. as somebody said at a convention, how long, oh, lord, how long? six years without an alternative is an awfully long time for a policy wonk. dan: paul has put forward many reform proposals on health care. he has been done this long before obamacare and he has done them since. your question is, why isn't there a comprehensive republican alternative that everyone has bought into? al: if you're not going to repeal, you ought to replace it. dan: he has not been in charge of the house.

he has not been the leader of the house until a few months ago. he can put forth proposals, but he was not running the show and did not have control of the senate. for the first time now he is in , a position to advance ideas he has been talking about. al: he was the chairman of the house committee on ways and means, which is where healthcare begins. he has been in a position to do that for years. look i like paul ryan. , dan: eric cantor and john boehner, kevin mccarthy, people i like and respect, were not as passionate about this issue as he was. it was difficult to put forward a comprehensive republican alternative. charlie: suppose, going into a contested republican convention, donald trump has less than 1237, and somehow, the nomination goes to ted cruz or john kasich. does kasich have a chance? dan: i do not see how. his whole rationale is electability. it is hard to make the case for electability when you are not getting elected anywhere. he has won one of 30 states, his

own state, and not anywhere else. he has no organization. he has no real national media strategy. where is he? i like kasich. he is a very accomplished man. but, it is hard to make the case that i'm the only guy that can beat hillary clinton. i just cannot win anything in my own party over 10, 11 months. charlie: there were some cases, historically, one, as jack kennedy said, if nelson rockefeller got the nomination, he could have beaten him. that was kennedy's assessment in 1960. someone who can't get the moderate -- nomination for a lot of reasons, but might be a moderating force can win elections even if they are not the favorite of the party because conventions and primaries are controlled by extremes within the party. dan: generally speaking.

his case for electability is weak. the case, generally, for electability, never has much purchase. most people who vote in primaries and participate are motivated by issues, ideas, motivated by philosophical principles. they are not motivated by strategy. they do not sit there with a chessboard and say, i disagree with him on this, but he can do that. they are motivated by ideas and leadership. you cannot just sit there, laying out a map, if there is no real excitement. convention,ontested if the nomination goes to somebody else, what is donald trump likely to do? al: create as much trouble as he possibly can. donald trump does not care about the republican party. donald trump cares about one thing, donald trump. he will not take it lying down. he will create all kinds of chaos. i think the nominee will be

donald trump or ted cruz. in the very unlikely event they were to turn to someone else, though, john kasich's case is much stronger than marco rubio or scott walker. he has contested throughout even though he has not won. the odds are 98% or 99% it will be trump or cruz. if trump does not get the nomination and it goes to ted cruz, i do not think donald trump will be a lofty loser. dan: i do not think marco rubio will get back in the race, but i think he has more delegates than kasich and has been out for several months. he has one more states than kasich. al: that will change. dan: yeah, but it has taken a long time to change. i am not making a case for rubio, i am simply saying kasich losing over a long time and saying, i will hang around to emerge at the convention is

probably not going to work. the growing frustration with kasich as a spoiler is a big problem for him. if you look at any congressional district or state that has a winner-take-all delegate allotment system, with kasich and cruz in the race splitting the anti-trump vote, it enables donald trump to win these states with 35%, 38%, 39% of the vote. if the anti-trump vote could consolidate behind one alternative, he would not win these places. trump has the potential -- california, every congressional district in the state allots delegates based on winner take all. trump could start winning with 30 plus percent. al: if john kasich dropped out, donald trump would get 95 votes in new york. he would sweep new york, everything, every cd. right now what should happen, , kasich and cruz should collude.

they should divide up. that is the only way they are going to stop donald trump. dan: new york is a unique animal. al: it is not. the same thing is true in connecticut, maryland. right now, the goal of cruz and kasich has to be to stop trump from getting to 1237. better to do that in a three-way field where they pick and choose their targets. at some point, cruz wants to go head to head in some states, but not right now. dan: i agree that increasing the denominator is important. if we get more people to vote, assuming they are non-trump voters, it increases the likelihood he stays below 50% in new york, which would matter a lot. i am all for that. but i also believe, and i have seen plenty of polling that backs this up, in some cases by a 2-1 margin, kasich voters go to cruz if kasich is not in the race. not because they are excited about cruz, but because they are freaked out by donald trump.

cruz in a head to head with trump, could be a good dynamic for the anti-trump forces. al: new jersey, june 7, who would have a better chance? kasich or cruz? dan: kasich probably has a better chance. al: i rest my case. dan: no, no. but if kasich is not in the race, i think you have consolidation behind cruz that gives him a fighting shot or at least keeps trump in a position to not overperform. he has underperformed in polling just about anywhere, typically five to eight points. if a chunk of kasich voters go to cruz and trump underperforms, i think he performs in a lot of these places. in california, cruz could wind up winning a lot of these congressional districts. charlie: in the remaining time, i will turn to the democrats. hillary's margin has grown a little bit. if she beats bernie sanders in

new york as expected, what does that do to the sanders campaign? al: it takes away any argument they had that they had a shot at turning this around. the case was not compelling to begin with. they hoped for a new york showdown, that they can beat her on home turf like gettysburg in 1863, but the result will be the same. he's not going to be able to beat her on home turf. i do not think bernie sanders will go away. his people do not want him to. he is making a case, has run a strong campaign. he wants to have a platform at the convention. he wants to keep pushing her to the left. i do not think there is any question the way the contest will end. rather than decide it, new york would take away any credibility bernie would have. charlie: do you agree? dan: yes, but bernie should stay in this thing. charlie: because? dan: because he is winning in many places.

there is a segment within the democratic party that feels they have lost their voice. charlie: i saw a poll today that a significant part, a large number, 25%, 30%, said they could not support hillary. dan: they will probably vote for trump. what this reminds you is how weak a candidate hillary clinton is. she dodged a bullet with her primary opponent being bernie sanders, and not someone else. there are several leading democrats who could have beaten hillary. charlie: joe biden. dan: elizabeth warren could have beaten him. charlie: not beating bernie, hillary. elizabeth warren would have beaten hillary? dan: she has the energy of the left, the gender enthusiasm. dynamic, she is a charismatic reformer. she is the perfect contrast to hillary clinton. we are reminded now that hillary is a fundamentally weak candidate.

her unfavorable numbers are not much better than donald trump's. she would probably lose to just about any republican running who ran the cycle, with the exception of the two still in. charlie: what do you think, al? al: she is not a strong candidate. it is strange to say she would lose to any republican who cannot get the nomination. the republican party has deep problems. i do not think there is a magical candidate that can beat hillary clinton for all her weaknesses. the republican party right now is in the worst shape in the national contest than it has been since perhaps barry goldwater. it is ironic. in many cases, at the state level, the congress, republicans are very strong. dan: the democrats i speak to say, as giddy as they are to watch the republican party

falling apart, they think the democratic party -- charlie: i will come to his defense. you are viewing this as an analyst. dan: all right, fine. al: my giddiness is when you were talking about donald trump's debacle. dan: some of the professional democrats have said to me that the democratic party is just a few years behind. that, obama is holding things together for the democratic party. he is unifying the democratic party. there is something about having control of the executive branch that gives you tremendous control over the party. once obama is gone, this is a coming attraction to what is happening on our side. once obama is not holding the thing together a few years from now, if the democrats are out of the white house, you could see the same chaos ripping through the democratic party.

charlie: we have to leave it there. thank you, dan senor. thank you, al hunt. al: good to be with you. charlie: we will be right back. ♪

charlie: anderson cooper and gloria vanderbilt are here. although they are public figures, they have long kept much of their private lives quiet. they have written a memoir that explores their relationship and the love and loss that they have endured. it is called "the rainbow comes and goes." "the new york times" calls their

collaboration a remarkably frank and tender undertaking. they also star in a documentary on the same subject. here is the trailer for "nothing left unsaid." anderson: i always remember my mom having this look behind her eyes. it was almost a faraway look. it is very sad to me that, of all the things she sort of wanted, they are always so simple. growing up, it didn't have any reality for me, the whole vanderbilt side of the family. my mom has lived many different lives and inhabited different skins. she has this public face, but the reality is so much different from what the public face is. gloria: these will be fascinating to read -- all our secrets. anderson: this is what he looked like when you first met him? gloria: i knew him for a week and married three weeks later.

anderson: really? how old were you? gloria: 20. anderson: did your friends think it was weird? gloria: i do not know. anderson: here is your dad and your mom. gloria: with my mother. people were so fascinated with this family that apparently had everything. i never felt i belonged. i felt i was an imposter. when he died, i went to bed for about three weeks. all i did was cry. i have not cried since. it's like there's not a tear left. charlie: i am pleased to have anderson cooper and gloria vanderbilt back at the table. never together. anderson: never together. gloria: never together. anderson: i didn't want people to know she was my mom for a long time. gloria: i wanted people to know you were my son. charlie: because? anderson: the name "vanderbilt" has baggage and assumptions about what her life must be

like, which are wrong and different from what it is. especially when i was starting out, i was glad i had the last name "cooper." it is a nice thing. my dad is from mississippi. now, i feel i am established in my career. she called me up a couple years ago and said, someone referred to me as anderson cooper's mother. charlie: the title, "the rainbow comes and goes," where does that come from? gloria: from a poem by wordsworth. i am fascinated by anderson's interpretation of what it means. the rainbow comes and goes, he thinks it goes and that is the end. my interpretation is the rainbow comes and goes and comes back. anderson: my mom is an optimist. at 92, she believes love is

around the corner. she believes you may enter dark days, but it will come back and be great again. i believe that may be the rainbow will come back, but how do you know you will be there when it does? i prepare for the darkness. like "game of thrones." winter is coming. i believe winter is always coming. charlie: it is a bleak one. anderson: it is a bleak one. i want to prepare for the long haul. charlie: whose idea to put this together? anderson: it started when my mom turned 91. on her 91st birthday, she sent me an e-mail. it was in the book, it was funny, just an interesting e-mail. that got me thinking, when my dad died when i was 10, i had a fantasy he left me a letter and it would show up when i turned 18 or 21 and it would tell me everything about him that i did not know. it would tell me everything about his life. it turned out my mom had the same fantasy about her father

that died when she was an infant. i did not want that to be the case for my mom. that when she dies, i did not want there to be anything left unsaid or anything she did not know about me. we started an e-mail conversation. we did it over e-mail because it was easier and because i travel so much. i wanted to change the conversation between us and get to know each other as adults in a whole new way. it has really changed not only our relationship, but my understanding of myself. it is something i hope the book encourages other people to do. charlie: what were the natures of the e-mails? what would you e-mail him? gloria: really, i think it started off with -- i said something like, my aunt gertrude saying to me on my 17th birthday, today, you are 17 whole years old, and i wrote to anderson, today, i am 91 whole years old. that is where we kind of started back and forth. charlie: just anything that

occurred to you? anderson: i would e-mail questions about, you know, when i was a kid, when we were watching robin hood with errol flynn, i remember turning to my mom and saying, do you know errol flynn? she would be like, yes, and her voice would trail off. i knew there was more. i started with simple questions i did not know the answer to. what happened to your mom? how was your relationship? you know, it started off just occasionally -- it was putting a message in a bottle. the bottle would return sometimes within minutes. sometimes within hours or days. charlie: i have often said on this program and everywhere i go, especially because of what you do and i do, and the technology that exists, that every kid ought to interview their parents. talk about their life. gloria: absolutely. charlie: understand what they have done. i talked to my father, but not

nearly as much as i wanted to about world war ii, the worst of the war. the battle of the bulge. anderson: my mom never really had a conversation with her mother her entire life. charlie: did you try? gloria: it just was not appropriate. you know? same thing with aunt gertrude. i knew little about my mother and gertrude. anderson: we all repeat the patterns of the past, the things our parents have done. the things we say we are not going to repeat, we end up repeating. there is tremendous power in seeing the patterns my mother has lived through and what she has done. it has been a revelation. the fact that we both had the same fantasy of this letter that would come from our fathers. that was something i had not realized. charlie: was there a letter? anderson: there was no letter.

gloria: i received a letter from my father. charlie: from your father? gloria: yes. anderson: she is kidding. she said the same thing to me. charlie: when he asked about errol flynn, you said, sure. when he asked about howard hughes? gloria: i said only the greatest things about howard hughes. charlie: you had a lot of lovers. gloria: yes, i did. i went to hollywood when i was 17. i had been living with my aunt gertrude and heavily sheltered. she sent me out for two weeks with a chaperone called constance. when constance arrived, she said, there is no room for you. you have to stay in a hotel. two days later, constance went home.

my mother literally let me do everything i wanted. charlie: what was it you wanted? gloria: what i wanted was to be grown-up. to go out with movie stars. anderson: it was howard hughes you had the real relationship with. gloria: the one i had a real relationship with. charlie: did you think about marrying him? gloria: i certainly would have. charlie: he never asked? gloria: what happened was, i went back to new york, and he sent pat dicicco, who was working for him, so we could see each other. dicicco had a hold on me in a strange way. anderson: she ended up dating this gofer for howard hughes, who was a total thug, who may have murdered his former wife. which my mom thought was oddly romantic. gloria: he was associated with lucky luciano. anderson: she ended up marrying

him instead of howard hughes. i was like, mom, worst choices. charlie: you married him because you loved him? gloria: well, because my mother sort of -- i do not know. suddenly, she announced the engagement and it happened quickly. we were in new york, and dicicco followed me there. i was terribly confused. anderson: it is hard for me to understand the choices. in the book, she obviously goes into detail. it is interesting to see. she describes in the book being this young 17-year-old, never exposed to the world at all, essentially playing blind man's bluff in the forest. every road she would go down, she was a completely different person. charlie: stunningly beautiful. how old were you there? gloria: 15.

charlie: two years before you head out. what was the hardest thing to write about, to talk about? was it death? anderson: i think we both experienced losses throughout our lives. my dad died when i was 10. my brother committed suicide when i was 21 in front of my mom. loss is something that -- i think we both speak the language of loss. it is something we are comfortable talking about. i probably have a harder time talking about it then my mom does, but i do not think there was anything particularly hard. gloria: after carter died, all i wanted to do was talk about it. go over it again and again. i remember once, a whole group of his friends and your friends from school came. you were there. suddenly, you left. i thought, why did you go?

then i realized it was because you were sort of hearing this thing over and over again. you did not talk about it really at all. anderson: i deal with tragedy in a different way. i have become much more quiet and introspective and working out of my head more. there was something about doing this on e-mail that really made it easy to put aside the old, you know, embarrassment or awkwardness or whatever the emotions were and have this conversation. gloria: the thing about e-mail is you do it and it is quick. you press it and it is gone. you cannot get it back. it is sort of freeing, in a way, because you know you cannot get it back. anderson: it sounds like a line but we really hope this encourages people to sit down -- whether it is an aging parent or a child or whatever, just start a new conversation with somebody

in your life. gloria: and really be able to talk without getting sidetracked about things that are painful to go into. charlie: you have been through so much. yet you have this enduring optimism. gloria: i think it is in my nature, i really do. i just can't not. i just can't not. charlie: you do not accept any alternative other than optimism? gloria: i do not know. i just think it is going to turn out all right, the way it was meant to be. charlie: when you look at your life, has it been that way? it turned out ok? gloria: yes. i feel that. charlie: you have been able to survive because she is tough? anderson: actually, i write in the book that she is not tough.

she is a survivor, but that term often applies as kind of brass toughness. she is strong. what i think is amazing about what you have done is you decided to survive and make it through things but remain vulnerable. you are the most vulnerable person i know. gloria: when the custody trial happened when i was 10 years old -- anderson: she was taken away from her mother and given to her aunt. gloria: who i had no idea existed, or the vanderbilt family in that way. the publicity was kept from me as much as it could be. anderson: there were 100 reporters in the courtroom. gloria: part of it leaked out. we are talking about 1933. when it came out that my mother had had a lesbian relationship with milford haven, the court was closed because it was so

terrible, allegedly. it was like it was some kind of crime. first of all, i had no idea what it meant. i thought, maybe it is something i have inherited. maybe i am a lesbian. it would be something terrible. so i kind of put a shield around myself. i rarely, to this day, read anything about myself. if i see my name in a newspaper, i sort of turned quickly. if it is a nice photograph, i look at it. ♪

charlie: anderson, you said, when you lose a parent, and the world seems like a scarier place. it makes sense to me i took survival classes as a teenager and went to war zones as a reporter. i did not want to take advantage of, and wanted to be able to take care of those around me. anderson: there is a quote from harry gordon the writer, about girls, but i think is true about boys, as well. a fatherless girl thinks all things are possible and nothing is safe. if you lose a parent early on, boy or girl, the world of possibility opens up.

terrible things can happen, but also extraordinary things. but nothing ever feels safe. my reaction has been very rational. when nothing feels safe, i want to prepare for living in a place where there is not any why, where some questions do not have answers, where i want to know i can survive in any situation. my mom has chosen not to be so organized but has chosen to sort of embrace the chaos. she is comfortable with that chaos. we are very different in that way, but we have a sort of relentless drive, a rage, that propels us forward and makes the fantasy of having a house, the white picket fence, difficult to sustain. charlie: the rage that drives

you forward, is it rage over loss? anderson: we have different rage. i never knew she had any rage at all. i never told anybody about the rage i felt. that is one of the things that came out of this conversation. with my mom, it was a rage to live. charlie: john o'hara, the writer? anderson: mine is sort of the rage of the unfairness of losing a parent early on, losing my brother, the unfairness of becoming a different person at the age of 10 and feeling like i needed to take care of myself. that sense of unfairness, even as a reporter, fills me with rage. when i see people's voices being silenced, people in situations not of their making suffering, i feel that rage. charlie: are you more of a risk taker because of the life experiences? anderson: i started going to war zones by myself with a fake press pass and a borrowed camera until i became a reporter.

i have been to bosnia, rwanda, all these places. as i have gotten older, you see how easy it is to get killed. we have all lost friends in the field. so i do not take risks in my own life. i do not go skydiving on weekends. for a story, there are very few places i would not go. i take calculated risks, i think. i do not view myself as a risk taker. charlie: do you see yourself in your son? gloria: i do think i am a risk-taker. in working together on this book, i think you discovered things that you thought were similar. anderson: i had no idea how much i am like my mom. i thought i was like my dad. i look like my dad. gloria: the spitting image. anderson: but this drive, this

relentlessness, this inability to enjoy the present, i am completely focused on the future. i am thinking about what is coming down the pike, preparing for it. my mom is very much focused on the past, reliving scenes from her past. the end result is kind of a lack of ability to enjoy what we currently have. charlie: i am like him. anderson: your schedule to me, when i think i'm working hard, i think, charlie rose is doing, like, five shows today. charlie: it is this relentless thrust forward. people think, he just wants to be on television. no, you do not. you want to do this stuff that is interesting and explore the future. anderson: we are both blessed in that what we are doing is fascinating stuff. you are talking to incredible people.

we are learning new stuff every single day. it is more interesting than taking a vacation on a beach somewhere. i would rather shoot a story. charlie: it enables you to go anywhere in the world. if you do it, there is often the possibility to do things in every country you could not otherwise do. anderson: you see the country -- you are sort of smelling the smells. it is more vibrant. it is going to a place and being of the place, getting the essence of the place, as opposed to staying in a hotel and dabbling. charlie: you learned to see yourself in your mother. what else? anderson: we are different. her total comfort in chaos. dorothy parker said those born in the storm find the calm very boring. gloria: i am much more comfortable and able to cope.

anderson: when i call her, i steel myself for what chaotic thing has just occurred. gloria: oh, darling. anderson: i will be like, get ready. what is coming down the pike? i like stability and calm, but i create chaos. gloria: walter matthieu said to his wife about me, she is never satisfied. and it is true it is the wrong , word. charlie: that is why you are similar. you are never satisfied. his sense is the thrill of the next exploration. anderson: it is exhausting to be around her. she is constantly redecorating. she wants her environment -- she is constantly changing it. this table would not have lasted 20 years in my mom's apartment. as beautiful as it is, she

would've painted it a different color. charlie: do you, at the end of this, feel proud to be a vanderbilt? anderson: i don't know, it has no reality for me. it just has no impact. it does not help me in anyway. charlie: it is in your blood. anderson: i guess. i feel much more a cooper. i go to the cooper family reunions. that feels like a family to me. i know that history. i started to read about the vanderbilt history. my parents early on said, there is no vanderbilt trust, you are on your own after college. that is the way it should be. i am fine with it. i started working when i was 11 to earn my own money. i want to take care of myself. i never felt really connected. and my mom, did not feel

connected to that at all. gloria: i never felt connected at all. i knew my name was vanderbilt, but we were living in paris. my mother never spoke about my father or the vanderbilt family. anderson: even when she was living with her aunt gertrude, she felt like an imposter. gloria: i felt like an imposter because i was really sort of treated like one. i was not welcomed. i never felt i belonged, you know? anderson: it was one of the reasons i wanted the book and the film. the reality of my mom's life is so much more interesting than the name implies. i think people think she is a lady who has lunch and goes to social events all the times. but she has written numerous books. i just am happy that people are seeing her as she is. charlie: what do you wish for him? anything you do not see clearly that he has or will have?

gloria: i want you to have a family. anderson: thank you for always bringing this up as if this is not ongoing. gloria: i want to be alive when you do. [laughter] gloria: and i want to -- i just, you know -- anderson: she called me up a couple years ago. she had a conversation with a doctor. she was telling me about fertility clinics. i was like, mom, i know about that. it is not a lack of information. i got it. i am working three jobs. but i think about it a lot. i am 48. gloria: you would make the most wonderful father. anderson: i do love kids. i am good with kids. i do not know.

i love what i do, and i would have to change it radically. i totally would. i would want to be the kind of father my father could not be. charlie: that is often what they say. i just talked to richard engel. he does not take the same kinds of assignments because he has children. he has to think about someone else other than himself. the same sorts of risks. anderson: i would not go to a lot of the places that i go. charlie: do you think he is looking for a reason not to do this? what is it? gloria: you used to be very encouraging about it. anderson: i used to be very convinced. charlie: convinced about what? anderson: look, in the writing of this book, i think we are alike. that drive we both have makes it difficult to sort of have a family and -- i do not know.

i just think it is -- i do not know. i would want to make a big change in my career. we will see. i do not know. charlie: he wants you to have another great love affair. [laughter] gloria: i absolutely believe the phone can ring and your life could change. this is a fact. anderson: i said, you think there is a guy in a boat off the coast of france waiting to whisk you away. she said, a yacht. i would rather work hard, earn enough money, and build a boat of my own. take care of myself. i don't want to wait around. charlie: he seems to like nice things to me, gloria. gloria: he does. you know that word, "taste," which is what a person likes. something could be terrible, you would think.

anderson: my mom was always encouraging of any expenditure of money on things. i would go clothes shopping as a little kid. she would say, it is something you will have forever. i was like, i will grow out of this in a year. charlie: you changed clothes the way she changes rooms. did you counsel with her in terms of when you would make public -- anderson: it is funny. i didn't. this tells you something about our relationship. i came out to my friends in high school and told her out of college, but i did not tell her i was going to make a public announcement. in fact, i had planned to call her because i was going back to africa for a story in botswana. i spent three days in a remote camp. i wanted to be away when the story came out.

i wrote a letter to a website. i had planned to call my mom the day before and have a conversation with her to give her a heads-up. i wrote this letter, and it may get picked up another media sources. it turns out the camp i went to was so remote, there was no service to get a message out. i would have had to travel 24 hours to another area. anyway, i did not have time to tell her. i got back two days later and got cell service and called her up, and she said, you should have mentioned this was going to pop up in "the new york times." she was very sweet about it, she but she was like, i see you said something. i was like, i forgot to tell you. charlie: you were happy he did it? gloria: of course. joyful. charlie: seems to be the nature of the relationship, joyful. gloria: love is love.

i had huge problems with my mother's being a lesbian, thinking i would be. then, it was considered something evil and terrible. so it took me a long time to, in my intelligence, work it out. came to the conclusion that love between a woman and a woman is love and a man and a man is love, and a woman and a man is love. there is no difference at all. it is exactly the same. when i figured that out and anderson found someone he loves, i am thrilled. i like him a lot too. i approve. mom approves. charlie: the book is called "the rainbow comes and goes: a mother and son on life, love, and loss." there is also a documentary film.

anderson: it will be on cnn april 29. charlie: thank you. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

mark: i am mark crumpton, you are watching "bloomberg west." let's begin with the check of your first word news. a task force set up by rahm emanuel to investigate a police shooting has released its findings. the report accuses police of having "no regard to the sanctity of life, when it comes to people of color, and of alienating minorities for decades, using excessive force and honoring a code of silence." a belgian tv network has uncovered previously unseen footage of salah abdelsam. peoplene of the alleged involved in the paris attacks. he is seen walking through a market in a neighborhood of brussels. families of the victims of the