>> charlie: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with michael mcfaul, former ambassador to russia and a look at the es cay lating crisis in ukraine. >> i have watched and observed president putin for a long time. i do not think he has a master plan to annex eastern and southern ukraine. if he did, he's kept it very secret for a long, long time. i do think he is responding tactically, improvising, and if he can find a way to not do a full-scale invasion, i think he would settle for that because he knows the price of that. he knows it's not going to be an easy operation. it may be ease easy in the first days or weeks but in the months and years, it will not. i hope other around him will remind him the economic costs as well. >> charlie: we continue with mark halperin and john

heilemann, looking at the politics of 2014 and their new association with bloomberg. >> so there is a lot of demand for digital video, a lot of experiments that haven't worked well and largely because as good as the news organizations are that tried to do it, they don't have television studios, experienced producers or people who make tv all the time. the great thing about this opportunity is we take the assets bloomberg has an apply them in a different way. >> charlie: keifer sutherland's 24, live another day. >> 24 was big in africa, eastern europe and big in the middle east, but i found surprising. the show really did transcend the culture, language, politics, religion, all kinds of things. i've never experienced any single project like it. >> charlie: ukraine, the politics of 2014, and the return

of 24. when we continue. su2z >> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. captioning sponsored by rose communications

from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: we begin this evening with the ongoing coverage of the crisis in ukraine. violence and chaos gripped the region friday. more than 40 killed in odessa, meanwhile ukrainian special forces intensified operations against russian backed militias in the east. michael mcfaul warned this is real, this is war. joins me from stanford university, please to have him as always back on this program. welcome. >> thanks, charlie. >> charlie: just simply because i understand the context, what did you mean when you said "this is war, this is real"? >> well, charlie, i was looking at the fighting in slovyansk, between very well-trained and heavily armed ukrainians fighting very heavily armed

and/or well trained russians. we don't know exactly who these men are. it feels like real combat. there were nor casualties today. that is war in my view and, number two, it has the potential to escalate into a much bigger conflict because i worry that it will bring in the russians. >> charlie: give me the scenario. the pro-russian militants feel like the ukrainians somehow are advancing against them and so putin will use that as an excuse to send russian troops in to protect threatened pro-russian militants. >> you just said it. that's exactly right. let's be clear, president putin, weeks ago, has already said that if russian citizens are threatened, i have the right and responsibility to protect them. you already have individuals including the kind of acting alleged mayor of this town in

slovyansk already calling for that kind of military intervention to protect them against the ukrainian forces. so i think it's a very, very fragile situation now. >> charlie: what could prevail to make him not do that if, in fact, the escalation reaches that point? >> well, just watching the videos, as i have been, reminds of just how incredibly nasty and bloody and terrible this corks having ukrainians and russians at war with each other. so i hope the news out of slovyansk today, the terrible news out of odessa a couple of days ago will remind everybody of the tragedies of war and maybe we'll get back to a deescalation phase, which for several days now has been stuck. >> but based on your knowledge of him and your knowledge of the government that he presides over, does he want to do this? in other words, is he looking for an excuse?

>> you know, charlie, i don't think so. i don't want to pretend i know, but i have watched and observed president putin for a long time. i don't think he has a master plan to annex eastern and southern ukraine. if he did, he's kept it very secret for a long, long time. i do think he is responding tactically, improvising, and if he can find a way to not do a full-scale invasion, i think he would settle for that, because he knows the cost of that. he knows it's not going to be an easy operation. it may be easy in the first days and weeks, but over the months and years, it will not. and i would hope that others around him will remind him of the economic costs as well of going into eastern and southern ukraine. >> charlie: suppose he goes in and suppose it escalates and, therefore, the president of ukraine is fighting the russian military, isn't that an overwhelmingly easy opportunity for the russian army or is there

something i'm misunderstanding? >> no, in the short term you're right. a conventional war between the russian army, the conventional army and the ukrainian conventional army is an easy victory for the russians in the short run. but think about what happens over time. they're then now an occupying army, there are no good borders between eastern ukraine and the rest of ukraine, they have 40,000 troops -- allegedly -- still on the borders, russian military experts say it will take 150,000 soldiers to secure that border, and the ukrainians will fight. i mean, if you are a ukrainian nationalist, you don't like the situation, already. part of your country has already been annexed. if the russian army comes in and occupies eastern ukraine, i think you have guerilla war for a very long time. >> charlie: who's going to help the ukrainians, the government in ukraine today? >> well, i hope that the west

and nato will stand firm and support them economically, in the first instance, but i don't think the ukrainians are asking for anybody to fight their battles for them. i think they'll do that themselves. >> charlie: and what should the west do, whether europe or the united states, to provide assistance for the ukrainians? >> well, it's not too late for diplomacy, i want to emphasize that. i think that just because a war has begun and just because casualties have happened now in slovyansk doesn't mean it has to escalate. i would hope that in the immediate run you would have more conversations between mr. putin, between the leaders of europe and president obama to think about a way to deescalate. if that doesn't succeed, then, of course, economic assistance, perhaps military assistance if the russian army is occupying eastern ukraine, those will be

next escalatatory steps. but i'm not emphasizing that. we need to engage diplomacy before the worst-case scenario. >> charlie: so what arguments need to be made to vladimir putin that he will appreciate -- let's assume he makes a serious analysis of the circumstance and, one, it will point out it will do great damage to his economy and that's a problem for him, two, if he wants respect from the world, it will do damage to that. if he wants russia to be seen as a member of the world community in good standing, it will do damage to that. what else will have an impact on him, if that will? >> well, i agree with your first two points. i would add a third. do you really want to be the president of russia that starts a war between -- after all, ukrainians are russians, people who have lived together peacefully for a long time, a lot of historical and cultural

ties, and to start a war that will look, you know, decades from now, why did this have to happen? this could have been easily avoided. remember in eastern ukraine, it's not all just russians, it's actually a minority of russians. most people out there are ukrainian. second, there is a lot of mixed marriages, families that are part ukrainian, part russian. why do you want to start a war between those peoples. >> charlie: rep republicans are attacking the russians, you know, what will you fight for. what do you think the -- what balance do you think the president is trying to achieve? clearly he's trying to get chancellor merkel to be responsive to unified action, but what else is the balance? >> first of all, what will we fight for. let's just remember the history of russian and soviet military

intervention in eastern europe. you can go back to 1945, 1956 when the soviets go hungary, '68 in czechoslovakia and into georgia in 2008, in all of those cases, democrat, republican, when push came to shove, russians knew americans were not willing to fight for eastern europe. that's just a fact for history. for those who say now we need to fight for ukraine, i just remind people of that history. in the short run, though, the president wants to raise the stakes of military intervention. he wants to say, if you go in, we are serious about sanctions and we're going to go after your banks, we're going to go after your oil and gas industries, and they've already done a few shots across the bow to demonstrate they have a credible commitment to escalation. and charlie, i remind you, no president ever put these kind of

sanctions on soviet or russian officials ever before. the president has now said we're going to go further if there's further military escalation. i think that's the best option given all the other options are much worse in terms of what we are willing to do. >> charlie: you worked for the president and national security council and he appointed you ambassador to russia. you, i assume, believe he's balanced the interest of the united states reasonably well here? >> yes. again, i want to stress, i have worked for a long time, i can imagine that he's balancing our interests of wanting to deter russian aggression, of course, from not wanting to trigger an economic recession in europe or the global economy, right? because, remember, there could be an action-reaction cycle from the so-called sectoral sanctions if they're put in place. that's a dilemma he's facing now. nobody wants this crisis.

nobody's itching for a fight with the russians, but it just can't go unanswered and i think the president's been very clear about the actions he's willing to take if putin goes further. >> charlie: no one wanted world war i either, did they? >> correct. >> charlie: michael, thank you so much. >> thanks for having me. >> charlie: we'll be back. stay with us. >> charlie: mark halperin and john heilemann are here, joining bloomberg. have a venture called bloomberg politics. best known for game change and double down. mark halperin was political analyst at time. this week marks the beginning of the primaries ahead of november's mid-term elections. republicans challenge democrats for control of the senate and a battle for the g.o.p. for the party's future. pleased to have mark halperin and john heilemann at this table as this thing has come to be known in the public.

congratulations. >> happy to be with you on this day. >> charlie: i'm happy for that. i think you said, mark, there's a chance to do something we've never been able to do. what is that? >> well, it's to be at the center of a startup of an organization that's going cover american politics in a way that appeals to both of us because it will involve storytelling, the american political story, as you know, is a great story. every year, there's no story as consistently big in politics. stories come and go, natural disasters, et cetera, but it's a great big story we spent both our careers covering and a great organization with a lot of resources and a tradition of excellence and journalism to create a startup, to be the founders of something that hopefully will represent all we've learned about journalism and about how to cover politics in a digital age. >> charlie: we know about the two books and how good you guys are and from appearing on this

show and the morning show and a lot of other places, in "time magazine" and writing in your magazine. tell me what it will look, smell and feel like. >> one of the great things about starting a venture like this is you don't really know. there will be pieces. multi-platform is a key elements. >> charlie: what do we get to do? >> web, mobile web, television, digital video, events, print, all that stuff. >> charlie: conferences and things like that where you two will talk about politics. >> or town hall meeting for candidates or debates or any number things toward the 2016 presidential election. there are a lot of live things. >> charlie: the potential to do something nobody's ever done before? >> well, i think the biggest area where that may be the case is digital media, particularly video, where every organization wants to do that, but we think the combination of the folks here who understand a lot about how it works as well as the

things that john and i have learned over the course of our careers, where we think there's lots of things you can do in digital video, which means for people watching who may be -- not television, but the increasing of interest by consumers and advertisers and video produced for the web, which can be different lengths, short and long, but we think there's an opportunity amongst other things to tell stories in a rich way there. now most of the video on the web is not particularly creatively or thoughtfully produced and we think we can do it differently. >> and it's mostly not produced with people with any experience of television and infrastructure. so a lot of demand for digital video and a lot of experiments that have not worked that well because as good as the news organizations are that tried to do it, they don't have television studios, experienced producers, people who make tv all the time and one of the great things about this

opportunity is we take the assets bloomberg has and apply them in a forum of digital video mark was talking about. >> charlie: this argument is made by people is that people who find themselves, who began in digital media look at it differently than people like, say, the agust institutions like newspapers and magazines who then say we want to use digital media. there is a different in using digital media than sort of coming from digital media. >> i think there is something to that. we're of the age chronologically and in our careers where we were exposed to the old ways of two or three national weekly magazines and five national newspapers that mattered and three networks, so we understand the values of that which we don't understand the values your programs president, but at the same time we both have been involved in the web since our careers. we're both experimenters on the web and digital video is obviously right now the most

important thing, but you've still got to bring the basic values of journalistic values and storytelling. there's a technological peace and attitudinal piece. but we're confident we'll bring in people who work for us who understand that not only as a business opportunity by a journalistic expression opportunity. >> the generational thing is interesting because we have been lucky in the same way we're not really gen x or gen y, we're on the cuesum. in 1996 when i worked with hot wired, we did the first major campaign on the web. i had grown up in magazines when i was younger than that. we're not afraid of digital journalism and not the kids who had only digital, but we were there at the beginning of it, so we can straddle lines of values of print and old media with no

fear and having wall lowed in the digital soup for a long time. >> charlie: and a hands-on connection to it. >> yes. >> charlie: i have been doing a series of programs about it, people who have come from -- "wall street journal," "new york times," "washington post" -- and found their best opportunity as an essential part of digital media. >> one reason we're so excited about this is we feel we have the best of both worlds. those people are off doing noble things and taking risks. we have the luxury of working within an organization, bloomberg, bloomberg news and media, that have great assets around the world. >> charlie: more probably than anybody else. >> that's right, and a willingness to desire to do excellent things at the same

time. they want us to be entrepreneurial. they want to be viewed with the same kind of spirit the projects you talked about. for us, it's a great combination. we're covering politics. but the principles we're bringing to this for bloomberg, which has aspirations to do same kinds of things in other areas, but journalism in any case, we feel we have the resources and the leadership to do what everybody needs to do, which is adapt to the new technology with old fashioned values. >> charlie: but you also have a big staff, right? >> certainly, there's a huge, really-large well staffed -- there's a lot of people in the washington bureau of bloomberg. >> charlie: how's that going to work? political coverage in washington and here. >> we're going to connect enthusiastically. they're stressing the notion of a collaborative model between bloomberg media and bloomberg news, and we're going to take

the best of the stuff those guys do in washington at bloomberg news, and also bring on new resources on our side up here that are going to be dedicated to us and put it all together so we can exploit the best of what they have and create new. >> charlie: so you are in charge for political coverage for bloomberg? >> we'll certainly have a big role in giving people oversight in the coverage going forward. >> charlie: let's talk about politics. upcoming elections. how does it look as we see it may 5, 2014? >> it looks like democrats have a real uphill battle. not surprisingly. it's an off-year election. so traditionally, off-year elections are bad for presidents losing power. the other thing over the last few mid-term and on-year elections is there are two different electorates that vote in america, one in off-year and one in presidential elections. >> charlie: different?

demographically really different. the coalition that elected barack obama in 2012 and 2008 was a larger group, a much more hispanic group, african-american group, a group dominated by a lot more young people in it, more college educated women in the group. much more diverse electorate that comes out in those presidential election years. in non-presidential years, you have an older, whiter, much more republican electorate that turns out. so the combination of those two things, president obama almost heading into his sixth year, fighting against a lot of things -- we can talk about the problems for him -- but the structural elements favor republicans and the things happening topically are also favoring republicans right now. you know, no one really thinks democrats have any chance of ever taking control of the house. the senate is up for grabs and if the election were held today, i think the republicans would probably take control of the

senate. >> charlie: and money in terms of the groups that are spending money. my home state of north carolina, just pouring in. >> well, that's a place where the republicans and the conservative groups have really gone crazy. i agree with everything john said. i tell you things that could allow democrats to change the dynamic, one is all the democratic groups are following the model of the president and changing the makeup of the electorate. >> charlie: or trying to identify the electorate. >> trying to get their people to turn out. more likely to vote democratic, younger people, non-white voters, those groups, they need to figure out how to get them to vote in the mid-term when they traditionally would not. what can inspire them. another is they're doomed in fundraising. the democratic committees are not doing as well as the outside groups, but the campaign groups are actually fundraising at a decent clip and a have the capacity to continue to raise,

small-dollar donors are doing well. most democrats believe they're very popular. the last thing i'll say the democrats have if you look at the poll, democrats are doing pretty well on issues, the economic issues -- minimum wage, unemployment benefits. they need to figure out how to frame the arguments so the voters tun out rather than the affordable care act or the president's lack of popularity. >> charlie: the affordable care act is the number one issue in mid-term elections? >> i don't know that it will be. >> charlie: the economy. the economy, i think is the number one issue and certainly i think voters overall -- voter concern is still, and the economy. this economic recovery has not been robust. people are concerned. there's not been job growth, wage growth or what people would like to see in recovery. no doubt, republicans, in terms of how the electorate shapes up,

healthcare, opposition to healthcare and not just opposition but intense antipathy towards obamacare is a huge motivating factor for republican-based voters. republicans are not running a totally single issue campaign but they're nationalizing elections around obamacare and getting the voters out. so for those voters, a lot who are likely to turn out, for many of those voters, it's the most important. >> the president's job approval is probably the biggest issue. i don't think there's any prospect if it goes lower than 40 or higher than 46, that seems like a narrow band, but every point will make a big difference. >> charlie: how will he participate in this election? >> very selectively. there are places where -- >> charlie: he can raise money. >> raising money and places where states like louisiana, mayor landrieu is fighting for her life, a lot of

african-american voters in louisiana and the president will probably be able to do things to drive democratic turnout in that state. there are other places where democratic candidates in reddish or purplish states want to have no part of president obama in their state, they wouldn't welcome him. this morning we talked to senator manchin not running. he said would he have president obama, he said flatly no. but there are a lot of states like that. west virginia is not unlike a lot of states where there are seats. >> charlie: the president sees that. >> yes, which is why he cam plains selectively. >> if you talk to democratic strategists where there's no great love between the white house and the congressional wing to have the democratic party, they're not particularly pleased with how the white house is handling its politics. still deep skepticism among the democrats in the congress that the president cares about the

mid-term election -- >> charlie: they don't care? that's what they say even though rationally, of course, the president's term depends on doing well. the honest democrats will tell you that. if there's more glitches with the affordable care act, more bad economic news, the honest democrats will tell you this could turn out to be a very bad election for democrats, not just bad but very bad, meaning losses in the high 20s, losses in control of the senate, lots of losses in the governors races and most democrats don't think the white house is acting commensurate with that possibility. >> most interesting this week, after the white house announced it hit its number on the affordable care act and got to 8 million, you saw the bump in the poles where the president was doing better, healthcare, opposition was reducing, support for the healthcare plan was going up, then in the last days we've seen polls where the numbers turned around. the president's approval rating

hasn't sagged that much because it's very inelastic, but on the healthcare issue, back to where it was before the milestone event. the three numbers, there's a pugh poll that came out today where the generic gap between republicans and democrats is as big as it's been in 20 or 30 years, worse for democrats than 2010 and worse than 1994 in the history of that poll which is a little scary for a lot of democrats. >> charlie: how much of president obama's problems can you lay at his feet? >> he inherited a lot of problems, obviously, and that's the thing the president feels most strongly about. but also the wars and the longer-term trends on the economy, the economic inequality, feels he inherited the auto industry problems, and he's right about that.

in his sixth year, he can start to say the president has some accountable. >> charlie: not so much losing congress, but some real sense of is it anything about his personal style -- cerebral, doesn't like to schmooz. that? >> i think it's also -- there's a real dynamic for him in a cynical age, in a polarized age and in an age where the incentives in politics and media culture are so negative, i think that once he started to lose support from about half the country, it's become very difficult to get it back and i don't think he tried all that hard to do it. i think he's resigned to governing with base supporters rather than aspiring to be in any real way a 65-% approval president. >> charlie: -- to say i got us out of two cars and got

obamacare passed, is he happy? >> more resigned and realistic. john and i have written and talked about this, he's known as a great o or oratory. he likes to reason. >> charlie: what would you call the way bill clinton acts? >> masterful. >> charlie: would he like to govern more masterfully? >> i think bill clinton is a once-in-a-lifetime politician who had the ability to talk the owls down from the trees in a way this president doesn't have for all his political strengths. >> the world has changed. >> charlie: yes, it has. politics has changed. >> charlie: yes. since bill clinton or linden lyn johnson or any of the other models cited. the republican is a much more conservative party and it's become a different thing. sounds like a white house talking point, but you can't

underestimate the extent to which an opposition party that decided from the day that he got in -- that president obama got in office that it was in his short-term political interest to oppose -- >> charlie: but he was not a member of the tea party. >> yes, that's true but they're dealing with the republican electorate that's changed. the example -- and, so, he's not had a partner on the other side. bill clinton at various times, brilliantly but opportunistically could find cooperation with the republicans and times when republicans opposed him in lock step but when he had the opportunity he seized it. president obama has not had that many opportunities. >> he hasn't chosen to kill with kindness his political opponents, and i think that's hurt his ability -- >> charlie: so he didn't kill them with kindness? >> he may have tried, we don't know. >> he chose not to try. he says he didn't try because he

knew it wouldn't work. >> charlie: before we go -- black on bloomberg,. >> charlie: yes. because we'll be sitting down the hall from you. >> charlie: it's a pleasure to talk to you. hillary -- >> yeah. >> charlie: she's looking for a reason -- i mean, she's asking herself, is there any reason i shouldn't do this and hasn't found one, is unlikely to find one. >> she wants to be president. >> charlie: right. i think she thinks running would be difficult and governing would be difficult. >> charlie: she'll overcome all those don't you think? >> i think she has. the two or three things she has to overcome is looking in the face of her grandchild being born this year is i can do this and not miss out. two, she has to decide what she stands for, why she wants to be president, not just because she

can. >> charlie: well, she has to create a narrative. >> why is she doing it now at this time in our history. the last thing is, you know, a very, you know, pedantic thing, logistical, is who amongst people she's worked with, new people, her husband's people, will work with her? how will she organize her campaign? they find people -- who's going to write the speeches, run the campaign, manage the ads. >> charlie: i have to believe with all the things she has going for her -- >> she will have no trouble but has to pick the right people. when she ran the last time, didn't at all. >> these are more important in her case because we know enough about hillary clinton to know when she is not in a political context, when she was in the senate and in the armed services committee, secretary of state, she is incredibly popular and

admired and comfortable in her skin and people like her, and when she put herself in positions where she's been seeking a more politicized environment, particularly campaign environments, some of the things about her character voters find troubling, the sense of calculation and corelessness, they come to the fore. she is not an actual candidate. her husband was natural. so all these ancillary issues matter a lot. if she goes into this campaign without a clear idea of why she wants to run, not that i'm just most qualified or time for the first woman -- although she has supporters, senator cane from virginia was asked what's her message? he said she's most qualify. that's not a message. she needs to know and pick the right people because if she's at all at a loss, i think it's a

real worry about a lot of the things about her that are vulnerabilities will rise to the fore rather than allowing her strengths to rise to the fore. >> charlie: february bush, where are the republicans. >> as we get closer to the campaign being engaged, the vacuum for the establish meant is massive. because they're the ones, the fundraisers, the elite politicians, they're the ones who pay attention from now through the end of next year, over a year from now and those people have, by now, every four years since ronald reagan, had their favorite choice and that person's been the republican nominee every four years. that vacuum is powerful and sucking jeb bush back into it. he is the person they want, he is the one they think who has the best chance to win because it's a one-sentence job description for the party, who

can beat hillary clinton. right now jeb is filling that vacuum because of christie's political troubles, transportation issues, because paul ryan doesn't seem like he wants to run and there is literally no one else close to the stature of those three for the establishment to say who can we get on board with now, prop up, get in the race and get ready for hillary clinton. >> charlie: so it's bush versus clinton. >> the country is looking for fundamental change. (laughter) >> at a time when the country is looking for change. you know, to bring the conversation full circle, part of the reason why jeb bush is attractive and why chris christie was attractive for a time, republicans need to pick the lock and get themselves out of. this they lost the last five of six presidential votes. the presidential electorate year, the year in the presidential campaign, that electorate gives democrats the same kind of structure going in,

and if the republicans can't do better with the ascendent parts of the coalition, of the electorate, they can't win a national electorate. jeb bush is appealing because he conceivably could pick the lock on hispanic voters. >> and the demographics matter but the electoral college really matters more. if you said jeb bush says i'm going to try to win california, he probably wouldn't regardless of who the democrats nominated, but it wouldn't be laughable. jeb bush says i'm going to win florida, wisconsin, not laughable. that's part of the reason the party is attracte attracted to . >> charlie: he's very impressive in interviews and speeches. >> people have met him, regardless of party, i find like him, respect him, think he would be a good president, regardless of party.

>> in the democratic and electoral college, they're bound up together and part of the same story. >> charlie: good luck. great to have you. >> thank you. >> charlie: can i say break a leg? break a leg. back in a moment. stay with us. >> charlie: keifer sutherland is here, agent john mccai jack e series 24. was nominated for 73 emmy awards and one for outstanding drama in 2006. sutherland won for outstanding lead actor. here's a teaser for 24, live another day.

(gunfire) >> charlie: first time you've seen it. >> yeah. >> charlie: ran during the super bowl. >> it did, but i was in london. the super bowl, i actually watched part of the super bowl, but it was, like, at 4:00 in the morning, and they don't have any commercials, that's only here in the states, so that's the first thing i've seen. >> charlie: tell me about how this all happened. >> it was -- you know, kind of a blur. because in all fairness, it happened really fast. i got a call from howard gordon who is the lead writer of 24 and

was for the last seven seasons, and -- actually, i had called him and i think i had called him to congratulate him on the winning of the golden globe for homeland. >> charlie: yeah. and he said, i'm really glad you called. i've got this idea for 24 and it's been bugging me and i have to know if i'm going to continue with it. would you even be interested in doing it? i said, well, what kind of idea? eexplained he wanted to do 12 episodes instead of 24 and the 12 episodes would be -- they would still represent a 24-hour day. then he pitched the beginning of the story. he had it fully flushed out. i said, well, if you think you can really do something, howard, that is going to be as good or better than the best thing we do, i would certainly be open to it. that took 15 minutes off. then i spent six months going,

oh, my god, why on earth would i be doing this? because there was a real sense of accomplishment after eight years, and you have to understand, none of us felt we ever had a perfect season. there was always a problem in the storytelling of 24 hours that usually happened around episode 14 or 15 when we kind of have to make some kind of drastic turn to get home. but having said that, we made 196 hours of television in eight years, and we were proud of it. we were proud of what we had done. so once you finish that, you kind of feel like you got away with something, that you didn't jump the shark, so to speak. a metaphor from happy days, by the way. >> charlie: you were a young star and the whole group of actors, you lived together, didn't you? you, and sean. >> robert downey, jr. and i were

roommates. >> charlie: at the height in the history of acting. >> probably is. >> charlie: you and sean. yeah. >> charlie: anyway, you were part of that, and you had a career in which you were doing a lot of roles but weren't a big international star. when 24 came, it went through the roof. >> 24 changed my life unquestionably, and in so many different ways. i mean, i have a picture of my daughter who was 12 years old when i started 24 and she was on the set. next to her, i have a picture of her graduating from n.y.u. and i'm still doing 24. so not only did it represent ten years of my career, you know, which is certainly, you know, more than a third of my entire career, but the success of the hoe was unlike -- of the show was unlike anything i experienced. one of the things i found remarkable about 24 is we got very focused with 24 which is we're living in america, doing a

show in america and we would sometimes forget the international success of 24. so when we went -- when i went to shoot in south africa, 24 was huge in africa, in eastern europe, big in the middle east, which i found surprising. so it was something we were all so proud of is the show really did transcend a culture, language, politics, religion, all kinds of things. so i've never experienced any single project like it. >> charlie: and were you sad when it ended? >> very. very. not creatively. creatively, i think we were all fine, but i think there were 38 births on that show, i think 42 marriages, and i know it sounds trtrite, but we spent more time with each other than with our own families. we became a very close-knit group. i'm not much of a cryer, but i

remember the last scene, the last take, when i did it, i knew it was over, and i looked at the camera operator and went to shake his hand to say it was an honor, and i lost it, you know. and, you know, i was kind of embarrassed by it because they were shooting b roll because it was the last episode and i went to shake his hand and he had to look away and i looked away and it barely came out of my mouth. so from that perspective, i was very sad. i knew i wasn't going to be able to spend the time with them that i had. >> charlie: the magical thing that happened is some of those friends are back on this. >> yes. >> charlie: including. mary lynn. >> charlie: has to be there. has to be there. kim rayburn and john -- >> charlie: she's married to a prime minister , isn't she? >> white house chief of staff. >> charlie: oh, yeah. and then joh john casara.

>> charlie: this is the first clip from 24, live another day. >> nobody move! jack! put your hands where i can see them! >> jack! what are you doing! what's going on? >> enough of you. which one of you is derek yates? i said... which one of you is derek yates! >> yates no longer works here. help me find him.

i'm afraid i can't do that. you don't have any choice. >> we all have choices.qdp3 whether i should help you, my credibility -- >> your credibility! i am not going to ask another time. >> stop! we will help you! i promise, i will help you. (laughter) >> charlie: jack is up to it again, isn't he? >> yeah. >> charlie: he's as tough and violent as -- >> one of the things that attracted me when howard and i first talked about it at the very beginning of starting this season was that the character was actually going to be harder than he'd ever been before. >> charlie: because? he'd been hiding four years ago in eastern europe, estranged from his daughter, can't see his grandchildren, the country he worked so hard to try and protect is now hunting him down,

he can't go home, that kind of isolation is going to make you cross and, so, instead of him kind of working within a structure to try and save the day, if you will, he's really working from outside. so even the people that he's trying to protect in this vaccines, they're the people that -- in this season, they're the people hunting him as well. so there's a complexity in that that was interesting. >> charlie: so the hunter is hunting. >> yeah. >> charlie: chloe is essential because? she's changed, too, by the way. >> she's changed dramatically. and the dynamic of our relationship has changed as well, as you see by that clip. we're not on the same side, you know. >> charlie: yeah. i think she's essential because i think she's the female representative of what i think jack represents as well, which is, you know, a very kind of

normal person put into extraordinary circumstances who's doing their best. that's what i've found relatable about the character. for me i know that's how shelves about her character and relatable to an audience. we all feel life is its own extraordinary circumstance and we're all doing our best and i think she represents that. >> charlie: kim is back? she is. kim, who plays audrey, is one of the most exceptional actors i've worked with. she's extraordinary. you know, obviously, this is one of the few characters that jack actually had an emotional relationship with, an intimate relationship with, and, so -- and he thought leaving her was the best thing for her. so to have that kind of reconnect in the context of this vaccines has been exciting as well. >> charlie: let's take another

look at a clip. this is where jack bower first resurfaces in london. here it is. >> it's him. jack bower. >> charlie: it's him, jack bower. >> benjamin is fantastic. >> charlie: i know. and one of the nicest, people, too. >> charlie: this will be streamed, too? the 12-hour thing is because -- and i'm told that this was an attractive idea because streaming has become so important. netflix brought it to the surface, obviously, first began

the clear success of the house of cards. did that enter into television planning today? >> oh, absolutely. >> charlie: absolutely? absolutely, yeah. i mean, the industry, from when i started -- and you and i visited on this many times -- but when i started 24 to now, not only has the content changed on television, i mean, the quality of the programming is just exceptionally good. but the delivery devices have changed. >> charlie: exactly. and the industry is changing so fast. i mean, i remember i was working with jeffrey catsenburg on an animated film and he was really promoting this 3-d idea for the animated movies. i said, well, why is this such a passion of yours? and he said, in all fairness, if you take a look at movies, nothing's really changed since we introduce dolby sound and

people have home theaters now that are so well thought out and well design that why would you go to a movie and if we don't create something, people will stop going. i thought about it and i thought, wow, he's trying to. -- wow, he's right. the experience of going to a movie has not changed much. the experience of watching television and how you can watch television has changed dramatically, and it's taking over. >> charlie: a critic for "the new york times" wrote in about 24. she said, it's an action adventure fantasy mixing real and present dangers into a plot so convoluted and outlandish that viewers never felt too far from popcorn escapism. >> she's basically saying dynasty on crack (laughter) and i would wholeheartedly agree with that. it's on purpose.

i remember one of the things that concerned me about starting was playing jack bower, you have to talk like an auctioneer, really fast, and sometimes there is so much exposition you have to get through to justify the next moment, and i learned very quickly that people don't even necessarily need or want to hear it, it just needs to be there that if someone asks a question, you can point at something. there were times when i would learn three pages of dialogue and do it so fast that we would take what should have been a 5-minute scene and it ended up being 45 seconds. >> charlie: how's your dad? really well. we got to work together. >> charlie: in the film? yeah, finally. we did a western called "the forsaken" that hopefully will be finishing out by fall. >> charlie: the first time? first time, yeah.

>> charlie: oh, my. and it was everything and more, you know. we approached it -- we were both very professional when we started. we were there for a couple of weeks before production, and we were talking about the material and this, and it was very kind of stiff. i was, like, oh, this is odd. and i couldn't take it anymore, i said, when we start shooting tomorrow, things are a bit awkward, i'm really nervous. he started laughing and said he was scared to death. and the two of us finally started to laugh about it. and it was a fantastic experience. he's one of the few people i've worked with because i have such respect for him as an actor that there were a couple of times we were doing a scene, and i had never seen him work, and i was so interested in his process and we were in a scene and forgot i was in it. i thought, oh, it was my turn to

speak. so it was realty fantastic. >> charlie: didn't you tell me his advice on you in becoming an actor is never get caught lying. >> what he meant by that is, in a scene, if it says "and the character is moved to tears," his point was, if you're not moved to tears, don't fake it. i didn't trust that. i always wanted to do what they said and a couple of times i did it and it blew up in my face and it took me a while to learn that lesson. >> charlie: great to have you. thank you very much. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by

media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib. brought to you by -- >> the street.com. shares your strategy, stock picks with action alerts plus. the multimillion dollar portfolio she manages with jim cramer. you can learn more at the street.com/nbr. >> in the bull's-eye. target's ceo is out. the board calls for new leadership following the massive cyber attack. how vulnerable are other ceos? >> too big to jail? the u.s. attorney general sends a warning to financial institutions. even the biggest banks are not too big to jail. and still going strong. at 83, warren buffett is a superstar for advice on everything from his company, the market and the business world. all that and