mark: i mark halperin. john glenn and i'm john heilemann -- john: and i'm john heilemann. we think this is a pretty good deal. mark: [laughs] happy negotiation tonight. today, the president announced the united states what only the smartest contestants say to how you men dell, "i will take that

-- to how we men dell "i will take that deal. president obama iran's -- president obama: iran's path to weaponize its product will be difficult at best. if congress kills this deal not based on expert analysis and without offering any reasonable alternative, then it is the united states that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. john: mark my biggest question to you, what is the obstacle to get this done? market: -- mark: it's not whether they like the deal. the president through the gauntlet down and said you better try or it is the u.s.'s fault. the president has gotten a deal that i think he can get through,

assuming details are worked out. john: the devil, as people say often, is often the details. there is a fair amount to be negotiated. iran is an unstable negotiating partner. i still think there is a chance that the iranian site will fall apart between cap inlet, to mix metaphors. -- between cup and lip to mix metaphors. even without netanyahu issuing a tacit veto threat, if you will. mark: senator corcoran was more wait and see, and i think that is what the president hoped for. on first lest, it is hard to believe that a lot of people have read the thing in detail. as you said, as the u.s. talking points describe it, it is clearly a better deal than a lot of people reporting on the negotiation suggested. i think this is the strongest the president has looked in

getting this deal done today quite honestly. and not just because there is a tentative outline, but because world powers are with him and the iranians have given up a lot. john: we've just got to keep watching corker. mark: in indiana, the bill to -- in indiana and arkansas, the bills to amend the so-called religious freedom loss have sailed through. the one in indiana passed lickety-split through both chambers and is now on the governor's desk. there is every reason to believe governor mike pence will find the measure. lawmakers in both states along with the governors of course, are searching for an alternative that will satisfy everyone. does the fact that these two legislators -- legislatures met their end of week deadline mean that there is a way to split the baby? john: it obviously means that in both the states there was an extraordinary sensitivity to the

backlash and everyone was looking for some way out of the cauldron that have bring all this. i think it is hard to split the baby in the end, because the people on the far right will not be set as with the solution, no matter what happens indiana and most people on the far left will be satisfied with a solution. and as a political issue, they still have to go into 2016. the baby has not been split in that it has not been put to rest. mark: there was some criticism by the religious right. and there were people on the left that would have preferred total repeal of the law. but if the business committee has quieted, then i think there is a way to settle down the issue. there are still lots of fights to be had on gay issues. but this settles the issue for now, i think. john: indiana will not be in the headlines next week. i think that is right. but this does give you a taste of where the arguments are going to go. if gay marriage is now a settled issue, there are lots of other fights to have in terms of gay rights.

this is just a premonition of a lot of fights that will be playing out. we will be talking about that later. this issue is not off the table by any means. mark: one reason this is a huge moment is because republican legislators in indiana voted to make gays and lesbians a protected class for the purpose of this law. that is a huge moment in this in indiana, one of the more socially secure conservative -- socially conservative states in the country. john: i believe it will come alive in indiana again in the future. next month in our coverage of the hoosier state, jeb bush. first, he backed mike pence. then he backed mike pence again when he said the law should be changed. just position is "we should not discriminate based on sexual orientation," that is his new position. has he enhanced his position, or diminished? john: i think he has diminished -- mark: i think he

has diminished because he is not the monopoly on being the guy who will fit hard truth. last night what he said at a fundraiser in san francisco, that is where his heart is. but when he spoke to hugh hewitt, he came down much harder on the side of religious liberty as opposed to gay rights. john: here's the quote, right, the longer quote. if you are a florist and you do not want to participate in a gay wedding, you should not be forced to. likewise if someone comes them us to buy flowers off the rack that is some initial vehicle to do. that is one of the more flaccid things i've heard come out of his mouth. he say if a gay couple wants you to provide flowers for their wedding, you should not have to sell them to the full set if they want them for a dinner party, you should have to provide them. i think he is smarter than that. he is known for boldness and rigor. this is none of those things.

mark: that is what he said at a fundraiser in san francisco which was originally closed, but his operation is now putting out. i still think that he, like the other republicans, are struggling with it. but now with that statement last night, he has moved himself not where he was before, which was to the right of mike pence. now he is slightly left of mike pence. it tarnished his brand, maybe too strong a word, but it showed he was willing to pull his punches on something he had previously been on record for when all the other people in the party were rushing to support the original mike pence decision. john: i just criticize this statement as being flaccid, and i believe it is. if you believe this is where he really is, and i believe it is then it is totally craving. mark: the republican field is competitive, but there is still plenty of room and time for a new front runner. it could be any ordinary person in the gop, like a guy named

john johnson or a guy named rob robinson, or a guy named chris christie. yes he's plotting a comeback now will stop it would be predicated on a lean, mean, new hampshire winning machine stop in days chris christie has added a key staffer and some trips to new hampshire. if he poised for a comeback? john: no, i don't think he is. new hampshire will always be key to chris christie. these moves are meaningful in the sense that it shows us that he really does want to run for president. but i still cannot find many people in the donor class and the republican establishment and the republican base who are for it. mark: he's been doing a lot of town meetings in new hampshire which helps to hone his skills. also, he needs to build his record there. you cannot run for governor with low approval ratings. you have to hope the economy turns around. but i still believe people in new hampshire will like his message, and right now while there are nine new hampshire candidates -- nine primary

candidates, they are not that many strong new hampshire candidates. he can win new hampshire, and that is more than a start of a comeback. john: that is not munis points for a comeback. that means there is help down the line. mark: if jeff bush doesn't mean new hampshire and rand paul doesn't win, who will win new hampshire? john: got walker may be. mark: someone who does not spend as much time in new hampshire as scott walker has a chance. if the new jersey comeback -- if the new jersey economy does not come back, there is no comeback. john: no more downgrades. mark: there hasn't been a downgrades since this show started. john: coming up, a major battle in the war for gay rights. david boys will join us. and after that, we blend a lot of stuff. it's not a metaphor. we will be right back. ♪

john: another front in the fight for gay rights is about to open and involves the greater new york-based -- boy scouts. they just hide -- hired an openly gay scout leader even though it runs afoul of the national policy, which bars employing gay adults. if it ends up in court, men will be represented by our guest tonight, david boyse. the new york part of the boy scouts is involved in the national policy. if there is litigation, would it be brought by the national organization trying to stop the employment of this 18-year-old? or you all file litigation to clear his way to being employed? david: it is hard to see what litigation will be happening now. when this started some month

ago, one of the issues is whether there would be litigation in order to make it possible for him to be higher. he has now been hired and is registered as an adult member of the boy scouts. that has been done at the council level and the national level. i don't think litigation will be necessary. to get him higher. and the new york council has been pretty clear that they intend to continue to hire him. i think it's very hard to see how the national boy scouts organization would bring litigation against the new york council. the new york council is simply acting in accord with the new york law that requires a nondiscriminatory policy in terms of employment. i think, litigation in this particular case is not likely. john: we have discussed this case some between the two of us. what do you think the implication is the all the scouts? why is this significant whether

he goes to court or not? david: every civil rights struggle that has two phases and those two phases go on in parallel to some extent. but one phase is trying to eliminate government sponsored dissemination. like, school this aggregation in the racial area -- school desegregation racial area, or states that barred gay couples and lesbian couples from marrying. one phase in every civil rights struggle is to stop government-sponsored dissemination. another phase is to try to make society in terms of employment, housing, public accommodations leftist commendatory. -- less this commendatory. you are never able to change hearts and mind, but what you can do is change the way congress operates about what people have is a fair and equal opportunity to be employed, get

fair housing, to eat at lunch counters. the second phase which goes on at the very same time that you are fighting government dissemination, you are fighting commercial dissemination. but the second phase of ending commercial dissemination is something that goes on long after you have eliminated government discrimination. that is true in the racial area, and in the gay rights area. mark: a few years ago, the scouts change the rules to allow scouts themselves who are gay to be in the scouts. this is beyond and it don't employee. beyond the symbol of scouts in american culture and american life, is there any legal precedent or a more general threshold being crossed by this move? david: i think there is. obviously, as you say, the boy scouts is a great american institution. and i think that making sure that scouting is nondiscriminatory, that scouting is consistent with american values is very important in

itself. but in addition, there is a step in the direction of making a whole society more fair, more equal. because one of the things that it says is if the boy scouts cannot disseminate in employment, then neither can macy's, neither can a local delicatessen. when you are engaged in commerce , you've got to abide by the standards of the committee, and certainly the standards of the community in new york is that we don't this commit against people based on race gender, sexual orientation, religion, or anything else like that. john: i want to ask about the news we seen this week in indiana and arkansas, where there has been a lot of attention on these religious liberty statutes being passed, fights over whether there can be some kind of provision added to them as was just done in indiana. it has not yet in sign by the

governor, but they seem to have found a compromise that sort of create -- gay americans are carved out as a protected class without doing more to cover all of employment statewide. what is the takeaway of this coming out of nowhere and running our attention the past few days? what this is tell us about the state of affairs in terms of its issue? david: one of the things it tells you is that the american people are ready to end this kind of dissemination. i think if you find in a state like indiana and overwhelming recognition that gay and lesbian citizens are part of a protected class that has historically been disseminated against, the discrimination has to end. that is an important, powerful step. as you say, it's only half a step. we need to get all the way there. but i think that we need to recognize the importance of

taking the step that has been taken in encouragement that it got to give the second step and the remaining steps to end dissemination completely. the has to be the goal. that is where this country is going. that is where our young people already are. important step, but a half measure. mark: david, you are a litigator, not a lobbyist. but as an american who is working hard to expand gay rights, are you in different as to whether you make gains in the judicial branch versus the legislative branch? do you think it would be better for gains to have be had -- to be had with the legislative branch? david: i think, either way. i think both the legislature and the judiciary have a responsibility for fulfilling the constitutional rhombus we have made to all citizens -- a constitutional promise we have made to all citizens. it is important to have gained

judicial gains in terms of equality. and i think those pave the way for more legislative gains. i think those two things are reinforcing. as it was in the battle for racial civil rights you have brown versus board of education, and then you have a 19th for civil rights act. i think it is important that both legislatures and the courts focus on expanding the role of equality and ending dissemination. that is exactly what happened in the racial era and that is now what is happening in the air -- the area of lgbt writes. john: i know you believe that on the basis of tea leaf reading and things even more substantial than that, that after the court rules on the issue of gay marriage this spring and by the time we get to gay marriage in the summer, it will be the lay of the land in all 50 states. i'm curious as to how long you think it will be before there is a federal law that bans

dissemination on the basis of sexual orientation. how far down the road do you think that is? that is one of the gaping holes that we have right now, that is not on the books. david: that is right. it took about 10 years from brown versus board of education to the 19th for civil rights act. i don't -- to the 1964 civil rights act. i don't get will take that long. you already see initiatives in the congress, recognition by people in the congress the senate and house, republicans and democrats, that it is time for this country to move away from its discriminatory patterns against gay and lesbian rights just as the country has moved in the racial area. i think it will be a couple of years. mark: david boies, attorneys-at-law. they give for joining us. when we come back, the biggest question of all surrounding hillary clinton's e-mails. will they blend? the answer and, oh, so much more after this. ♪

john: there are two questions that every american politician must answer -- am i ready for public life? and will it blend? the most viral blender on the internet tom dixon, has destroyed everything with his audibled lenders. well almost everything. after all, some of our friends in little world need to get rid of liability. we asked the maker of the blenders, glen tech, the most timeless question -- will it blend? we are asking the great american question, will it blend? we are here was a man who has not been on this show previously, tom dixon of blendtec. a great american company.

you are like a teenage girl singing in her bedroom. you are a youtube sensation. tom: absolutely. mark: there is a politically themed episode. it is not unlike a problem hillary clinton would have. she's got to get rid of her state department e-mail. will it blend? tom: let's find out. mark: we had trent lott on the show one time and he did the same thing. tom: don't read it. deleted e-mail smoke. mark: you keep saying don't bre athe it, but i have a master anything.

all right, onto president obama. john: it's a lefty driver. you have to hold it up in comparison to the actual presidential driver. mark: here we go. john: ta-da. now we can work on his short game. now we move on -- mark: now we move on to ted cruz. he needs to put to rest the notion of his canadian residency. here we have some maple syrup. will it blend?

john: moving on, last one. this relates to his inker -- speaker john boehner. will it blend? john: there we go. yes, it will blend. mark: tom, thank you. you're the powder. tom: and -- you're the founder. tom: and the chairman and ceo. mark: pleasure. john: we will be right back. ♪

john: we are only on the tube half an hour a day, but we are live at.com -- at bloomberg.com.

mark: thanks everybody here and the very hospitable washable -- washington bureau. sayonara. ♪

pimm: hello, i'm pimm fox and this is what i'm taking talk of this april 22 2015. it is described as an historic deal negotiators came to a final agreement for iran's nuclear program. >> the true measure of this understanding is not whether it meets all the desires of one side or the other. the test is whether it will leave the world safer or more secure than it would be without this agreement. pimm: officials in israel call the deal and historic mistake an