states. i think probably what you want to do is get children working on that as well. that's where he should really start pushing the child angle, i you see, so he seems very, very strange and then he can hold on to that anti-romney position that cain had for so long. >> there you go. john hodgman. the book is "that is all." thank you very much for joining us tonight, john. >> it's my pleasure. >> up next, "hardball" with chris matthews. veto. let's play "hardball."ç good evening. i'm chris matthews down in washington. leading off tonight, battle lines. the failure of the super committee to do its job has defined the fight for 2012. it's now clear that republicans would rather protect tax cuts for the rich mainly than strike a balanced deal with democrats to cut the deficit and the debt.

the "washington post" ezra klein said it well when he wrote that, quote, in these negotiations, quote, the democrats move right and the republicans move further right. and the president is betting americans will see it the same way, that republicans are ideologically driven anti-tax zealots incapable of compromise. in his vow yesterday to veto their attempts to undo the automatic cuts makes him long strong, but will his party and the country be with him? that's a great question. that question leads to this. why have liberals been so dissatisfied with president obama. we've got a guest who says the problem may not be the president but the expectations of those liberals who aren't ever happy with any democrat in the white house ever. i may have to admit to some problem here of my own self here anyway. and mitt romney is running a new tv commercial in new hampshire called "believe in america." but you shouldn't believe what you hear in this commercial. check out what romney has obama saying in the ad. >> it's going to take a new direction.

if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose. >> well, that last line isn't merely out of context, it's out of bounds. here's what obama actually said. >> senator mccain's campaign actually said, and i quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose. >> so obama -- actually romney is taking something obama said about john mccain and sticking it back in the president's ç mouth. talk about dishonest advertising. and on this day, 48 years after president kennedy was assassinated, we've got new video evidence from dealey plaza where he was shot that may help answer the lingers questions about kennedy's death. finally let me finish with some thoughts on what happened in this day in dallas 48 years ago. we start with the failure of the super committee and the battle of 2012. dana milbanks and jonathan allen, a great reporter. gentlemen, a great team to look at this right now the morning after, if you will. let's look at this political

climate. why isn't congress working now? look at these approval numbers. congressional approval as of november 13th and november 15th, that was the field days, 12%. you know, that's one in eight. they approve the job congress is doing. who is that one in eight person, jay-mar? who likes -- is it the far right person that loves gridlock, is it -- what? >> probably those folks that weren't paying attention. 530 members of congress, 300 million americans and i can't think of anyone that approves of the job congress is doing. you've got the right idea in general. those who like gridlock, those who don't want to see anything moving forward have to be somewhat satisfied. perhaps a few people that just love their own member of congress or happen to love the speaker of the house. >> or haven't been reading the newspapers for about two or three years. >> or didn't hear the question right. >> couldn't hear the question. john, your thoughts. why is there still a residual -- it seems it should be a

strikeout, a complete strikeout. they don't get anything done. >> some colleagues of mine at "the post" actually looked at this question, and there are a few people, a few conservatives that are just happy nothing is happening in washington so they approve of what congress is doing. >> do nothing types. ç >> and others don't want to say anything about anybody so they just say oh, it's fine with me what congress is doing. whether it's 9% or 12% support of congress, and this is before what is perhaps the biggest debacle of all, you can only imagine how much worse can things be. >> i keep thinking about those european countries or south american countries before a coup when they did the constitution. we have a great constitution. it's not going to fail us, but in some countries with weaker constitutions and a failed political class, things happen. the tanks start moving in the streets. think about that. >> if this were italy, we would presumably have a new government. >> the colonels take over all of those countries in latin america. let's take a look at what the president said about the hope of the payroll tax cut.

he wants that extended and unemployment insurance extended. let's take a look at obama in new hampshire. he talked about this today. let's listen to the president. >> this payroll tax is set to expire at the end of next month. end of next month, end of the year this tax cut ends. if we allow that to happen, if congress refuses to act, the middle class families are going to get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time. if your members of congress aren't delivering, you've got to send them a message. make sure they're listening. tell them don't be a grinch. don't vote to raise taxes on working americans during the holidays. put the country before party. put money back in the pockets of working families. do your job. >> so, jonathan, why do you think the president shifted from the disaster yesterday so quickly to what he wants done at the end of the year, which is to

continue unemployment benefits and also extend the payroll taxç cut? why is he more focused on those issues? >> one of the things is venue. you're talking about new hampshire. the president in 2008 in the primary ran as a tax-cutter. if you listen to the robo calls going out for obama, they said barack obama is the only one in the race that's cut taxes before. he's going to show the payroll tax cut, the only tax cut that's happened this year is also something of his. i think that's popular in new hampshire. i also think that it's something that he wants to be able to say not just there but all across the country. i'm cutting your taxes and maybe the republicans are going to stand in the way of this payroll tax cut that they don't like as much as i do. >> so here's the president on the popular side of a fiscal issue finally. not for raising taxes, which is never really that popular, exent if it's somebody else's taxes, the rich people's. but nobody wants to play around with medicare and social security and cut those benefits. but here he's doing something almost everybody wants, a payroll, it's good for business and good for america. >> and looks at the

juxtaposition. he was just in this fight with the republicans who are insisting on protecting tax cuts for millionaires, now he can go on the other side of this and say they're trying to increase taxes by $1,000 on somebody that earns $50,000. they're trying to take away their unemployment benefits. it works out well for the president. a lot of people were critical for obama not getting more involved with the super committee. he said, look, this isn't my baby. they forced this super committee on me as a toll for raising the debt limit. he would much rather be talking about the payroll tax cut and things to get the economy going. he also has to get these things to happen or we're going right back into recession. >> this has not just an economic impact but a political impact if these things don't happen. if it costs more to hire somebody, that slows whatever there is of this recovery. the republican co-chair of the super committee blamed the failure on democrats in an ç

op-ed. he wrote democrats on the super committee made it clear that the new spending called for in the president's health law was off the table. still committee republicans offered to negotiate a plan on the other two health care entitlements, medicare and medicaid. committee democrats offered modest adjustments to these programs, but they were far from sufficient to meet the challenge, and even their modest changes were made contingent upon a minmunl of $1 trillion in higher taxes, a move sure to still job creation during the worst economy in recent history. jonathan, it seems to me that they're coming out with something here. the republicans are saying, you know, the democrats didn't want to really do -- didn't want to put forward a plan and, therefore -- and they also wanted us to raise taxes. they don't want to be stuck in the corner admitting that they screwed this whole thing up by refusing to raise taxes. >> well, clearly there are no mirrorses left in the capitol because everyone is pointing at somebody else to blame, and they ought to be looking in the mirrors on both sides. you're absolutely right. the republicans refused to raise taxes. they talked about new revenues. revenues don't necessarily mean new taxes. if you do new taxes, they were

going to have a net of nothing. that is to say lower tax rates to make up for it. they're not willing to do it. it is the party brand, it's the image. grover norquist talks about this a lot. it makes republicans identifiable at the polls. they are the people who will never raise your taxes, on the other hand, democrats think they will be able to make the argument in 2012 that some folks at the top ought to have their taxes raised to make it easier to pay for services for other folks. look, at the end of the day, taxes are going to come up, benefits are going to come down, or the deficit is going to grow. that's just the way that it works. >> as ezra klein said in the "washington post," here's something really interesting to watch if you watch the politics of this. basically the further right democrats tiptoed to catch the republicans, the further right ç they went. the strongest proposal by a republican on the super committee was a plan by senator pat toomey. that fell far short of the proposal made by speaker of the house john boehner earlier this year in his debt settlement negotiatio negotiations. boehner proposed $800 million in

new tax revenue and dropping the tax rate of the wealthy down to 35%. now, that was the thing from this summer. look what toomey did. he basically said i'll save $300 million in new taxes, mainly from the rich, an i'm going to drop the tap rate down to 28 so here's a guy -- frankly, it's hard to find even one area in which super committee republicans offered a substantially new compromise or even matched what boehner offered obama a while back. if the question is whether the democrats or republicans moved further in the direction of a compromise, there's no doubting that compared to the last set of negotiations, the democrats moved right and the republicans moved further right. it looks like there was a little give on the democrats' side even though they had a risk getting blamed by their own constituents. aarp and other people. they're willing to play with entitlements if they could get some revenues, but the republicans wouldn't give them the revenues. >> right. i think that's right. i don't think either side moved terribly much. we never really got to that grand bargain state. now, interestingly, though, from

what i understand, there was the framework for this, some of the senate democrats, like max baucus, was working with some of the house republicans like dave camp. >> i know he was. >> they really could have probably struck a deal, but they were four or five members of the committee doing that but the rest had no interest in it. so there was really never a serious proposal to come forth in the first place. >> let's talk about the president's veto threat. i was taken with it last night. it seemed to have a lot of stiffness in it. he was actually going to say -- he did say last night that he will veto any attempt by the congress to wiggle out of these automatic cuts which include big cuts to defense. >> i don't think2he'll have to worry about it because i think it's going to be a very hard sell for conservative house republicans who want to keep the budget cuts in place. it's going to be a hard sell to get them to reverse that. they may shift around what gets cut, but that overall level of $1.2 trillion, i'd be shocked if you saw something move out of the house that actually lift that had cap and allowed for more spending. i think it's something the president wants -- >> he's going to win.

>> it's good politics, and he's going to win that argument. >> he's going to stick to his guns and go strong into the general. >> defend the manage airs and defense contractors. >> i think he's found firm ground to fight from. i think he can win this fight right now. if you guys want to cut spending and deal with cutting spending and don't want to cut defense, cut something else. or, by the way, pay for the military, something you don't want to do. anyway, thank you, dana and jonathan. thank you. coming up, last week mitt romney tried to make us think president obama called americans lazy. do you remember that? he never did, of course. the president never used that word on the people. now romney's new attack on the president is also based on distorting his words. that's ahead. dishonest advertising coming up from mitt romney. you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc.

well, the gingrich surge is on in south carolina. let's check the "hardball" scoreboard right now. republicans in the first in the south primary state picked fellow southerner gingrich over his rivals by two to one. he gets 31%.

wow. in a new poll from kelly ann conway's polling company, which is a republican outfit, herman cain is next at 17 and romney third down at 16, but look at that lead. south carolina has been the primary to pick republican winners for president. right now gingrich is the leader. we'll be right bac

i want people to remember that when he was candidate obama, that he said he was going to get this economy going, he was going to bring people together, be a real leader for change in america. so i'm going to run an ad that shows him and the things he said here in new hampshire in a speech here and the contrast between what he said and what he did is so stark, people recognize they really do need to have someone new lead this country. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was mitt romney last night previewing his new tv ad that will run in new hampshire today. it's getting all kinds of attention for being misleading, that ad is, and what it portrays. let's watch.

>> thank you, new hampshire.ç how is everybody doing today? i am confident that we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. we need a rescue plan for the middle class. we need to provide relief for homeowners. it's going to take a new direction. if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose. >> wow, it sounds like a devastating ad, doesn't it? here's the context. let's play the full sentence of what then senator obama said in that speech. >> senator mccain's campaign actually said, and i quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose. >> so he's quoting mccain in person there in 2008 and in this new ad by romney, romney's ad maker is suggesting that those are his words about his own campaign strategy. a completely dishonest distortion. is this what we can expect next year on the campaign trail? michael steele is the former chairman of the republican

national party and msnbc political analyst and bob shrum is a veteran democratic strategist. welcome. michael, was that on the level, that use of the quote from candidate obama to the effect that if we talk about the economy, we lose, was that a fair take from him? >> well, i don't know if i'd use the word "fair," but you said the word that's most appropriate. you said devastating and that was the point. look, this is politics. and you know, chris, you've been in it a long time, as i know bob does as well. this is hardball. beginning to step it up. we're six weeks away from the first votes being cast, and romney is beginning to lay down some tracks and he wants to lay those tracks on the back of the president. so yeah, in terms of the politics of it, it's absolutely a fair play ad. >> but did candidate obama ever say in regard to his own strategy if we keep talking about the eqonomy, we're going to lose? did he ever say that about his strategy? >> clearly not if you've got the complete quote there, but that's not the point. the point is -- the point is that what he said then, quoting

senator mccain, is applicable today because he's absolutely right, the president doesn't want to spend a whole lot of time talking about the economy because it reminds people of the fact that there's 14% -- 9% unemployment and $14 trillion of debt out there. let me go to bob slum. bob, this is a take from something he was quoting mccain in. the way they portray it in the romney campaign, he's talking about himself and his strategy. >> michael's double talk seems to equate hardball with lying. this is a lie. michael during the campaign last year was out there saying that the democrats believe america is in decline. if you clip that and put him in air saying america is in decline, he would have screened foul. you can do this to anybody. you can take lincoln's first inaugural address and clip it and you can have a sentence that says "slavery is right and must be extended." now, i think this is as phony as romney is and people will see through it. i also think he's going to pay a price for it.

because you don't have to clip his stuff. he's pro-choice, anti-choice pro-gay rights, anti-gay rights. you can use real quotes. you don't have to do an orwellian clip. >> go ahead, michael. >> you played this game, bob, a long time. >> i never played that game. i never once did anything like that. >> don't sit there with this holier than thou attitude. >> michael, michael. >> another example, michael. >> bob, i'm not the moderator. >> do not act as if the democrats have never done this themselves. >> michael, michael. >> name an example. give an example. ç >> i can go back to an rnc chairman who gave a speech in new england last year about afghanistan and watched the democrats clip that speech. >> what was it? what happened? what happened? tell me. >> and put it on the internet. >> we're not surprised that the liberals have already begun to use romney's tactics against him. here's a spoof ad by think progress. let's watch. >> we should just raise

everybody's taxes. there's nothing unique about the united states. government knows better than a free people how to guide an economy. fiscal responsibility is heartless and immoral. let us just raise your taxes some more. we just need a little bit more. america is just another nation with a flag. >> i like it! michael, that's fair game by your definition. >> yeah, exactly. so why -- why is everybody getting up a upset? >> that's a spoof, michael. that's not an advertisement. that's a satire on the corruption of these campaign ads. >> it serves the same purpose and this is going to be a hard-fought campaign. there's going to be a lot of third-party organizations out there that will be running ads. you can call them spoofs, you can call them political, you can call them what you want, they're going to have their intended effect on both sides of the aisle, so don't sit here and act like this is something new to politics, folks. >> let me ask you, bob, so you have the high ground here. we've just shown an example of satire, making fun of the dishonesty of the romney campaign. >> of course. >> even in this case michael steele says that's fair game. the satirical version of this he

says is okay, so we've really lowered the bar here, mr. slump. we can't all jump over this bar. >> michael can't name a single example of a major candidate for office ever doing something like this. there's going to be a lot of attention paid to it because romney has put it out there. i actually think he's going to hurt himself. voters are not dumb. they're going to see through this. as i pointed out, the irony is ç you can could this to romney without clipping him. >> let's take a look at rush limbaugh's show. he talked about michelle obama's appearance at a nascar race this last weekend where she was booed by some of the fans and somehow it all went back to the vacation she took in spain several months ago, according to rush. here's rush using an interesting bit of american language here to describe michelle obama. >> the nascar crowd doesn't quite understand why when the husband and the wife are going the same place, the first lady has to take her own boeing 757

with family and kids and hangers-on four hours earlier than her husband who will be on his 747. nascar people understand that's a little bit of a waste. they understand it's a little bit of uppityism. first ladies have not been known to hop their own 757s four hours ahead of their husband when they're both going the same place. >> now here's rush limbaugh going back several months to a trip the first lady took and using it as an excuse, i would argue, to use the word uppity in describing her performance as first lady. pity, michael, you've lived this life more than i have, and i've never heard the word used except in context in connection with the "n" word. nobody ever said anything about any other group. >> it is never used in a positive way and it is defined as someone who is acting or trying to be above their station in life.

it is being used by certain whites towards african-americans as a reminder that they need to be kept in their place. now, if that is the application of the term with respect to the first lady of the united states, then please tell me what is her proper place other than being at an event where she's acknowledging and welcoming homç our war wounded who have served this country. so i think this kind of rhetoric is misplaced. it is inappropriate and is, quite frankly, stupid. so let's get past this craziness and stop using pejorative terms that you know have no place in the marketplace of ideas or just basic human conversation unless you're intending some other inference. >> why does a man like rush limbaugh who uses this language that appeals this sentiment and i think he does, command such authority in your party where members of congress will end up kissing up to him after he has spanked them? why does he continue to have this commanding authority in

your party if he talks like this? >> i don't know, to be quite honest with you. i think a lot of folks are long past that point. i think, you know, we all move forward. we all have, you know, goals that we set towards, i guess, embracing and sort of making us more relevant than some of us want us to be. i just think that the nascar crowd that booed the first lady and the vice president's wife did so for, you know, political reasons. they don't like the president's agenda, but it has nothing to do with the first lady being uppity. that is just baloney. >> i thank you for coming on. >> good for you, michael. >> there's no debate on this point. thank you for being so well -- well, you made it clear what you feel and think. and i trust you so much. michael steele who has battled his way pioneering that altitude within the republican party. bob slum, no need to add to that. heartfelt. by the way, happy thanksgiving, gentlemen. >> you, too, happy thanksgiving. up next, michele bachmann has something to say about her republican rivals, but she saves

the best zinger for rick perry. !=]ì(lc% you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. [ snoring ] [ thunder crashes ] [ snoring ] [ thunder crashes ] [ snoring ] [ male announcer ] vicks nyquil cold and flu. the nighttime, sniffling, sneezing, coughing, aching, fever, best sleep you ever got with a cold... medicine. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] vicks dayquil. defeats 5 cold & flu symptoms. ♪ introducing the perfect situp. invented by the u.s. navy seal

who brought you the perfect pushup, the perfect situp re-invents the situp by combining the upper ab crunch with the lower ab leg lift. then the perfect situp adds an audible coach. you'll hear a click when you've done the exercise correctly. you hear it and you'll feel it. it's this one-two punch that gets you better faster results. traditional situps and crunches are hard to do, and only effectively work half your abs -- the upper half. but the perfect situp targets and tones the upper abs and the lower abs. the secret is the combination of perfect position and resistance. with the addition of the patent pending perfect situp leg blades you'll activate all your abs. the inner obliques, the outer obliques, the upper abs, and the hard to reach deep lower abs. in fact, a university study shows the perfect situp double crunch delivers a significantly more effective abdominal contraction than a regular crunch. and when you flatten the abs below the belt that sucks in the gut and helps you get into those skinny jeans. and that's what helps get fantastic results like this for kara, and chris and elliott and the perfect situp

makes it all easy. your head is fully supported and there's no strain on your neck. you can even use the perfect situp in a chair. just remove the leg blades and use it seated. and when you're done with your workout the perfect situp stores away. it hangs in a closet. so don't work half your abs. get a flat, toned stomach. work all your abs with the perfect situp. so here's the deal. get the perfect situp in your home for just 4 easy payments of $19.95 when you order you'll receive the perfect situp complete with adjustable head rest, adjustable and upgradeable 10 pound resistance leg blades, comfortable gym quality foam pad, the essential perfect situp cardio workout guide and reduced calorie meal plan and the ab crunching and perfect situp workout chart. but wait! if you call right now we'll take away one payment. that's right, get the original perfect situp, for just 3 easy payments of $19.95! but you've got to call right now. carve away inches from your stomach. get a perfect situp. call now.

back to "hardball." now for the sideshow. first up, word play. last night michele bachmann was the latest in the lineup of republican 2012 contenders to omedy ican 2012 contenders to scene. she sat down with jimmy fallon and agreed to play say the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear this word game. the topic at hand, no surprise, her opponents. let's see how it all panned out. >> romney. >> hair. no, just a minute. vice president. >> gingrich. >> newt.ç >> cain. >> 9. >> perry. >> i've got to do three. governor, texas, can't remember the other one.

oops. >> bachmann. >> president. >> was that a hint she would pick mitt romney as her running mate? at this point it's not too likely we'll ever find out. more from the bachmann front. how's this for a one-sided show of affection. in her new book "core of conviction" bachmann sheds praise on garrison keillor. host of "prairie home companion and a native minnesotan. quote, his politics are very different from mine, but i love his gentle, knowing humor. he understands minnesota and his ability to squeeze laughs out of serious-minded midwesterners makes him a lend. well, do you think he feels the same minnesota bond? not even close. during last year's midterm election season he called bachmann embarrassing to me and a great many minnesotans. what does he have to say in response to the nod in bachmann's book? well, as an old democrat, i wish that michele's presidential campaign were doing better than it is. there are many other democrats

who would like to second that one. finally, clarity or more confusion? in the past couple months it seemed that just when gop candidate herman cain seemed to be clearing up what he calls his pro-life stance on abortion, we were all thrown for a loop. remember this? >> i believe that life begins at conception. and abortion under no circumstances. >> no circumstances? >> no circumstances. >> because many of your fellow candidates, some of them qualify that. if one of your female children, grandchildren was raped, you ç would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own? >> you're mixing two things here, piers. it comes down to it's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision. so what i'm saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. not me as president. >> so he's not pro-life, he's pro-choice.

it's mind-boggling to watch. now it looks like the proof is in the pledge. he joined his fellow 2012 republican candidates signing a new pledge saying, quote, i am an associate baptist minister and am 100% pro-life. where my powers in the executive branch are concerned, i will work at all times to oppose government funding of abortion. i will veto any legislation that contains funds for abortion. well, first of all, that happens to already be the law of the land. secondly, i have no idea what this guy believes. up next, why are so many liberals dissatisfied with president obama? jonathan shade writes the problem isn't the president, it's the liberals that are never satisfied with any democratic president. this is a fascinating argument. he joins us next. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc.

hello. here's what's happening. the state department is urging egypt's military rulers using maximum strength in dealing with a new wave of anti-violence protests in cairo. the governor at oregon proposed a moratorium on executions for the remainder of his term, saying he's morally opposed to capital punishment. the department of justice has filed a lawsuit challenging utah's immigration laws. the federal reserve announced another round of stress tests today for 19 firms, including six of america's biggest banks. this as the national retail federation says it's suing the fed accused of buckling to the banks over a cap on debit card transaction fees. and for the first time in

back to "hardball."ç well, this will be fun. welcome back to "hardball." the latest issue of "new york" magazine asks the question when did liberals become so unreasonable? and in it he writes, quote, liberals are dissatisfied with obama because liberals on the whole are incapable of feeling satisfied with a democratic president. they can be happy with the idea of a democratic president. indeed, dancing in the streets delirious. but not with the real thing.f from a failure to compare obama with any plausible baseline. instead they compare obama with an imaginary president. either an imaginary obama or a fantasy version of a past president. whoa.

jonathan writes for "new york" magazine and john walsh is editor at large for salon. joan, this man has tapped into our very being here. first of all, joan, i want to ask you, what do you think when you read this article, just to get -- i like you so much i want to -- when you read that it was your psychological condition that is the problem, not the president's track record, what did you think? >> i was very irritated and dissatisfied, chris. i got really angry. apparently that's my nature, jonathan says. no. it's crazy. >> you're one of those professional progressives, right? >> professional left, always whining. joe biden wants me to stop whining, too. okay. look, first of all, liberal democrats, let's be clear, liberal democrats are very happy with this president, and they were happy with president clinton too. [f you look at the gallup weekly tracking poll, go all the way back, very far back, i mean, obama stays in the 70s, goes up into the 80s with liberal

democrats. >> let me go with that. joan, you've perked me up here. i'm going to challenge you and you can tell me what you're thinking here. here we have the latest nbc/"wall street journal" poll making that same point. should the democrats nominate obama again. 73%, that's a pretty good endorsement by the disgruntled liberals. only 20% nominate someone else, hillary or someone else. how can you say that crowds like the ones who watch this show and myself oftentimes are disgruntled and permanently so? >> you know, there's a difference between wanting to dump a guy out of office and being happy with him and liberals are in between there. they're not ready to dump obama. some of them are, but most of them aren't ready to dump him. but there is a broad dissatisfaction, right? the people who are approving of him are saying, well, it could be worse. well, things are hard for him. circumstances were tough. maybe it will be better in the second term. no one is saying he's actually done a pretty good job. you've got people that it sort of ranges from angry, betrayed, let down, disappointed, dissatisfied. generally he's better than the

republican but still it's a let down, it's not that good. >> do you think part of it is age? i'm older than joan, i'm older than you, i'm sure, and yet i think a lot of very young people in their 20s do have idealism up the kazoo and i understand it. they want perfection. is that it or is it people my age as well who are just difficult to please by your writing? >> i think it's all ages. you see it in the baby boomers, you so it in the young people. part of what i try to show in the piece is that this historically has always been the case. when there's a democrat in office, liberals spend most of their time complaining. >> let me challenge you because i really respect your writing. i'm going to read this piece a number of times again. because i think it's worth it, joan. when bill clinton came in with all the baggage and the girls, everybody said he might be a pretty good president, but nobody thoá!qbujráhtájj*q transformative. he's not going to change the world. in the a lot of excitement like there was with obama. let me show you a person who was really excited way back in 2004. by obama at the very prospect they would be the first african-american president. i said so at the time after i

first heard the speech up in boston at the convention. here i am, big promotion here, 2008 talking about barack obama and then again in 2004 back when he delivered that amazing keynote address at the democratic convention. let's watch later and then earlier. >> the feeling most people get when they hear barack obama's speech, i felt this thrill going up my leg. i don't have that too often. >> i have to tell you, a little chill in my legs right now. that is an amazing moment in history right there. it is really an amazing moment. a keynoter like i've never heard. dick gephardt, thanks for joining us. here a political veteran. there's a new kid on the block. >> a star is born. >> a star is born. amazing reception. i thought the speech remarks, you and i were talking about them, as they proceeded. amazing stuff. >> okay. chill and thrill, not tingle, which is the favorite word of the right wing. they came up with that. they made fun. it's great, they love to giggle with themselves. they make up words, make fun. words and apply them to somebody else. thrill and chill i was, i have

never heard such an amazing statement about our american exceptionalism, a phrase i like because it means somebody can make it in this country based on merit. that's my american exceptionalism. i will proudly salute it any time i hear it and be thrilled when it's spoken well. was he just too good? was it possible that he was so stirring in those rooms we saw up in new hampshire and iowa that you had to expect much more? >> it's a couple of things. number one, people forget how excited they were about presidents in the past. that's part of the cycle of disillusionment. you romanticize the past. you also forget how excited were you before you were disillusioned. people were very excited about jimmy carter.ç he reduced the room to tears when he gave his acceptance speech in 1976. you know, kennedy, you can go back in time. democrats get excited by the idea of a different president. >> are we more romantic? >> i think democrats and liberals are romantic about the style of politics. >> let me go to joan on this. do you want to accept anything in this self-criticism of the

center left and the left? >> well, sure. and i'm kind of proud of it because actually reading jonathan's piece he says that there's really nothing very unusual about the situation for president obama. this is what we do, and we've done it going back to fdr, even though we think of him as a great here osh. the left was sometimes disappointed. you know what, we were right to be disappointed. it was unfortunate social security didn't mostly cover black people because he compromised with the dixiecrats. it was unfortunate he eased up on stimulus in 1937, and we went back into the depression. if we look at jfk who we both love as irish catholics, he did try for a long time to balance the party and see if he could hold on to those southern democrats. he didn't move as fast as dr. king wanted. should we say dr. king should have said you know what, he's doing the best he can. let's just call off that man on washington, and no, we with never say that, and the same with clinton and carter.

we push for values and we push for inclusion. and we push for social justice, and that's our job. i'm not a politician. >> thank you. >> i don't work for the president. >> we believe government can do% good things, the public working together. >> yeah. >> and liberalism by its nature means the market shouldn't rule. it can be perfected upon by public action. that's what liberalism is to me. you can make choices. you just don't listen to the markets. >> number one, i think that's good. that's an important role. number two, some of the criticisms are just flat right. like i say in the piece.ç the problem comes when liberals go from that, i'm disappointed with this, i'm disappointed with that, i want more here, to a general feeling of disappointed. oh, i'm let down, oh, this isn't what i expected because they're always let down. >> i know what you're talking about. joan, abstain for a second. i know what he's talking about which is basically in d.c. it's the -- we love to argue among ourselves. we love this. it's called ndc, november doesn't count. it's not about the general public. it's about us winning among ourselves. these arguments are why the democratic party tends to be the most exciting party because all these great arguments occur

within the party. the fight over the vietnam war was within the party. by the way, i get thrilled by the idea of arguing. my enemies want to hear this. i'm thrilled by this argument. okay. thank you, jonathan, great writing. i love "new york" magazine. you guys way underpaid for what you can do. >> thank you very much. up next, it's been 48 years -- you too, joan. 48 years since president kennedy was assassinated in dallas. now a new documentary used never-before-seen video to show how oswald acted alone. this is "hardball," only on msnbc.

let's once again check the "hardball" scoreboard. in new hampshire, no surprise mitt romney is well ahead of his republican rivals. a new suffolk poll has him nearly three times with three times the support of second place candidate newt gingrich and ron paul. but when you broaden it out nationally, it's newt gingrich in the lead. the new quinnipiac poll has gingrich at 26 and romney stuck at 22, and herman cain sinking

hard at 14. we'll be right back.

as the motorcade turns onto houston street, hugh's camera inadvertently trains on the texas school book depository building. after undergoing the ground-breaking process of scanning and restoration, does hugh's high-resolution film show the sniper taking aim from the sixth floor window. >> after the shots were fired he happened to look up at the sixth floor. >> well, we're back. that was a clip from the new national geographic documentary, "jfk, the lost bullet." the documentary attempts to ç

prove once and for all that president kennedy was killed by a lone gunman, lee harvey oswald, through never-before-seen photos and coverage of that fateful day in dallas 48 years ago. max holland is the historian worked on the documentary and joins us to talk about the new evidence he and his team were able to discover. so i'm going to talk about this later when you're off about why we can't live with the fact that nobody killed somebody. what do you think you've been able to prove with the new footage and evidence? >> we're trying to break the stranglehold on people's imagination of what happened. what we think we presented is the first account of all three shots and what happened to each one. >> there was a longer period of time that he was able to shoot, 11 seconds? >> there was a proverbial six seconds in dallas. we say it's more like 11 seconds. >> to get all three shots. >> right, which is all the time in the world. >> cbs a number of years ago demonstrated with a guy with

that kind of rifle how you could get him off in less than 11 seconds. >> that's right. we went better than that. we accounted for why the first shot missed. >> it hit the traffic light. >> yes. >> was lee harvey oswald a good shot? >> he was a good enough marine to be a marine, yes. >> he had a teleskopic lens? and was right there? it wasn't a hard shot? the car was going how fast? >> 10 to 11 miles per hour. >> it was an open car. >> yes. >> he knew who he was shooting at. >> he sure did. >> here's more home video which you believe misses oswald firing the first shot at kennedy's motorcade. >> hughes stops recording after it makes the turn. ç >> secret service men standing up in the limousine. it appears as though someone in the limousine might have been

hit by gunfire. >> if hughes had kept his camera on for just a few more seconds, we might have seen a rifle emerge to fire bullet "a." >> in all the study you did, the evidence, the archival material and firsthand accounts, did you come across a hard reason to believe someone else was involved besides oswald? >> no, not in the shooting. not at all. but if this makes any sense, he did it before, but with our explanation, he did it even more. it was an easy thing for him to do. >> what was his motive? in killing our president? >> i think it was a politicized sociopath kind of like timothy mcveigh. >> he was disill rulusioned with the -- and infatuated are castro. he visited the soviet and cuban embassies. what do you make of that? it looks to me like a trail of some kind of infatuated communist. >> he thought he would be welcomed in cuba if he managed

to get there. >> no evidence of castro involved in this? >> no, but we really won't know what the cubans knew about him until they open their archives. >> it's possible they knew it was coming? >> i'm not sure i'd go that far but i think they might have known something about oswald more than they let on. >> i've always held it against castro. we tried to get him. i do hold it against him. >> oswald understood that. >> that we tried to get him. >> we were trying. >> i was doing work on this and came across the fact that marine oswald tried to restrain her husband, she thought he was going out to get nixon. he had a pattern of being a hard lefty communist infatuated communist person. is it possible one of the ç reasons why the american liberals don't accept this, a lot of them over the years like, you know, oliver stone, they just can't stand the idea that a hard lefty killed a guy they loved. >> that's exactly right. a lot of people said, who would want to kill walker and john f. kennedy? it doesn't make any sense. from oswald's point of view,

they were a lot closer. >> oh, yeah. nixon, anybody who was anti-castro was his enemy. >> absolutely. >> i think we figured this out. thank you, max. you've done the work. thanks so much. "jfk: the lost bullet" airs this coming sunday morning november 27th on the national geographic channel. let me finish with thoughts on what happened on that day in dallas years ago. that's why i recommend crest pro-health clinical gum protection. it helps eliminate plaque at the gum line, helping prevent gingivitis. it's even clinically proven to help reverse it in just 4 weeks. crest pro-health clinical gum protection.

when i got my medicare card, i realized i needed an aarp... medicare supplement insurance card, too. medicare is one of the great things about turning 65, but it doesn't cover everything. in fact, it only pays up to 80% of your part b expenses. if you're already on or eligible for medicare, call now to find out how an aarp... medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company, helps cover some of the medical expenses... not paid by medicare part b. that can save you from paying up to thousands of dollars... out of your own pocket. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans... exclusively endorsed by aarp. when you call now, you'll get this free information kit... with all you need to enroll. put their trust in aarp medicare supplement insurance. plus you'll get this free guide to understanding medicare. the prices are competitive. i can keep my own doctor. and i don't need a referral to see a specialist. call now to get a free information kit. plus you'll get this free guide to understanding medicare.

and the advantages don't end there. choose from a range of medicare supplement plans... that are all competitively priced. we have a plan for almost everyone, so you can find one that fits your needs and budget. with all medicare supplement plans, there are virtually no claim forms to fill out. plus you can keep your own doctor and hospital that accepts medicare. and best of all, these plans are... the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. when they told me these plans were endorsed by aarp... i had only one thing to say... sign me up. call the number on your screen now... and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan. you'll get this free information kit... and guide to understanding medicare, to help you choose the plan that's right for you. as with all medicare supplement plans, you can keep your own doctor and hospital that accepts medicare, get help paying for what medicare doesn't... and save up to thousands of dollars. call this toll-free number now.

let me finish tonight with this. i'm glad we could discuss tonight this new photographic evidence from the kennedy assassination. i think i understand why people are so open to the possibility that lee harvey oswald was not the president's lone killer. it's hard to imagine such a small person being responsible for the loss of such a beloved and important person. we've been taught through years of sharks sharksperian lesser dramas to expect a serious villain as the match of our heroes. othello with jag.o and sherlock holmes with dr. moreiaty and superman had lex luther. i could go on. the good guy has to have a bad guy with brains and some vision, a grand scheme to take over the world or whatever. he has to be a mastermind, a ywi fiend worthy of our contempt. lee harvey oswald, back from and disillusioned with his belief in soviet russia, infatuated with castro doesn't live up to our

grand notions of evil, so people look for some grand explanation, grand being the key word. we want it know that we were right, that kennedy was a great im from us. kennedy was a great a half century later the evidence turns to something small, something dull and banal, a little loser got himself a gun and saw his opportunity to become someone important, someone who killed a person so many people loved. i've always thought long before this new evidence came to us that the most impenetrable obstacle to all the conspiracy theories is oswald had that job at the texas book depository long before the president's travel route was set. he was in that spot before there was any reason to believe the president would be passing right there below him. it was, i believe, a crime of opportunity, a small man with a political hatred got himself a rifle and took the training he'd gotten in the military to shoot down the most beloved president of my lifetime. we remember, most of us, from that time where we were when we heard, and many of us at least in heart, mind and soul are