>> yes, we do. >> we had the same aspirations. you ended up being all-american and i ended up being all nothing. >> i don't think so. he's stretching the truth there, folks. i'm ed schultz. the rachel maddow show starts right now. >> congratulations on that interview. well done. >> thank you. he's a down to earth guy. people like him. is he just really -- i'm sold, so to speak. >> thank you, ed. >> thank you. we are beginning tonight with breaking news, breaking international news from north korea which tried to launch a long-range rocket just a couple of hours ago at about 7:39 a.m. local time friday morning, tomorrow morning in north korea. the news is so recent that we do not yet have video of the launch and we, frankly, don't know if we'll ever get it. the footage shows the three-stage rocket being prepared for launch.

it was designed to carry a satellite into space. a communication satellite. they said it was for the good of the national economy. that's what they said. the launch, however, was the object of major international and american consternation because although no one particularly cares about whether or not north korea has communication satellites, there are a lot of countries that care about whether or not north korea has a long-range intercontinental missile that could theoretically be capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to, say, us. north korea's military dictatorship denied any military purpose whatsoever for this rocket. but that was met internationally with something like skepticism but far more intense. now, though, the major news here. now that there has been a launch, it's technical. the major news here is that the launch appears to have failed. instead of the rocket going up

in three stages with each one burning off in turn and propelling the rocket upward eventually into orbit, which is how a three-stage rocket is supposed to work, this one just launched in north korea appears to have broken apart very soon after takeoff. the rocket fell into the sea very shortly after liftoff. north korea has made other attempts at launching rockets. it tried in 2006, again in 2009. the 2009 one crashed into the sea off the coast of japan. because of north korea's absolutely rejection of international norms and international pressure, the world at large has seemed to have very little means of getting north korea to go along with international norms. particularly it set very little means of pressuring north korea to give up on the nuclear weapons program. just a few weeks ago, the u.s. reached an agreement with north korea. well, not explicitly tieing food aid to the country to military issues. the agreement pretty much did

just tie food aid to military issues. the u.s. has said we will give north korea the food aid that it desperately needs since so much of the resources go into the military. we will help feed the north korean people if the north korean government will agree to not test any more missiles. before the launch today, the white house press secretary told reporters that if north korea were to go ahead with this missile launch, that would constitute a significant and clear demonstration of bad faith and would leave the u.s. unable to move forward with that program. meaning that food aid program. he said it would make going ahead with that program, quote, virtually impossible. also today, before the launch, the u.s. secretary of state met with the other nations in the g-8. france, germany, uk, japan, italy, and russia. secretary clinton emerged from that meeting with this message. >> if pyongyang goes further we

will all be back in the security council to take further action. >> breaking news, north korea attempting to launch a lock-range rocket against the demands of the united states and many american allies. u.s. officials tell nbc news that the launch failed. the rocket, which was said to be carrying a communications satellite, did not reach orbit. it crashed into the sea. and now for the rest of the world, the question that changes every time there's a development like this but never goes away, the question of how to deal with the strange and confounding nation of korea remains. joining us live from pyongyang is richard engel. how did you learn the news that the rocket launch had happened? >> reporter: we certainly didn't hear it from north korean officials. north korea has brought in 100 reporters and we were expecting to have a press conference. there was some anticipation that we would even see this go up

live with a slight delay on video screens but instead we were told by officials in washington, we were alerted by our own news desk, reporting coming out of japan and south korea that not only had the rocket gone up but that it had failed and one of the moments i'll remember today as we rushed into the press center, the only place that has internet, the only place that has computer access, and we saw our link to the government here and the minder said, are you ready? we're going to go in a few hours to a music festival. we said, what, what music festival? there has just been a rocket launch. we were met with a completely blank stare and he shrugged his shoulders and ran out of the room. a short while ago there was an empty desk where officials were supposed to give us a briefing about what happened and we've just been told in a few hours we're going to be taken by -- to some sort of military facility, perhaps to learn more

information or to learn north korea's version of events. rachel, i have a surprise for you. i have a scale model of the rocket which i keep with me at all times. and it shows the three-stage rocket that you were describing. this is the first stage, liquid fuel. second stage, also liquid fuel. the third stage, not exactly sure. either liquid or solid. and it appears that the rocket exploded, crashed, failed sometime as the first stage was burning off and right around the time of separation. because the way these work, first stage propels the rocket up and then it's supposed to break into two. the first stage drops into the ground, into the sea, in this case and then the second stage continues and we are told that somewhere between a minute and two minutes that this rocket failed which would have been right around the time of the end of the first stage. this is an enormous

embarrassment for north korea and what is critical to see now is how the government is going to explain this to the world and explain it to its own people. >> richard, given what you have been told about what the missile launch was for in north korea, the fact that they are trying to -- >> reporter: i don't have audio. >> oh. i can hear richard but he can't hear me. richard, still can't hear me? all right. we have lost our connection with richard engel in pyongyang. talking to anyone in pyongyang is amazing. into this closed military dictatorship of a country. the reason they did this and it got a rebuke from the white house is that the north korean government was interested in showing off that they were doing this rocket launch, of course, denying any military purpose for

this rocket launch whatsoever. that's what brought about so much international condemnation of their plans to do this. now that it has failed, it is going to be very interesting to see how north korea goes about explaining both the technical failure. usually when they have a technical failure, they come up with some ornate blame system for coming up -- for expunging any responsibility for themselves for the technical failure. the fact that there are a lot of international journalists still in that country where they are coming up with an explanation of what happened, it's a huge part of the political impact. joining us now is andrea mitchell. andrea is in washington. she's been covering this story closely. thanks very much for being here. >> you bet. the white house has just put out a statement by jay carney, the press secretary. we are waiting for confirmation about where exactly the three parts went down -- in the ocean, i am told, it's been tracked by norad and american intelligence.

the statement from the white house says, first of all, it's a provocative act, aggressive behavior is the term, that the president is prepared to deal constructively with north korea and as you know, did provide a commitment to food aid until north korea reneged on its commitment from just this past february to not conduct further tests and and announced that this test would take place. so now they are saying that is another proof of north korea's bad faith quoting the president's press secretary, north korea is only further isolating itself by engaging in provocative acts and is wasting its money on weapons and propaganda displays while the north korean people go hungry. the long-standing position on weapons has not brought its security and never will. carney says this will further isolate the north. they are going to convene a u.n. security council meeting chaired by this month's president of the security council who is in this

rotation, rachel, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations, susan rice. and while they are not going to call for new resolutions, they believe they have enough authority to tighten sanctions against north korea. they are going to watch closely to see how china responds. clearly the close american ally on that security council. rachel? >> briefly, the bottom line here in terms of what appears to be the technical failure of this launch is that does not affect the political impact at all. the fact that north korea tried to do this, even if they failed is itself being seen as a provocation as if it had succeeded. is that basically true? >> exactly. in fact, i'm told by senior officials that they believe one other aspect of this for north korea is that they are trying to sell things on the market. they are trying to show off to potential missile technology buyers and now they think the rest of the world will see that the existing sanctions which hold back on a lot of metals technology to do a successful

launch, this will prove to potential buyers, black market and otherwise, that north korea is not an adequate provider and that they should not buy their goods. >> fascinating. that's a fascinating detail. andrea mitchell, host of andrea mitchell reports. thank you for joining us. really appreciate it. >> you bet. again, breaking news this hour, north korea has once again defied international condemnation. this time to go ahead with an attempted long-range rocket launch. to add insult to that provocation, the launch was a failure, fell into the sea without achieving anything that the north koreans said it would do. stay with us. we'll be right back. the governor of connecticut, e it's me against my hair. [ female announcer ] weak, damaged hair needs new aveeno nourish+ strengthen. active naturals wheat formulas restore strength for up to 90% less breakage in three washes. for strong, healthy hair with life, new aveeno nourish+ strengthen.

to put more giddy-up in our get-along. it's time to start gellin' with dr. scholl's... ... and mix a little more hop in our hip-hop. with the energizing support and cushioning of dr. scholl's massaging gel insoles ... you'll want to get up and go.

the governor of connecticut, dan malloy, the former exhibit for of the "new york times," bill keller, both are here tonight and we are in san

francisco. there's a lot to come on this show. a lot to explain. please stay with us.

all right. here was strike one. >> if the democrats said we had a war on caterpillars and every mainstream media outlet talked about the war on caterpillars then we'd have problems with caterpillars. the fact of the matter is it's a fiction. >> the chairman of the republican party trying to say the whole idea that the republican had a war on women was as fictitious of the idea that republicans were waging a war on caterpillars. this was strike one. this was a swing and a miss for

reince priebus. his party earned the label of war on women because of things like restricting access to contraception and opposing equal pay for equal work and going hog wild against abortion rights. not because of the substance of it but because comparing women to caterpillars is not an awesome way to convince women how much respect you have for them. so that was -- thank you. strike one. then they gave it another shot. not the chairman of the republican party but the spokesman for the republican party, sean spicer. remember that name. it's coming back. he said it's not the women part of the phrase but the war part. he said it's borderline unpatriotic for anyone to use war as a political metaphor. and, yes, mr. spicer is the spokesman for the republican party. that's their website right

there. headlining one of the many wars that they have declared concerning president obama. in this case, the war on coal. so that was strike two. the next batter up to the plate was the top republican in the senate, mitch mcconnell. >> talk about a manufactured issue. there is no issue. senator kay bailey hutchison and kelly ayotte and susan collins and olympia snowe from maine and we don't see any evidence of this. >> the problem with rebutting the whole war on women thing saying it's manufactured, these women that you're citing might agree with you on it. but the problem is the woman when who say agree with him on this do not agree with him on this. >> if you do not agree this as an attack on women, you need to go home and talk to your wives, talk to your daughters. ask them if they feel that this is an attack. >> so at this point we have

three strikes, which under normal circumstances would mean the end, it would mean you're out. but the republicans are still out there swinging away. they have to. they will lose the election with numbers among this bad on women. the idea that republicans are acting contrary to women's interest and women are turning away from them is polls is not going away. so yesterday the romney campaign convened a conference call to talk about how a romney presidency would be for women and the economy in particular and how awful president obama was for this women. their call on this subject did not go well. >> our next question will come from sam stein with huffington post. please go ahead. >> yeah, does governor romney support the ledbetter act? [ silence ] >> sam, we'll get back to you on that. >> the lilly ledbetter act is

the first law that president obama signed into act. it's a really high-profile thing. the romney campaign, apparently, had not prepared an answer on whether or not their candidate supported that idea. so that was strike four. but since that didn't exactly happen in private, that was, after all, on a press call that they themselves called. that was a call of reporters hearing that. the romney campaign knew they needed to fix that. they stepped back up to the plate and put out a statement that mitt romney would not repeal the fair pay act if he became president even though he wouldn't say whether he would have signed it himself and then that of course constituted strike five because those surrogates that the romney campaign rolled out did not themselves vote for the fair pay act. so they don't particularly support it either.

trust them. here's the thing, though. the whole concept of whether or not the republicans are waging a war on women, it's not an impressionistic thing. the whole reason anybody has been talking about a war on women is not because of any personal factors that work here. it's not because of language or who is being pc or not. it's because of what republicans have pursued as a policy agenda and the fair pay issue is a great one on which to talk about the difference between the parties. i mean, mitt romney says he doesn't want to talk about republicans rolling back contraception or being super anti-abortion that people have been complaining about in the war on women idea. he says he just wants to talk about women in an economic context. well, here's a perfect case, equal pay. women being able to sue if they are getting paid less than a man for doing the same work that that man is doing. you can't get more pure.

this is what romney says he is specializing on. this is what his message of the week is. we still have no idea whether mitt romney supports that. would he have signed it if he was president? most republicans voted against it. what should we read into the fact that the surrogates that are talking on this issue themselves voted no on the fair pay act. mr. romney once the wisconsin primary embattled republican governor of wisconsin scott walker. not only does scott walker not support the equal pay for equal work concept, he did just repeal wisconsin state level version of the equal pay act. he repealed that law on the same day that he signed abortion rights in wisconsin. this is not hypothetical stuff. this is not about whether they are using pc language, showing up with enough women around them or whether or not they are women themselves. this is policy. that's where the whole concept

of the republican war on women and subsequent problem with women in the polls has come from and not recognizing that, not recognizing that it's substantive, it's about policy, is i think why republicans keep striking out on this issue. they keep missing the point every time they try to address this it. they make it worse. today that turned around. they finally got a pitch they could hit on this subject. it was not on policy, on the substance of any of these issues being fought over here. maybe that's why they thought it was perfect for them. a democratic strategist who does not work for the democratic party who works for cnn as a pundit on cnn said this. >> what you have is mitt romney running around the country saying, well, my wife tells me that what women really care about is economic issues and when i listen to my wife, that's what i'm hearing. guess what? his wife has actually never worked a day in her life. she's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues

that a majority of the women in this country are facing, how do we feed our kids, send them to school, and how do we -- why we worry about their future. >> now, substantively, mitt romney says his adviser on women's issues generally is his wife. and so he technically brought her into it by claiming her as politically relevant, claiming that her expertise, advice, is what he has counted on as a potential president. but no matter, the louisville slugger was already making perfect contact with this particular proverbial baseball. the republicans knew they could finally get a hit in this political fight about women voters. this fight that they have been losing all week. the romney campaign convened another conference call on women in the economy and it was another round of romney surrogates condemning this

pundit, hilly rosen, insulting ann romney this way, hilary rosen spoke for what president obama really felt about women. the obama administration, everybody from the president's campaign manager, jim mecina to his wife, michelle obama herself, they all responded immediately to condemn in no uncertain terms what hilly hilary rosen said. mitt romney's chief strategist said this one statement on cnn was the declaration of president obama's kill and strategy for the entire campaign. the republicans were so excited, so excited that they had this pitch to hit that they have blown it up into something that has clouded out all other domestic political news of the day. even after hilary rosen apologized for her remarks, they are still trying to get more out of this.

they are trying to turn what may be a single into a double into a home run. and in their excitement they have screwed this one up, too. this is how. this is the delightful twitter feed that calls itself the catholic league. i personally cannot figure out a way to erase from my mind the one time this was on tv and he told me on tv that gay people should apologize to straight people because of aids. no matter how much i try, i can't figure out a way to do that. the catholic league has always had a special place in my heart and apparently i have in theirs. this is how they greeted the publication of my book that came out a couple weeks ago. the times has a book review about the military written by an expert who never spent a day in uniform. but she is a lesbian. rachel maddow. seriously. this is what they are like.

lesbian-dem hilary rosen tells ann romney she never worked a day in her life unlike rose enwho had to adopt kids, ann raised five of her own. when this super weird anti-adoption of hilary rosen started to inflict the politics of this, this hinge that the republicans thought was otherwise going their way, the republican party spokesman, remember sean spicer, he weighed in and frankly told these catholic league guys where to go. the catholic league should be encouraging adoption, not demeaning the parents that are blessed to raise these children. which is a very nice thing for mr. spicer to say and it's a huge mess for republican politics because the republican party, or at least the presumptive nominee of the republican party is adamantly

opposed to gay people adopting children. so after the an guy gay think about hilary rosen's adopted kids, is the republican party weighing in to say it's okay for gay people to adopt kids? this is going so well. how did we get into this mess? when people started to point out online that the republican party spokesperson then sean spicer had to back pedal from what was going to be his anti-catholic league thing. he said, this is not what i said. right now the republican party position on this flap is that they do not believe gay people should be allowed to adopt children and they are very angry at the catholic league for saying that gay people should not be allowed to adopt children. and now what they thought was the perfect issue of someone mitt romney invoking his wife as an adviser on women in the economy, the whole thing that they thought they were going to win for the day has been ruined

by the anti-gay politics that the republicans have no idea what to say about. a solid single here and they tried to turn it into a home run and now it's all falling apart. the romney campaign was already in this mess on gay politics. yesterday a group called the national organization for marriage, its initials are nom, national organization for marriage, they photo shopped a pro obama crowd into a photo of one of their own rallies to make it seem like the super enthusiastic people were there supporting an anti gay group which they were not. you may also remember them from the leaked memos showing their strategy to try to turn african-americans and gay people against each other, to try to stoke anti-gay in the community. their endorsement for mr. romney

led to immediate calls for mr. romney to reject that because of nom's involvement. they have given nom a $10,000 donation and committed himself as president to support a constitutional amendment to the united states constitution -- the united states constitution, to ban gay marriage. it doesn't seem that mitt romney is going to turn down their endorsement. he has made it clear that even once upon a time back in massachusetts he said he would run to the left of ted kennedy on gay rights. he has made clear that he's not that mitt romney anymore. he's a pretty hardcore anti-gay republican. that is also a mess for him. this week in the "new york times," which is great, republican state senators who flipped positions on this issue, flipped to support same-sex marriage rights in new york and got the rights passed and signed

into law in new york. the author of that bill will be joining us to talk about what has happened to the republican senators since they made that momentous decision. in new hampshire, in the hugely republican dominated legislature failed, even though the anti-gay marriage people guaranteed that that repeal would pass. not only did democrats in new hampshire refuse to repeal gay rights, but republicans did, too. by a huge margin. the republican party is definitely still anti-gay, broadly speaking, but it is sprinting in the other direction. politico.com, front page in the story about how three of mr. romney's top donors, guys who have been writing him seven-figure checks already are also major supporters of same-sex marriage rights. three of the hedge fund zillionaires who have given him more money than anybody are very pro gay marriage rights.

and so mitt romney has wanted to seem like he's to the left of ted kennedy on gay rights and he's also pledging to change the u.s. constitution to block gay rights and he's writing $10,000 checks and even in republican dominated states, they are losing their fight. not even republicans can feel -- cannot feel safe being all that anti-gay. the republican party spokesman, horrified by the catholic league, being in substance. this is a mess. gay rights and republican politics are a mess. at least they are a mine field if you are trying to get across this issue. if mitt romney wants to pivot from the primary to the general election, rejecting that endorsement from n.o.m., that would be a great way to make that pivot, right?

can he do that? even what should have been a simple base hit with this hillary rosen comment. even what should have been -- ended up getting fouled up when it intruded on the war on women mess and it seems like they still haven't figured out a way to win. if i were being paid to advise mitt romney on this subject, i have no idea what my advice would be. it's the most complicated and most unpredictable issue right now within the republican party. bill keller from the new york times joins us to talk about it, next.

joining us now is bill keller for the new york times. he writes about the four republican state senators who broke with their own party on new york's gay marriage law last year and what has happened to them since. mr. keller, thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> you write that support for gay marriage is not just growing, it is accelerating. what do you mean by that and how does that affect how republicans are calculating the political costs and benefits on this issue? >> you know, just within the last six months or so most national polls show that there's now an american majority in favor of this and the pace and which support for gay marriage is changing. a year or so ago that it would

be 1%, 2% change a year up until 2015 but it's already 3 or 4% a year. it's changing at a rate and the catholic league today, of course, young people are the biggest sources of support. >> in terms of that demographic breakdown, the thing that strikes me about this is that the demographic change seems a bit unpredictable. you can't predict which states are going to be more or less virulent or benign on the issue based on those states. it seems to be an unpredictable spread. >> i think that's right. that's one reason that a lot of people across the country are watching these four senate state races in new york, is for some

guidance on what the consequences are for conservative republicans who break with the party and support the issue. i mean, people think of new york as manhattan, upper west side liberals. these four state senators come from mainstream heartland america, rochester, buffalo, and they are on most issues pretty conservative guys. so both sides, both national lobbies are watching quite closely to see how this comes out. >> can you extrapolate from what you wrote about the conservative party in new york state, which is taking a hard line on this issue, trying to punish the senators for having voted for same-sex marriage rights despite having been supported by the party in the past where they are against an issue like this, can you extrapolate how the conservative party in new york is trying to be an enforcer on

this issue to who functions that way at the national level? who republicans might be afraid of crossing on this issue at the national level? >> i think at the national level the republican party is still the main enforcer on that issue. but things are changing fast. even governor christie of new jersey who is a smart politician, very smart politician is not opposing gay marriage per se. he's saying, you know, he's got the fallback position i want to put it to a popular vote and not let the legislator decide. on this issue the conservatives and conservative republicans are swimming against a fairly fast moving tide. >> i think the contours of that tide are underappreciated but i think your piece this weekend will help start a discussion about it. bill keller, thanks for your reporting on this. thanks for being here tonight. >> you're welcome.

all right. last night connecticut became the 17th state in our nation to vote to repeal the death penalty. how did that happen? connecticut's governor, dan malloy, joins us next.

on our car insurance. great! at progressive, you can compare rates side by side, so you get the same coverage, often for less. wow! that is huge! [ disco playing ] and this is to remind you that you could save hundreds! yeah, that'll certainly stick with me. we'll take it. go, big money! i mean, go. it's your break, honey. same coverage, more savings. now, that's progressive. call or click today.

i am in san francisco tonight, which is awesome. i'm from here. i love being here. i was in los angeles yesterday. i'm presumably going somewhere else next. i don't know where. i can only focus on ten-minute increments. it is kind of a whirlwind trip. on tomorrow's program we have the great and good bill maher and stuff that needs to be bleeped on a short delay. but we'll be right back.

if you are the governor, at least theoretically, is to kill people who are in prison, to oversee the process for whom the state has been responsible for housing and feeding and their medical care and eyeglasses and their mail and reading material and toilet paper and everything, taking those people out of the prison cells in which they have been housed by the state and quietly, deliberately, killing them. usually in front of an invited audience. in 33 states, that is part of the governor's job description, to oversee that process.

but something interesting has been happening, somewhat below the political radar about the politics of this issue. yes, these 33 states have the death penalty. but illinois, new jersey, new mexico, and new york, these states used to have it as well. and they have decided just in the past five years to get rid of the death penalty, to get rid of the state process of killing people in prison. they have all abolished the death penalty in the past few years. as well, five months ago the governor of oregon didn't go so far as to repeal the death penalty in the state that he said as governor he would no longer enforce it. reflecting on the two executions he had overseen in a previous term as governor, john kitzhaber said, quote, they were the most agonizing and difficult decisions i have made as governor and i have revisited and questioned them over and over again. i do not believe those executions made us safer and certainly did not make us nobler as a society. i simply cannot participate once again in something i believe to be morally wrong. so he will not oversee

executions in oregon. so in a world where the country cannot join the european union if it has the death penalty, in a world where still a republican debate audience lustily cheered for a texas governor's record of overseeing 200 executions, still in this world american states are quietly and steadily ending the death penalty. oregon has stopped it. california will put the likely put the issue of repealing the death penalty before california voters in november in a referendum. the project at the aclu tells us there are strong right-left in montana, kentucky, and kansas. but tonight one more state is poised to take itself off the map of american states where the government does executions.

>> the house of representatives is voting by roll call. members to the chamber taking a roll call vote. members to the chamber, please. >> the house of representatives is voting by a roll call. members of the chamber of the house taking a roll call vote, members to the chamber please. >> clerk please announce the tally senate bill 280 as maemded by senate a and senate i, total number vote 148, yea 86 and nay -- bill passed. >> after ten hours of debate the connecticut house of represents decided to do away with the death penalty, the bill goes to the governor of the state for the decision. joining us is the governor from

the great state of connecticut, thank you for your time tonight, it's nice to have you here. >> thank you. >> are you going to sign the repeal of the death penalty of your state? >> yes, i've talked about it for years during the campaign in which i was elected a governor, i made it clear that i would sign a repeal, a, statute if it got before me, it almost cost me the election, i'm a govern that tried and prosecuted four murder cases and defended one. and during that period of time, i switched from being pro death penalty to being against it. i do not believe as a society we should be engaged in that activity. no other industrialized nation in the world is doing it. it's china, it's iran, it's us. and a few others. when you mentioned in almost cost you the governship, you were clear on the intentions on this when you ran -- >> i add, that my opponent ran ads against me, if you believe something you believe it. it's not about me, it's about wonderful leadership in the

senate and wonderful leadership in the house that got together and passed this bill again, it's the second time it passed. it was vetoed by my predecessor and i'm proud to be in a position to sign it. i have to say also that i understand the victims' families are divided on this issue. some of them in our own state wanted this repeal to be passed and some of them were very tough in arguing that it was the only way to bring closure. i understand both sides of the argument. but as a society, this is not something that we should be doing. and it's applied in our nation even this day this year in an arbitrary fashion. if you look at the statistics and understand that people of color who kill white people are more likely to receive the death penalty than other groups, you start to understand how capricious this is applied.

>> do you feel that is what is changing people's minds on this the most. connecticut has a history of executions since the 1700s and it's been hotly debated year after year after year, what do you think it is that changed people's minds on this issue that it came to pass for the repeal? >> the first person that was put to death in connecticut was a accused of being a witch. we have made other mistakes in connecticut i believe. but most importantly we are violating the supreme court's decision that originally outlawed the death penalty because we are doing it in an arbitrary fashion. if you were prosecuted in one particular city you were seven times more likely to get the death penalty than in another city in the state. nor do we have a workable death penalty statute in our state, the only person put to death

volunteered for it be withdrawing the appeals. everyone on death row currently is not likely to have been put to death anyway. but we had this practice in place where they could be. we have people on death row longer than 20 years. we are joining the rest of the industrialized world and the other 16 states. when you talk about the states, wisconsin outlawed the death penalty in 1853 and maine did it in 1876, it was not a new movement, it's a slow one, it's picking steam -- it's picking up steam. we will eventually do away with it. >> in terms of the men in connecticut on death row. part of it getting passed was that it will not apply retroactively. those men will still technically be facing execution, there are going to be no new death sentences handed down.

if they come to an end, can you imagine yourself carrying out the executions for the men who were not grandfathered in in this change? >> no, i cannot imagine doing that. i would never have to make that decision as governor, but i understand other governors that have been bothered by the decisions they made and how difficult it must be. that is not the law here. i'm proud to be the governor that will sign the legislation and proud to serve with the men and women in the house and senate that passed the legislation and proud that we are joining 16 other states that have joined the rest of the industrialized world in moving beyond this penalty. we made an improvement on the bill and we have said for particularly horrible crimes people will be treated

differently as if they are on death row, with limited rights and privileges. we understand that there should be differences -- different forms of punishment for individuals but death is not one of those. >> governor dan malloy of connecticut, thank you for being with us. >> thank you.

what makes the sleep number store different? the sleep number bed. the magic of this bed is that you're sleeping on something that conforms to your individual shape. wow! that feels really good. you can adjust it to whatever your needs are. so whatever you feel like, the sleep number bed's going to provide it for you. now, sleep number redefines memory foam, combining coolfit

gel foam with sleep number adjustability! during our white sale, receive $400 in free bedding. only at the sleep number store, where queen mattresses start at just $699. >> recapping tonight's breaking news, just a few hours ago, north korea attempted to launch a rocket, this three-stage rocket which north korea said was carrying a satellite, the launch was defected at 6:30 p.m. eastern time, the launch was not successful, and crashed harmlessly into the sea after lift off. despite the failure of the lift off. the white house is saying it's