recessi recession. today's news that the nation added some 236,000 jobs last month means that unemployment has fallen to its lowest level since december 2008. but that number would have been even better if the public sector hadn't been forced to shed another 10,000 employees. perhaps most encouraging of all is that jobs in construction are coming back, and this means that the housing market which had been devastated by the financial crash five years ago is also beginning to recover. but here is speaker john boehner rehearsing his tired talking points earlier in the week. >> our goal here is to cut spending. >> cut spending, cut spending, cut spending. he and plenty of other republicans have been saying this for the past five years. and in that time plenty of other economies have applied their approach. so in a week when virtually every day has marked another record high on the u.s. stock market, it's worth considering what's happening elsewhere. the international monetary fund is predicting that the eurozone,

which has embraced speaker boehner's approach, will stay in recession for the remainder of this year. in their quarterly update they said the euro area continues to pose a large downside risk to the global outlook. in addition, the imf is predicting that europe's economy will contract by 0.2% this year as compared with its expectation that the american economy will grow by 2% this year and by a further 3% in 2014. and next week will bring us paul ryan's latest budget which will no doubt contain another fist full of cuts that might well knock out the recovery if it was ever applied in practice. you see, it's becoming increasingly clear that the republican rejection of science doesn't just apply to climate change. it also applies to the economy. thanks so much for watching today and all week. chris matthews and "hardball" is next. a left turn on the drones.

let's play "hardball." ♪ good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let at the start tonight with this. like a lot of watching you got interested in politics back when nifs school. something about it just grabbed me and it was the basic things, the role of the individual in this country and how we get treated by our government and what role the united states of america should play in the world. if i ever forget vietnam, please remind me and do it loud. so when john mccain blasted rand paul the other day for, quote, stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms, i thought back to when i myself was in one of those college dorms up at holy cross in worcester where people are now under 10 inches of snow. i assume they're arguing about drones up there about the rights of the united states government to use those drones against americans, even americans who may have turned against their country.

debates are great. debates in college dorms are where it all begins. what burns in this country. keeps us hot with ideas. keeps us giving a damn about guarding what is our legacy, freedom, freedom from government interference, freedom from decision that is suggest that government is more important than citizens. so i may not have the attitude of a rand paul but i worship his right to have it. i would never put down that attitude simply because i think there's a bit of right wing paranoia attached to that guy. why? because in some dorm room somewhere perhaps where i went to clem, where you went to college, there are young people arguing about it and i say thank god for that. cynthia tucker is a pulitzer prize winning syndicated columnist and ron reagan is a radio talk show host and msnbc political analyst. ron i always trust what you think in your heart and your brain put together. put them all together, this thing, this fight on the right between the establishment hawks, that's what the establishment is in the republican party, hawkish like mccain and lindsey graham, are putting down rand paul because he isn't one of them and he dared to question the use of

u.s. military power in this case against individual citizens. where are you, a man of the left, on this one? >> well, on the subject of drones, and this is a very interesting thing to watch this divide among the republicans whereas you say the establishment, which is reflexively pro-military on the republican side, is running up against the new tea party republicans who aren't to reflexively pro-military who are ideologically libertarian and see threats to civil liberties where some progressive lefties might also. i, too, am troubled like rand paul, like a stopped clock occasionally he's right and on the use of drones -- >> i used that phrase yesterday. did you watch last night because i said a broken clock is right twice a day. >> i didn't see that. great minds think alike. >> it's yours, too. let me go to cynthia -- if you want to finish that thought go ahead. rand paul can be pretty wacky. he's talking about the united states government hitting somebody in a cafe, i imagine a

cafe on some street corner sipping their grand marnier, sipping their coffee, and all of a sudden a drone comes in because they said the wrong thing politically. i don't think that's going to happen in this country of ours. do you think it's something we should be debating whether it should happen? >> well -- >> are you asking me. >> gor ahead cynthia. >> rand paul used a very extreme example to call attention to this issue of targeted killings, and i think the question we should be asking is not whether a drone is going to descend, bring hell fire on some american sitting having coffee just because of something they said, but rather what is it that brings an american citizen or for that matter a foreign national onto this list? how do you get on the president's targeted killings list? who makes those decisions? what's the rationale? unfortunately, this whole policy

is so shrouded in secrecy we don't know the answers to that and that's what we ought to be talking about. and i, too am glad -- i don't trust rand paul but i'm glad he's brought attention to that subject. >> i agree. i think we all agree. let's look at the three options. there's hitting nonamericans. we have a value for that. hitting americans, and then among the americans we have a value for whether we hit them at home here or hit thm abroad. that's the way to dwe cline this whole thing. in his filibuster rand paul envisioned the worst fears of the black helicopter crowd. take a look. >> ft. you're sitting in a cafe and somebody thinks you e-mailed your cousin in the middle east and they think you're conspiring with them, you get -- you should be charged. you should be, you know, imprisoned if they can make the charges stick, but they shouldn't just drop a hell fire missile on your cafe experience. >> well, senator john mccain took to the senate floor late yesterday to mock rand paul and his young libertarian fans. i guess he assumes he has them.

let's listen. >> if mr. paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. he needs to know what he's talking about. >> well, "the new york times" also caught this photo. it's kind of funny of those two senators walk ard i would sharing what was a large elevator but too small for them. look at them trying to get away from each other. in his letter to senator paul, eric holder wrote, quote, it's come to my attention that you have asked an additional question. does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone in kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil? and the answer to that question is no. are you concerned we're using drones again nonamericans, against americans overseas, or americans at home. die cot myself that. where are you concerned? >> i'm concerned there's no real transparency and no real rules around this. when are we allowed to kill american citizens over seas?

are we allowed to use drones in any way, shape, or form domestically. >> al allah can i, a u.s. citizen overseas working with the enemy. where are you on that? >> that is a tough one. that is a real tough one. there's evidence that guy was actively involved in planning attacks against the united states. if that's the case what's the difference between sending in a s.e.a.l. team and sending in a drone? but if you apply that domestically what's the difference between sending in a s.w.a.t. team and sending in a drone instead if i'm a police commander. i don't want to send guys through the door -- >> no, i agree it's about lethal. i want to focus -- back to you cynthia. suppose some kid glows up in california, he thinks we're too pro-israeli. he decides to join the other side if you will. join al qaeda. so he ends up over there in some country like yemen and he's sitting around in a cafe basically hanging around trying to make contact with the enemy.

is he a ripe target by our standards of justice in this country to be knocked off by our military, by drone or any other means? is it wrong to consort with the enemy? >> that's the question. you know, petraeus had proposed when he was still running the war in afghanistan that the obama administration adopt a policy whereby people would be targeted for drones because based on some suspicious activities that looked like they might be terrorists. even if we weren't sure who those people were. that worries me. it bothers me not just we might be killing american citizens. it worries me that we might be killing anybody. if we don't have absolute certainty that these people represent a legitimate threat to the united states. and it certainly ought to be more than something they said. you know, after we killed al awlaki, a drone also hit his

son. well, we're now told that that was an accident. well, how did he end up -- >> was it an accident or -- does anybody admit he was a target? cynthia? >> nobody knows. nobody is saying. and that's the problem again. it is shrouded in secrecy. united states citizens don't nou what is being done in our names and we should. >> it gets really tricky and this isn't anything i would worry about our government doing, but a lot of americans are quite willing on the left and the right, mostly the left lately, to basically take on their government in a very dramatic almost revolutionary way. look at jane fonda for example. she went over and consorted with the north vietnamese. we were at war with them. of course, it w -- what happens we have enemy most people on the right would say were enemies but joe kennedy wouldn't say is he an enemy. hugo chavez, is he our enemy

because he's a lefty? what does it take to become an enemy of the united states? >> we need to know that and back to cynthia's point which is such a central point. what are the rules around here? where is the transparency here? we're owed this as american citizens. our tax dollars are paying for these drones and these hell fire missiles and things. you know, we're owed an explanation about this and what happens when other countries get this technology? what's good for us is good for them. would we feel good about north korea having a bunch of drones they could send -- >> well, we can't stop them. nothing we do will stop them from doing what they wish to do. let me get to something philosophical. both of you can handle this. you first, ron. you raised it. what is the connection between the serious left and the serious right? i mean by that people who are concerned about the basics of individual liberty? >> that is the connection, that people are concerned about civil liberties whether they're our american civil liberties or civil liberties of people living in other countries. we don't make that distinction. all people are created equal as

far as we're concerned. how would we feel if some third country or some other country decided to rain down a few missiles on our country or take out a few people ha they thought were american terrorists? we'd be up in arms justifiably so. >> same question -- i'm sorry to interrupt. how do you feel the difference as a progressive columnist, the difference between the hard -- i don't mean hard left in terms of supporting revolution or anything but i'm talking about hard left in terms of really being suspicious of any government power in the way that some on the posse comitatus right are pretty much i think paranoid myself but how does it meet? how do those two ends meet? >> there is absolutely some legitimate common ground between those who are serious on the libertarian right and those on the left who fear that the government has encroached too far on our civil liberties. last year in a column i praised ron paul, rand paul's father, because he spoke out against the killing of al awlaki.

very few republicans were willing to do that. i think ron paul is very serious and has long been serious about his concerns about civil liberties and the american government going too far. and so progressives can certainly make common cause with libertarians who are serious on issues of civil liberties. >> i also think and i will offer this opinion. i like to know who is the president is. and i know why we have to live by law because i'm not sure what i would think about any of this conversation with dick cheney aboard calling the shots because i don't think he has the same lines any of the three of us have about where you stop with government power. i think he's pretty unlimbed in that department about the rights -- >> i agree completely. >> thank you. >> that's another reason why we need rules. >> thank you. >> you can't set a precedent like this. the dick cheneys of the world will get back into power eventually and we don't want to set a precedent where they can do whatever they want. >> thank you for ending it friday night with a worst case

scenario. thank you very much cynthia tucker and thank you ron reagan. coming up. when is president obama going to get some credit, and this is like rodney dangerfield. when is he going to get some credit for this amazing economy that's coming back? it definitely is coming back, maybe not like gangbusters that unemployment rate really dropped again and a quarter million new jobs out there. and the stock market for the rich is going through the roof. when is this guy going to get some respect? republicans, when are they going to set some standards. when he gets to this number we'll love him. will they ever admit he's doing a good job. someone who admits he was wrong. 3wk9 wrote an op-ed in "the washington post," i couldn't believe it when i saw it, saying the defense of marriage act which he signed into law should be overturned. he says not only did the law provide an excuse for discrimination the law itself was discriminantory. i'm fascinating with the jockeying taking place in bate parties for 2016. rand paul is running, jeb bush is running and hillary clinton,

we'll be waiting for her. when does she decide? we'll ask that and get to thul this. what happens when you're too far right for cpac. you charge them with being under the threat of sharia law. only in red america. this is "hardball," the place for politics. the recipe's not the recipe... ohhh. politics. mmmm! [ female announcer ] the secret is swanson. otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪

that your mouth is under attack, from food particles and bacteria. try fixodent. it helps create a food seal defense for a clean mouth and kills bacteria for fresh breath. ♪ fixodent, and forget it. here is a little sugar plum that took a week to leak. president obama and the first lady hosted a secret supper last friday a week ago, at the white house with former president bill clinton and hillary clinton. just the four of them according to politico. the three-hour long dinner was inform informal. a celebration of hillary's retirement but big offered some second term advice to president obama sharing his own experience dealing with hostile republicans in congress. we'll be right back. experience republicans in congress. we'll be right back. own experie hostile republicans in congress. we'll be right back.

a celebration of hillary's

welcome back to "hardball." this may come as a shock to people lives in the conservative media bubble, but despite months of hyperbolic warnings, the

election and re-election of barack obama did not, in fact, crash the u.s. economy. well, today we found out that the unemployment rate fell to 7.7% for february, the lowest it's been in more than four years as businesses added, and this is really impressive, 236,000 new jobs. well, how did republicans respond to that? with as little enthusiasm as possible. here is the speaker of the house, john boehner. any job creation is positive news but the fact is unemployment in america is still way below the levels the white house projected. despite republican grumbling here is what the obama economy actually looks like. blue, there it is on the right, represents the months president obama has been in office since january of '09. since march of 2010, the private sector has added jobs every month. the biggest loss of jobs in red on the left actually happened

when george w. bush was president. doesn't this president, barack obama, deserve some credit for improving the economy from what he inherited? joy reid is managing editor of thegrio.com and michael crowley, what a great name to have these days with downton abbey, mary crowley, deputy washington bureau chief for "time" magazine. joy, let me start with you. it seems to me that when i look at the stock market breaking all records, when i look at 236,000 new jobs and i keep thinking when are the republicans going to do what rodney dangerfield asked for all those years, show a little respect, and what does this all mean? don't they secretly say damn it, things are getting better? what are they saying when they read this stuff? >> i agree with you. they've got to say that stuff. before the election happened the incentive for republicans was so constantly downplay the economy, to say the economy was terrible because their presidential candidate, mitt romney, was running on only one thing, the economy is awful, i'm the only one who can fix it. once the election was a fait accompli, you would think the incentive would change because

the next person up for re-election if you're a republican member of congress is you. it's not president obama. he's done having elections. you're the next one up, so you would think talking up iment pro. in the economy and your participation would be a good idea but they're still not doing it. i think part of it is the incentive structure, the republican party is now so weighted on the side of constantly being against barack obama, whatever he's for, you're against. whatever is good for him is bad for you, bad for the country. if that incentive structure hasn't changed enough for the republicans to get the memo that maybe it would be good politics for them to start saying the economy is getting better. the other reason is they agreed to raise tacks in january. that was a painful thing to do and they'd -- >> for the top 1%. >> barely. exactly. just a minor and we also raised taxes on everybody with that payroll tax -- >> nobody argues about that unfortunately. we should have a whole show on that baby. >> they don't want to admit in a slyly higher tax environment jobs are being created. >> let me go to you smikcle. it seems a couple shots have been taken at the president and

they have never come to reality. inflation. the way i calculate it, it was like 6%, 2% annual, about one-sixth of 1% on a monthly basis. there's no inplation yet this year. high interest rates. they're so low you can borrow money now. austerity. where is that working in the world? not only are they wrong on their attacks, they're wrong on their prescriptions. i think estonia is doing all right with austerity and maybe a couple other countries but that's not generally the rule that that's working. >> europe provides -- all due respect to estonia and the counter example i have heard about europe provides a strong counter xempl. i know we're talking about the president here but remember some of the things said by ben bernanke as he was engineering the monetary policy during this recovery. remember a rick perry saying he was rigging it for obama's election. he better not come down to texas. some of the things sarah palin said, completely wrong. but, chris, there is -- as joy said there, is just a kind of

partisan dynamic baked in here. i think back with some amusement to the clinton years when clinton passed his economic bram in 1993 that included substantial tax hike. republicans predicted the economy would just completely collapse. it was going to be economic armageddon. then as you recall we had this tremendous economic boom and they immediately said that was because of the dotcom explosion and productivity changes and so, you know, you kind of can't win in this partisan situation and i think republicans are just too committed to the idea that the economy really can't be good under barack obama's stewardship. it would be too hard to explain. >> you're younger than me. the old line -- joy, you may not have lived like this. if you want to live like a republican, vote like a democrat. not true that people have better times, better life, existences under the republicans. marsha blackburn was asked by luke russert about the unemployment numbers earlier today. listen to her nonanswer answer. >> the economy grew by 236,000

jobs last quarter, unemployment went down 7.7%. president obama deserves some credit for that one? >> well, i think that there is credit to go around and also, luke, i have to tell you, talking to so many business owners here in tennessee, they were pleased to see that we stuck to the point of letting the sequester take place and beginning to cut across the board, make some cuts in this discretionary spending. >> well, that doesn't have anything to do with luke's very pressing question there, joy. i mean, it was a good question. it was about today's news. what do you make of the day's news. her answer was i don't have anything to say about the news. but i guess the question is you were getting to it, does this affect the things look a little brighter than they did several months ago. although i have to tell you we've been rounding at 8% for 14 months. for all this talk about jubilation and everything else that's going on, whatever song that's from, that haven't gotten marginally greater. we're still around 8% in the

history books and a question i have to ask, bernanke says he's going to stop pumping money into the question when we get to 6%. when are the republicans going to say good show? >> right. >> if any republicans watching now in the political business, please let us know what number will make you quiet down at least say this guy may have it? >> you're absolutely right. the irony of marsha blackburn's comments is that the sequester is happening at the moment the jobs report is backward looking. so the sequester has zero, nothing to do with the jobs numbers that were just reported. what she's saying didn't even make sense. the problem is for republicans is that the history of the american economy is that when you withdraw government spending from the economy, as by the way fdr did after he did a couple years of the new deal, he tried austerity and we had had a double dip recession. hoover tried it. the idea of withdrawing government spending when the private sector is withdrawing spending, means you lower gdp. nobody has explained how cutting government spending creates

jobs. they don't have a relationship. you've got to have somebody spending into the economy and if it's not the private sect dwror, hello, it's got to be the government. that's why stimulus works. >> here is where it always surprises me, people are surprised by things. today on "morning joe" everybody found out mark harmon makes more money than brad pitt because people like mark harmon and he's on television all the time. we have been creating public sector jobs month by month ever since 2010 in this country under this democratic administration. meanwhile, reducing the number of public sector jobs. if you ask the average republican sitting at a bar stool tonight on some route 40 somewhere you stop in and say what are we doing creating a lot of public sector jobs a bunch of drones working in washington are are we creating jobs in the good old private sector. the opposite of what that guy is going to say. why are we so screwed up on the simple facts of where the jobs are coming from? >> because there's a lot of misinformation going out there and the structure of the economy i guess to be a little more charitable can be complicated

and people don't raek bra it down but there's a lot of place minute information. the sequester is providing a drag. so congresswoman blackburn may be right that business owners are making investments and making decisions that are growing the economy based on the sequester but everything i have seen is economists saying it's putting a drag on the economy. this is the wrong time -- >> you know what? we may disagree i think basically this is the grand solution. i think the democrats do not want to cut medicare and i understand why not and republicans don't want to raise taxes and politically i understand why not. they'll take the hit. i think the second best solution is better for all of them. that's why i think we're not going to get a deal this summer. the president just wants to say we're going to get a deal in july so he doesn't have to talk about it in august. i know. am i the signic? yes, continue. joy reid, thank you. and michael crowley, with that great last night. mary crowley, do i like her. up next, what do you do if you're too far to the right for the cpac crowd? you accuse them of being in cahoots with the muslim brotherhood. and that's ahead and this is

"hardball," the place for politics. [ female announcer ] your smile.

like other precious things that start off white, it yellows over time. when it comes to your smile, if you're not whitening, you're yellowing. crest whitestrips whiten as well as $500 professional treatments. guaranteed. crest 3d white whitestrips. you accuse them of being in you accuse them of being in you accuse them of being in ♪ if loving you is wrong

♪ i don't wanna be right [ record scratch ] what?! it's not bad for you. it just tastes that way. [ female announcer ] honey nut cheerios cereal -- heart-healthy, whole grain oats. you can't go wrong loving it. heart-healthy, whole grain oats. we asked total strangers to watch it for us. thank you so much. i appreciate it. i'll be right back. they didn't take a dime. how much in fees does your bank take to watch your money? if your bank takes more money than a stranger, you need an ally. ally bank. your money needs an ally.

back to "hardball." now to the "sideshow." first off, here is a question. what if contenders for the papacy had to launch full on campaigns to get chosen to lead the catholic church. jon stewart has a taste of what you might call the first ever papal political ad. >> leonardo says he's infallible, but just last week he picked bradley cooper in his oscar pool. bradley cooper. leonardo san dri, wrong about bradley cooper, wrong for the vatican. >> well, just one reason to stick with the conclave as it is. next, politics and straws. know no, this has nothing to do with a straw poll. republican state senators in washington state are dissatisfied with a recent state supreme court decision that

requires more state money to be put toward education. well, their solution to save money, reduce the size of the supreme court from nine judges to five. so how is it decided who gets knocked off the bench? from the bill, quote, on june 30th, 2013, all existing judges of the state supreme court shall meet in public to cast lots by drawing straws. effective july 1st, 2013, the positions of the four judges casting losing lots by drawing the shortest straws shall be terminated. that's right, drawing short straw and you're out. it's fairly transparent why they're looking to the supreme court to cut costs. in addition to that, education decision the court made, the court also recently ruled against a republican plan that would have made it more difficult to impose tax increases. finally, this week in conspiracy. anti-islam activist pamela gellar is on the list of people not invited to cpac this year. is it because having someone at the event sounding the alarm about sharia law might lead to undesirable headlines for

republicans? not if you ask pamela gellar herself. she says it's too late for c pac. they've already fallen victim to sharia. here she is with conservative radio host janet mef effort. i've always held events there, even though i wasn't warmly welcomed because of the influence of what can only be described as muslim brotherhood faf sill taters or operatives. i think people at this point people need to know just how deeply we have been infiltrated. i mean, look, what are they doing at cpac? essentially, janet, they are enforcing the sharia. unt the sharia, the blasphemy laws, you can't say, you can't offend, you can't criticize, and you cannot insult islam. and so that's effectively what they're doing. they're enforcing sharia. gellar targets anti-tax crusader grorveer norquist as one of the news limb brotherhood

facilitators standing in her way of putting on a show at cpac. state law make% in florida are keeping tabs on sharia infiltration, too. two republicans in that state have reintroduced legislation that would ban courts from considering foreign law when making legal decisions. well, the bill didn't pass last time it was proposed, but they're giving it another try. up next, bill clinton says it's time to overturn doma, the defense of marriage act. this is a big deal. be a 5k9 he signed back in '96. and that's coming up next. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. more than two years ago, the people of bp made a commitment to the gulf. and every day since, we've worked hard to keep it. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy. we've shared what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. bp's also committed to america. we support nearly two-hundred-fifty thousand jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger.

you're watching "hardball," the [ male announcer ] this is joe woods' first day of work.

and his new boss told him two things -- cook what you love, and save your money. joe doesn't know it yet, but he'll work his way up from busser to waiter to chef before opening a restaurant specializing in fish and game from the great northwest. he'll start investing early, he'll find some good people to help guide him, and he'll set money aside from his first day of work to his last, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

i'm jon fortt with your cnbc market wrap. investors cheered today as unemployment report sending the dow up 67 and further into record territory. the s&p 500 rose 6. and the nasdaq gained 12.

as you heard earlier, the economy added 238,000 jobs last month, far more than expected. the unemployment rate fell to 7.7%. the lowest since 2008. meanwhile, google is cutting an additional 1,200 jobs at its motorola mobility unit. it cut 4,000 jobs back in august. that's it from cnbc, first in business worldwide. now back to "hardball." ♪ >> president clinton has signed the bill that bans the federal government from recognizing snex marriages. without fanfare after returning from a campaign trip after midnight, mr. clinton signed the bill. the white house says the president has long opposed government recognition of homosexual marriages but hopes the bill won't be used as an excuse to discriminate. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was a 1996 "today" show report by bob kerr on bill clinton signing after midnight the defense of marriage act. also known as doma. by the way, he signed it just

weeks before his re-election. there are no pictures of that bill signing because, as bob reported there, it happened after midnight and far away from tv cameras. today in washington in our own "washington post," clinton disavowed the bill he signed back there into law writing, quote, in a powerful new op-ed piece on march 27th doma will come before the supreme court and the justices must decide whether it's consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all and is therefore constitution. as the president who behind the act into law i have come to believe that doma is contrary to those principles and incompatible with our constitution. this follows an amicus brief that signals political shift. dee dee myers knows the president very well. she was first woman press secretary in history and this weekend on bbc you can watch the documentary, what if women ruled the world which is a very wonderful sound to some people.

maggie haberman writes for politico. thank you for joining us as well. dee dee, your guy, bill, he's just my bill, do you think it has anything to do with the fact that we're in a tremendously changed culture and environment these years later? >> there's no question about it. the environment was very different and as president clinton points out in his piece today, there was great fear among advocates including him that there would be a federal constitution amendment banning a same-sex marriage that would be hard to overturn. doma was looked at as a stopgap measure a way to stop a national constitutional amendment movement. the proo of that was that was really urgent was since doma was signed 31 states has passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. so there was a lot of energy around it. it's amazing how much things have changed -- >> actually three or four states have actually voted on it. it's the state legislatures and the court have been the most active. public opinion of same-sex marriage has shifted so dramatically since '96. back when bill clinton signed the defense of marriage act

which basically says we will not as a federal government recognize gay marriage, it was 27% support. i'm surprised it was that high. today it's 54%. 53%. it's really changed. let me get maggie? here. a doubling of support for it which i thought was minuscule back then now it's a strong majority and going. among catholics it's a majority opinion. what do you make of bill clinton? will this affect the court ruling? do you think will this amicus and the fact he's such a powerful force affect the court decision is. >> i think he is less likely to have an impact on the court's decision than i think this is about to the 2016 and the future -- >> he isn't running. >> he's not running but someone else might be who he's related to. bill clinton has come out in favor of gay marriage. his daughter and this is really important to note, chelsea clinton was very prominent in favor of gay marriage in new york when andrew cuomo was trying to push through legislation legalizing gay marriage in 2011.

hillary clinton has not taken a position yet. it's very hard to see her doing anything other than eventually coming out in support of gay marriage which is where her family is and her party is as you note. >> what's stopping her do you think? she could put out an op-ed piece and have to polished up for tomorrow's paper right now. >> i think at the end of the day i think it is to be something less of an event than be a huge event. she is technically late to this. to be fair to her, she has been seen as very proactive on lesbian and gay issues in the state department. she had a pretty good record there. the gay community is generally very supportive of hillary clinton but a lot of gay activists have said they hope she would coming out -- >> you know -- >> go ahead. >> the reason she hasn't is because she felt it was sort of incompatible as the nation's chief diplomat. . she didn't want to get mixed up in domestic politics when -- >> i think she would argue if she were sitting here it's a human rights ash issue.

>> that's why she's advocating on gay diplomats, allow -- >> let's talk politics for a second. i don't know how the court is going to rule. i hope it rules positively. i have changed my position mike lost of us, i have evolved. new word. magg maggie, you have covered this. what i think has crumbled is the opposition. it's not so much people are saying it's fair, people are gay, they're born gay. it may not be nature versus nur tour is a nonrelevant conversation. people are what they are, they should be allowed to pursue happiness and let's be fair and equal about it. but i think what's crumbled is the opposition. nobody can think of a reason to oppose it. it came up in prop 8. they couldn't find anybody to come in and say there's a public from in possessing it. >> the most significant development you saw beyond the presidential race in 2012 but there were four states that had gay marriage related referenda, but overall were sort of aimed

toward leadizing gay marriage. they were all successful for the pro-gay marriage side. that was a huge development because there had not been a ballot win before that and so you did see among the republican base some opposition still lingers. remember, you had the chik-fil-a protests in new york. there was at least one primary that was lost by a state senator who had voted in favor of gay marriage at the state level in new york. generally speaking, you're right. in a general election framework, mosh nationally beyond the party base and in the middle there has been movement on this. i think it's worth noting when you're talking about the cross tabs of where opinion has changed, african-americans now in most polling show a majority support for gay marriage. that's a big change. >> that's the reason john derry is secretary of state rather than president. because in 2004 the issue was in ohio people got together there, our friend what's his name, karl rove, got together with don king and got a lot of african-americans preachers up in cuyahoga county in cleveland

to get their people out, the flock out, the congregations out to vote against this gay marriage thing and that turned that case. >> constitutional amendments were used against battering rams against progressives -- >> we thought north carolina would be hurt by that. >> first of all, 85 senators voted for doma including joe biden, joe lieberman, chris dodd, tom daschle, barbara -- >> keep going, i love this. >> mikulski. all the liberals. >> john kerry did not vote for it. ted kennedy did not vote for it, but the majority -- 85 senators voted for it and now we're in a position -- >> what did doma do? >> doma basically designed marriage as between a man and a woman and basically said that the -- >> all federal payments -- >> states wouldn't have to recognize -- >> that most important -- that's true didn't have to recognize -- >> outside of that definition. >> virginia would have to recognize maryland but it also said for federal purposes social security, medicare, there's no such thing as gar marriage. >> i think president clinton says -- >> i love this conversation.

maggie thanks so much for coming on. i love this conversation especially from a political point of view. dee dee myers thank you. a model, by the way. she was at my bus stop recently on the bus stop. very demure. up next, the jockeying for 2016 -- it's all true. the jockeying for 2016 has already begun on both sides and that's coming up. pure politics coming back here in the place for politics in a couple minutes. [ male announcer ] when you wear dentures you may not know that your mouth is under attack, from food particles and bacteria. try fixodent. it helps create a food seal defense for a clean mouth and kills bacteria for fresh breath. ♪ fixodent, and forget it. a talking car. but i'll tell you what impresses me. a talking train. this ge locomotive can tell you exactly where it is, what it's carrying, while using less fuel. delivering whatever the world needs, when it needs it. ♪ after all, what's the point of talking if you don't have something important to say?

♪ today is international

women's day and as dee dee myers said, she's got a great documentary coming out. airing on the bbc america saturday at. thirty eastern in the united states. it's what if women ruled the world. we have some new poll -- we have some -- no, we don't. what if women ruled the world? i have low testosterone. there, i said it. how did i know? well, i didn't really. see, i figured low testosterone would decrease my sex drive... but when i started losing energy and became moody... that's when i had an honest conversation with my doctor. we discussed all the symptoms... then he gave me some blood tests. showed it was low t. that's it. it was a number -- not just me. [ male announcer ] today, men with low t have androgel 1.62% (testosterone gel).

the #1 prescribed topical testosterone replacement therapy, increases testosterone when used daily. women and children should avoid contact with application sites. discontinue androgel and call your doctor if you see unexpected signs of early puberty in a child, or signs in a woman, which may include changes in body hair or a large increase in acne, possibly due to accidental exposure. men with breast cancer or who have or might have prostate cancer, and women who are or may become pregnant or are breastfeeding, should not use androgel. serious side effects include worsening of an enlarged prostate, possible increased risk of prostate cancer, lower sperm count, swelling of ankles, feet, or body, enlarged or painful breasts, problems breathing during sleep, and blood clots in the legs. tell your doctor about your medical conditions and medications, especially insulin, corticosteroids, or medicines to decrease blood clotting. so...what do men do when a number's too low? turn it up! [ male announcer ] in a clinical study, over 80% of treated men had their t levels restored to normal. talk to your doctor about all your symptoms. get the blood tests. change your number. turn it up.

androgel 1.62%. we're back. even though the next presidential election is more than 1,000 days away, the jockeying for 2016 has clearly begun. former florida governor jeb bush and senator rand paul have positioned themselves this week to be major players in that race. bush made headlines talking about imgrak and the future of the republican party while tea party darling senator rand paul

staged a high profile 13-hour filibuster and told politico he's thinking of running for president. although hillary clinton has not said whether she will win the pollsters are taking stock on her. in a quinnipiac poll out this week, clinton beats chris chris tiff 45%, 37%. she has a double digit lead over paul ryan. and she's strongest against marco rubio leading the florida senator by 16 points. it's clear that hillary clinton is a favorite right now in any poll, but other democrats may force her to decide sooner than she'd like whether to get in the race. our "hardball" strategists are here. this is going to be fun. doug hathaway is a democratic expert and john brabender is on the other side. let's be equal time here and try to be analytical. not cheerleaders for this purpose. looking at these nges now, hillary 45%, 37% over christie. i would say christii is at the top of his game but he's got to

get re-elected. hillary clinton is sort of a known quantity. where are they at? >> i agree with that. christie, the national media seems to glr much less across te country and the south he's got to prove himself. he's got a whole nother to make mistakes and wonders back to bite him. >> let me go to john across the site. how long do you think hillary clinton has to make up her mind? not to make up her mind, but to make it official that she's running. >> i think the first thing she has to is freeze the field. i don't think she'll do anything officially until after the 2014 elections, frobly. >> i wonder if she'll make it clear to the papers that she's in this race? >> when will she have to do it? >> i personally think she has to -- no, no, no. here's her problem. her numbers are the highest they're ever going to be right

now. so she has to maintain this by being out there, being a thoughtful person who's weighed in on critical issues and make it look like others are trying to get her to run. that's a very difficult thing to co. >> es essentially when it's not true. >> the punitive front runner never wants to step out and get the target on their back. she doesn't need to prove herself. people know what she's made of. >> if it's the end of this year, and we're going -- and i want john to answer this. it's the end of this. we're going into '14 this time. will people say stop the coyness? or what will they say? >> it's interesting -- >> what's biden do? if he thinks she is running, he may not run. >> good point. they're close friends. >> does she owe him anything? or not. >> just tough luck, buddy. this is "hardball." >> yeah, i think it's an

interesting situation there. they're both friends. they both really have the best fl platform for this at the moment. i don't think anybody who deems themselves to be the best person for the job of president feels they owe anybody anything. >> looking across the aisle, do you think she can be beat only the democratic side? i don't think she can be beat now, but what do you think in three years? >> first of all, everybody thought hillary was going to be the nominee in 2008. they ran a terrible campaign. didn't concentrate on the caucuses, which obama did and killed them. frankly, is there is a possibility that there will be hillary fa fe hillary fatigue by that point. i don't think she's the automatic nominee. >> let me tell you something and why i don't think it's over. and i think she eshe'll run. it's gender. we don't have women presidents. i think women my age or younger

are going to vote for her because of that. i think it's going to be as powerful for women, my age or younger, as it has been for african americans. at the end, they've just said damn it, it's time. i hear it. i heard it last time around when i was with obama. i heard it. it was all over the place. john, i don't think that's going away. you do. you think that can go away? that gender pride. it's our turn. >> i think it's pornimportant, women are harder on women than anybody. the hard part is keeping the brand that she has today. >> i agree with that. when you're high in the polls, i think it's nowhere to go but down. i think it's smart to keep your powder dry. i think the appeal, i think it goes beyond women. >> of course, i'm not living it there. i say you start with a base of more than half the voter. >> that's a hell of a base.

>> i'll just check with any woman 50-70 years old right now. let's talk about your side of the aisle now. it seems to me that jeb wants to be considered right now. he is out there. rand paul has just got this ideology that's so strong, he has to run to represent. he's not a republican. he's an objectivist. who can take on these guys to beat them? >> well, let's be clear. this isn't my side. >> you can switch. >> john, i'm going to you. i just had a brain seizure there. let's go to you, john. this question -- it looks like christie would win right now. may believe rubio would be in the race. jeb would be -- i don't know about jeb. i don't know whether there's book fatigue. >> you can write this down as a projection or a prediction. if you look at everything he's doing, he's not worrying about republican primary voters. he's worried about democrat voters. it will hurt himd four years from now running.

certainly, rand paul is trying to plant his flag in the ground to start with what his father had and then expand from there and look more mainstream. >> the problem is he's got to give up the senate seat. >> so does marco rubi orksz. >> we know that. thank you very much. thanks for joining us. we'll be right back. here, it's found in many forms. it's in the pristine sands of a perfect beach. it's in the soothing waters of the turquoise sea. and it's in the faces of all who set foot on our shores.

behold...the islands of the bahamas. [ man ] on in 5! [ female announcer ] it works as hard as you do... to outlast your day. [ man ] action! wow! [ female announcer ] secret outlast clear gel is better than the next leading invisible solid on white marks. secret outlast clear gel.

by the armful? by the barrelful? the carful? how about...by the bowlful? campbell's soups give you nutrition, energy, and can help you keep a healthy weight. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do.