politics in south carolina is a funky thing. we'll have to see what happens. >> our senior south carolina correspondent, nia malika-henderson has the last word. equality. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews. in washington, let me start tonight with this. justice. rights. fairness. equality. bias. these are the matters argued today in the supreme court. can people of the same sex be denied the opportunity to marry? is it just? is it constitutional? is it equal protection of the laws? or is it unjustified, unconstitutional, unfair and unequal? well, the court must now rule on where the defense of marriage act fits by these standards.

can it be defended as just, fair and equal when it so clearly be deaf significance is not? can it be declared consistent with our american constitution which says we cannot be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law? tonight we try to discern where the high court is headed. how it will rule on this sensitive question of american rights. the freedom we enjoy in this land and recognized and enshrined in its declaration of independence, the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. pete, you've got a very important day in your life. that's to explain this. is this going to weigh on court watchers like you thought it would? that there's a real challenge now that seems to be showing itself in the court arguments today to doma, the defense of marriage act, that it's in trouble? >> reporter: yes and no. i think doma is in trouble. i think that was widely predicted here because of the fact that the court was going to

take the case. but that it did seem like there were at least five votes today to strike doma down. although not for the same reasons. i think for at least four of the more liberal justices, it's a matter of equal treatment, equal protection. and they say that -- that doma violates that, discriminates against same-sex couples for no good reason. depriving them of a number of benefits, leaving them at a disadvantage just as ginsberg said these benefits, these 1,100 federal programs and rules, are so intertwined in people's lives that depriving them leaves them with what she called a skim milk marriage. justice kagan read from the house report when the house passed doma in 1996, reading the language that said the house was acting with moral disapproval of homosexuality. she said that's improper. so for them it's a question of equal treatment. but that only gets you to four. the fifth vote it seems, justice kennedy, sees this a little differently. not as a question of equal protection, but rather as a question of federal power.

that congress, he said, basically has always traditionally deferred to the states to define what marriage is. how old you have to be. all those questions of what it takes to constitute a legal marriage. and he said congress does not -- he seemed to indicate congress does not have the power to do this. so, you know, two different reasons, but you get to five votes to strike doma down. i started to say one difference. i think many people looked at these two cases here coming this week. yesterday's prop 8 case. today doma. as perhaps expecting that the court would issue some kind of sweeping ruling on gay rights. and it doesn't seem that that's going to be the case. certainly not from the prop 8 argument yesterday where the court seemed to be searching for the narrowest possible way to permit marriage to resume only in california without setting a national precedent. and today if a majority of -- or if justice kennedy is the controlling vote here and he sees this more as federalism than discrimination, that could be a very narrow opinion as well. >> pete, let's look at this thing.

here's justice kennedy. it focuses on his concerns about the defense of marriage act. i think he's going to strike it down. doma. and how it interferes with state rights, as you say. let's listen. >> when it has 1,100 laws, which in our society means that the federal government is intertwined with the citizens' day-to-day life, you are at -- at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody. >> so how -- i'm sorry. i want to bring howard in. >> reporter: i was going to say, a legal term of art. state police power. as distinct. the federal government has no police powers. it's the state that has the police power to regulate these kind of things. that's his point. >> howard, same question. we were talking about it before. what happens if the federal government says, you can't have social security. you can't have inheritance

rights. all these things. you can't have spousal privileges under the tax law. isn't the federal government then regulating marriage as the justice is saying? >> well, if they -- the reason why currently married couples in states that allow same-sex marriage have a skim milk marriage, to quote justice ginsberg, is that because of the way marriage is defined in doma, for the purposes of this law, it says, it's a marriage of a man and a woman, that means that those people can't get those benefits. but if you -- if you get rid of that portion of it, and if you start giving federal benefits all for the full pan pli of federal benefits to same-sex married couples in states that recognize it as such, i think -- i would be interested to hear what pete thinks about this -- it opens up a whole new avenue to attack the absence of gay marriage generally.

because then you set up a situation where some people have to flip justice ginsberg around, they have rich cream marriages whereas people who are same-sex couples in other states don't get any of those benefits. >> yeah. pete -- >> i think that opens up an attack in favor of trying to declare a nationwide constitutional right to marriage. what do you think about that, pete? >> reporter: i think that's an excellent point. and i think that's exactly why justice kennedy doesn't want to go there. because if they do go, as some justices today indicated that they were willing to say that the federal government can't make these distinctions, well, if the federal government can't make these distinctions between same sex and opposite sex couples, then how could the states? i think justice kennedy frankly isn't ready to go there. one other point that he made today, the -- remember who's defending doma. it's the house republicans. the obama administration has decided the law's unconstitutional.

so their lawyer here today, paul clement, was defending it. he reminded the court of why congress passed it. it's because hawaii -- this was back in the early '90s. hawaii's supreme court was considering it might recognize same-sex marriage. he said congress did not want to have a situation where if one state allowed same-sex marriage, then all the other states would have to. well, that's a separate part of doma. it's not under attack. what justice kennedy said is the result of the way doma stands now is, you're punishing the states who do decide they want to allow same-sex marriage because couples in their states don't have all the federal benefits. >> yeah. but my point is if they -- if they -- if they get rid of this part of doma and allow same-sex couples to get federal benefits in certain states, then don't they open up an attack on the other part of doma that you're talking about because those other people are going to -- >> let's take a look at that dramatic moment. pete and howard, let's look at what happened today. this is the argument between

justice elena kagan and paul clement, the attorney representing the house of representatives, republican side obviously. here's clement arguing congress was motivated by fear or dislike of gay people. rather they were acting to promote uniformity among the states and federal laws. let's look at this debate here. >> you have to understand that 1996, something's happening that is, in a sense, forcing congress to choose between its historic practice of deferring to the states and its historic practice of preferring uniformity. up until 1996 it essentially has it both ways. every state has the traditional definition. congress knows that's the definition that's imbedded in every federal law. fine, we can defer. >> is what happened in 1996, and i'm going to quote from the house report here, is that congress decided to reflect and honor a collective moral judgment and express moral disapproval of homosexuality. is that what happened in 1996?

>> does the house report say that? of course the house report says that. if that's enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute. >> where do you go with that, howard? >> i didn't think he wanted to question justice kagan's reading of the record. so what he's saying is that you would then have to invalidate it. >> but he also -- he also said that there were -- there were a lot of other motives for congress to pass the law and so he wasn't buying her idea that that was the only motive that congress had. >> yeah. you could really hate somebody as a murderer, but also believe that murderer objectively should be denied the right to murder somebody, obviously. to carry the thing to its fruition here. i think it's fascinating, the whole question about doma and how howard's developed it. do you have a real problem if you allow this condition to continue, basically put a situation where a gay couple comes from new york, gets down to mississippi, they get all the rights of social security and all that stuff but they just don't get the title marriage in

the state they're living in. does that mean they have to carry through and pull the thread on the suit so there's nothing left of the suit? there's nothing left of doma because you can't work it if you just take that part of it. >> i think you both have a point. to some extent these cases are at cross purposes with each other. because if you -- if you strike down doma, it depends on how you strike it down. if you say the federal government cannot discriminate between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages, then you have a hard time saying but the states can. however, if the supreme court strikes down doma as a matter of federalism and says, you know what? congress has no role here. this is up to the states. then the states can still decide for themselves whether to allow same-sex marriage. >> but pete -- >> that's where it's going to come out. >> i know. but as a practical matter, some same-sex couples are going to be getting federal benefits, and other same-sex couples won't. >> reporter: no. but they'll also be getting state benefits. i think that'll be a distinction

without a difference. >> let's help the viewer at this point. we need to help the less sophisticated viewer. because i'm one of them. is there going to be a significant court ruling on this this year? is the court likely to take steps to enhance gay rights here? >> reporter: well, look, if the court strikes down doma for whatever reason, on whatever basis, that's a significant victory for the advocates of gay rights. but i don't think it's going to be a ruling that is a strong gay rights ruling that can be applied in other areas. like adoption and a lot of other questions that may be coming. >> okay. back to prop 8. what about that? do you think california will be allowed to continue -- will be allowed to resume having same-sex marriages? >> reporter: yes. again, that's my guess based on the argument. but that it'll be a decision good for california only. that will not have any nationwide implications. no precedence, nothing to bind the other states. >> i guess horace greeley will be right again. go west young man and young woman.

thank you, pete williams. thank you, howard fineman. coming up, the man who shocked america in 2004 when he announced he was gay or is gay. and resigning as governor of new jersey. jim mcgreevey were faced with the same situation today would our greater acceptance of gay rights, would he still feel he had to resign? we're going to get into all those questions. no more law. personal stuff coming up here. also, why would the republican governor of north dakota sign the most restrictive anti-abortion measure ever if he knows it will never survive a court challenge? because it's all about keeping the gop's right wing base quite happy no matter how flawed the legislation is. have you heard about the

political news from kentucky. actress ashley judd will not run for the u.s. senate down there. judd was long rumored, of course, to be interested in

challenging republican leader mitch mcconnell. but she's passing on that chance. a source close to judd told "the washington post"'s chris silizza the timing is not right. democrats in kentucky were worried that a judd candidacy would hurt other democrats running. we'll be right back. morning, brian!

love your passat! um. listen, gary. i bought the last one. nice try. says right here you can get one for $199 a month. you can't believe the lame-stream media, gary. they're all gone. maybe i'll get one. [ male announcer ] now everyone's going to want one. you can't have the same car as me, gary! i'm gettin' one. nope! [ male announcer ] volkswagen springtoberfest is here and there's no better time to get a passat. that's the power of german engineering. right now lease one of four volkswagen models for under $200 a month. visit vwdealer.com today.

at a point in every person's life, one has to look deeply into the mirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world. not as we may want to see it or hope to see it, but as it is. and so my truth is that i am a gay american. >> welcome back to "hardball." it's hard to overestimate the political earthquake new jersey governor jim mcgreevey set off with those words then. i started the show that's night,

august 12th, 2004, about nine years ago, with the words stunning revelation. as the supreme court hears two cases on gay marriage this week attitudes have changed dramatically. it's hard to know if governor mcgreevey's announcement would have been as stunning today. i don't think so. this gallup poll shows how quickly acceptance of gay relations has changed in this country since 2004 when governor mcgreevey came out. back then 54% found gay relations morally wrong. 42% found them acceptable morally. today those numbers are flipped. joins us now is former new jersey governor jim mcgreevey. when you made that statement, what did you feel when you were doing it? did you feel you were being victimized by a society that's prejudiced or that you had done something that you were somehow culpable for or what? what was your mix of feelings? >> think probably, chris, all of the above. i grew up in a wonderful loving household. but at that time my church said

that homosexuality was an abomination. it was worthy of condemnation. i remember when i was 8 or 9 in the local public library, homosexuality was listed under psychiatric disorder. so as a young kid, you didn't want to own this. this was something awful. you know, whether i'm playing baseball or church outings or in school, you were afraid to come out. and so being in the closet was, for me, the only rational response at that time in my life. >> why did you get married? why did you marry a woman? were you just so political that even though you were gay, you figured that this was the only -- you couldn't just be a bachelor and say, i'm a bachelor and leave it at that and make your own -- a lot of actors do that. they say, you know, going back to -- they'd say, okay, think what you want. i'm not telling you. why could you just not get married, not get involved in that kind of situation? >> chris, i think it was more basic. i think that i wanted to be straight.

i mean, if you believe at that time, which was unfortunately so warped and corrosive, that being gay as morality is something that's an abomination to nature, then you work hard to be quote, unquote, straight. that's why the notion of corrective therapy -- >> you mean you wanted to get married? it wasn't just pr? >> no. the same way that when you're 8 or 9 years of age that you work doubly hard, whether it's to get that merit badge. you don't want to be called a fag. you don't want to be called a homo. as a young man, and the images all around you are of straight america, that becomes your iconic goal. >> let me ask you as you're watching the court hearings with an interest now, you've always had the interest, what do you think we should do? in a society that does give people under our declaration of independence the pursuit of happiness, that does ensure equal protection of laws, that does ensure our liberty, the most basic thing you can have is liberty, where should we be in a good supreme court on gay

marriage? >> gay marriage is going to happen, chris. i think it's almost an inevitably. not only when you look at poll results you put up on the screen, but when you talk to young people. it's almost a no-brainer. universal acceptance on college campuses. i think what you heard from justice kennedy was trying to determine or trying to create a path where he will allow the states to be opportunities for experimentation. but ultimately i think the public and the constitution will demand it. and i think this is a difficult time. what i would want as a gay person is full rights. i mean, the notion as i think justice ginsberg referred to it as skim milk, we don't want a less than marriage. i mean, when you're born, you get a birth certificate. when i die, i'll get a death certificate. i don't want the state to impart a less than status in a union between two persons. >> you know, it's so amazing, governor. we're just learning this stuff.

but in the language, justice kagan brought it up this afternoon or this morning. this idea that congress passed doma -- i don't think bill clinton signed it because of this reason. i think he signed it for political reason. he did it because he figured he had to in a very close election it looked like in '96. he was worried about losing potentially. but here you have the fact. congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality. in other words, there in the writing congress admitted -- >> up front, they're putting their prejudices, their biases, right up front. >> isn't that amazing? how much has time changed in just these years since '96? >> now the irony is, their frankness. their willingness to put forth their prejudicial notions right up front is now ironically somewhat of a liability legally. >> yeah. because it's -- as i said, it's not like saying you hate murderers because they're murderers. it's suggesting this is the prime reason you don't want gay marriage. not because there's something wrong with it but because it

bothers you. >> because it bothers me, because it invokes a prejudicial reaction to me. so we're going to enshrine our prejudices clearly and for everyone to see. how ironically under close inspection that is the fault line against which i think a majority of the justices will say that doma is unconstitutional. most probably for the federalist reasons articulated by pete, but at some point in constitutional history, for the equal protection arguments that howard alluded to. >> i want you to react to something like this in your own way, not politically. although you're a politician, i know. >> no more. >> but we have a political mind. it's there. i'm sorry. >> it's the product of a jesuit education. >> harvey milk, when he was elected to the san francisco board of supervisors. their city council. in 1977. he said progress for gay rights would only come when gay people themselves come out of the closet. listen to him. audio of the great harvey milk in 1977, the same year he was killed, assassinated.

>> we must continue to speak out and most importantly, most importantly, every gay person must come out. >> what do you say to the young man or woman who wants to pursue the kind of ambitions you held? and a lot of us have held? should they come out? should they come out or not if they're gay? >> if i can back up for a second, i think harry milk was very much right. when you look at people like evan wohlson and andrew sullivan talking about gay marriage, you look at a generation ago, people like larry cramer, david rothenberg, people if you will, leaders in the gay rights community, particularly around the aids crisis, that the gay community didn't have the luxury of silence because silence was implicit with death. and so the gay community began to become politically empowered. and when they rose up, people saw their sons, their daughters, their mothers and fathers. and i think that created a change. what i would say to young persons interested in elected

office today is to be who you are. but i don't want to be presumptuous. because i was talking to a group of young lgbt students down in washington, d.c. a young gal, she was in high school, sophomore, talked about how she came out. and she was kicked down or pushed down a flight of stairs by a group of guys who taunted her, who gestured at her. there was no backup from her principal. there was no backup from her teacher. literally, for 2 1/2 years, she led a pretty horrible life. so authenticity is a great thing, but i think we have to be mindful that if adults don't nurture the ability to be truthful, you know, it can be lonely out there. high school is tough enough. >> high school can be the worst time of your life in so many ways. in this kind of situation for orientation, i salute anybody with the guts to do it. and i recognize the terrors that go on in high school. it is brutal. thank you, governor jim mcgreevey. thank you for coming on "hardball." any time you want. >> thank you.

if you remember alexander pelosi's documentary. >> yes. it's about you. >> no. it's about the one about jail. >> oh, that one. up next, the republican autopsy. that's ahead in the "sideshow." this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ mom ] with my little girl, every food is finger food. so i can't afford to have germy surfaces. but after one day's use, dishcloths can redeposit millions of germs. so ditch your dishcloth

and switch to a fresh sheet of new bounty duratowel. look! a fresh sheet of bounty duratowel leaves this surface cleaner than a germy dishcloth, as this black light reveals. it's durable, cloth-like and it's 3 times cleaner. so ditch your dishcloth and switch to new bounty duratowel. the durable, cloth-like picker-upper.

back to "hardball" now, the sideshow. jon stewart and steve colbert have thoughts on the recent republican autopsy. does reince priebus have it right? >> it all goes back to what our moms used to tell us. it's not just what you say, it's how we say it. >> for instance, the way i say it is like a drunk muppet. >> they don't need to change what they are saying, just how

they are saying it. remember, when you tell a gay person that their love is too unnatural for society to recognize, smile. >> the autopsy here says that to reach the kids, the gop should establish a republican celebrity task force. gop celebrity task force, assemble! john voight! victoria jackson! tom selleck! kelsey grammar! cliff claifen! lady from nor then exposure! at least one baldwin! this guy from that thing! i'm telling you, folks, the kids will not know what hit them. because i'm not sure they know who these people are. >> as i've been saying, it's not just the box that brought the pizza in, what was inside didn't look so hot either.

up next, how women and democrats are fighting back against republicans pushing strict new laws restricting abortion. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

welcome back to "hardball." north dakota yesterday became home to the country's strictest abortion law when the republican governor signed a bill outlawing abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be found. that's around six weeks into the pregnancy. often before a woman even knows she's pregnant. and well before the supreme court's standard of viability, usually around 22 to 24 weeks. north dakota's the most strict,

but it's not the only state to dial back that standard. arkansas just recently banned abortion after just ten weeks post fertilization. arizona has a law at 18 weeks. eight more after 20 weeks. north dakota's governor knows his law will be challenged in the courts, of course. in a statement he actually said although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of roe v. wade. he signed the bill knowing it could very well be overturned by the high court. who's in charge here, the lawmakers or the women who make these decisions? anyway, joan walsh is editor at large for salon and msnbc analyst. margie o'mara is democratic pollster for purple strategies. margie, what's the challenge here for people who believe in choice, abortion rights? what is up when a state goes for something like six weeks as opposed to 22 weeks. they're not testing the margins here. this isn't looking for a close

decision. they are radically trying to outlaw abortion through other means. >> this is politics. a political power grab. there are two words missing. women and families. this is not about understanding women or reaching out to women. this is about a political statement only. six weeks is so -- >> aren't there any women in these legislatures that raise their hand and say this isn't right? >> there must be. but, you know, here's what's so extreme about six weeks. you could be trying to get pregnant and still not know at six weeks. that's how early it is. it is deliberately early. and the rest of the bill is also designed to shut down the one service provider. so what it does -- >> in north dakota. >> in north dakota. what it does, it puts those bills -- 10% of americans support it. basically ends access altogether. that's a fringe position. about 10% of americans that say abortion should be illegal in all cases. >> i have to tell you, joan, you and i have talked about these things. i don't understand what world these people live in.

you can have all kinds of moral positions about abortion. i may be relatively conservative on that issue. but when it comes to the law and it comes to punishment and it comes to a society that has to live in a secular universe like we do, how in the world do you outlaw abortion? i've never understood what it means. a woman or young girl gets pregnant, she doesn't want to be pregnant, doesn't want to have a kid, she goes somewhere to get it taken care of. it happens. to stop that under the law you have to inflict some incredible punishment on the woman or the girl so she won't do it. or you let it go underground. because if you can -- >> right. >> if you don't punish the woman and nobody's talking about that, you can't stop a person from using their free will, getting in a car and going where you can do it. why do they keep trying to do this thing? >> no. you know, what they're trying to outlaw is safe abortion. >> yes. >> abortion never goes away. we had it before it was legal. we will have it, god forbid, if it were not legal. we have, you know, a rise in unsafe and late abortions because of access. it's tragic. but i want to -- i want to just put a little bit of an

optimistic spin on this. this is what losing looks like, actually, chris. nationally. these groups, these extremist groups, they were shellacked in the presidential race. they handed senate seats to democrats in missouri and indiana, seats they should have had, with their extremism. now what they've done, this is a grudge match in north dakota. they had -- there was a wonderful anti-abortion state senator, republican, last year who nonetheless defeated single handedly, almost, defeated the personhood amendment they tried to pass because she said it was not legal. and he believes in the law. they defeated him. personhood usa put money into it. a lot of other extreme right groups put money to it. they defeated him. and they've scared the rest of the legislature. i want to add one thing. there are republican women who stood up. there were historic women's rights rallies in cities across north dakota two days ago. and some of the leaders were

republican women. so there are people fighting back. but right now they're taking these small states where it's easy to make a difference and where the pro-choice forces have not been organized, and they are winning. and the pro-choice forces are getting ready to fight back. >> okay. earlier today on msnbc the woman who runs that one abortion clinic in north dakota blamed this new law on politics. and self-preservation of these people in the legislature. also fear of right wing groups like personhood usa which believes life begins at fertilization itself. totally anti-abortion. let's watch. >> we had in 2011 another personhood bill that came forward and a state senator killed the bill with a procedural move. he then was redistricted, had to run against a more conservative senator. personhood usa poured money and resources into that campaign. senator olefson lost his spot. so other senators and other representatives are scared. they want to keep their jobs. they want to keep their seats.

and personhood usa has basically bullied them and threatened them with losing their seats if they don't get in line and vote with these bills. >> are we getting into a totally polarized political world where if you are a republican -- say you're a moderate republican. a center right republican. you just like lower taxes, less government. you don't want to do any of this stuff. you want to leave it alone. reo v. made is fine with you. do you get pressured people show up at your office and say we're going to primary you, buddy? what's going on here? >> i can't answer that. all i can say is we are polarized in terms of elected officials. but the american people are not polarized in this. you have two-thirds of voters who say we need to protect roe v. wade. 90% of americans oppose something as strict as you have in north dakota. there is a lot of consensus among people. it's just some extremists worried about even more extreme folks challenging them on the right. despite what's been coming out of washington in terms of republicans looking inward and trying to reach out to women and figuring out why they did so poorly with women, you have a lot of legislative bodies who can't help themselves.

>> you get into a back room in some state capitol like albany, harrisburg or indianapolis. they're hanging around a three star hotel. all play cards at night. they're stuck together. is that a cloistered world where these republican caucus members and state legislatures don't open the window and listen to what the world's doing? are they only talking to each other? to come up with this stuff, you go, in what room did they think that was a good idea with five or six people in the room? why don't we make it six days or six weeks. >> they need more polling. clearly those are not popular positions. maybe it's because they're all playing cards together. but people have been doing that for a long time. you still need to go out and reach out to your districts in order to get re-elected. there's something new about a newer crop of folks who -- the way that districts have been run that have now been -- folks have been getting pulled to the right. if you look at the coverage out of north dakota, a lot of -- it's so processed. it's about, well, now we have the money to defend this state from a challenge. it's not at all about what they're trying to do or whether

or not people want it. >> i wonder if there's a perverse flip side to what's going on on the democratic side. claire mccaskill came out for gay marriage. mark warner. all in the last couple of days. on the other hand the democratic party said you're really off base if you're not for same-sex marriage. it's polarized to that extent. >> right. well, you know, these are related issues. these are issues that the right has used. they know they're in the minority. they're increasingly in the minority on gay rights, chris. and democrats are standing firm on it. >> after they're re-elected. >> yes. there is some of that. >> a lot of it i've noticed. but i'm all for it. but i do notice the timing here is interesting. >> we'll take it any time. it's a little safer than it was in october. >> we're going to be talking about these things as long as we live. nothing wrong with debating these issues. i think some of this back room stuff is completely unconnected to the national debate. you're the expert. up next, the comeback kids from new york.

well, mark sanford. he's coming back. anthony weiner. we'll see. politicians tainted by scandal are on the comeback trail. believe it or not, these guys are coming back. this is "hardball," the place to talk about it. we'll be right back.

what's the hottest political contest this year. and the governor's race in virginia is neck and neck. according to to a quinnipiac poll, ken cuccinelli has a

two-point edge on former dnc chair terry mcauliffe. 18 undefeated. that's a lot. we'll see. this is a fight to watch in 2013. maybe the race to watch. we'll be right back. [ heart beating, monitor beeping ] woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water. what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you -- including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $129 a year. for an agent, call the number that appears on your screen.

well, this is going to be a wild subject here. we're back, and there's nothing new about political sex scandals or scandals or sex. but what is news is the get out of free jail cards that politicians are now being issued. louisiana senator david vitter was linked to an escort service. nice way to put it. south carolina governor mark sanford disappeared from office. spent time out of the country in argentina with his mistress. both of these gentlemen have emerged with political careers apparently intact. even anthony weiner, the democratic congressman sexting seemed to set new standards for inappropriate behavior by a public official.

he's eyeing a comeback, apparently taking a poll to see if he can come back for something in new york. what's different for politicians now. is it changes times? the culture? does it defend on where you live? gene robinson is ready for this one. he's a political expert. emily heil is with "the washington post." emily, what do you make of david vitter's durability? going to professional sex workers, they are called now, everybody knows about it. all his voters knew about it. he's back and they are talking about him for governor. >> it's truly amazing, it really is. i think it shows how much we are willing to forgive. i mean, david vitter was put out to the woodshed for a while here in washington. you would see him down on the floor and the senate and nobody would be standing around him. he would be loan knee and off to himself. i don't know what went on behind closed doors.

maybe they were a little friendlier and didn't ostracize him but he's put that behind him and a couple years later, he's a-okay. and he's completed his rehabilitation. he's out of the woodshed, so clearly there's a template for this. and i think what he did is sort of stuck around and kept his head down, which is one strategy, but there are plenty of others. there are plenty of ways for men -- we don't really have women with sex scandals. >> hold on, gene, what about -- i would have never marked him, mark sanford for a return so quickly. >> no. first of all, south carolina is a fairly conservative state. >> it's not greenwich village. >> and also the way sanford handled his situation. he disappeared while he's a sitting governor, and he was off galavanting with the mistress -- >> in the woods.

>> and jenny stanford declined to play the loyal wife. and so you put all that together and you say, how did this happen, and i do think people are more willing to forgive. >> there he is, the former governor of south carolina in his campaign ad pleading with voters to look past, you can't look past, you've got to ignore it. >> more recently i've experienced how none of us go through life without mistakes, but in their wake, we can learn about grace, a god of second chances. i humbly step forward and ask for your help in changing washington. >> nobody's perfect, emily, i'm not jumping in as angel gabriel, but what's this mistake he's talking about. he fell in love with this woman in argentina. he's marrying her. that's not a mistake. is he telling her she's a mistake? >> it's the euphemism here.

>> for what? >> for any number of things. we know what it means, but the you don't want to say the actual words. when you hear about david vitter, all he admitted to was a serious sin. he never said hooker, prostitute. he never said infidelity. that's our job. his job is to call it a very serious sin and make us think he's addressing it. we saw last night, david petraeus, the former cia director who had to resign amid the scandal he was having an affair with his biographer. he hinted that coming back might be in his future. there's no one script for doing it. >> i have a solution. i give my example. you use the word comeback. it's the word i've always given to bill because he's like one of

those things with sand in the bottom, these big plastic things. he always comes back up. i think he's been able to get through all the problems with monica and all that stuff that was so unpleasant at the time, because people thought that impeachment was way overkill, for one thing, and number two, he's so open about himself, he's not hiding anything. >> i think there's another factor. you could go back to ted kennedy. >> that's another scandal. >> it's different, but it was a scandal. >> somebody else can survive. that was an accident caused by drinking. >> what i think is different now is you don't have to have the charisma or family name of a ted kennedy, the dazzle of a bill clinton. you can be vitter who was not exactly mr. charisma, and you can survive. >> up or down, i'll say, wiener, is he going to come back and

have an elected office. i think it's suicidal. i don't know if he hurt anybody, but what do you make? can he come back? >> yes, i think he can. maybe not now, maybe not in the immediate future, but he's young, he's got fund-raising ability. he's got friends, and he can always say he never actually had an affair. he engaged in some pretty inappropriate stuff. there's some really embarrassing pictures out there. but you know, he didn't actually have an affair. so i say someday maybe. sure. why not? >> i want her on my jury. emily, join my jury if i get in trouble. >> rehab. he's got to do some rehab. >> his wife's going to save him. i think huma is a star and will be his best character witness. thank you, gene robinson. what a liberal crowd here. emily, thank you. we'll be back after this. s? are you flo? yes. is this the thing you gave my husband? well, yeah, yes. the "name your price" tool.

you tell us the price you want to pay, and we give you a range of options to choose from. careful, though -- that kind of power can go to your head. that explains a lot. yo, buddy! i got this. gimme one, gimme one, gimme one! the power of the "name your price" tool. only from progressive.

let me finish tonight with this. we see in our politics today why those who are guilty in a matter, any matter are wise to choose a jury over the judge. they rule on group loyalties, attitudes toured human frailty. juries are unpredictable for the

reason that no one outside the jury room knows the basis of its decision. bill clinton was impeached for lying about his behavior with a young woman. a judge ruled that disproportionate. were the public to rule on his conduct today, he wouldn't even get that punishment. as in the courtroom drama, it depends where you draw your jury. a colleague from a party, from indiana is run out of office for having sex with a female intern. it depends who's calling the shots. so a senator from louisiana gets re-elected. what are the rules here? mark sanford is probably headed back to the house. do people forgive a guy for falling in love? anthony weiner makes a fool of himself for sending pictures of a woman he met online. what are the rules?