to the supreme court but pressy lost and their decision made segregation the law of the land. plessey versus ferguson is something we had to fight all the way until the civil rights movement looked at it. we fight not against custom, we fight against laws that are unjust as well. thanks for all of the great questions. keep them coming. e-mail me. remember, friend or foe, i want to know. thanks for watching. i'm al sharpton. have a great weekend. "hardball" starts right now. i spy. let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm michael smerconish in new york for chris matthews.

let's begin tonight with this classic american debate. it's the tug-of-war between the national security and personal privacy. but what makes this fight so unusual is that even as we learn that washington is keeping tabs on who has phoned whom and when, we're reminded that this is a government headed by a liberal democratic president who's made a virtue of transparency. today, the story got even richer. today we learned that washington has been collecting information overseas on foreigners using web-based companies like google and facebook and apple. is the invasion of personal privacy too high a price to pay for the increased security against terrorism that it's supposed to bring? or is it all worth it? especially in a society where personal privacy is diminished every day? easy pass tags and metro cards track our every move. private companies know what cars we drive, what magazines we read, what websites we click upon.

president obama gave a forceful defense of the program and that's where we begin tonight. michelle richardson is with the aclu. and michael o'hanlon, senior fellow at the brookings institution. the latest revelation courtesy of the "washington post" involves an nsa program known as prism. e-mails. americans were not directly targeted, the "post" reported, but while going after foreign targets the program did route teen routinely collect a great deal of american content as well. the revelation about this new program comes a day after "the guardian" broke the news the nsa was collecting telephone information on domestic and international calls. today the president addressed criticism about these programs. he said that he came into office with a healthy skepticism about them, but after evaluating their effectiveness, he was convinced they were necessary. >> my assessment, and my team's assessment, was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks.

and the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content, that on, you know, net it was worth us doing. some other folks may have a different assessment of that, but i think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience. >> michelle richardson, of what significance to you that the president says, hey, it works?

>> well, we would absolutely disagree that this is just a modest encroachment. the news this week confirmed that the nsa is daily getting downloads of every american's phone records from all the major companies in the united states. that is a significant encroachment and it really reflects our associations, where we go, what we do and who we know. >> michael o'hanlon, is this is a significant encroachment where none of your phone conversations are being listened to? >> michael, you know, i agree with a lot of michelle's concerns, but i also agree with the president that we need to be able to look for associations. not the content being monitored. we need to know, frankly, who's talking to terrorists. and we need to be able to sift through a lot of data to establish those patterns. what i'm more concerned about is establishing clear oversight so you can't have political vendettas or other such things that happen out of this. for example, let's say in the

tracking of all of this we find out that somebody goes to a porn sight. some married man or something. then the government decides they're going to use that against him because some future richard nixon decides that he doesn't like somebody and he's going to embarrass him publicly. that's the kind of thing that the personal infringement, embarrassment, vendetta i think we need to figure out how to prevent. i'm less worried about just the very fact the government looks at who's talking to whom. i think we need to do that to stop terrorism. we need strong safeguards so there cannot be future abuses of power by a government that decides to target people and use potentially embarrassing information we should never. >> god forbid there was some kind of attack, that this metadata, had we analyzed it properly, could have prevented. that's what we're all seeking to stop, no? >> well, there's no evidence that these sorts of metadata collection programs actually work in the terrorism context. we've been collecting this information for over a decade now in the post-9/11 world.

neither the past administration or this one has been able to give a single example of how this information has caught a terrorist attack before it happens. >> when you have disparate interests like mike rogers and dianne feinstein both telling the american people, in fact, i'll show it to you. yesterday congressman mike rogers who's the chair of the house intelligence committee put it frankly. he said these programs are necessary and, in fact, are responsible for thwarting a terrorist attack. here it is. >> that within the last few years this program was used to stop a program, excuse me, stop a terrorist attack in the united states. we know that. it's important. it fills in a little seam that we have. >> so respectfully when you say that there's no evidence that they've been successful, you can listen to senator feinstein. you can listen to congressman rogers. these are the folks who are getting the information and they say it's worked it. >> right. you can also listen to senator wyden and senator udall who have said in the last couple of days that even though they sit on the senate intelligence committee,

they haven't seen the evidence. you know, the other question is, could we also catch these sorts of terrorists threats through far less intrusive methods? this is really only one tool that the government has. there are many ways for the government to get the same sort of information, but do it on a way that is suspicion-based. that goes through courts. that gets meaningful review and doesn't sweep up a lot of innocent americans in the meantime. really that's the problem here. not that the government is spying on suspected terrorists, but they're spying on the rest of us in the meantime. >> michael o'hanlon, is the concern where this might lead as compared to where we are with this particular program or this particular pair of programs? >> that's my concern. obviously michelle has a slightly different bar or threshold where she's concerned. i'm concerned, as i mentioned before, about people being somehow politically or legally punished for, let's say, tax

fraud, for example. or whatever. or, you know, the kind of crimes that may be crimes but are selectively prosecuted and sometimes people do relatively minor things wrong. but then government decides it's going to undertake a vendetta against someone it doesn't like, and it happens to have this information already at its disposal because of these advanced surveillance methods. that's the kind of abuse that i'm worried about. i'm not of the view that we can just let people, you know, talk to whomever and have the government totally stay out of any kind of monitoring of what the connections are. because i disagree with michelle, this is the way in which we usually find terrorists. it's by establishing connections. networks. pictures. spider webs. of who's talking to whom. you've got to be able to do that. you've also got to prevent future abuses and vendettas. i don't see the safeguards yet being strong enough or well enough explained. >> the "washington post" today quotes a career intelligence officer who provided them with information about the program. the officer said the program was a gross intrusion on privacy. "they quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type."

but, michelle, i was struck by this comment which was posted by a blogger on the "post" website. and it reads as follows, "shortly after watching those extraordinary people leap to their deaths on 9/11, i decided i was willing to forfeit my absolute rights to absolute privacy if it would help the government protect this country from any further disasters. so far, the federal government has been, for the most part, pretty effective in thwarting foreign terrorists on our soil. and the anti-terrorism brigade hasn't interfered with the quality of my life in any way. despite their efforts to collect and colate information from phone calls and the internet. just pass a law, pronto, that explicitly limits the use of such eavesdropping to anti-terrorism prosecutions and nothing else. beyond that, if cyber monitoring and telephone snooping is the price i have to pay in the fight against jihadists, so be it." would you disagree with the blogger that up until this moment in time there's been no disruption of any americans'

day-to-day life by virtue of surrendering any of the privacy that we're talking about? >> i don't think so, and i don't think many people would actually assert these programs are directly preventing these sorts of attacks. look, that commenter absolutely can forfeit his privacy, but he's not in the place to forfeit mine or yours or anybody else's. that's the beauty of our constitution. our rights are our rights, and people don't get to waive them for each other. >> michael o'hanlon, do you evaluate this debate in the context of what transpired on september 11th, like the blogger, with an image in your head of the folks jumping out of the twin towers? >> to some extent. more how we found terrorists largely around the world. michelle is right, there may not have been many plots stopped here, may have been a couple. the way we've found terrorists around the world is by establishing connections, listening, looking at who's talk to whom. trying to see what the phone records are. these are often cases in which

the same civil liberties protections don't apply, of course. they're not necessarily american citizens or there may be probable cause. this is how we have established a knowledge base on who is a terrorist or who might be a terrorist. it's by seeing who talks with whom. who associates with known terrorists. you have to be able to do this in a world of huge amounts of data and huge numbers of potential threats from all sorts of different directions that you can't see coming. so i think of it more in terms of all the stuff we've done since 9/11 where we've had a lot of success over the years if trying to find some of the al qaeda operatives and others if places like afghanistan, iraq, pakistan and so forth. bringing the debate back home, again, we're talking about american citizens, i do agree strongly with michelle on at least one point. we need to protect people's rights from abuse of government. i don't think the abuses have happened yet, but i think they could. the safeguards are not yet clear enough. the rules are not yet clear enough.

that's where the obama administration has to direct its attention. >> michael o'hanlon, michelle richardson. thank you both very much. coming up, where's the outrage over all this government snooping? this is an unusual republican story. republicans are praising the program as are most democrats. that has some on the left frustrated. also, republicans are trying to kill obama care in the crib. in fact, its limited popularity is slipping under an assault of negative ads. today president obama made his case for the law and argued it's already working. and you stay classy, newseum. yes, newseum, honoring the most famous anchorman since ted baxter. ron burgundy. it's in anticipation of the new movie, "anchorman 2: the legend continues." sorry to see michele bachmann go? don't worry. the republican running for her seat is proving to be pretty entertaining, himself. this is "hardball." the place for politics. as your life changes, fidelity is there for your personal economy, helping you readjust along the way,

refocus as careers change and kids head off to college, and revisit your investments as retirement gets closer. wherever you are today, fidelity's guidance can help you fine-tune your personal economy. start today with a free one-on-one review of your retirement plan. 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? ♪ well, we can't say we didn't see this one coming. cory booker is running for the senate. the newark mayor is expected to make the announcement tomorrow.

weather permitting. booker, a democrat, is the heavy favorite right now to win the seat long held by frank lautenberg who passed this week. governor chris christie chose a republican yesterday to hold the seat until this october special election. we'll be right back. [ man ] monica had big dreams for her wedding. i want peacocks. peacocks? walking the grounds. in tuscany. [ man ] her parents didn't expect her dreams to be so ambitious. italy? oh, that's not good. [ man ] by exploring their options, they learned that instead of going to italy, they could use a home equity loan to renovate their yard and have a beautiful wedding right here while possibly increasing the value of their home. you and roger could get married in our backyard. it's robert, dad. [ female announcer ] come in to find the right credit options for your needs. because when people talk, great things happen. [ male announcer ] everyone has the ability to do something amazing. ♪ some just do it, on a more regular basis.

♪ ♪ in dealerships everywhere. in theaters, june 14th.

welcome back to "hardball." politics makes strange bedfellows, sometimes. that axiom is never truer than when it comes to national security issues. when "the new york times" editorial bashes the president, and the "wall street journal" editorial defends him, you can be excused for wondering what's going on. the "times" today, wrote, "the administration has now lost all correct on this issue.

mr. obama is proving that truism that the executive branch will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it." the "wall street journal," no friend of the president wrote this. "there seems to be little here that is scandalous. the critics nonetheless say the nsa program is a violation of privacy or illegal or unconstitutional or all of the above. but nobody's civil liberties are violated by tech companies or banks that constantly run the same kinds of data analysis." meanwhile, here's frequent obama critic, senator lindsey graham, defending the nsa programs. >> i'm a verizon customer. it doesn't bother me one bit for the national security administration to have my phone number because what they're trying to do is find out what terrorist groups we know about and individuals and who the hell they're calling. >> democratic congressman elijah cummings, however, told "politico," "the president said i must return to my authentic self, and i think the president needs to go back and read his own speeches." so what does it mean that some of the strongest criticism of the president is coming from the left? i'm joined by senator angus king of maine.

senator, what do you say to people who fear their privacy is being violated with this intelligence gathering? >> well, i think it's important, first, to understand exactly what the program is, and when i was reading those first stories that came out, the impression was created that the government was listening in on phone conversations. we now have established that's not the case. what they have are when calls were made, who they were made to. michael, this is a classic argument that's been going on for thousands of years. who will guard the guardians? how do we produce and create a government that's strong enough to protect us, but not so strong that it can abuse us? i think there's some areas here where we need to ask some hard questions and say, are there ways to achieve the same level of security with less intrusion? for example, it makes me nervous that the government has this huge database of all the phone numbers. i understand in other parts of

the world quite often the data is left with the telephone company. if the government needs to go after, you know, tamerlan's cell use, they then would get what amounts to a warrant, go into that database which resides at the company, and get the same information. i'm with your prior guest. it's not a question of do we need to do this? i think we do. the question is, are there ways that we can do it that will give us a higher level of protection? and it shouldn't matter who's in charge. >> senator -- >> that's important, i think. >> i'm not privy, obviously, to the intelligence that you see, but it's interesting that you bring up the tsarnaev case, because i was thinking intuitively that it's an example of why you should have a program like this because once you know who's responsible for the bombing of the boston marathon and have a phone number for that person, and you'll remember for a while we were searching for the younger brother. you would instantly be able to see with whom that phone number has connected and with whom that phone number or group of phone

numbers have connected. and you would instantly have a matrix that could tell you potentially is there a terror cell in the united states? my concern is -- >> absolutely, and that was the key question. if you'll recall, our question, the first question was who did it? >> right. >> but within minutes of finding these guys, the next question is, are they in league with other people? is something going to happen in new york or los angeles? and that's why this is an important program. my only -- the point i'm trying to make is where does this big database reside? and should it -- does it have to be in the government vault, if you will? or can it be left at the companies? and those are kinds of technical questions that i'm going to be asking and pursuing because, you know, again, if you create a situation, eventually there's going to be at least the temptation for abuse. that's why i think we need to think of structural solutions, not depending upon the goodwill of the people that are in charge. that's why it's important. >> senator, is the president

deserving of criticism for a lack of transparency? >> you know, it's a little funny to talk about transparency when you're talking about programs which by their very nature need to be somewhat covert. you know, you don't want to go on television and say, well, okay, mr. terrorist, today we're going to be checking the e-mail on google. it's got to be done, i mean, if you want it to be effective. and there have been debates about this. now, i just came to the senate this winter, so i've only been on the committee for four or five months. my understanding is this was pretty thoroughly debated over the last four, five years in the congress and people did understand what the implications are. i think the challenge for us, as it always is, is to find the right balance. but, you know, i mentioned this to someone this morning. put your -- you know, put your journalist hat on, and what if the headline this morning instead of "obama searches records" had been "obama canceled program which could have prevented nuclear attack on miami." >> that's a great point.

senator angus king, it's a great point. >> we would have articles of impeachment already drawn up. >> that's true. >> we've got to do this. the question is, how do we minimize the impact on our citizens? >> thank you for your observations, senator angus king. david corn is the washington bureau chief of "mother jones" and an msnbc political analyst. i need a scorecard to keep track of who's on what side because there are some unusual alliances. break it down for me, david. >> well, you sure do. on issues like this, we often see it not fitting into the typical "d," "r," left/right mode. on the right, you have karl rove saying he's in favor of these surveillance programs, but you have glenn beck thinks the black helicopters are coming next. and on the democratic side, you have democrats who support the president, and then others like ron wyden, senator from oregon, and mark udall, senator from colorado, for years have been talking about this stuff the best they can saying there's a program out there, it's problematic, we just can't tell you the details. but now we can. so that's why i don't think this is really a political crisis for the president or a political controversy because it doesn't

cut along political lines. it's a policy matter. a very important one. and i think, you know, senator king got into this a little bit. we have secret government. we have the cia, the nsa and 12 or 13 other intelligence agencies that do things supposedly to protect us. we allow this to happen under the assumption that there is really good oversight and judicial review. >> but, david -- >> i don't think people are confident that's what's happening and thus we're not sure whether any of this stuff really is being done properly. >> how about the role of the private sector? take a look at how some of the tech companies named in the report are responding to this thus far with their statements. for example, there seems to be

an underlying theme here. here's the response from facebook. "we do not provide any government organization with direct access to facebook servers." then apple said, "we do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order." then yahoo!'s response, "yahoo! takes users' privacy very seriously. we do not provide the government with direct access." what's with the semantics of this direct access? >> it depends on what the meaning of is is and meaning of direct access is. so they use a third party go-between. i don't know. in a lot of the cases when the government comes to the companies with national security letters or other court orders, it prohibits the companies from talking about it and in some cases, as written about in the last day or two, it allows the companies to lie. so ultimately, i don't hold them at fault here. if the government comes to you and says, you must do this, maybe they can fight it in secret courts and so on. but it really is a matter of policy, and it's really the action from the government from

the executive branch here that should get the attention and which should get the scrutiny and the oversight that we need. and i think one thing that's -- you and i have talked about this in the past. with the intensity of political polarization in this country, it's really hard to foresee a situation where a majority of public would trust any congressional committee, any president saying i vetted this, and believe me, i'm doing it the best i can. one side's going to raise a fuss no matter who's in there. >> david, i have said these first amendment issues, these privacy issues as well, fourth amendment, they demand consistency. you can't decide whether you like or dislike president obama. >> right. >> then rule accordingly because there will come a day when it's president clinton or president rubio or president corn. who knows. david corn. >> i don't think that will happen. >> thank you. >> that's why we need to have good practices in place to build confidence. i don't know if we have those yet. >> thank you for your observations. >> thank you, michael. a reminder, catch me every

day on sirius xm's radio potus channel 124 weekdays at 9:00 eastern. up next, michele bachmann brags she's the champion of repealing obama care. could someone please tell her obama care is still around? that's in the sideshow which is next. this is "hardball." the place for politics. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] for dad's first job as dad.

nissan tests hundreds of child seats to give you a better fit and a safer trip. snug kids, only from nissan. ♪

man: how did i get here? dumb luck? or good decisions? ones i've made. ones we've all made. about marriage. children. money. about tomorrow. here's to good decisions. who matters most to you says the most about you.

at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. ready to plan for your family's future? we'll help you get there. ha! >> back to "hardball." now to the sideshow. first, stephen colbert's in memoriam video about michele bachmann's time in politics might have been premature. here she is on fox last night reflecting on her time in congress and what's in store for the future. >> i feel like i've done a lot in the eight years that i've been there. redeemed the time. i was a very strong voice. taking on my own party. i pushed back on the bailout. i was the champion of get repealing obama care.

and also dealing with this issue of the irs, i've been involved in that as a former irs attorney. on issue after issue, dealing he with the rise of islamic jihad. i've been there. i'm not quitting my public involvement. in fact, i may run for another public office. that could happen. but for right now i think i'm going to find a different perch in order to be able to weigh in on these matters. >> is she really the champion of repealing obama care? if after 37 attempts at repeal, obama care is still on the books? we also found out this week republican tom emmer, former minnesota state rep will run to fill bachmann's seat. now, if you were hoping for someone a bit more progressive than bachmann on things like gay marriage, don't look to emmer. during his run for governor back in 2010, emmer pushed for legislation that would have lowered the minimum wage for waiters and waitresses. someone stopped by one of his town halls with a tip. >> i played hockey for a lot of years and that guy actually got

me to jump a little bit. i love that. >> the minnesota "star tribune" reported there were 2,000 pennies in that bag. this could get interesting. next, are we reaching the point where we might need to add a 51st star to the american flag? turns out people in several rural republican dominated counties in colorado aren't satisfied with recent laws passed in their state. things like gun control and new regulations on oil and gas production. some county officials are ready to split off entirely and form a new state, the state of north colorado. >> we said we've got some ideas, do you want to listen to them? a petition to create a new state. and that new state would be the state of northern colorado. >> some will call it extreme. maybe aggressive. i would say, absolutely. i think extreme times call for extreme actions. >> what i would say to those folks in denver that say, oh

this doesn't have any chance, we're not going to take this seriously, beware. >> north colorado seems like a long shot. if it did come to fruition, though, it would be the least populated state in the country and among the reddest. next the republican nominee for virginia's lieutenant governor has been a sideshow regular these past couple of weeks. bishop e.w. jackson has a history of controversial comments, to say the least. comparing planned parenthood to the kkk, calling gay people icky. this week, comments from his 2008 book that took the cake. the subject, yoga. "the purpose of such meditation is to empty one's self. satan is happy to invade the empty vacuum of your soul and possess it. that's why people serve satan without ever knowing it or deciding to." that didn't sit so well with a founder of a yoga franchise in washington who responded, "we have over 30,000 students in the d.c. area. thousands of them are practicing with us every day. they're very kind. they don't have a demonic

nature. i can attest for them, and for me, that satan is not in the vacuum of their soul." fficient . you can get a tax write off for those. a programmable thermostat, very smart, saves money. ♪ cash money sorry. i see you have allstate claim free rewards, for every year you don't have a claim, you'll get money off your home insurance policy. put it towards... [ glass shatters ] [ girl ] dad! dad! [ girl screams ] noise canceling headphones? [ nicole ] that's a great idea. [ male announcer ] home insurance that saves you money for not having a claim? that's allstate home insurance with claim free rewards. talk to an allstate agent... [ doorbell rings ] and let the good life in. talthto fight chronic.ent... osteoarthritis pain. [ doorbell rings ] to fight chronic low back pain.

to take action. to take the next step. today, you will know you did something for your pain. cymbalta can help. cymbalta is a pain reliever fda-approved to manage chronic musculoskeletal pain. one non-narcotic pill a day, every day, can help reduce this pain. tell your doctor right away if your mood worsens, you have unusual changes in mood or behavior or thoughts of suicide. anti-depressants can increase these in children, teens, and young adults. cymbalta is not for children under 18. people taking maois, linezolid or thioridazine or with uncontrolled glaucoma should not take cymbalta. taking it with nsaid pain relievers, aspirin, or blood thinners may increase bleeding risk. severe liver problems, some fatal, were reported. signs include abdominal pain and yellowing skin or eyes. tell your doctor about all your medicines, including those for migraine and while on cymbalta, call right away if you have high fever, confusion and stiff muscles or serious allergic skin reactions like blisters, peeling rash, hives, or mouth sores to address possible life-threatening conditions. talk about your alcohol use, liver disease and before you reduce or stop cymbalta.

dizziness or fainting may occur upon standing. take the next step. talk to your doctor. cymbalta can help.

here's what's happening. police shot and killed a suspect accused of opening fire in and around a santa monica college in california. as many as six people were killed. also in the shooting and five wounded, two of the dead were found in an off-campus home. president obama, meanwhile, happened to be in the santa monica area for fund-raisers three miles from the incident. the president is in palm springs now for a meeting with the chinese president. back to "hardball."

welcome back to "hardball." during president obama's visit to california today, he wound up bombarded with questions about nsa surveillance, but the intent of his trip was to extol the virtues of obama care, a name he's embraced, by the way, which goes into effect in less than seven months and which polls show is not popular with voters. the president tried to drown out the political noise with some facts about the benefits of the health care law. here he is. >> so the bottom line is you can listen to a bunch of political talk out there, negative ads and fear mongering geared toward the next election, or alternatively you can actually look what's happening in states like california right now. and the fact of the matter is through these exchanges, not only are the 85% of people who already have health insurance getting better protections and receiving rebates and being able to keep their kids on their health insurance until they're 26 and getting free preventative

care, but if you don't have health insurance and you're trying to get it through the individual market and it's too expensive, or it's too restricted, you now have these marketplaces where they're going to offer you a better deal because of choice and competition. >> joy reid's the managing editor of the "grio" and msnbc contributor. a.b. stoddard is associate editor and columnist for "the hill" newspaper. a.b., let me start with you. he's never closed this deal. he's never been able to successfully sell it to the american people. you think he'll be able to do so now as it garners implementation? >> well, he's obviously distracted. there are lots of things that are in the news and consuming the congress and the media, as you knows, not only the three so-called scandals but now the news that our every communication is being tracked by the government. so president obama was supposed to be spending this time trying to resell the health care law. democrats do not talk about this publicly, michael, but as you

know, they'll tell you privately that they're panicked about pushing the administration and the president in particular to sell this right this time. they're going into the third election in a row having to defend obama care. it's never been less popular. it is popular with people who have no insurance, but it's unpopular with people who have insurance because they don't believe they'll be able to keep it. unless he brings those uninsured into the pools, everybody pays more, he's got to change minds about this before november of '14 when democrats are on the ballot. >> a.b. says he has to sell it right this time. selling it as a matter of personal responsibility. if you have health insurance and i don't and i use an e.r. as a primary care practice, that's not right. i should be paying my fair share. he's never made that pitch effectively. >> and ironically that used to be the republican case. that used to be the bob dole case for doing the individual mandate. was that basically otherwise you'd get free riders. meaning people show up at the e.r. and all the rest of us pay for their care. i think that the white house

would admit to the fact when the law was first passed, democrats sort of passed it then ran the other way. >> right. >> it was never sold the first time so you could do a poll that says good idea/bad idea/no idea. most people have no idea what it is. they have no idea what it does. how to get it. they just have this vague idea that it's a bad idea. >> when you explain it in personal responsibility terms, because i've done this on the air, or when you say, a.b., that these exchanges are supposed to be the orbits of health care, it's sort of an ah-ha moment for folks, like, oh, wow, i didn't really recognize what he was trying to do. >> right. what they're also hearing from their neighbors and small businessmen in their communities, they're afraid they're not going to be able to employ all their employees due to the costs of obama care. that they're either laying off workers or demoting them from full time to part time to comply. this is a really bad story line for obama care, and as i said, unless these exchanges, by the way, more than 30 of which the federal government has to have up and running less than four months from now on october 1st,

unless they end up appealing to a broad swath of people, attracting new healthy young patients, again, everybody's prices go up. and so you see the obama administration, i think, shrewdly using this campaign of microtargeting, of really working hard in election-style campaign to persuade the persuadable uninsured people to get out and join the exchange. >> on the politics of this, already ads are targeting senators running for re-election for their vote in support of obama care. joy, here are a few. >> when senator pryor was the deciding vote for obama care, it was a huge letdown for the state of arkansas. and people haven't forgotten that. >> jeanne shaheen cast the deciding vote for obama care. now employers may cut your weekly work hours from 40 to 29 to avoid the new taxes and penalties. >> jeanne shaheen is 1 of 60. all 60 cast a deciding vote.

opponents of president obama's health care reform law are vastly outspending supporters of the law on ads. this chart from kantar media compares ad spending in races for the senate and house and the presidency. in senate races, that's the bar on the left, more than $150 million has been spent, and as you can see in red, all but a fraction of that has been spent on anti-obama care ads. same for the house where the anti-obama care ad spending dwarfs that of the law's supporters. and in the presidential race, the law's critics outspent its supporters by a margin of more than 5-1. so naturally with all that ad spending it's the anti-obama care message getting through. as a.b. pointed out, he doesn't have the support of his own party. >> they understand those kinds of ads only work if people don't know what's in the bill, don't know what it is and have a vague idea. i want to push back on one thing a.b. said. businesses like papa johns and other companies that threatened to lay people off over health reform, they've got the bad

press. tremendous pushback from their customers when they do that. more cases than not, they pull back on that idea because it really isn't quite true. the other issue is this. the president has got a bill that is historic, right? we've been trying to get universal health care in this country for something like 100 years before he was able to get it done. medicare had this same problem when it was first -- the idea was first brought up, it was called socialism, the end of democracy as you know it by ronald reagan. >> right. >> once people actually have health care, once they've actually got it, you're going to see people saying, you're not taking away my obama care the same way you have with medicare. people have to have it, experience it for themselves, and/or democrats have to advertise what is in the bill. >> your point's a great point. it might win the democrats an election in 2022. what's going to happen in 2014 is a different story. thank you, joy reid, a.b. stoddard. next, america's anchorman, ron burgundy, takes on the capitol.

stay classy. this is "hardball." the place for politics. from whad from whad so we could be a better, safer energy company. i've been with bp for 24 years. i was part of the team that helped deliver on our commitments to the gulf - and i can tell you, safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge safety equipment and technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all our drilling activity, twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. safety is a vital part of bp's commitment to america - and to the nearly 250,000 people who work with us here. we invest more in the u.s. than anywhere else in the world. over fifty-five billion dollars here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger.

bob will retire when he's 153, which would be fine if bob were a vampire. but he's not. ♪ he's an architect with two kids and a mortgage. luckily, he found someone who gave him a fresh perspective on his portfolio. and with some planning and effort, hopefully bob can retire at a more appropriate age. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. congressman john dingell of michigan has served in congress longer than anyone else in history. congressman dingell has been a member of the house since 1955. more specifically, that's 57 years, 5 months and 26 days. 30 terms. today congressman dingell passed senator robert byrd to be the longest serving member of congress in history. now, his father, john dingell sr., held the seat for a mere 22 years. meaning that dingell has

represented michigan in congress for 80 years. congratulations. we'll be right back. ...so you say men are superior drivers? yeah? then how'd i get this... [ voice of dennis ] ...safe driving bonus check? every six months without an accident, allstate sends a check. silence. are you in good hands?

♪ there you go. come on, let's play! [ male announcer ] there's an easier way to protect your dog from dangerous parasites. good boy. fetch! trifexis is the monthly, beef-flavored tablet that prevents heartworm disease, kills fleas and prevents infestations, and treats hook-, round-, and whipworm infections. treatment with fewer than 3 monthly doses after exposure to mosquitoes may not provide complete heartworm prevention. the most common adverse reactions were vomiting, itching and lethargy. serious adverse reactions have been reported following concomitant extra-label use of ivermectin with spinosad alone, one of the components of trifexis. prior to administration, dogs should be tested for existing heartworm infection. to learn more about trifexis, talk to your veterinarian, call 888-545-5973 or visit trifexis.com. you don't have to go to extremes to protect your dog from parasites.

you need trifexis. visit our website to save up to $25. available by prescription from your veterinarian. visit our website to save up to $25. i missed a payment. aw, shoot. shoot! this is bad. no! we're good! this is your first time missing a payment. and you've got the it card, so we won't hike up your apr for paying late. that's great! it is great! thank you. at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. get the it card with late payment forgiveness. in the age when the dinosaurs' roar greeted the dawn and apes rode the winged horse across the valley of elah, there was a lone stranger who offered comfort, wisdom. it was said he would one day return. well, that day has come. >> hey, america. did you miss my hot breath in your ear? >> welcome back to "hardball." yes, he's back. in a mere six months, ron burgundy returns in "anchorman: the legend continues." this time around, burgundy will

be celebrated with anchorman: the exhibit at washington, d.c.'s, exhibit devoted to the news, the newseum. unless you think a visit to "the anchorman" exhibit is an excuse to vik care yous vicarious vicariously wallow in an politically incorrect newsroom. "the exhibit explores the reality behind the humor of "anchorman" and tracks the rise of personality-driven news formats in the '70s." as you probably know, the original "anchorman" spoofed that 1970s newsroom culture. >> what in the hell's diversity? >> well, i could be wrong, but i believe diversity is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the civil war era. >> ron, i would be surprised if the affiliates were concerned about the lack of an old, old wooden ship, but nice try. >> joining me now, the "washington post's" katherine boyle who wrote about the

"anchorman" exhibit this week in the paper's style section. and former chicago anchor bill kurtis who actually provided the narration for "anchorman." bill, you've had an accomplished career. do you find, though, that that voice is now forever associated with this movie? find that voic forever associated with this movie. >> it is. now everyone will remember the "anchor man" movie. >> katherine, i thought this was a guy's flick. but in anticipation of what you wrote for the style section, i'm thrilled to hear women say, they loved it too. what the appeal of this movie, of this character? >> well, for one thing, it's a really funny character and i think everyone loves a good satire. coming up with the news media and news culture at the time, i think women appreciate a film mocking a time that was hard for women to be working in the work force.

>> bill, you've lived the life. how much truth in jest? >> well, the suit was true. we thought, how did they get a hold of our suites? adam mckay was in chicago when i was anchoring and i think he connected with my co-anchor and myself. there's a lot of truth. but of course, it's an entertainment film. i'm glad to see ron getting the recognition he deserves. >> you know "anchor man" took joy in spoofing local news teams in the '70s like this. >> well, well, well. ron burgundy and the channel 4 news team. >> h ello, west man tooth. >> hello. >> i didn't know the salvation army was having a sale. >> am i right, or am i right? look at these guys. >> hey, where did you get those

clothes? at the toilet store? >> katherine, how about the museum as a venue for this exhibit? it remind me of circum specs when the national constitution center in my hometown of philadelphia add springsteen exhibition a year or so ago. does it fit? >> i actually think it does fit. the museum for one will bring? a lot of people. it is in dire straits in terms of finances. most museums in washington are free. they have a $22 admission fee. so i think they need to do something buzzy. they need to do something that will bring in the next generation of museum-goers. and this is it. it is not going to take over the bottom line or be the game-changer, but it'll bring in new people and caught the attention of people in the news media, that's for sure. >> bill, how representative of the era, this movie? >> well, not only is it representative of the era, but

it is creating its own era. there are local teams across the area, for charity, are staging fights between themselves. but the sad thing is that now when young people hear the word anchor man, probably the first image they think of is ron burgundy. >> i think they probably think katherine of ron burgundy and ted baxter intertwined, right? >> i definitely think it is a thing that comes to mind in the minds of young people. but it is a good satire. i don't necessarily think it's a bad thing for people to think about. >> listen, i loved ron burgundy, anchor man, all eight times i've seen it. >> thank you, we appreciate you being here. >> thank you. we'll come back right to "hardball." that intrigues me. it appears it's an agent of good.

♪ [ agent smith ] ge software connects patients to nurses to the right machines while dramatically reducing waiting time. [ telephone ringing ] now a waiting room is just a room. [ static warbles ] i want peacocks. peacocks? walking the grounds. in tuscany. [ man ] her parents didn't expect her dreams to be so ambitious. italy? oh, that's not good. [ man ] by exploring their options, they learned that instead of going to italy, they could use a home equity loan to renovate their yard and have a beautiful wedding right here while possibly increasing the value of their home. you and roger could get married in our backyard. it's robert, dad. [ female announcer ] come in to find the right credit options for your needs.

because when people talk, great things happen. glass on floors. daily chores. for the little mishaps you feel use neosporin to help you heal. it kills germs so you heal four days faster. neosporin. use with band-aid brand bandages. before mike could see his banking and investing accounts on one page... before he could easily transfer funds between the two in real time... before he could even think about planning

for his daughters' future... mike opened a merrill edge investment account and linked it to his bank of america bank account to help free up plenty of time for the here and now. that's the wonder of streamlined connections. that's merrill edge and bank of america.

let me finish tonight with this. in a week of nsa, dna and mlb, a 10-year-old girl captured national and world attention. sarah murnaghan is dying of cystic fibrosis in children's hospital in philadelphia. she has been waiting for a lung transplant for years. in order for an adult lung, you have to be 12 years old and sarah is only 10. she has it wait for a pediatric

donor, which there are few. her parents wanted her to be put on an adult transplant list and that was declined. she called for an exceptional ruling on behalf of the child. sadly this story has become political with kathleen s said she could not interrupt the federal rules. a judge ruled sarah is eligible to receive a lung from the adult order list. the judge ordered the senator to have a hearing and that is set for june 14. with that door open, the family of 11-year-old javier acosta subsequently also been granted temporary injunction to wave the rule. my thoughts and prayers are with sarah and javier and their families. and i think this raises a bigger question about organ donation in the united states. if the issue is not enough lungs and kidneys and heart and corneas, how do we get more?

two words, opt out. see, opt in is the current national u.s. policy. it requires explicit consent from the donor given through a donor card administered by the dmv or relatives if the donor failed to indicate desire in his or her lifetime. let's change that. an opt out would assume the deceased have their organs harvested unless they opted out. no one will take your organs without consent but if you say nothing you will presume to have opted in. i'm not just guessing here. the system has been tested in europe. as of 2010, 24 european countries have some form of opt out which some call presumed consent with spain, austria and belgium yielding high donor rates. art kaplan is head of the division of medical ethics at nyu. he agrees, telling me, quote, your organs aren't going to do you much good when you're dead. i think we would get more donors if we shift the responsibility to say, what you want to do

about donation from saying, i want to do it, to having to say, i don't want to do it. most people say they do want to donate. why don't we make that the default position. opt out. why not, indeed. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes and thank you for joining us. tonight, rupert murdoch's new york post has put some scummy stuff in the papers but the latest has landed the paper in court. congressman like peter king are committing political suicide in broad daylight and no one is in thing. i'll explain what that's all about. and if it's friday, it is time to sneak ryan gosling in click