very much for sticking with us, steve clemens, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, lawrence. >> let's play "hardball!" good evening. i'm michael smerconish, in for chris matthews. it's day 22 of the george zimmerman trial. the defense has rested and george zimmerman has chosen not to testify although not before a tense exchange between judge debra nelson and defense attorney don west as the judge asks zimmerman whether he wanted to testify on his own behalf. the prosecution is now scheduled to begin its closing arguments tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern time while the defense is to start on friday morning. in addition, prosecutors are saying they would like to

include the lesser charges of manslaughter and aggravated assault. but the defense has objected, so that will likely be settled tomorrow. today was a day in which both prosecution and defense attorneyed used a pan quin to demonstrate what may have happened between trayvon martin and george zimmerman before the gun fired kicking martin. dennis root, public safety expert called by the defense, testified that the physical capabilities of george zimmerman were weaker than those of trayvon martin and that martin was in better physical condition. msnbc's craig melvin has been monitoring all of today's proceedings. he joins us from the florida courthouse. we will not be hearing directly from george zimmerman. >> no. that was the headline today, good sir. good evening to you. george zimmerman telling judge nelson this afternoon that, after consulting with his attorneys, he decided not to testify on his own behalf. 18 defense witnesses, 38 witnesses for the state, and now it appears this case will be going to the jury at some point tomorrow.

judge nelson told the jurors before she released them, she said she's going to bring them back at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, but before she released them she said closing arguments will start tomorrow. that means that best-case scenario they could get the case tomorrow, worst-case scenario, sometime on friday. dennis root, the witness that testified, a self-proclaimed use of force expert, retired law enforcement officer as well, basically testified that based on the evidence that was given to him, george zimmerman's story checked out. the information that was given to him, of course, was given to him by the defense. he was a defense expert witness, paid by the defense. but he was given a number of pictures and also interviewed george zimmerman. he also looked over some of the witness statements, as well. he was asked pointedly by mark o'mara, attorney of course for george zimmerman, ill will, spite, hatred, based on what

you've heard, based on what you read, was there ill will, spite, hatred in his voice when he made that call -- >> craig, can i say i was shocked as a lawyer watching that that he was allowed to answer that question. that, to me, didn't seem like the sort of thing you ask a so-called expert. that would be left for the jury. >> and there have been a number of attorneys who said the same thing, michael smerconish. not just that question, a number of other questions, as well, that he was asked and allowed to offer an opinion on what would seem to be outside the boundaries of his area of expertise. we should also note here he apparently contacted the defense as well. he became familiar with the trial, he raised his hand, called mark o'mara and said, i would be very much interested in being a witness for the defense. >> you and i talked last night at this time the fact very much they wanted to get an animation, the defense did, wanted to get in a computer animation to re-create what they allege took

place. they're not allowed to use that animation except in the closing argument. i guess dennis root was introduced in lieu of the animation, trying to get in through him the computer animation that was disallowed. >> that would seem to be the case. as you indicated judge nelson ultimately deciding that the animation, at this point, it was our understanding that was a fairly elaborate animation has been reduced to stills. part of the stills are animated. it's not nearly what it was in the beginning. but that's going to be something that the jury can see in the closing. not going to be something, though, that the jury's going to be allowed to take back in the jury room with them since it cannot be used as evidence. it was also interesting, michael, that the defense decided to essentially end their case the same way they started the case. of course, they started their case with gladys zimmerman, george zimmerman's mother. and they ended with robert zimmerman sr., george zimmerman's father, both called

to testify that it was their son's voice on that 911 call. by the way, we kept count. robert zimmerman sr. the tenth person for the defense to testify it was his son's voice and that's going to be one of the central points that they make to the jury when they address them tomorrow in closing arguments. >> craig, great report as always. thanks so much for it. >> thank you. >> for more on today's testimony, i'm joined by msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom, alex ferrer, and joseph haynes davis. look at that exchange earlier in which judge nelson questioned george zimmerman whether he wanted to testify and the back and forth between defense attorney don west and the judge. >> mr. zimmerman, have you made a decision as to whether or not you want to testify in this case? >> no, not at this time. >> okay. when is it that -- how long do you think you need before you make that decision? >> your honor, may we have an opportunity to speak?

the case isn't concluded yet. >> i understand that. and i've asked mr. zimmerman if he needed more time to talk to his attorneys and if he does, i will afford it to him. mr. zimmerman, how much more time do you think you are going to need to discuss this with your attorneys? >> i assume it will depend on how long the recesses are, your honor. the end of the day. >> okay. well, if your attorneys have finished with two witnesses before the end of the day, do you think that you would then know whether or not you want to testify? >> your honor, on mr. zimmerman's behalf -- >> i am asking your client questions. please, mr. west. >> i object to the court inquiring of mr. zimmerman as to his decision about whether or not to testify -- >> your objection is overruled. >> judge alex, you have been in that position of advising a defendant of their fifth amendment right. read those tea leaves. what was going on there? >> an undercurrent of friction between the two of them clearly.

it's been present throughout the case. and it just bubbled to the surface today like it has on other occasions. the judge doesn't need to know right now. there are still two witnesses left. he can wait and make his decision at end of the two witnesses. by the same token, mr. west didn't have to make a point of it. even if he said i don't think i want to testify right now, he can change his mind and later on, after the two witnesses, i changed my mind. it doesn't really matter. it seems like each one of them was playing on a power play against one another and it bubbled up. >> joseph haynes davis, i watched that and thought to myself if and when george zimmerman writes it book, the story i expect to hear is that he wanted to take the stand and his lawyers didn't want him to do so and we just saw a representation of that. how did you read that moment? >> well, i read the moment, counselor, thank you for having me, as judge nelson saying, look, this is my courtroom, and pardon me for using vernacular, i'm not playing with you. i mean, she's in charge of the

courtroom. i have practiced in front of judge nelson periodically a couple of times. she's a very, very good judge. she's a very, very honorable judge. she's a very, very smart judge in terms knowing where she wants to go and how she wants to conduct that courtroom. and i think in that instant, it was judge nelson saying, look, this is my courtroom, this is how i'm going to conduct it, i understand your client's fifth and sixth amendment rights, i'm not going to trample over those rights, but i am going to conduct this courtroom the way i'm going to do it and you just need to sit there and let me do it because i am going to do my job. >> lisa bloom, help me get into george zimmerman's head if you can. i find it very hard to believe with 90% of the defense case in he still doesn't know whether he wants to or is going take the stand? >> well, it's possible. look, he hasn't had a lot time to talk to his attorneys because they've been fighting this case yesterday until 10:00 p.m. and he's got a curfew, he has to go back home.

in fact, his curfew had to be extended last night. if i can defend don west, also an outstanding attorney, he's an honorable person, he's not a potted plant, there to fight for his client and he's trying to say, it's too early, don't put my client on the spot like this. in front of the national media. he shouldn't have to answer this question until the final witness for the defense is called, so don't put him on the spot. that's what don west was trying to say. >> judge, dennis root who testified, the defence expert, i've got to believe because they couldn't get the animation video in as evidence, they tried to get in through him what they wanted. it seems to me like he went way beyond the bounds of what i expect to hear from an expert. were there aspects of his testimony you found yourself saying that's not something you look to an expert to answer? >> absolutely. he was allowed to testify about all kinds of things. he got into the psychology. some of the things he got into, the prosecution frankly didn't object. they sat back and let the questions be asked, leading

questions, questions beyond his expertise, nonresponsive questions where he -- they would ask him one question and he would expand into entire areas. some of the questions allowed in, they fought and fought to keep out then animation and ended up doing a re-enactment with a dummy and allowed the defense to do the same, i'm not sure why they were lenient on this witness. >> how could he speak to the physicality of trayvon martin versus george zimmerman and who was in shape and who wasn't? essentially saying who would have had the upper hand in a fight like this. >> i tend to agree with you. that, to me, is not very possible. i think this jury will be able to put that in perspective and weigh it when they go into their deliberations. i agree with you that it was a bit peculiar with the testimony of mr. root and the scope of his testimony and so forth. but i think that this jury will be able to see through that and

see and tell that, listen, the deceased victim cannot testify himself and say who was the stronger individual. >> lisa bloom, you have been talking extensively about the gun position and so forth. and i couldn't wait to ask you about this, assistant state prosecutor john guy used a mannequin to re-enact the encounter between george zimmerman and trayvon martin. let's watch this. >> if this person, this mannequin, were carrying a firearm on their waist, where would the gun be right now in relation to me? >> it would be at your left inner thigh. >> right here, right? >> yes. if he was right-handed, it would be at your left inner thigh. >> underneath my leg? >> yes, inside your leg. >> okay. were you aware the defendant described to his best friend that when he slid down -- the defendant slid down, that trayvon martin was up around his armpits? were you aware of that?

>> no, i have not heard that, no, sir. >> where would the gun be now? >> now the gun would be behind your left leg. >> okay. >> lisa bloom, you told me on monday night, on "hardball," that you had gone back and reread aspects of the case and you thought something had been overlooked thus far by the prosecution. when i saw that today i said, this is what lisa was talking about. >> yeah. i know. i was hoping that john guy was going do it in the courtroom today but he didn't. on the re-enactment video when george zimmerman is asked where he holstered the gun, he demonstrates apparently reaching back behind his right hip to hit backside, okay? this witness had it wrong. and the prosecution was not able to correct that because they apparently are not aware, so far, unless they're saving this for a big moment in closing argument that george zimmerman had the gun holster not only inside his pants covered by his shirt and jacket but the backside of his hip. that's where he demonstrates on the video with his hand. i want to say something else

about the mannequin. i don't like the fact that the prosecution is really conceding the defense version of the case. we have the prosecution on top of the mannequin, like the defense attorney did. they didn't use the mannequin. i would had it standing up because that's one theory how the fight happened and when the shooting could have happened. i would have had george zimmerman on top as a number of witnesses had him and trayvon martin on the bottom. i would have had it moving around in a dynamic situation. i mean, to just do it the same way the defense did gives the jury the impression that everybody's now on the same page that at the time the bullet was shot george zimmerman was on the bottom, trayvon martin was on the top. >> joseph haynes davis, i have been surprised how much of george zimmerman's version has been able to come into evidence in this case. i recognize he gave police statements and re-enactment. but truly for what purpose would he have testified? his version of events is clearly put in the record as the example she just illustrated. >> i think -- i think miss bloom is correct in that it is a little bit interesting, to say

the least that there was nothing being distinguished by the state's turn with the mannequin. counselor, you are absolutely correct. listen, george zimmerman has testified, so to speak, by the statements that have been played over and over again with his interviews, with sean hannity interview and much much more. he has no reason to testify as to whether or not he really thought about when he didn't know what to say when the judge asked him, we will never know that because we won't know that. >> closing arguments tomorrow. thank you, lisa bloom, joseph haynes davis, alex ferrer. coming up, remember way back to november when mitt romney won the support of just 29% of latinos and republicans vowed to win them back? fast forward to today when much of the gop has decided that

immigration reform will just create more democrats, reform could be dead. and with it republican presidential hopeful in 2016. also, you may love walmart, you might hate walmart. few people are neutral. pick your sides, as the giant retailer battles local washington, d.c. government over whether it should be forced to pay its own higher minimum wage. walmart is threatening to pull out of the city. it may be nothing more than a cry for attention but sarah palin is talking about a senate run. is she aware a senate term is six years? let me finish with this. we are number two, the u.s. is, in one category that should not make us proud. this is "hardball," the place for politics. my mantra? trust your instincts to make the call. to treat my low testosterone, my doctor and i went with axiron, the only underarm low t treatment. axiron can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18

or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about the only underarm low t treatment, axiron. as expected the texas house has passed strict new restrictions on abortion. and now it's back over to the senate. thousands of protesters on both sides of the abortion rights debate have flooded austin, as lawmakers consider the bill

which bans abortions after 20 weeks. as the house voted late last night, hundreds filled the capitol rotunda chanting "shame on you" the bill died last month in the senate after wendy davis filibustered it preventing it from meeting a midnight deadline. we'll be right back. ves in her favorite princess dress... and she's not exactly tidy. even if she gets a stain... she'll wear it for a week straight. so i use tide to get out those week-old stains and downy to get it fresh and soft. and since i'm the one who has to do the laundry... i do what any expert dad would do. i let her play sheriff. i got twenty minutes to life. you are free to go! [ male announcer ] week old stains and odors just met their match. tide and downy, better together.

america can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time. we must remember that the vast majority of immigrants are decent people who work hard and support their families and practice their faith and lead responsible lives. >> welcome back to "hardball." if you were a former president, lawmaker, anyone in politics for that matter, chances are you were talking about one thing today. immigration reform. a series of key meetings and events spanning the day in washington and beyond refocused the political conversation on an issue that has united democrats and divided republicans. as you saw in that clip, at 9:00 a.m. former president george w.

bush waded back into political relevance using the opening of his institute as a platform to press the case for reform. 11:00 a.m., obama held a lengthy strategy session with the congressional black hispanic caucus. across town at 3:00 p.m., all 234 house republicans were scheduled to meet in a veritable immigration therapy session. but if you think it all points towards some hope for progress on the issue, you probably didn't see the headline on politico today. immigration reform heads for slow death. what's going on, you ask? here's the answer. republicans walked away from their 2012 debacle hellbent on fixing their problems with hispanics and now hellbent on making them worse. republicans on capitol hill predict comprehensive immigration reform will die a slow months' long death in the house. let's get right to it. joining us msnbc contributor steve schmitt and jim vandehei. executive editor at politico who

reported that story. jim, isn't the rub of this the fact that we have hyperpartisanship and so few republicans in the house are representing hispanics in their districts. consequently there's no accountability when they go home? >> that's a huge part of. this house republican conference is very conservative, they come from mostly rural districts, they have mostly white constituencies. most of all when they go home, they're not hearing much of a call for comprehensive immigration reform with a path way to citizenship. they don't hear from their constituents that's a top concern. for the vast majority of house republicans they look at the bill that passed the senate and said there's no way we would touch anything that approximates that if it came through the house. that's where john boehner finds himself. as we speak right now, you have all these republicans sitting in one room talking about immigration reform. you have leadership saying, come on, weave got do something, guys. range and file is saying sure, we'll do something on border security.

all of the other stuff they're just not that interested in doing it. and that's the reason that it's really hard to see how immigration reform gets done, despite the fact that george bush is for it despite the fact that marco rubio's for it despite the fact that steve schmitt will advocate for it now. >> let me ask. steve, there's a theory with growing momentum that republicans don't need hispanic votes. that they need more white votes. this is a conservative activist voicing that argument in a may radio interview. >> the people of the republican should reach out to are the white votes that the white voters are who didn't vote in the last election and there are millions of them. i think when you have an establishment-run nomination system they give us a series of losers which they've given us with dole and mccain and romney. >> now, karl rove disagrees, writing in a recent "wall street journal" op-ed a reagan-like percentage of white voters would yield a narrower win because the

nonwhite share of the vote doubled to 28% in 2013 from 13% in 84. the reality is that the nonwhite share of the vote will keep growing if the gop leaves nonwhite voters to the democrats, then it's margins and safe congressional districts, and red states will dwindle. who has the right answer, steve schmidt? >> karl rove is right. it's a foolish argument. certainly when you look at the white vote, mitt romney underperformed with certain sections of the white vote. in 2004, george w. bush re-elected, got 44% of the hispanic vote. the electorate in the next presidential election will be 2% less white than it was in 2012, which was 2% less white from 2008. so if it were to be a national political party we can't perform in the 20s heading into the teen with hispanic voters. this is an enormous problem for the country.

house republicans fancy themselves of people with solutions of big national problems. at least that's what they say rhetorically. when it comes to fixing these problems, they seem to be awol from the field. >> steve, all politics are local. and they're not focused on 2016. they're focused on themselves in 2014. >> well, there's no question, the point that you made that jim made, is that house republicans, because of gerrymandering, redistricting, same true for the democrats, most house members are absolutely insolated from national public opinion. and we see that playing out very clearly in this. >> here's an amazing illustration of how far the gop has come since the days of party legends like reagan. a clip from the 1980 debate between reagan and george herbert walker bush. watch this. >> do you think the children of illegal aliens should be allowed to attend texas public schools free? >> today if those people are here, i would reluctantly say i

think they would -- they would get whatever it is that they're -- you know what the society is giving to their neighbors. these are good people. strong people. part of my family is mexican. >> rather than making them or talking about putting up a fence, why don't we work out some recognition of our mutual problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit and then while they're working and earning here, they pay taxes here? >> jim, what happens to a republican and a gop primary who stands up and says either of those things? >> you know, it's not clear. i mean house republicans would say, listen, in their district, if they said those things they might get clobbered in a primary. it's not clear at national level. what steve said is important. it's in the a debate. it's not a political debate about the numbers. numbers you cannot dispute. if you go back to 1992 when bill clinton wins 87% of the electorate is white. look at the last election, you're down into the 70s. every year with total

predictability, 3%, 4%. you see a reduction in the percentage of voters who are white. that doesn't change. there's no demographic analyst in the country who is going to say that changes. the population of hispanics keeps growing, population of asians keeps growing, populations of white keeps shrinking. at some point the republicans have to reckon with this. if they become the mostly male, mostly white, mostly conservative, mostly christian party, that might be good in an individual district, it just kills them at the national level and that is the tension playing out. you have the george w. bush camp on one side and you might have the tom cotton camp or the michele bachmann camp in the house. they're just too radically different realities. >> the latter of the caucuses wins primaries, and therein lies the issue. steve schmidt, thank you. jim good to see you. up next, everything nowadays is partisan even president obama's alleged favorite food. stick around for the sideshow. if you want to follow me on

twitter you need to know how to spell smerconish. this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ 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.

president obama reignited an old washington debate yesterday afternoon, the hot-button issue this time, broccoli. after speaking at a kids' state dinner for a group of 54 8-year-olds at white house, the president was overheard claiming broccoli was his favorite food. yes, you heard that correctly. broccoli. the remark met with disbelief that it sparked a twitter frenzy that trended all afternoon. but here he was earlier that day explaining his change of heart on vegetables. >> my family, when they cook vegetables, they would just like boil them. remember that? and they'd get all soft and mushy.

nobody wanted to to eat a pea or brussels sprout because it tasted horrible because they were all mush. >> broccoli. >> broccoli would be mushy. now i actually like vegetables because they're prepared right. >> even skeptics at "the washington post" got in on the action, facetiously complaining obama's assertion was like saying that your favorite computer game is microsoft excel and calling for his impeachment. of course we've seen tempers flare over this subject before. remember the famous broccoli debate of 1990? president bush 41 weighing in on the controversial vegetable. >> i do not like broccoli. and i haven't liked it since i was a little kid. and my mother made me eat it. and i'm president of the united states. and i'm not going to eat any more broccoli. >> in response to that comment, the broccoli growers of california presented 10,000 pounds of the vegetable to the white house. that's five tons of broccoli

which first lady barbara bush received with her wit. >> we are leaving several boxes of the product here for your use at the white house. >> thank you. >> with some very good new recipes which you might use that you just might intrigue the president to take the plunge into the wonderful world of fresh broccoli. >> i'm going to overlook the fact you think my cooking's not up to par. i'm going to tell you the honest truth. the president is never going to eat broccoli. but i am never going to eat pork rinds ever. thank you. thank you. >> we have -- >> that's why we stayed married 45 years. >> whenever you think of obama, bush, and the politics of broccoli, it turns out healthy eating has had bipartisan support in the past. take a like at this 1951 print advertisement, do you recognize the spoked person? ronald reagan as spokes person for v-8 vegetable juice.

the gipper was the spokesperson for the brand in the early '50s which may explain why he remained healthy enough to become our nation's oldest president. in case you were wondering, v-8 does not contain any broccoli. up next, walmart at war with washington, d.c. pick your sides. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

dzhokhar tsarnaev pleaded not guilty in court today to charges in the boston marathon bombings. three people killed in the attack. more than 260 injured. canadian police say more than 20 people are confirmed dead in that train derailment over the weekend. 30 more missing. now back to "hardball." welcome back to "hardball." it's a battle of wills in the nation's capitol and it doesn't have anything to do with congress. the retail giant walmart had planned on opening six new stored in washington, but it's now saying they may back out at least some of them and that's because late this afternoon, the city council passed a bill that would force walmart to pay its workers more money. the minimum wage in d.c. $8.25. legislation forces large retailers like walmart to pay a minimum of $12.50 an hour. legislation targets walmart unfairly, it says.

alex barron the regional manager for walmart wrote this week saying quote, we have said that this legislation is arbitrary and discriminatory and discourageds investment in washington. walmart is the largest employer in the country with more than 1.3 million workers and 4,005 stores. the company earned $17 billion in profits last year. and many walmart critics say that means they can and should pay their workers more. but should a city be able to force the company to do so? steven moore senior economics writer of the "wall street journal" editorial board, david madland is the director of the american worker project at center for american progress. david, why can't the market sort this out? if you don't like walmart, don't shop at walmart. if you don't like the wages they pay, don't work there. >> well, we have things like a minimum wage to ensure that when workers work hard, they have enough so they're not living in poverty.

also, by those kind of policies we help the economy because we ensure workers have basic purchasing power and that's the core problem with the economy today is that workers don't have enough purchasing power so businesses aren't able to invest. >> it's like a mind-set of a kleptomaniac at a big department store who says i'm going to take a couple of bed linens, they can afford it they wouldn't miss it. isn't that what washington's saying? >> i think what they're saying is that large, profitable companies need to pay their workers a living wage. now, also when companies don't do that, it imposes large costs on taxpayers. the studies show that the typical walmart store because of the very low wages it pays its workers is a burden to government -- to taxpayers of about $1 million in aid they need to provide for poverty workers and things like food stamps, things like housing subsidies. really, this is about insuring that when companies come into town and provide jobs, which is a good thing, everyone benefits,

not just a few people that workers get good wages but also taxpayers benefit as well. >> steve, i talked about this on the radio today and i heard from a number of callers who said, as merchants, it's impossible to compete as main street entrepreneur with walmart when they come to town because they've got an assortment of products and willing to undercut anybody else at any level. how do you compete with them when they come to town? >> it's very difficult. there's no question. walmart has -- what do they always say? everyday low prices. go into walmart today, you get damn near everything you want for 99 cents. walmart -- if you look at the government intervention program and social welfare program to abate program, there is no better program than walmart because walmart has raised living standards of poor people by making everything from toothpaste to diapers to cell phones much more affordable to them. the problem with the argument, why shouldn't they pay higher

wages $12.50 an hour? the reason this is an imbo sillic policy, walmart has a choice. they have six stores they are looking at opening up in the washington, d.c., area, oftentimes by the way in very undeveloped areas, poor areas that need the jobs that need the economic development. here's the problem with saying pay the people $12.50 an hour. those -- walmart is now saying they may not open up those stores. so it's not whether these workers have $12.50 an hour. these workers are going to get nothing because the store may not be there. >> consequently those district residents are going to have to go to virginia or maryland for the goods. steve, respond to this though. 2011 study by the all of california study at berkeley, walmart increased minimum wage for all employees in the u.s. to $12. one argument that walmart uses, is that it would increase costs for customers. but according to the study, quote, even if walmart were to pass 100% of wage increase on to consumers, the average impact on

a walmart shopper would be quite small. 46 cents per shopping trip or $12.49 per year for the average customer. respond to that logic. >> well, here's the problem with this. look, most of the workers who start at walmart, they are unskilled workers, not very well-trained. what walmart -- in fact, mostly starter jobs. you don't want to get rid of starter job. when i talk to the wall street executives about the issue, one of the things they told me, 3/of their executives who make between $50,000 and $125,000, a year, 3/4 of them started in minimum wage jobs. don't take away the minimum wage job or you're not going to have medium sized and higher paying jobs later. >> david, can i show you a "washington post" editorial, if we can put that up? "the post" took a position. here's what they said. from "the post" about what the city council had been proposing and has passed.

the hubris of the large retailer accountability act is matched by its hypocrisy. counsel sill members who backed the measure claimed to only be looking out for d.c. workers struggling to keep pace with the cost of living in the district. apparently they aren't worried about people who live in fast food restaurants, the unionized grocery stores exempted or countless other businesses or for that matter some of their own government employees who make less than $12.50 an hour. if conditions are so dire, why the four-year lag in compliance for existing retailers, that is, non-walmart covered by the measure? isn't that really the hypocrisy of this, if there was an exemption carved out, it's singling out walmart for punitive measure? >> look, it's not singling out walmart. there's a number of large retailers who would will be affected, costco, home depot, they're already in the district and some pay higher wages than we require under the bill. you can quibble with the details and everyone you know could be

paying a higher wage. that would be ultimately where to go. the big picture here, and steven's concern, is about any minimum wage, any effort to raise the wage that workers get paid, he would be opposed to. i think that's really what's important to understand is that worker working full time which most in many of the people like a walmart store would be should not be living in poverty. earn enough to have a decent life and decent paycheck. >> i have to leave it there, steven. i wish i had more time. >> $8 is better than no job at all. that's really it. >> $12.50 is best of all. >> steven moore and david madland, thanks so much. up next, it may be just another tease, another cry for media attention. but sarah palin says she's considering running for the senate. that's ahead. this is "hardball," the place for politics. you make a great team. it's been that way since the day you met.

but your erectile dysfunction - it could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

sarah palin for senate? she's thinking about it. "hardball" back after this.

ted cruz needs reinforcements there in washington, d.c. tea party rise up again. let's get more of them in there. >> welcome back. that was former alaska governor

and 2008 republican vice presidential nominee sarah palin talking to sean hannity about the need for re-enforcements for tea partiers like ted cruz in the senate. she's considering her own run for the senate against mark begich. >> i've considered it because people have requested me considering it. but i'm still waiting to see, you know, what the lineup will be and hoping that, there again, there will be some new blood, some new energy, not just kind of picking from the same old politicians in the state. >> when asked by "hardball" if the former governor would be the ideal candidate to challenge senator begich, the committee demured on palin but said, quote, the ideal candidate to defeat mark begich will be chosen by alaskans not anyone in washington, d.c. not exactly a ringing endorsement. is palin a serious senate candidate in 2014 or merely trying to create buzz in an effort to remain relevant in politics sort of like her

campaign in 2012 that never happened? joining me to discuss this, "the washington post's" dana milbank and the hill's a.b. stoddard. they need reinforcements in washington, d.c.. they need to rise up again, the reality tv shows, the books, et cetera. there will be teasing again. >> season the the tell when she refers to new blood and energy. by what standard?

>> i think the tell is all over this one. and she wants to get her name out there. she wants to be mentioned on hardball, she wants to be relevant. they used to call the senate the world's greatest deliberative body. it's already barely functioning and would utterly cease to function all together which may be why journalists should be invited there to create more of a circus for the rest of zblus don't spoil all of our fun yet. i have a few more questions about this. if i'm ted cruz, in the senate and a rising star, do i want her as a colleague? she sucks all the oxygen out of the room. >> that's a good point. he's already competing with rand paul for some of the oxygen right now. she endorsed ted cruz, he was thankful to her for that. she endorsed joe miller. he spent four years as a former judge and lawyer about i imagine she would have a tough time running against him.

i don't know if her approval numbers look strong enough to take him on. not only as dana points out it would be bad for the senate to have people coming in and saying no. ted cruz is doing well on his own and he wants to be a star. named prospective 2016 candidate, even if he doesn't intend to go through with it. >> at the rnc, is this received as good news? is that the image you want to convey? if her name were on the ballot, nationally, that would be the persona of the party. >> exactly. it's not the question of so much -- whether she can win in alaska, it's a conservative state. begich got in there because of the whole ted stevens thing. the real question for the republicans is do people want her in the senate again? that's not the damage for the republicans, it becomes, the palin ticket in 2014.

>> and i joked at the outset of it being a six-year term, she would have to explain herself for having quit the gubernatorial situation. thank you, dana milbank and ab stoddard, we'll be back after this.

let me finish tonight with this. word came this week that the u.s. is no longer the most obese nation. that distinction now belongs to mexico. according to a united nations report. here are the top ten obese nations. about 70% of mexican adults are considered overweight. 32.8% are obese. the u.s. isn't far behind with an obesity rate of 31.8%. having spent last week in italy, i noted that that european nation was not on the list. despite a terrific culinary culture. all that good food, why aren't the italians more obese, i wondered. it's a subject i got into with an italian tour guide after i told him i didn't have a headache the morning after putting a dent into a bottle of chianti. my driver told me the short answer of the wine was sulfites, but it was part of a larger issue. my friend said, i might be fat, but my doctor says i'm healthy, no high blood pressure and no

diabetes. his weight was attributed to eating lots of food, but lots of good food. you people eat junk. no one loves cafe more than italians, you'll never see us walking out of a starbucks with one of those huge drinks. come to think of it, i hadn't seen a starbucks or any fast food. the one mcdonald's i had seen in florence was built for the americans. the local grocery store i visited a couple times was the size of a neighborhood wawa or 7-eleven, only inside you wouldn't find someone to make you a hoagie. we call your processed food jewelry, because it's imported and expensive, and won't be fooled by appearance if it doesn't taste good. we won't buy it.

the hours off in the afternoon may no longer facilitate an enormous meal and nap. but they prevent people from eating at desks in cubicles. it's a food and lifestyle issue. their priorities are different than ours. when i got home i checked on the italian life expectancy, in italy it was 82.09 years in 2011 compared to 78.64 in america. and our rate of obesity is double italys of 17.2%. that's according to the u.n. report. the explanation from my italian friend was confirmed by dr. kenneth thorpe the chair at the department of health policy and management at emery's rollins school of health. yes, we eat more processed food, heavier on fat, sugar and corn. and the europeans generally eat fresher food and smaller portions. it's the difference between fresh food versus processed food.

it's not only how much we're eating but what we're eating as well. that's hardball for now, thanks for being with us, all in with chris hayes starts right now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes, tonight on "all in" the fear factor as the defense rests in the trial of george zimmerman, closing arguments set to begin tomorrow, already, bill o'reilly and others are raising the racial spector. the oil train, what went wrong to cause this truly horrific crash? and the river of fire that's killed at least 20 people and absolutely devastated a small town in quebec. plus, the tea party in georgia, is all for solar energy, and now they're going head to head with the koch brothers over it, this is reality trumping politics. i will have the national coordinator for the tea party