what effect will this have on the economy? >> president referencing that in the speech. important point. chris matthews. al sharpton. i want to thank you all for being here tonight. chris hays back in an hour for a special live edition of "all in." right now time for "the last word" with lawrence o'donnell. thank you for joining us. have a great night. >> on the eve of the 12th anniversary of 9/11, president obama delivered his ninth special address off to the nation explaining what he thinks the next steps should be on syria. >> over the last few days we have seen some encouraging signs. in part because of the credible threat of u.s. military action, as well as constructive talks that i had with president putin. the russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing assad to give up his chemical weapons. the assad regime has now admitted it has these weapons.

and even said, they joined the chemical weapons convention which prohibits their use. it is too early to tell whether this offer will succeed. and any agreement must verify that the assad regime keeps its commitments. but, this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force. particularly because russia is one of assad's strongest allies. >> president obama announced that secretary kerry would meet on thursday in geneva with russia's foreign minister. the president made clear that he considers the threat of american military intervention in syria an important incentive for progress and the option he still prefers if negotiations with russia and syria break down. >> i have ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on assad. and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails.

>> joining me, chuck todd, howard fineman, director of the huffing post, and political analyst, and chuck todd, as the speech, as the, the hour for the speech approached today, there was a sense here in this town, washington, there were rewrites going on fast and furiously. what can you tell us about the process in the white house leading up to 9:00 p.m.? >> as i had been told before this. i didn't fully believe them. it was pretty clear to me after listening to the speech that 2/3 of the speech was written a couple days ago. if you listen to the speech, sounded like it. the first 2/3 of the speech was in the can. it is the same speech he was planning on giving two days ago. as he gave today. and the part that was being rewritten and worked on over the last few hours today -- was that last third of the speech.

and frankly that's where you could tell, that it felt like -- two speeches put together. one i thought was the clearest and most concise explanation for his policy on syria, white is america's duty to tact. what it would be, wouldn't be. as clear as he has been during any point during what has been a haphazard, very public debate. and then you got to the point where he says "but now there is a pause button that has been pushed. we're pursuing a diplomatic end." that part got confusing. then you realize, you say to yourself, lawrence. we don't see this very often. a president asks for the time in primetime to essentially, and talk about foreign policy. it's not to tell us of an action that happened. or an action that was about to happen. that's where it felt a little bit as if, i said, two speeches. two different speeches that we

tried, they tried to glue together. >> howard fineman, the first half of the speech that chuck is referring to is the presentation of the evidence that was kind of the prosecutor's opening statement. without, i was struck, by no specific reference to real exhibits, no proof. how much consideration did the white house give to actually putting slide up. actually showing us things the white house has been showing. and keith ellison sat here the other night saying i have seen what they have. i urged them to release maybe half of what they have. i think that what chuck said. there were two speeches. one with the foot on the gas pedal. one with the foot on the break. that the president was not going to take his valuable team to lay out an even more urgent case if, in the last, third of the speech he was going to say, but, hey. putin and i have been talking. maybe we have a deal here. it would be even more dissident than it was, listening to it tonight.

he was like, curtis bombs lemay in the first 2/3. and then he said however, let any see if we can work out a deal. i think it would have been more disjunctive. the president made the moral case. and best attempt at the strategic case as well. there are two things here. the moral track. and strategic track. i thought more important, the president, was to lay out how this might eventually be a threat to the united states. and i thought he did a pretty good job of that. then he, he called a halt to the whole thing. it was really remarkable. i agree with chuck. i haven't seen anything like this, ever before. >> howard dean, what was your reaction to the president's integration of the two parts of the speech? including the incorporation of the most recent developments with russia and syria? >> i thought it was fine. i actually thought, it was what the american people wanted to hear. which is really important. second of all. i thought he did a great job. the first 2/3 lays out as you all said, clearly what the case was. and then he says -- but -- we

don't have to do these things right now. i thought it was great. you could argue putting the speech together and all that stuff. the american people are going to see the president is in tune with them. that's important. >> there were clearly in the speech some specific reactions to things said in the last couple of days. john kerry said it is going to be at a certain point, a very, very small attack. that provoked people to refer to it as a pinprick, that phrase found its way into the speech tonight. let's listen to this. >> let me make something clear. the united states military doesn't do pin pricks. even a limited strike will send a message to assad that no other nation can deliver. >> chuck todd, clearly reacting to some very specific rhetorical developments in the course of the week. >> it has been. what's been interesting about the specific issue. some of us had been pushing back behind the scenes with national security staff, going, guys your rhetoric doesn't match the

action that you are promising. you're comparing this guy to hitler a lot. you are talking about the evils that, we haven't seen. in 100 years. and yet what you describe, you are going out of your way, saying it is limited. listen, remember, limited in the u.s. is still the biggest bomb that has ever fallen on damascus. so it has been something that has been -- on one hand, annoying to the white house. that they have had to remind reporters, hey, remember, the u.s. military is a heck of a lot more effective than people realize. but at the same tie they -- but at the same time they know the public doesn't want to hear it will be a huge military campaign. >> from the first half of the speech. let's listen to what the president said if we fail to act. >> if we fail to act, the assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. as the the ban against these weapons erode. other tyrants will have no

reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons. and to use them to attack civilians. if fighting spills beyond syria's borders weapons could threaten turkey, jordan, and israel, allies. and a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction. and embolden assad's ally iran which must decide to whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or take a more peaceful pass. >> howard fineman, the piece you wrote this afternoon. the issue in the middle where the president says it could be possible to use these -- to attack civilians in some other areas. you raise the possibility. russia has a serious concern. >> russia. the whole, that by the way, a

succinct summary of barack obama's version of the domino theory. as the it applies to chemical weapons in the 21st century. and in the age of terrorism. i think that is an argument that vladamir putin is very much in tune with and very much concerned about. the russians are very concerned about chechnya. still, they're concerned about terrorism there. they're concerned about chemical weapon. they're concerned about some kind of islamist conspiracy to get the weapons over into the under belly of russia. i think that's one of the thing that is motivating put in here. so the president -- and vladamir putin, however they got to this point. may have sort of backed themselves into peace. i mean it is quite possible that they backed themselves in to being the backbone of an alliance that could get something done at the united nations. if they can get the chinese to go along. the only other piece of the puzzle. >> i think this is all over. i think. chinese. we are done here. putin has now said, assad is not going to use these.

i will make sure he doesn't. he is on the hook. whether you get an agreement of the united nations is irrelevant. we are done with this. unless -- assad does this another time. then i think the president is going to go in. he is not going to stop at congress first. he is going to go in. i think assad knows it it. putin knows it. this is over. doesn't matter what negotiations are. vladamir putin is on the line for making sure, he doesn't use chemical weapons. the president accomplished his goal. he will stop the use of chemical weapons. >> chuck todd, do you get the sense from the white house that they feel as confident as howard dean does right now about how this will go in the inn, few steps? >> they're not as confident. but i get the same sense here that this is sort of okay. there is a path forward. that, because -- they take -- they see that putin is acting rationally here. right? putin's interests are what. he doesn't want to see assad go. he believes assad can win the civil war without chemical weapons. if chemical weapons are there, the u.s. acts.

what does that do? weakens assad. he is gone. they don't have an ally. if you look at it at a pragmatic, old-fashioned, cold war, you know, the first world war ii, second world, geopolitical stuff, you see pragmatic position of putin. lawrence, one part here. i thought was an interesting moral part of the case. he did the q & a. i have gotten questions about x. why do we want to potentially get rid of assad. al qaeda, they may not be so good. he made the case. al qaeda will end up getting more involved in syria if if the looks like we are not acting. looking at it through the lens of a humanitarian crisis going on there. an interesting way he answered the question on the chemical weapon. but you could argue that that q & a that he did with himself could be, something -- that

could be applied toward the idea, humanitarian aspect of this civil war that is killing hundred of thousand of people over there. >> chuck todd, howard dean, and howard fineman. thank you all very much for joining me tonight. >> thank you. >> coming up -- the negotiations over syria's chemical weapons. what is next. the diplomatic steps. and later, we will have breaking news in the new york city mayor's race.

the red line on chemical weapons is a way to try to make war more civilized. is it really possible to make war more civilized. that's in the rewrite coming up. ♪

[ jen garner ] what skincare brand is so effective... so trusted... so clinically proven dermatologists recommend it twice as much as any other brand? neutrogena®. recommended by dermatologists 2 times more than any other brand. now that's beautiful. neutrogena®. ♪  neutrogena®. [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods.

♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk. i have spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, france and the united kingdom. we will work together in consultation with russia and china to put forward a resolution at the u.n. security council requiring assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control. we will also give u.n. inspectors an opportunity to report what happened on august 21st. and we will continue to rally support from allies from europe to the americas, from asia to the middle east who agree on the need for action. >> joining me now is former u.s. ambassador to morocco, mark ginsburg, and msnbc's joy reid. let's listen to what secretary kerry had to say about this this

morning. >> this cannot be a process of delay. this cannot be a process off voidance. it has to be real. has to be measurable, tangible and exceedingly difficult. i want everybody here to know, to fulfill those conditions. but, we're waiting for that proposal. but we are not waiting for long. president obama will take a hard look at it. but it has to be swift. it has to be real. it has to be verifiable. it cannot be a delaying tactic. >> ambassador ginsburg, i think you might have just heard howard dean say, he thinks that this process will be a little smoother than john kerry just outlined? >> well, you know -- optimism can spring eternal here. but the fact that of the matter its that we, what else do we have to hold on to, lawrence? the clear goal here for the

russians is to give assad the opportunity to live to fight another day. and any american attack, no matter how limited the president may have had that attack limited, could have upset the balance of power sufficiently with unintended consequences. and lawrence, the dirty little secret is the administration doesn't want assad to disappear that quickly either. for fear of of what may happen if there is a vacuumen syria. -- vacuum in syria. already dangerous enough for the united states. what is missing here, not so much what the russians may or may not do. but after we reach some sort of u.n. resolution, if it ever, emerges, the light of day in the security council, that is acceptable. well, then the question is, then what? can we get some sort of cease-fire? where is the follow-up di plomacy, i thought the president did a fantastic job, laying out what he needed to lay out.

i would have gone further where is the peace conference to stop the killing in order to accomplish the u.n. security council role and to basically provide humanitarian relief that its necessary to get a political settlement. >> reuters is reporting to night that the french-crafted u.n. security council resolution would give syria 15 days to make a complete declaration of the entire chemical arms program, the draft resolution would demand that syria grant u.n. inspectors access to all chemical arms, all sites, personnel, records, equipment, that certainly sound like a start on drafting a resolution? >> it is a start. and then the problem with the security council always is the "or what?" the united nations security council resolutions were not backed by the threat of u.s.-based force have been phenomenally unsuccessful. the whole point of the u.n. charter was to prevent world war

iii to stop the proliferation of war. it has been spectacularly a failure if you look at the masses of internal conflict as well as country to country conflict that have taken place since 1945. president after president have in a sense side stepped the u.n. process because it really is pretty much broken. the u.n. resolution is a good idea from the political standpoint for the obama administration. it gives them some breathing room. it add international legitimacy to what they want to do. but the reality, there has to be an "or what." what assad need is an incentive to stop killing syrians. there is really almost nothing. that can be in the charter that prevents internal civil conflict. supposed to be country to country conflict. >> lawrence, if i may add. one thing that is important to understand. syria has the fourth largest cache of chemical weapons in the world. and the pentagon issued a report, public report by the way which we can all read. it would take 75,000 u.s. troops

not saying u.s. troops would do this, blue helmet of the united nations, to basically safe guard for -- for, removal of the chemical weapons cache that the united states estimates. so think about. where are the 75,000 blue helmet u.n. forces going to come from to accomplish the goal. these are the practical issues, and, unlike what governor dean said, i don't think the russians are going to put russian boots on the ground to accomplish the goal. >> we weren't going to put american boots on the ground to go do those searches and do that kind of work. so it seems any number of u.n. inspectors you get in there on the ground, is more than, we were going to have on the ground after doing some kind of air strike. >> yeah, what's interesting. you listen to what the president was saying, lawrence. the whole idea is that we are trying to enforce the international norm. chemical weapons cannot be used. this cannot be done.

to do that, we, we weren't going to put boots on the ground. we need to provide a strike to provide nonincentive for assad or others to do it again. i am cynical about the u.n. process. the problem again is countries like syria have a patron, that can stand in the way of the real consequences that really could be a preventative measure. and the united states has no appetite to go in there and dupe this work. to the ambassador's point this works. we get the resolution. syria agrees to hand over the weapons. to whom? do we think the blue helmets are capable. who will secure the convoys, you talked in the earlier segment to make sure they don't fall into the hand of terrorists. >> in the middle of a civil war with no cease-fire. >> right. the security council is acting. >> first, the syrian foreign minister said today to nbc news. someone we might be hearing more from over the next few days.

>> we accept the russian proposal which was offered. unfortunately we started to hear some voices in the west. britain, france, even inside the united states, people who believe only in wars. we believe that when we accept this proposal we put an end to the war and we put our track in syria on a peaceful solution. >> ambassador ginsburg, especially in that last line, he said, everything you would want to hear at this point anyway. >> well indeed. and the fact is, is that the president and, secretary kerry as you know, lawrence, they sort

of stumbled into a potential diplomatic solution. i am all in favor, this may be sausage making diplomacy style. bottom line is a bottom line. if this forestalls an attack that could lead to some sort of opportunity to end the humanitarian something of. my biggest concern has always been that if the president's threat was not going to be considered to be real. if we thought that the two million refugees on the borders of syria were a significant problem for the international community. let me guarantee you that if assad felt that he could even use chemical weapons again, without, with impunity. there would be more than six to seven or eight or ten million refugees fleeing destablizing the region. so in effect the president right now has a window of opportunity to get the russians back to the negotiating table. by the way, let me add -- secretary kerry has a good relationship with the foreign minister lavarov, they announced a peace conference for geneva in

june. a few months ago. it did not happen because the syrian opposition refused to abide by who would represent them and the terms by which they would in effect attend the conference. we can't give them the veto the we need to get to the negotiating table for a political settlement. >> thank you for joining me tonight. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the president says he asked congress to postpone votes on military action in syria. we will get reaction from senator rand paul and senator bob casey. and, breaking news tonight on the primary election, new york city mayor's race, that is coming up.

>> in the spotlight. congressional action on hold. >> this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force. particularly because russia is one of assad's strongest allies. i have therefore asked the leaders of congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. >> bob casey, a member of the national security working group and co-chair of the weapons mass destruction and terrorism caucus. senator casey your reaction to the president's speech tonight. >> a strong speech. he laid out the case while we have to act when chemical weapons are used.

he laid out clearly, our national security interests. i would have added a few more lines about iran, the threat posed by iran and hezbollah. a two fold threat. not just the nuclear ambition of iran. >> and your decision making hierarchy, would you ranking that as the top of this ladder of importance in the factors affecting -- >> i would argue it is -- there are two interests. one is the chemical weapons threat that posed by the use of chemical weapons. certainly the threat posed by the regime, iran, terrorism, and ultimately nuclear capability. >> and the, we have an unusual situation here. in which republican senator rand paul took it upon himself to deliver a rinse to the president which has been, which he has done while i have been doing this show. i haven't seen it. we have a little clip from 10:00. let's listen to that. >> some argue american credibility is on the line.

that because president obama drew a red line with chemical weapons. america must act or lose credibility. i would argue america's credibility does not residen one man. if our enemies were to know if america will defend herself, let them look no farther than our response to 9/11. >> what is your reaction to that? >> i think senator paul is wrong. and a dictator or terrorist organization, uses chemical weapons. that is a threat to the world. and i would argue that is a threat to the troops. in the near term. but what he doesn't point out is that ten years ago, the congress of the united states, passed a law that said, the very acquisition by syria of chemical weapons was, was a threat to our national security interests. that's a decade ago. with the congress made that determination. so, adding this whole debate about a red line, really misses the point. when, when the international community came together decades ago and said this is wrong.

you can't use it in war. i think the consensus was arrived at then. the question is, do you condemn only, or do you condemn and take action which is proportional to the crime. >> we have a little bit more of what senator paul had to say in his very unusual, unofficial response to the president. >> it is said america must act to prevent assad from using chemical weapons again. it is unknown if attacking assad encourages him or discourages him. it is equally likely assad could feel cornered and resort to chemical weapons in an expanded. it is likely that the bombing could destabilize assad and lose control of the weapons. if the volt occurs i will vote no. and encourage colleagues to vote no. the president has the not made a compelling case that weapons are at risk in syria. the threshold for war should be a significant one. >> what's your reaction to the

hypothetical aftermaths to a military strike? >> first i would argue we face threats every day of the week. proxies, the iranian regime or hezbollah. i think senator paul and others should read intelligence about daily threats. in terms of ability of the syrian regime to take action against our country. i think that's really, an argument without a lot of merit. there is no question that any kind of operation has some level of risk. i think when you are talking about the technology. tomahawk cruise missiles, technology, to deploy that without the use of troops and even without the use of pilots in syrian airspace. i think when the president said tonight, moderate risk, maybe that was even too high an estimate. i think that is a very low risk in terms of our -- in terms of the return we get for our long and short term security interests. if this were about troops. not only would -- would there be no support in the congress.

i wouldn't vote for the use of troops in -- in syria. nor would, any one i know. but there is a way i thin tubing have a -- a good outcome here. by, by demonstrating we use force. but then also considering now, a group of us are, have it in place and a condition for the syrian regime. may be a way to resolve this and get a better result because of the credible threat of force. >> thank you for joining us on this important night. >> good to be with you. >> coming up -- the votes are still being counted in new york city in the mayor's race. the latest tallies coming up. [ female announcer ] we lowered her fever.

you raise her spirits. we tackled your shoulder pain. you make him rookie of the year. we took care of your cold symptoms. you take him on an adventure. tylenol® has been the number 1 doctor recommended brand of pain reliever for over 20 years. but for everything we do, we know you do so much more. tylenol®.

with 55% of the vote counted already in the new york city democratic primary for mayor tonight. bill deblazzio, significant lead. 39.1%. if he gets over 40%, he avoid a run-off for that democratic nomination. bill thompson, running second right now at 25.7%. and christine quinn, rupping -- running a distant third at 15.4%.

we will have more of the latest numbers in that race coming up. the rewrite is next.

harvard chemistry professor, louis feezer came this close to winning the nobel prize in the 1940s for his work on the structure elucidation of vitamin k. during his work on vitamin k, the professor walked down what is called john f. kennedy street and across the bridge over to the, over the charles river to a harvard football field to test something else he was working on then. it was the fourth of july 1942, profess feezer was conducting the test of his most important invention, napalm. a smashing success as sven

lundquist tells us in the history of bombing the new harvard formula for napalm increased the, quote ability to penetrate deeply into the musculature where it would continue to burn day after day. professor and his harvard colleagues had invented a new way of death. napalm eating into your skin, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. napalm attaches to human flesh in a way that is impossible to remove. it kills in other ways too. if you are within the 2,500 square yards affected by a single 100-pound napalm bomb. you can be untouched by the napalm and be killed by heat stroke. you can be killed by suffocation. be killed by breathing car been monoxide poisoning. you can be killed by dehydration without ever seeing, touching the napalm. napalm was an instant hit in world war ii. military record indicate that

half the bombs that our side dropped on dresden were napalm bombs. the germans came up with a 25-letter word meaning -- fire bomb shrunken flesh to describe what was happening to them. many germans were actually baked to death by the intense heat without ever being touched by the napalm. napalm was extraordinarily effective in japan. napalm burned 40% of the land area in the japanese cities that we attacked with napalm. japanese homes were the easiest possible kindling for napalm. whole neighborhoods made of wood and paper homes. they just disappeared. and that was before we dropped our ultimate weapon of mass destruction on japan at hiroshima and nagasaki. we used much more napalm in the korean war where we dropped 250,000 pound of napalm every

day. it was our cheapest weapon of mass destruction, each napalm bomb was made of plastic, held 100 gallons of napalm and cost $40 each. then came vietnam where we dropped napalm, literally by the ton. but this time around, the 400,000 tons of napalm that we dropped on soldiers and civilians, and animals, and babies, were seen around the world and our first televised war. and as america watched napalm lighting up our tv screens, night after night on the evening news, america's collective sense of moral superiority in war slipped away. the single weakest argument i think i have heard for military intervention in syria is that death from sarin is a uniquely horrifying form of death. uniquely inhumane. but if we are going to get clinical about this, there are many forms of death in war that

can be more inhumane can sarin gas. kills within minutes or hours. syrians can take days to die from gun shots, treated or untreated gunshots. syrians can lose parts of their bodies to a traditional bomb. and take days or weeks to die. without access to any form of painkiller. stab wound could leave you clinging to life in excruciating pain for a much longer time than sarin gas. and how do we judge the quality of death in war? by the elapsed time from initial wound to death? by the pain level? i don't think there is a reasonable way to make that evaluation. here is the most famous napalm victim in history. a 9-year-old june 8, 1972, when we dropped napalm on her village in vietnam. her two infant baby cousins were burned to death. kim ran down the road screaming.

this photo was taken by nick utt, an associated press photographer who rushed kim to a south vietnamese hospital. she spent 14 months recovering in an american hospital in an american hospital in saigon. she had 17 operations in that hospital. we dropped napalm on her and then we saved her life. and yes, in the madness of war there is in that story some moral sa peer -- sue -- superiority. kim says this. we invented napalm. and we have used more of it than

any one else in the world. i pointed out last week that we also have an unholy history with sarin gas and helped supply saddam hussein with necessary ingredient he could use it against his own people and iranian soldiers. in his column today, conservative george will quoted the same passage that we quoted here last week. about american officials knowing that saddam was going to use sarin. george will did not find room in his column today to mention that that happened under president ronald reagan. but he acknowledges that that history weakens our current claim to have always stood on the right side of the red line on chemical weapons. tonight, the president asked what would happen if we stood on our side of the red line and allowed assad to get away with using chemical weapons?

>> what kind of world would we live in if the united states of america sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas. and we choose to look the other way? >> it will be the world we have lived in -- since president reagan looked the other way when saddam hussein used chemical weapons. the red line on chemical weapons, suggests there are civilized and uncivilized ways of death in war. war is not civilized. war is the break down of civilization. war making nations need to believe otherwise. they need to believe there are reasonable rules of war. that belief system was strengthened after the vietnam war when the united nations general assembly voted to ban the use of napalm on civilian populations. the united nations took action against napalm because of the way the united states of america used napalm. they were taking an action against an american invented way

of death in war. the world watched those tell -- television reports of use of napalm in vietnam and drew a new red line to prevent what we did from ever happening again. but the united states took 29 embarrassing years to sign the united nations protocol on napalm. the united states finally officially accepted the united nations red line on napalm, january 21, 2009, when the u.n. protocol was finally signed by president barack obama on his first full day in office. it is still perfectly legal under the u.n. protocol to use napalm against military targets including military personnel. now, obviously it is good, good for us to try to make war civilized. but no matter how hard we try,

no matter how many rules we write, no matter how many red lines we draw, we will never succeed in making war civilized and death in war will never be humane. [ male announcer ] when you have sinus pressure and pain, you feel...squeezed. congested. beat down. crushed. as if the weight of the world is resting on your face. but sudafed gives you maximum strength sinus pressure and pain relief. so you feel free. liberated. released. decongested. open for business. [ inhales, exhales ] [ male announcer ] powerful sinus relief from the #1 pharmacist recommended brand. sudafed. open up. side-by-side, so you get the same coverage, often for less. that's one smart board -- what else does it do, reverse gravity? [ laughs ] split atoms?

[ flo chuckles ] [ whirring ] hey, how's that atom-splitting thing going? oh! a smarter way to shop around -- now that's progressive. call or click today. then don't miss sleep train's wbest rest event.st ever? you'll find sleep train's very best mattresses at the guaranteed lowest price. plus, pay no interest for 3 years on beautyrest black, stearns & foster, serta icomfort, even tempur-pedic. and rest even better with sleep train's risk-free 100-day money back guarantee. get your best rest ever from sleep train. superior service, best selection, lowest price, guaranteed. ♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪

the polls are closed in new york city. the primary, democratic primary for new york city mayor, a big lead in first place at this point. christine quinn, running third. bill thompson. running sec on. all the latest numbers for you next.

now, sadly we did not win this time. i don't think a city has ever seen a race, ever seen a campaign, with so many specific idea. we had the best ideas. sadly, i was an imperfect messenger. no one was going to let this campaign quit. it started with my family, who is here today. >> that was imperfect messenger anthony weiner who has come in, right now, with 76% of the vote counted he is running fifth. he is running below what the polls indicated he would get.

the front-runner is bill de blasio, 39.4%. if he gets 40%, this is the end of the contest for the democratic nomination. he will have it. running second is bill thompson. at 26%. running third is christine quinn, at 15.4%. john lou, in at fourth. at fourth with 76% of the vote counted. counted here. he has 7.7%. joining me, hunter walker. reporter for "talking points memo" studiously covering the mayoral race. hunter, thank you very much for joining me tonight. bill de blasio within a hair of closing this up on the democratic nomination. what's your reaction to the numbers so far? >> well i think along the lines of what everybody expected. they're pretty close in, with the last bunch of polls.

bill de blasio saying he always expected a run-off. a close call. on the edge of what he needs to avoid it. it is natural. they would say they're expecting it. they want to keep expectations low. natural that everyone else is saying they're expecting there will be a run-off. because they want to keep themselves alive. so, i think we will see what happens. >> well he has ticked up to 39.5%. you've might be up late counting every one of these, hunter. but of it looks pretty solid in, in terms of the finish here. that bill thompson looks like he is in a position to hold on to the number two spot at 26. >> yeah, i mean the only question is whether or not -- bill de blasio crosses the 40% thing. the one point that is really worth pointing out here -- is that the boe in new york city has the had a history of disputed election results that ended in legal drama, kind of shifting counts, issues, florida-like issues with paper ballots.

we have already seen some indications there were equipment problems at the polls. anthony weiner, and another candidate in the race, unable to vote. so that kind of thing could mean we go to court next week. >> and of course, we have eliot spitzer running for comptroller. and i don't have the numbers in front of me right now. but they're going to whisper them in my ear as we speak here. we have 79% -- for for 79% in. and spitzer is -- for for stringer is at 51.6%. uh-huh. >> i think eliot spitzer. 48.4. there hunter, got to listen into the phone call with the control room. so that's too close to call. that's for sure. >> yeah, that has been a tossup for a while. early polls showed spitzer who has better name recognition with a huge lead. as soon as stringer got his ad up. he really, really closed the gap. i think you see a tossup. spitzer has name recognition.

>> looking good in the poll from the outset. for what i thought was a perfectly reasonable reason. he may very well be the most qualified candidate for that office in the history of new york city. and his problem as the a candidate is his personal history and the reason he had to resign his governorship. what, what has been the die name -- the dynamic of the race? >> well i think eliot spitzer has a reputation as a wall street crusader. what stringer has is the support of the establishment in new york city. he has gotten all of the endorsement in the race. spitzer has been out of the game a while. and nowhere on the field. in a race where there are 3 million registered democrats,

500,000 to 700,000 expected to have voted in the race. only really hard-core, engaged voters turned out. that's the people who are following their local machines and those are the pooh who backed stringer. >> basically the stringer model is playing it safe, playing it traditional. in a campaign which is what it seemed to me that christine quinn campaign was. why didn't that work for her? >> well the difference is stringer had this sort of support across the board. christine quinn was kind of operating in this almost conservative wing of the new york city democratic party, allied with bloomberg. she had some establishment support coming from bloomberg but not across throughout the city elected establishment. >> so in the run-off -- de blasio/thompson run-off. what's the schedule for that? >> that would happen on october 1st. in the next couple days, if it is close enough to 40% we'll be looking at paper ballots and seeing if there are challenges.

>> yeah, looks like we'll be looking at paper ballots. 39.4%. new york city race. we're going to be on this for a while. hunter walker, thank you very good wednesday morning. right now on "first look," on this, the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, tensions run high around the world as president obama lays out his plan for syria in cooperation with russia. signs of 2016, hillary clinton with jeb bush and both keenly focused on iowa and new hampshire. outrageous. did the florida attorney general delay a death row inmate's execution because of a political fund-raiser? plus, oprah winfry on why balloons frighten the heck out of her. the steamy video heating up the internet. and a one-way ticket to mars. thousands have applied. good