to these children. and social science has proven that. and unless we stop that, continued harm will continue. and that's unfortunate for the kids. >> thank you, ray. >> thank you. >> chris hayes is up next. the mystery returns. let's play "hardball." >> good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. it's not over. i pick up the newspaper this morning thinking the mystery of flight 370 is dead and it comes screaming back to life again. somebody, some human being did something here. all this talk yesterday about some catastrophic event on the plane that tore it into radio silence, that switched off all communications with the ground and killed everyone on board doesn't fit with the fact. right there on the front page of today's "new york times," that

that plane was put by someone on a brand-new course. not some jerky turn, but on to a totally new course that took it down on its death heading into the south indian ocean. tom costello is an nbc news correspondent that has been on this story from the get-go. and alan diehl a former crash investigator for the air force, ntsb and faa. he is the author of "air safety investigations: using science to save lives one crash at a time." tom, you and i talk all the time about this kind of thing. i thought we had reached some kind of closure yesterday, not just that it went into the deep and everybody was lost, and that's the end of the story, but it looked like it was a catastrophic event of some kind that explained everything. all the systems went out. everybody blacks out. the plane became a zombie plane. enough said. i look at the "new york times" today and whoa, somebody made a decision or at some point early on in this to divert the course. >> yeah. i think that's right now without

question. all the evidence suggests somebody did this on purpose. before we get to the video screen, here is what you're talking about, chris. this is showing the course for this plane. it originally was headed up the spine of vietnam towards beijing. it made a u-turn. if it had only made a u-turn, then yes, we believe it had a catastrophic issue and perhaps the pilot was trying to come back. everybody is incapacitated and the flight suddenly goes on and on and on forever. it didn't just make a u-turn, though. it turns up the strait of malacca, and then it comes down, and all the way down here into what they're now searching in the search zone. and here is the other important piece of evidence. let's roll this animation. this is what they've been looking at in terms of the satellite pings from 22,000 miles up. they've been plotting based on these faint pings where this plane hit. what was the trajectory. look at that. there are two different paths. and as you can see, they believe it heads down towards the south indian ocean. and here is the last important piece of this equation now.

what they're trying to do is say based on the speed it was traveling at, where would it be? if it traveled 460 miles per hour, they think the plane may be over here. if the plane was traveling faster than that, 500, they think it could be over here. why is that relevant? this is hundreds, maybe even thousands of miles of difference. the search zone now, chris, is about the size of alaska. 600,000 square miles. finding a wreckage in here somewhere is going to be very difficult. >> well, let's get back to the question of when that program was set for the different flight direction, the different course. do you believe it was set before the first officer signed off and said good night, or it was done afterwards, in other words, in the midst of a catastrophe? >> the malaysians contradicted information. they believe somebody preprogrammed into the flight management system the u-turn.

we now are told by the malaysians that's not true. that data is not there. >> okay. that. >> this plane was not preprogrammed. but clearly somebody did program in and make these turns. that's irrefutable. >> let me go to mr. diehl. you're thinking of this. was this a malfunction or was this a man made problem here or a combination of the two, if that's possible? >> well, chris, obviously i think both scenarios are on the table. it looked like a couple of left turns. i didn't see tom's graphic. the initial left turn, that could be explained by some minor problem in the cockpit, maybe fumes, whatever. we've seen this before on other accidents. and then all of the sudden things get out of control, and the pilots are incapacitated. we know this can happen. also, we also are aware it could be a bomb in the cockpit. it could be hijackers. there is nothing really that has been eliminated. that second u-turn down towards the south indian ocean could well be somebody else aboard.

it could be injured pilots not knowing where they are right now. and, of course, it could be like what happened in 2005 when a flight attendant went to the cockpit. this was a low decompression in a 737. it was a male flight attendant. he put on the oxygen mask and tried to fly the airplane. he did until it ran out of gas. everything is still on the table, chris. >> back to you tom there is always the question was anybody piloting that plane for seven hours or was it on automatic? people are giving different views. if you have a mask on, you can survive for 35 minutes we're told last night. could there have been a pilot -- and then it goes back to the question why was there no radio transmission at all to the base, to anybody on earth? >> no radio transmission, no acars data transmission, no transponder information, all of that went blank. and investigators do believe this plane was flying on autopilot, at least all the way down here. why do they believe that?

because they believe that the speed was consistent, the heading was consistent, and the altitude was consistent. and so when you put all that together, that suggests autopilot. so did we have a scenario where the people in the cockpit are dead are, incapacitated? did something catastrophic happen and they're unable to perform their functions? most investigators now think it's unlikely that somebody wasn't doing this on purpose. why? we have no idea. and investigators are now trying to really get into the backgrounds for both the pilot and the copilot. was there any possible motive for either one of these two guys to have acted this way? we don't know. >> just to get through your negative there's, in other words, it's likely, it's likely that somebody was flying that plane all the way down? >> somebody made a decision to execute the turns that caused this plane to go all the way down south. now they're going have to find the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder somewhere 23,000 miles down in the water. and the trouble is the pinger,

as you know, we only have about ten days left of battery life on it. and the cockpit voice recorder won't hold any of the clues here because that's already been erased. the flight data recorder may tell us what happened. risks we going to be involved in that, the united states in the end? are we part of the end game here? >> we have a p-8 anti-submarine hunter aircraft out there right now. but i think this is really going to end up being an australian operation, a malaysian operation. and the chinese are heavily invested. if you look at who was willing to spend the money and time and put the equipment in for a month or year's long operation, i think it will end up being the chinese. >> thank you tom costello, my colleague. thank you, alan diehl. the court heard arguments today against the rights of employees. at the center of it, birth control. plus, an issue of economic interest especially to women, minimum wage. two democratic senators both are making a pitch for higher minimum wage.

not only will this help women who are disproportionately poor, they argue, but it's also meant to get democrats to vote in a scary election year. and many are commenting on rand paul's anti-spying declaration to make him a hero with hipsters out there. he is rick santorum's brother on issues like same-sex marriage. finally, let me finish tonight with why young people will always be attracted to a barry goldwater or a rand paul. it's about youth and the war of pure freedom. this is "hardball," the place for politics. 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. well, the obama administration is turning the tables on the tea party. take a look at this new bumper sticker aimed at promoting the new health care law. don't tread on my obamacare. that's what the flag reads there. it's being handed out by organizing for action on barackobama.com. it's a takeoff of the old gadsden flag in south carolina, the don't tread on me ban

they're in recent years has been adopted for the tea party. actually, it should for everybody. it's very american, that snake. and we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." rights. my right, your rights whom. decides that what you're demanding is stomping on my liberties? the answer is the supreme court. today it took up some familiar if tricky territory, religious beliefs versus the rights of the government to provide all categories of health care, in this case to women. i'm sure everyone watching right now has a position that matters to them. yes, with some cases there will be a conflict here landing straight in your face. nbc news justice correspondent pete williams joins us from the supreme court. the fundamental issue before the supreme court today, whether for-profit companies can object on religious grounds to parts of the president's health care law that require employers to offer health insurance that covers certain forms of birth control. hobby lobby, which is run by southern baptists say obeying the law would force them to

violate their religious rights, in their words provide insurance that would risk killing an embryo, making them complicit in abortion. as "the washington post" puts it, these companies don't have a problem with offering insurance that covers most forms of birth control, but they aren't willing to cover emergency contraceptives like plan b or ella or iuds. it's historic territory for the court as justice sotomayor pointed out today, we have never before contract considered a for-profit corporation as exercising religion. with the vote split 4-4, it looks like justice kennedy will again be deciding the vote. it was difficult to pin down which side he will ultimately favor. at one point he sided with the liberal judges by saying that he was concerned about the rights of women employees. but he also took aim at the lawyer representing the government. here is what he told that lawyer according to the reporters at scotus blog. quote, under your view,

for-profit corporations could be forced to pay for abortion. your reasoning would permit that. you say that for-profit corporations have no standing to litigate what their shareholders believe. pete, you reported all that today. i guess the question is are we once again watching judge roberts -- well, here he is, basically saying that's exactly what these company thinks they're doing now. chief justice roberts also left open the possibility the court could issue a narrow ruling, one that only applies to small companies. they're going have to confront a whole host of thorny and political issues touching on women's rights and the president's signature piece of religion. it has it all in it, religion, sex, the president, his agenda, everyone. >> yes, except for a couple of things. first of all, the government has to take hobby lobby's religious views as think come. so off the table is any question about the accuracy of how hobby lobby and another company view these contraceptives as agents

of causing abortion. the government concedes that that's their view. the court has to take that as it comes. the questions are does a private for-profit corporation, can it claim religious freedom? the supreme court has never said that they can, but it's never said that they can't. so they may have to answer the question this time. you're right that justice kennedy seemed to be giving aid and comfort to both sides here. so it's a little hard to tell how they're going come out. my guess, as you hinted at, the supreme court may try to find a compromise in a couple of ways. first, they may simply say if you're like hobby lobby, if you're a closely held family-owned business, it's incorporated, but it's clear that you have religious views, then maybe you can claim this exemption so that you couldn't claim it, for example, if you're for want of a better term, comcast, exxon, gm, some big corporation with shareholders that are going to have a variety of different views. but these are companies that don't have publicly traded

stock. so that's one possible option. another one is to give these companies like hobby lobby the same accommodation that the government already gives to religiously affiliated nonprofits, which is to say they themselves don't pay for the insurance coverage for these contraceptives, but the insurance companies do. 10 that may be another possible compromise here. although i must say, chris, that even that is objected to by some religious organizations who say they don't want to have anything to do with this at all. and even tipping their hat to the insurance companies and say you do it, they say that's still part of the process. but it did seem that the court is not going to go as far as the people who brought this case here, we're hoping, which is to say all for-profit companies can claim religious freedoms. >> pete, what about the argument that there has been so many exceptions made to this affordable care act that this is just one more exception. so how can the government argument compelling reason to insist on enforcing it higher? >> that's exactly what the hobby lobby lawyers say. you get an exemption if you're a church, a nonprofit religious organization, if you have fewer 50 employees or if you're grandfathered. what don verrilli, the lawyer for the government emphasize is no, that's actually not the case you. still have to provide this coverage if you provide any health care at all, even if you have fewer than 50 employees. the grandfathered plans, they to p

still have to provide this coverage if you provide any health care at all, even if you have fewer than 50 employees. the grandfathered plans, they may be grandfathered now, but within a few years, they'll have to provide this too. it is a compelling need. preventative care for women, it is important to provide this coverage. >> pete williams, thank you for having you on. thank you so much for the clarification. >> you bet. >> according to reuters, quote, justice elena kagan told hobby lobby lawyer paul clement that if the court granted the challengers an exemption from the health care mandate, a wide swath of other laws from social security to immunization, health coverage would face lawsuits. you would see religious objectors coming out of the woodwork, kagan said.

melinda henneberger joins us and a lawyer representing hobby lobby. thanks as always. >> thanks. >> let me go to your case here. as i understand it so, people understand the nuance here, your client, hobby lobby basically does not want to pay for health insurance that covers things like iuds, which he argues cause abortions because they basically prevent the continuation of life of a fertilized egg? >> that's exactly right, chris. >> it's not about preventing conception. it's about the death, if you will, of a fertilized egg. >> that's exactly right. they do not cover abortion in their plan. that's a long-standing policy. and they also object to covering drugs that they could produce what they consider to be an early abortion, which would be terminating an embryo before implantation. the government has conceded that's these drug can work in that way. the science question is not before the court. the question is if the greens have a sincere religious objection to provide in coverage and facilitating the access to these drugs, then do they have an exemption or can the government impose it? >> your client is a baptist, right? >> yes.

>> so he in terms of making his case is simply saying as a baptist, he doesn't have any particular religious belief separate from his baptist beliefs, basic christian beliefs. in other words, he doesn't claim to be part of some small group of people that have a particular concern about this kind of health care issue. >> no. these are beliefs that i believe are widely shared. >> so any baptist would be eligible for this exemption? >> it would depend upon the individual beliefs of the person. so there are i'm sure many southern baptists who share the greens' beliefs and also would object. maybe some that are not. but it would depend on the individual person who is bringing a claim. >> melinda, this is fascinating material here. it's not against all birth control. >> right. >> it's not a all or nothing.

it's nuanced concern about abortion. you and i know the issue and the moral question there. this case, where do you see it going? where do you think it should go? >> well, i do think it is really complicated. i do not agree with those on either side who say it's obvious. however, i don't understand how you could give some kind of blanket designation to businesses that are for profit becoming, you know, being regarded as people with religious views. i mean, if you did that, i really do think it's important to see where would you draw the line, even if you only limited it as pete was saying earlier to mom and pop, to very small organizations. i could have a religious argument that i don't believe in child labor laws. i don't believe in vaccination. i don't believe in paying social security, whatever it is, i just don't know how that would be sort of narrowly tailored. and i don't understand how since a corporation is really a legal fiction designed to protect the people who design the company from liability if the

corporation is sued. so if you say -- >> let me go -- the two questions here. does a corporation or a company have a soul? it's not a person. how does it have a moral reality? in other words, what is a baptist company? >> i think the question here is what are you looking at? >> no, what is a moral company? >> this is owned by i'm who do have souls have, sincere religious beliefs and whose beliefs are being violated. i don't think it's right to say hey you have religious beliefs. and then when you incorporate, those go away and you don't have religious rights anymore. >> but it is in the charter of the company that it's focused on christian values or baptist values? >> it is in the company's mission statement. and the green family has always said we operate this company according to our biblical beliefs. that's something they're very serious about. they close on sundays. they provide their employees nearly double minimum wage because that's the right thing to do. >> what other objections do they have to abortion, which i completely understand. what other objections? same-sex marriage? do they have a position on that? >> they hire and serve people without regard to their sexual orientation. so it's not a concern for them.

>> even though it violate theirs religious belief? >> that's not something they're concerned with. >> it does violate their religious belief. they decide when the affront is to them? >> i think you to look at the issue of complicity. here the government is telling them that they have to participate in providing something that could terminate a human life. and they're saying we can't be complicit in that. they said all along, our employers can have access to these drugs. they can use them. they can make their personal decisions. we just want to be left out of those decisions. so the same thing could be true of other issues. the greens are simply saying leave us out of it, government. >> i guess the reference two question. one is to the complexity and one is the question of standing. where are you? you think the standing is the hard one, that a company can't -- you question whether a company can claim to be a religious entity. >> i think they're both important. i don't think that a company can claim to be a religious entity because say the court said as mr. clement said today, contraception is a very sensitive issue. if we then say somebody else's deeply held religious belief, if we equate the person with the corporation they're connected

to, if that's not a sensitive issue, then are we favoring one religion over another? i think the establishment clause says we can't do that. i really do think there are enormous slippery slope issues here. and i don't understand how you can -- the court can make those kind of decisions without favoring one religion over another. >> i mean, one concern be that -- there is always a health matter with reproduction, of course. it's a health issue. but woman who is determined because of her health situation, i can not have another child. and the iud, for example, a lot more -- a lot more effective nan condoms or pills. so she may just say i cannot risk another pregnancy. what happens in that case? >> well, this is what the government has said.

but the problem is the government has already exempted tens of millions of employer plans from this requirement. and in those cases, the government isn't saying oh, no, what do we do? all these women are on plans that don't have to comply. i don't see how the government can exempt tens of millions of

you have time to shop for car insurance today? yeah. i heard about progressive's "name your price" tool? i guess you can tell them how much you want to pay and it gives you a range of options to choose from. huh? i'm looking at it right now. oh, yeah? yeah. what's the... guest room situation? the "name your price" tool, making the world a little more progressive.

back to "hardball." and time for the sideshow. conservative candidates for office have long decried pork barrel spending is a symptom of big government run amok. as a candidate for the united states senate from iowa, republican joni ernst is doing the same. but you won't imagine what she sites as the her main qualification as senator. here is part of her latest ad. >> i'm joni ernst. i grew up castrating hogs on an iowa farm. so when i get to washington, i'll know how to cut pork. >> joni ernst, mother, sold soldier. >> i'm joni ernst, and i approve this message. because washington is full of big spenders. let's make them squeal. >> wow, the hog castrater. up next, president obama's nomination for surgeon general, speaking of which is being held

up by all things the national rifle association. never mind that the post has been vacant since last july. he is for gun safety. sheer jon stewart on that one last night. >> so what were dr. murphy's comments about guns? >> in your tweets of october 16, 2012, tired of politicians who are scared of the nra. those are some of the words. and i would hope you would know that americans have a first amendment right to advocate the second amendment. >> yes. americans have the first amendment right to advocate for the second amendment. and apparently you don't have a first amendment right to have a different opinion from that. everyone knows the first amendment only applies to saying positive things about the second amendment. that's all. but even he was anti-gun, he is the surgeon general. the worst he could do is put a warning label on bullets. that's not going to do anything. up next, rand paul is getting lots of attention as the one republican who might just attract younger voters.

but paul's position on social issues like same-sex marriage puts him well outside the hipster crowd. that's next. he is fascinating. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. 

you may be a republican or a democrat or a libertarian. i'm not here to tell you what to be. i am here to tell you, though, that your rights, especially your right to privacy is under assault. i'm here to tell you that if you own a cell phone, you're under surveillance. i believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their damn business. >> none of their damn business there is an applause line. welcome back to "hardball" that was kentucky senator rand paul, of course, speaking to students at the university of california at berkeley just last week, a college with a big liberal reputation where republicans rarely venture. anyway, paul who i believe is the likely 2016 republican nominee is trying to broaden his appeal by seeking common ground with the younger folks out there, the millennials. in some cases, the hipsters, arguing that the gop needs to evolve, adapt or die.

the kentucky senator is trying to attract millennials to his party and serve as their champion of privacy rights heading into 2016. michael tomasky of the daily beast says not so fast. i love the name of that thing. the likely gop presidential candidate has anti-surveillance state libertarianism in common with millennials, but that's about all. according to a poll, 69% of millennials support the legalization of marijuana. best big surprise. 68% support gay marriage. 68% support abortion in almost all cases. and 54% of millennials say it's the government's responsibility to provide health care to all. and rand paul is opposed to all of the above, except for his concern about libertarianism and stopping the nsa. michael tomasky is a special correspondent for the daily beast, and michael steele is an msnbc political analyst and former chair of the republican national committee. you can talk about how big this tent can be. i think the guy's got -- somebody said his kentucky accent has kind of a stoner

quality. >> right. >> and just sort of the vague, casual way he talks, almost lazy way he talks makes one people think hey, he is one of us. he is against big brother. that. >> could be. he is a shrewd politician. i would agree your assertion at this point. what does that mean at this early point. there. >> are so many dodo runs running against him hi, see strong. he is clever. he is a smart guy. but i think he has that one issue going for him. but on virtually every other issue, michael, virtually every other issue, young people disagree with him. it's not just the cultural stuff, chris. young people are pretty much big government liberals as that health care statistic shows. >> as long as it doesn't tie you down to wearing a helmet on a motorcycle. they don't like being told what to wear. i completely get the appeal. hillary clinton was like me. by the time i was 21, i was thinking how complicated life. but at 18, this guy says get big government off your back. you got the wait for your

parents. you don't have to put up with your parents. why do you put up with government anymore? it's a great allure. >> i think that's right. but realize, it's not just that he was at berkeley, he was also at howard university. and the fact of the matter he is talking to that 18 to 22-year-old crowd. but that conversation is resonating beyond the 22-year-olds to the 23 to 27 to 30-year-olds as well. >> what is the message? >> the message is really one about your independence, about you taking control and making choices. i think the test for a rand paul is going to be how does he translate that vis-a-vis other policies that we have articulated whether there are some issues of life, some issues of marriage, and how does he triangulate that. i think he is setting a baseline for a longer and much more deep conversation if he decides to run for president. >> people have to prioritize when they vote. on campus, check me on this, they don't think abortion is going to be outlawed. they don't think same sex is not going to be the wave of the future. one thing they're worried is about big government coming.

my cell phone is the only private life i've got if i'm a young person. i don't own a car or a house or an apartment. all i have a dorm room and cell phone. and they're getting into me and i don't like it. isn't that the appeal of the guy? >> that's totally the appeal of the guy. that the salient issue? >> i'm asking. >> it is. >> what is the hottest issue? sex, getting a meal on the table and getting through exams. >> i think if you look at the research, the research doesn't show -- >> it may not be sex actually at a lot of schools. >> the research doesn't show it. >> so what is the number one issue? >> same-sex marriage is way up there. immigration is way up there. >> be worried about it? >> yeah, they're worried about it. >> sure. >> but michael, are you basing that on the fact that 63% say they support same-sex marriage, or is there a poll that shows in ranking, what is your top priority? i would bet you if you asked a 22-year-old or an 18-year-old that question, nsa surveillance of their private phone conversations would rank number one, not the same sex message.

>> it's up there, but not necessarily the runaway issue. >> the people on the other side, whether they be ted cruz from the right or the hard right, or somebody from the moderate republican side, maybe somebody a little more to the center like kasich, whoever else runs are, they going to call him on that? what are they going to say in you're as bad as i am on the other issues? they're all anti-same sex, they're all anti-abortion. they're all conservatives. would hillary do it if she is the nominee? >> of course hillary is going to do it if she is the nominee. >> but you know what he'll say to her, hillary clinton, when you were young, you saw the appeal of this stuff. >> so then i grew up and i got a little smarter. and barry goldwater's campaign didn't work out very well. >> she has been saying to those young people you're immature, you don't know what you know. >> can you say that? >> and hillary clinton is not going to say that she is going to be in as much as a box as rand paul if she goes down that road. >> you say senator paul will be unable to hide from his right wing views. all paul's deeply reactionary positions and statements likewise will be minimized because he takes one or two interesting positions that make him a different kind of republican. paul will try to make millennials forget about all those reactionary positions of his. the press will likely help him, but clinton will remind him. the gop base will demand it and

the jig will be up. millennials who according to pew research, also america's most racially diverse generation probably won't react warmly to rand paul when reminded about how he felt about the civil rights act airing on tv clips like this. >> would you have voted for the civil rights act of 1964? >> i like the civil rights act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains. and i'm all in favor of that. >> but? >> you had to ask me the but. i don't like the idea of telling private business owners i abhor

racism. i think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. but at the same time i do believe in private ownership. >> that's a tough but, isn't it? >> it's a tough but. and again, it is a traditional libertarian position with respect to an individual decision privately made and privately held. >> it's a nice theory. >> it's a nice theory. but the country has evolved, thank god. and fortunately, i think that this senator will likely do the same. it will be interesting. i saw the first test of that at howard university where he got the pushback and he stood in the well and he took it. and he helped -- at least he tried to explain some of it. and i think this is going to be the nub for him. >> and how many of those kids are going to vote for him? >> you don't know that. i'm not going to make a vote because they're black students that they're going to not vote for him because of that. >> it's a healthy argument. michael tomasky, good writing. but the argument is going to help this country. the nor we argue about civil liberties in this country, the better this country is going to

be. i want to fight about them. michael tomasky, my liberal friend and michael steele, my conservative friend. this is "hardball," the place for politics. you've tried to forget your hepatitis c. it's slow moving, you tell yourself. i have time. after all there may be no symptoms for years. no wonder you try to push it to the back of your mind and forget it. but here's something you shouldn't forget. hepatitis c is a serious disease. if left untreated, it could lead to liver damage and potentially even liver cancer. if you are one of the millions of people with hepatitis c, you haven't been forgotten. there's never been a better time to rethink your hep c. because people like you may benefit from scientific advances. advances that could help you

move on from hep c. now is the time to rethink hep c and talk to your doctor. visit hepchope.com to find out about treatment options. and register for a personalized guide to help you prepare for a conversation with your doctor. u.s. congressman bruce braley's senate campaign in iowa hit a rough patch when a video emerged showing him demeaning his state senior senator, chuck grassley. let's watch.

>> if you help me win this race, you may have someone with your background, your experience, your voice, someone whose been literally fighting tort reform for 30 years in a visible and public way on the senate judiciary committee, or you might have a farmer from iowa who never went to law school, never practiced law serving as the next chair of the senate judiciary committee. >> well, braley, the democrat in the race apologized late today for that farmer comment saying both his parents grew up on iowa pharmacy during the great depression, and he is the best candidate for iowa's farmers. anyway, the video was posted online by a republican opposition research firm. "hardball" back after this.

and when women hold most lower wage jobs in america, congress needs to raise the minimum wage, because no woman who works full-time should ever have to raise her children in poverty. so call up your member of congress and let them know that it's time for $10.10. it's time to give america a raise. a true opportunity agenda is one that works for working women. because when women succeed, america succeeds. >> welcome back to "hardball." president obama's been out front on raising the minimum wage as you just saw there to $10.10 an hour, an issue has not just good for the working class if you will and the economy generally you could argue, but one that could be a needed political boost for the president this fall, by the way, his arsenal of issues hasn't exactly been big lately. our nbc/"wall street journal" poll saw a lot of support for raising minimum wage to $10.10. 63% favored it.

among women, it's more popular. 68% of women. if you narrow the demographic to women ages 18 to 49, most affected, it's extremely popular. 73%. three quarters of young women support the boost. the kind of voters out there democrats need to turn out in november, of course. our most recent nbc poll asked which characteristics democrats value most in their candidates. this is the one i like. number one, ability to compromise and work with members of the other party. also a close second right here on this one, a huge 81% is the candidate who supports raising the minimum wage. that's four out of five there. this is a winning issue, a big one for democrats. today senator amy klobuchar of minnesota held a press conference on the importance of doing it, raising the minimum wage for women especially in the economy in general. senator klobuchar is the head of the joint economic committee of congress and co-sponsor of the senate bill to raise the minimum wage. stephanie rawlings-blake, the mayor of baltimore, maryland.

i guess this issue amazes me all the time because of the number of people it affects. senator klobuchar, talk about how it doesn't just effect people at the very bottom, a bit higher, and people who work for tips which is a lot of women, generally women. >> exactly, chris. this is a big deal for our whole economy, but particularly women. 2/3 of minimum wage workers are women. most of the people, majority of the people who work in the service industry, who make tips for a living are women. and you have a situation which as you pointed out it doesn't just effect minimum wage workers. if we can increase the minimum wage which we haven't done for years, this could mean conservative estimates, over 16 million people would get a raise. when you have a situation where it's getting harder and harder to send your kids to college or the waitress with us today from texas who talked about the fact she has to raise her 3-year-old kid on $2,000 to $3,000 a month,

about the fact she has to live on a $2.13 per hour minimum wage, when some nights she gets a rare tip, some nights are better, some nights are bad. this is a big issue in america and big issue for our economy and it's time to move ahead. >> how are the labor unions? you know, back when we were growing up, i'm older than you, they used to have labor rallies. come out for things like civil rights and showed up in washington by the hundreds of thousands. we have a right-to-life rally. good for them every year. i don't see a rally for minimum wage. where the hell are the unions? you're doing this. where's the noise level, senator? i don't see it. i don't hear it. >> chris, i think that noise level is just starting. you see the president coming out -- >> when are we going to have the unions come to town and make some noise? when are they going to do it? >> they make noise in my state. richard trumka was coming, he got stopped by a snowstorm unfortunately. he's going to come again on minimum wage.

the unions are out there. this is a big issue to them. they get it. mostly we've got to move some of the republicans on this. i would point out the last time we increased the minimum wage in this country was around a republican president. it was under george bush. >> i know. >> there's no reason they can't work with us to get this minimum wage increase. we're going to start that noise and start pushing on this next week in the united states senate on the floor and you'll see a vote. >> mayor, thank you for joining us. i'm going back to my old saw here. noise, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. noise matters. i don't hear the noise. senator klobuchar, debbie stabenow and other women in the senate, yourself, you're here tonight. it's numbers that matter. number, numbers, numbers. i don't see the roar in the streets for something that seems to me an easy one for democrats, for progressives, for women, which is raise the minimum wage. your thoughts? >> my thoughts are, a lot of the times you might not hear the noise, but it's what people are talking about. these are meat and potatoes issues and it's something that women care about. you know that you talked about the number of people across the country who support the minimum wage.

you also know that 60% of the women, 60% of the households, women-led households are either primary winners or co-winners, co-you know, making the money for the families. when we increase a minimum wage, we're helping them help their families. so i don't think it's that -- it is something that people don't care about. they might not be as vocal. it is something i know people care about in maryland a lot. we've had rallies. unions have been here in maryland. so this is something that is -- we're hearing the noise. >> i'm here in washington. i don't see nothing. i don't see anything. nothing. >> you also don't -- >> nothing. >> you also don't see -- >> i'm pushing on you ladies because i saw the civil rights movement. i saw the hundreds of thousands -- i saw the anti-war movement. i was part of that. people showed up, made noise. pushed the congress to do what they wanted to. progressives are sitting on their butts. i'm sorry. i hear from ed schultz, yeah, yeah, yeah, are the numbers? >> the republican party voted 50 times to repeal obamacare and can't get off their you-know-whats to give this issue. >> because they don't support it.

>> that is critical to everyone. >> mayor, they oppose it. you guys are for it. i'm asking where are the fors out there? why aren't you making the case with the public? look at these numbers. >> it's not making the case. the public is on our side. we don't need to make the case. >> that's why we're on your show today. >> okay. where's the heat? >> we're on your show today to make the case. >> senator, i don't want to attack the ones who show up, but you're shows up -- okay. >> we're going to be saying -- thank you. >> which unions are making the most noise? who's out there making the biggest case for minimum wage increase? who? give me some names. >> afscme has been a big supporter. >> let me talk about this from a human term, first senator klobuchar. who's out there? i was stunning by this, restaurant workers, because they assume you get tips although you don't always get tips. people get stiffed, of course. $2.13 an our for a waitress, a wait person. that assumes i guess you make $5 in tips to get you up to the $7 level. when we go to a five guys or burger king, i'll start with the mayor on this, because you're

close to the people in the city there. who is minimum wage in our face? who do we see every day that's working for minimum wage? >> oh my goodness, you have food workers, you have personal care workers. i mean, we heard testimony from a woman who works in home care taking care of the sick who had to choose between whether she was going to eat one day or her children were going to eat. these are people who are working hard. the productivity of the american worker has gone up year after year after year. the thing that hasn't caught up is the wages. and we deserve better. we have to have a country where the american dream means something to everybody. >> thank you, senator amy klobuchar of minnesota, mayor stephanie rawlings-blake of baltimore, maryland. and we'll be right back. [ giggles ] again! [ mom ] when we're having this much fun, why quit? and new bounty has no quit in it either. it's 2x more absorbent than the leading ordinary brand, and then stays strong, so you can use less. watch how one sheet of new bounty keeps working,

while their two sheets just quit. [ bubbles, baby giggling ] again! [ mom ] why use more, when you can use less. new bounty. the no-quit picker-upper.

your all-access pass to full seasons of tv's hottest shows for free with xfinity on demand. it's the perfect week to work from home. so replace your doorbell with a hornet's nest. there's no time for disturbances. ♪ or take a 7-day lunch hour.

romance! action! other shouty words. there's watching. then there's watchathoning. boom. starts march 31st. ♪ let me finish tonight with this. i totally get the appeal of libertarianism. when i was in college, i was out there rooting for barry goldwater. he was the true believer in the best government being the least government. let me live my life in freedom, stay off my back, don't tell me how to live. well, let's face it. this is precisely what you want to hear in those years when you are finally out of the house. when you are no longer ruled daily by strong parents. you can feel the freedom when you go out at night. you can feel the freedom of the morning, noon and night when you're away at college. away being the key word there, of course. why would anyone want a nagging, demanding paperwork insisting government hanging over your head back in your youth? why would any person if they had a choice choose to have a big government telling them how to live, snooping into their cell

phone, judging what information is useful to some guy in washington? some morsel of economic or cultural social fact about you that can be consumed in the general bank of public information? look, even back in the 1960s when we didn't know about such things as the nsa, we never heard of edward snowden, we wanted to be free. the problem came when we realized government is not only necessary, but good. you get old, social security is a pretty good idea. keeps people from being dependent on their kids, on public welfare. the civil rights, i guess it tells businesspeople they can't discriminate whether they want to or not but think about it. could we really persist in a society where gas station owners could tell a black family they couldn't use the restroom? i used to see those signs when we drove down to florida on spring break. yes, white-only signs were there for everyone to see. a moral embarrassment to everyone. northerner, southerner, white, and black. so we grow up and we put away the things of the child. the charming libertarianism that grabs us in our youth. look, even hillary clinton was a goldwater girl.

but it doesn't hurt a bit to have people around like rand paul these days reminding us of that ideal, perfect ideal of freedom we hungered for as youth. the urge for liberty is as american as apple pie and it can taste just as good. and 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. just how much can a corporation get away with? that's the question everyone is asking from detroit to washington, d.c., today. a blockbuster report in "the new york times" today reveals that general motors knew about potentially fatal defects in the vehicles they were selling for almost five years before they pulled them off the road. the question now is, how did this happen? >> after all, something went wrong with our process in this instance. ante