jimmy carter says never bomb iran. let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm chris matthews in new york. let me start tonight with major headlines from my interview this afternoon with president carter. he made some big news, that the united states should not attack iran, even if it builds a nuclear weapon. it says israel has 300 nuclear bombs and iran would not use -- other headlines, the israeli prime minister deliberated created a stumbling block in the way of middle east peace by demanding countries recognize israel as a jewish state.

he said no arab state would ever agree to such a deal. the former president said the only way to get a deal between israel and the palestinians is if president obama himself, not secretary kerry, to present an american plan for peace and call out israel or the palestinians for refusing to accept it. on u.s. domestic policy, he didn't endorse hillary clinton for president, but said if she did become president, we'd have someone in the white house to fight fervently. before we talked, mr. president, that i watched you, you were at the front of the theater the other night in washington when they had a great play about your championing the cause of peace between israel and egypt in '78 when you brought up the first ever enduring peace between an arab country and israel. what about today when you watch john kerry, secretary of state over there, having a very difficult time with netanyahu and abbas, what is going on, do

you think israel is pushing too hard to be recognized, quote, jewish state, is that just something that's something the arabs can't agree to? what's your thinking? >> i don't think that any arab country can agree to that, and this is something, as you know, that's been resurrected, resurrected just recently, first by netanyahu. this never was an issue when i was in office and trying to negotiate peace, and i think that john kerry has done a heroic job in trying to bring about an end to the violence between israelis and palestinians. i hope he's successful. i think he needs more help, overt help and dynamic help from the white house. i don't think we'll have ever a peace agreement there unless the president of the united states is the leading character of mediating between the two. >> meaning we, the united states. does the president of the united states, as you did in camp david, do you have to put the paper on the table and say, this

is the american plan, is this the way you have to go to get something done? >> i think so. it's better to do it in private like i did, but if it is a breakdown in this present effort, and i hope it won't be a breakdown, then i would like to see john kerry or preferably president obama put down on the table for the world to see, these are the proposals that america made and has raised and the palestinians rejected them and they should be the foundation for the resumption of effort in the future. >> well, again back to netanyahu, do you believe his putting on the table this requirement that all arab countries recognize israel, not just as an independent sovereign state that has a right to exist, but has a right to exist, quote, as a jewish state. do you think he knew that would be the ultimate stumbling block this time around? >> i don't know what he knew, but i happen to have been in israel when he made that statement for the first time, by the way, after president obama made a very wonderful statement in cairo that no more settlements would be permitted,

and at the time i felt this was an issue netanyahu raised to make insurmountable stumbling block for the arab countries, yes. >> dick cheney spoke at sheldon adelson republican jewish coalition event in las vegas, which i thought was rather an embarrassing event for these people and mother jones received an audio of that speech. it's hard to hear, but dick cheney seems to speak approvingly of bombing iran's nuclear program. here's how cheney recalled that conversation. [ inaudible ] >> what do you make of him sort of fondly recounting the idea that israel is hawkish enough to bomb iran and what's your general view of what would cause you ever to support such a measure.

would you support bombing iran or would you say we can contain them even if they get a weapon? >> well, i never have felt that israel had a capability militarily to go 1200 miles or more and bomb iran effectively and in return back to israel. the only country on earth that has that capability would be the united states, and i don't believe it's appropriate for the united states to bomb iran over this issue, no. >> even if they have a nuclear weapon? >> well, you know, they got one nuclear weapon, israel has, what, 300 or more, nobody knows exactly how many, and i know that every iranian realizes that if they should try to use a nuclear weapon, iran would be wiped off the face of the earth, which i think is so ridiculous a self destructive decision that they would not do it. >> with me now is david corn, washington bureau chief of mother jones magazine and msnbc political analyst.

lots of news there. let's talk about this middle east. the basic statement you can't get peace between the arabs and the israelis unless the americans are out front, lead from the front, they put something on the table and call out either side, i think he mentioned the palestinians, but either side if they say they are not going to go along with it. we have to be the leaders, what do you make of that, because we're not going that route now. >> i understand that perspective, because he got the peace settlement between egypt and israel between being assertive and taking a pushy american role there, but if you look at the oslo courts in 1993, that was actually driven first out the oslo, not out of the white house. bill clinton then blessed it and they had the big signing ceremony here at the white house, and then when bill clinton at the end of his administration tried to put out an men plan and get arafat and at the time barack to agree with it at the very last days of his presidency, that fell apart, so i think, you know, it depends on who you're working with at the

time. if he really thinks netanyahu is sabotaging purposefully the peace process by putting up this new demand that arab nations recognize israel as a jewish nation, it's not going to matter what the americans put forward. if you don't have good faith from either side or even from one side, nothing's going to work out. >> well, let's go to the one, it's like the top ten on letterman, the severe statement, which i think is the big headline, that the united states shouldn't bomb even if we know they've got a weapon or so over there. they actually have a workable nuclear weapon. let's take a look now what the president obama position is, which is very to me starkly different from president carter's, although they are both men of the democratic policy and both men on the left. president obama's views are in stark contrast of the administration. here is the president of the united states in 2012. >> make no mistake, a nuclear-armed iran is not a challenge that can be detained.

it would threaten the elimination of israel, the security of gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. it risks triggering a nuclear arms race in the region and the unraveling of the nonproliferation treaty. that's why a coalition of countries is holding the iranian government accountable, and that's why the united states will do what we must to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. >> prevent nuclear weapon. here's john kerry, the secretary of state, echoing the president just last month at an aipac conference. let's watch secretary kerry on the same point, making the same point. >> let me sum up president obama's policy in ten simple, clear words, unequivocal. we will not permit iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, period. >> so david, how's the deterrence argument going to go over that you can let them have

a few, or one at least, and deal with that because of common sense would say don't go to war with israel, which has at least, as president carter said, 300. i think they may have even more. what do you make of that argument? our administration rejects today that deterrence would be safe enough. >> the democrats and the republicans, i think, both run a little bit scared of the hawks who favor, you know, a stronger assertive policy on this. they don't want to be accused of selling out israel if they are not as strong on iran as some would like. the interesting thing on this, chris, if you go back a couple of years, a great israeli newspaper quoted the israeli chief of massad saying if iran gets a nuclear weapon, it's not an existential threat to israel. he wasn't happy about it. >> isn't it great in israel? you've been over there and i've been over there, you can actually have free speech over there on these topics, you can have different opinions.

>> i get the sense here people are more catholic than the pope. they have to be more hawkish than even the massad chief of israel, and there's very little political space for barack obama or john kerry to say, you know, we can do everything imaginable, everything possible, to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but if they do get a nuclear weapon, we'll have to figure out how to deal with that best at the time. that would not be good enough for most people here and they'd be lambasted for being weak and dovish and so i understand why they use that rhetoric. the problem is, when you use that rhetoric, sometimes it boxes you into a corner and you're left with no good choices. >> well said. more now from my interview with president carter when i asked him about hillary clinton. let's watch carter on that topic. >> let me ask you about hillary clinton. have we reached a point, i know you've written a book about women's rights and how you have to square with different religions like islam and how you're championing the cause

here of equal rights for women, true equal rights. is this one of those ideas like civil rights in the '60s and ideas time has come. has a woman president, has that time arrived? obviously talking about secretary clinton here. >> well, i think it's always been here. we should have considered a long time ago that women were -- eighth in the entire world in total number of women compared to men in holding public office, and, of course, we've had other countries that had women prime ministers and presidents and so forth. i've known a lot of them. some of them were champions of women's rights and some avoided the issue because they didn't want to get involved in it. i'm not taking position on a particular election, but showing america lags behind in women holding public office and women getting equal pay, and we have

horrendous slavery in this country, it's estimated 100,000 girls were sold into sexual slavery last year in the united states, and we know rampant on college campuses is sexual assault, with only one out of 25 cases of sexual assault on a college campus reported to the authorities. so those are the kind of things that bother me most about american life and how we can be leaders in a world in promoting women's rights equally. >> well, what do you think would be good about having hillary clinton president? it seems to me you might have an opinion, just like having the first african-american president, what would be the emblematic value of having hillary as president in terms of respect for women? >> i don't think there's any doubt that having president obama in office has elevated the awareness of inequality of treatment between the races, and i imagine that hillary clinton would be fervent as a president

if she's elected in promoting the equal rights of women. i would like to see personally the equal rights amendment to the constitution passed. back in the days when gerald ford and i were in the white house, we had two-thirds of the senate and two-thirds of the house approve an amendment to make equal rights amendment mandatory but couldn't get three-fourths of the state to ratify it. >> president carter's new book, which is near the top of "the new york times" best sellers list, "a call to action." david corn, that wasn't an endorsement of hillary clinton, it was a generic commentary. what did you think? >> you gave him a chance to talk about hillary clinton, and instead he talked about, quite admirably, sexual enslavement, sexual assault on campuses, and bringing back the equal rights amendment, which was very prominent back in the '70s. he really didn't look he was

enthusiastic about hillary clinton per se, he stuck to the issue, and that may be he's a president, he wants to stay out of the political fray, but i think the political animals who watch the show will notice given the chance to embrace the prospect of a hillary clinton presidency warmly, jimmy carter chose not to do so. >> i expected hillary land will notice the sin of omission. thank you, david corn, for your great analogy. i agree with everything you said. we'll have more of my interview with jimmy carter later in the show, including his thoughts on what the bible has to say about women and keeping his virginity, which he talks about right up until getting married. very admirable there. coming up, the right's three obsession on full display, the irs, fast and furious, and benghazi. one top democrat says the right-wing tantrum has the whiff of joe mccarthy. also, chris christie is paying a steep toll because of bridgegate. people in new jersey think the investigation clearing him, his investigation, is a white wash.

plus, there was once talk of john kerry and john mccain running on the same ticket, hard to think about after the two went at it today. finally, can you find ukraine on a map? if so, you'll have fun finding out where most americans think ukraine is. steven colbert certainly had fun with that. this is "hardball," the place this is "hardball," the place for politics. so i'm going pro. [ male announcer ] new crest tartar protection rinse. the only rinse that helps prevent tartar build-up and cavities. a little swishing. less scraping. yes! [ male announcer ] new crest pro-health tartar protection rinse. it helps you escape the scrape. tartar protection rinse. [ 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.

from crest 3d white, new brilliance toothpaste and boost. after brushing, our exclusive boost polishes your smile and whitens with 3x the stain lifting ingredient for a smile that dazzles. new crest 3d white brilliance. more fireworks on capitol hill today. listen to senator john mccain going after secretary of state john kerry yesterday in a foreign relations hearing. >> on the issue of ukraine, my hero, teddy roosevelt, used to say, talk softly, but carry a big stick. what you're doing is talking strongly and carrying a very small stick. in fact, a twig. >> a twig. moments later, kerry hit back with a teddy roosevelt quote of his own. >> your friend teddy roosevelt also said that the credit

belongs to the people who are in the arena who are trying to get things done. and we're trying to get something done. that's a teddy roosevelt nexism, and i abide by it. >> tough talk, and we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball," where the past 24 hours republicans have blared the bugle horn on the irs, benghazi, fast and furious, to the point of near absurdity. first up, the irs, led by darrell issa, republicans will vote tomorrow to hold former irs official lois lerner in contempt. the reason, for exercising her fifth amendment right not to testify in front of the committee. shows these kinds of prosecutions haven't been successful since the mccarthy era, specifically when the house committee on un-american activities was hunting down alleged communists. if that's not thorough enough to illustrate the out of control

tactics these days, here's a clip when issa literally shut down a hearing in a middle of a statement being made by the democratic ranking member, elijah cummings, which issa later apologized for. let's take a look. >> for the past year, the central republican accusation in this investigation -- >> we're adjourned, close it down. >> directed by the white house. before our -- single document. >> thank you. >> i am a member of the congress of the united states of america! i am tired of this! we have members over here, each who represent 700,000 people. you cannot just have a one-sided investigation. there is absolutely something wrong with that, and this is absolutely un-american. >> here, here. >> well, u.s. congressman elijah cummings joins us now, democrat from maryland. thank you for coming on, as always.

what is the pattern of what they are trying to do in the republican house? seems the ways and means committee is going after lois lerner, they keep banging on the door of the irs. do they have anything except accusing them of exercising the fifth amendment rights? what do they have on the people over at the irs? >> you know, i don't know. we've now interviewed some 38 witnesses, gone through 500,000 pages of documents, and it just seems as if they want to continue to put out the headlines and cannot find the facts to back them up. >> how do they make lois lerner, who is, not to use the expression negatively, didn't get appointed as a politician, someone who works in the bowels of an agency, how do they make her into the punching bag, the pinata here?

she doesn't seem like a very interesting villain to me. >> well, you know, as a matter of fact, the i.g., the inspector general, said that lois lerner did not learn about the use of inappropriate terms, chris, until a year after they started it. started using them at irs. i think basically what the republicans are trying to do is drag out this whole episode straight through the 2014 elections and then perhaps even beyond that. keep in mind that chairman issa had an opportunity to hear from ms. lerner. as a matter of fact, her lawyer back in march asked for a one-week delay. he was going to bring her in and she was going to talk about, you know, whatever he wanted to talk about, but he denied them that opportunity to come in. so you have to wonder, you know, is this about dragging it on? and tomorrow we'll have a vote, and i expect that they will try

to find her in contempt. >> how are you going to vote, do you know? >> of course i'm going to vote no, because i think that she has a constitutional right not to incriminate herself. i think she did that. she asserted her right, and we have not seen this since the mccarthy era where somebody had asserted their right not to incriminate themselves and then was placed in contempt criminally for asserting their right. that's basically what it boils down to, and we've got 30 experts, both republican and democratic experts, who say that this whole issue has been botched. and so when it goes to the courts, it's going to have a very difficult time once it gets past the house of representatives. >> what's the message here? putting together the focus on the irs, although they have no

pay dirt on that issue, fast and furious down along the border, benghazi, is it that president obama is a tyrant, a huge almost imperial sort of presence in washington running everything, kicking people around? at the same time, it seems to be sending a message of inattentiveness. what is the bad guy here? what cartoon are they constructing? i'm not sure, what do you see them trying to do? >> chris, i think you've said it a lot of times. i've heard you say it. i think what they're trying to do, one thing, put an asterisk by his name in history to say he was not the great president that he is. two, i think this is about 2014 elections and 2016 elections. can drag out, make the obama administration look bad, then hopefully that can translate into votes for the republicans. keep in mind in the last election two years ago, democrats, cumulative democratic

vote throughout the country in the house of representatives was more than that of the republicans. so people -- people understand what's going on and, unfortunately because of gerrymandering, it's difficult for us to take over the house, but they get it. >> okay, u.s. congressman elijah cummings fighting the good fight. thank you, sir. yesterday during a house judiciary committee, a birther republican from texas basically threatened attorney general eric holder with another contempt vote, something that holder didn't take lightly, as you'll see here. take a look. >> now realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general, but it is important that we have proper overnight. >> you don't want to go there, okay? >> i don't want to go there? >> no. >> about the contempt? >> you should not assume that that is not a big deal to me. i think it was inappropriate, i think it was unjust, but never think that was not a big deal to

me. don't ever think that. >> so we've been trying to get to the bottom of fast and furious where people died, where at least a couple hundred mexicans died, and we can't get the information to get to the bottom of that, so i don't need lectures from you about contempt. >> and i don't need lectures from you either. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> unfortunately. >> chair recognizes -- >> you might be curious why holder told gohmert good luck with the asparagus. it's a shot at out of control tactics last year when he, the congressman from texas, flustered gohmert, tried to pin some of the blame from the boston marathon bombings on holder. here's louis gohmert back then. >> failed to answer my questions -- >> gentleman -- >> aspersions on my asparagus. >> on my asparagus.

what is this, like, precious bodily fluids? what's he trying to talk about? your guess is as good as mine. we're joined by former pennsylvania governor ed rendell. i was going to say, something from jack nicholson in batman, don't mess with another man's rhubarb. what is asparagus, is this discernible, governor? >> it is, and although this is painful for people like eric holder and mrs. lerner, it's also a very good plus for democrats, because one of the things that i think we have to keep repeating is you can't turn the congress of the united states over to these guys lock, stock, and barrel. they are crazy. aspersions on my asparagus, he's absolutely loony. they try to pass wacko legislation and are doing things the american people hate. the american people hated it when they did it to president bush, they hate it when they do it to the obama administration.

they want congress to get down to work, and when they see stuff like this, negativism, threats on threatening to hold people in contempt, they say to themselves, it's a three-ring circus. we can't entrust the government to these guys, and that's one of the best weapons. i said earlier this month, chris, if the elections were held right now, the only thing that could stop the republicans from winning a solid victory in the congress is the republicans themselves. >> well, that's the point. you know, back in the 50th congress, back during harry truman's time after roosevelt died, the crazy republican party elected in 1946 and they used to say they opened every session with a prayer and ended with a probe. all they did was hold probe after probe after probe and never solved the country's challenges coming out of world war ii. this crowd, getting a coherent fiscal policy, dealing with a long-term debt, dealing with

immigration in a real way we're proud to do it, getting problems like the environment dealt with, rebuilding the country, doing it, none of this is getting done. all they do is sit around about these scraps of history they focus on and think they can make the biggest deal out of. i know benghazi was a tragedy, but there are a lot of tragedies growing every day in this world that they are not paying attention to, like the planet, the fiscal policy, and the failure to have a decent immigration policy. they don't address those big questions, they focus on fast and furious and the irs. they are chasing rabbits. i don't know how they think they can win on this, but they must figure in their polling these things are winnable. i don't know. why are they doing it? >> i think they do it to stir up the base, and their theory is this will be a low turnout election and if their base votes to a higher percentage than the democratic base votes, they'll win the election. but they've got to worry about independent voters and even moderate republicans, and there are, as you know, moderate republicans in the philadelphia

suburbs and the columbus suburbs and the cleveland suburbs. they are all over. there are still 40 or 50 moderate republicans who hold congressional seats, and they need the support of moderate republicans and independents, and when they look at this, they might say to themselves, gee, i sort of like my congressman, but we can't keep putting these guys in charge. aspersions on my asparagus? >> i think that guy's got some explaining to do. anyway, thank you, governor, ed rendell. >> as we say in philadelphia, he's got some explaining to do. >> so well said. up next, some revisionist history about slavery and the civil war from former senator jim demint of the heritage foundation. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

back to "hardball" and time for the side show. ukraine may be in the news a lot these days, but a recent "washington post" poll found that, catch this, only one in six americans could find ukraine on a map. what's more surprising, however, was how far off some people were. guesses ranged across six continents and some participants in the poll even thought that ukraine was here in the united states. but according to steve colbert, that shouldn't necessarily matter. >> the exact poll found the less americans know about ukraine's location, the more they want the u.s. to intervene. damn straight, this is america, and we don't need to know where a country is to send troops there. the ukraine is wherever the american people say it is, and according to this poll, americans say it is everywhere. you cannot trust maps. they are always changing their story. one day it's pan gee ya, 300 million years later, it's something else, come on! make up your mind.

is alaska up here, or is it tucked under arizona next to hawaii? finally, jim demint is rewriting history today with an interview with the christian radio talk show vocal point, the president of the heritage foundation actually claimed that the federal government claimed no part in freeing the slaves. instead, he said it was the conscience of the american people. this one's a doozy. >> the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the constitution. i mean, it was like the conscience of the american people, but the constitution kept calling us back to all men are created equal, and we had inalienable rights in the minds of god, but a lot of the move to free the slaves came from the people. it did not come from the federal government. it came from just a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that this was wrong. so no one, no liberal is going

to be able to win a debate that big government freed the slaves. >> a, it wasn't a grassroots movement that freed the slaves, as mr. demint describes. it took something called the civil war and 600,000 dead people to do that. remember? and, b, demint attributes the quote that "all men are created equal" refers to our inalienable writes from the constitution, but those words come from the declaration of independence. he's so wrong on so many accounts he couldn't be any more of an embarrassment. white wash, what most people in new jersey think of the investigation that cleared the government there, chris christie, of wrongdoing in the bridgegate scandal. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

here's what's happening. now we're going to take you back to "hardball." welcome back to "hardball." late this afternoon, a big development in the chris christie bridge investigation, the legislative committee investigating the lane closures lost its bid to force bridget kelly and bill stepien, two key figures in the scandal, to comply with subpoenas for documents. the judge's ruling appears to be a break for governor chris christie and he could use it following the results of a new quinnipiac poll. as we reported a lot over the past weeks, randy mastro

conducted an investigation into the bridge scandal at taxpayer expense and issued a report that surprise, exonerated chris christie. well, new jerseyans aren't buying it. a quinnipiac poll asked people in that state whether the investigation was legitimate or a white wash. 56%, an unambiguous majority, say it was a white wash. that's in jersey. just 36% thought the report was a legitimate investigation. governor christie may have underestimated his own constituents, you might say they are too smart. joining us right now, chris cillizza and anna palmer, senior washington correspondent for politico. thank you, two. it's always interesting to see an entire state as a focus group, chris, and to watch and think how's he reacting. he's reacting the way most people would, it seems to me, this guy went out and paid $600,000 of state money to investigate at least his side of the story, and they presented his side of the story.

and i think the voters are now saying when they are polled about it say, well, that's a white wash. i'm not sure it's a white wash, but anybody that thinks it's the whole story is missing the whole story. your thoughts? >> i don't think it's a white wash, but if chris christie, i think what the poll numbers show is if chris christie thought this report would be the end or sort of sewing up the last suture on that political wound, we're not there yet. i actually think the news today from the judge not saying that two of the main bill stepien, bridget kelly having to relate documents related to bridgegate, that's a big deal in that clearly is something that this legislative committee wanted and they are not going to get, at least currently. but i would remind people, there are concurrent investigations going on. there's a federal investigation going on, there's also this within the new jersey legislature investigation going on. that ruling pertains to the new jersey legislature.

you know, i continue to think that this is going to not get better for chris christie for a while. it's going to be hard for him to go beyond it, but look, the legislative committee not getting access to anything bridget kelly and bill stepien did is a victory for the christie forces. >> let me go to you, steve kornacki of our network, who's been all over this story, his analysis, which i'm sure he's going to offer on the air, is basically the reason that the judge wouldn't come forward and support the subpoena is because the federal agents, they are investigating this at the federal level and they don't want to get in his way. >> yeah, i think what this actually shows is there's going to be a constant drip, drip, drip, which is really the problem politically for chris christie, right, while this was a small victory in terms of letting the criminal investigation actually, you know, take place, you done know when they are going to be letting out more information, so he can't really control that as much as he can say this was a political investigation.

when you're looking at criminal charges or you don't know where that investigation might go, they can start asking other questions or people can offer up other things that aren't related directly to this, but are related to the chris christie administration. >> well, i guess the question, look at this poll now that shows basically 51% of the people in new jersey believe the governor was aware of what was going on. that's the way people are looking at it. 51% say the governor's aware, 42% say the aides acted alone. by the way, do you think he's a bully or a leader, 48% say he's a bully and 48% say he's a leader. that's a close call, chris cillizza. your thoughts. >> that second question, chris, is sort of fundamentally, let's say he gets beyond this. i think this is a big distraction for him no matter what happens with these two investigations, because some of his top political aides are focusing on testifying, doing other things, not focusing on iowa, new hampshire, same thing with him. but let's say he gets beyond it. the fundamental question of chris christie as a successful

presidential candidate is, is he a no-nonsense, straight-talking, different kind of leader, or is he sort of a brash bully? and that question sort of gets at the root of it. 48 new jersey, if he moves beyond bridgegate and people in iowa, new hampshire, south carolina and beyond get to look at him, that's the question, do you like what chris christie is selling, or are you off put by it, and it's hard to know the answer. >> i think there's a catch-22, as we used to say here, if you vote, as a voter asked about this in a opinion poll, did he know what was going on with the bridgegate issue and hoboken where the mayor down there, dawn zimmer was held up, you better play ball or you're out of the game here, if he didn't know this stuff was going on, is he really running his state and can he run the united states, including the pentagon, if he can't keep track of what his bullies are up to? and the other question, do the republican party really want to

run somebody who half the people of the state think is a bully? your last question. >> i think this has gotten between a rock and a hard place. he's gone on and said he didn't know, so if it comes out that he did, i think all of his credibility is really lost. but at the same time, the real question is, he's lost his biggest political selling point, and if the people of his own state aren't behind him, it's hard to see how if you're a voter in iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, you're going to think this is somebody we should elect and have be our nominee for president. >> i don't think they like bullies in iowa, chris. i don't think we've ever met one. >> i would say his style in iowa, his place is new hampshire, chris. >> further northeast as you can get, actually. thank you, chris cillizza, anna palmer for joining us. up next, former president jimmy carter on women and the bible and admitting as he now does he was a virgin until he got married. he has stuff in the book of his. and this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ male anno] at his current pace,

bob will retire when he's 153, which would be fine if bob were a vampire. but he's not. ♪ he's an architect with two kids and a mortgage. luckily, he found someone who gave him a fresh perspective on his portfolio. and with some planning and effort, hopefully bob can retire at a more appropriate age. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

we've got some new polling on a couple of key races this november. let's check the "hardball" scoreboard. first to florida, where rick scott is in a tight race with former governor charlie crist. a new poll finds scott up one. 45%, 44%. that's a close one. next to the senate race of arkansas. incumbent democrat mark pryor has a three-point lead over u.s. congressman tom cotton. it's pryor 46%, cotton 43%.

if pryor can hold on there, it makes it harder for republicans to take control of the u.s. senate. we'll be right back.

we're back with more of my interview earlier today with the 39th president of the united states, jimmy carter. he's written a provocative new book, "a call to action: women, religious, violence, and power." i asked the former president about his views on what the bible says about women. let's watch. mr. president, i read your new book, and what struck me is your effort to reconcile your deep christianity with your belief in equal treatment and equal rights for women. and here's the headline, i guess, from the bible.

you say, for the husband, is the head of the wife, just as christ is the head of the church. the body of which he is is savior. just as the church is subject to christ, so, also, wives ought to be in everything to their husbands. i mean, that's kind of like sticking your chin out and then saying, but that's not really what the bible says, and then it is what the bible says. how do you deal with that as an equal rights person? >> well, if you go back up one verse from that, it says, husbands and wives respect each other. and then, of course, we know that jesus christ never insinuated in any word or action that women were inferior to men in any way. and paul, who was a chief theologian for christians, as you know, wrote also to the glasians. all people are created equal in the will of god, men and elm women, slaves and masters, and jews and gentiles. and about 25 people who were

early champions of the christian church of all levels of authority and about half were women. you can go through the bible and select certain verses, but jesus never insinuated that women were inferior. >> you never say something pretty squirmly embarrassing in your books. i don't know why you do it, but here's a line from you in your -- i know you write this on your own word processor. i was always reluctant to let other young men know that i was a virgin, feeling that it was somehow a reflection on my manhood. you are an admirable fellow, obviously, besides being a great man politically, but you mention you did not have sex with anybody until you married rose linde. why did you feel the need to put this bit of what we call too much information in your book? why is that important? >> just to show even in those early days, when we were

basically relatively innocent about the sex issue, that women, if they violated that rule about sex before marriage, they were condemned and made almost outcasts in our society, but boys were looked upon as expected to have sex before marriage. so there was a dual relationship then, as far as men versus women, and pre-marital sex. >> i also asked about his grandson, georgia state senator, jason carter, who's running for governor of georgia. let's talk about your grandson. i met him briefly when he came on. you had a book to talk about when he was in the peace corps. he served very much where i did, but 30 or some years later. you must be very proud of him. he is running neck and neck, in fact, a little bit ahead in the race for governor of your state, the position you held before you were president. how does it look for you? >> to me it looks very good. jason is a very smarter young man, he worked for several years for the carter senator and went into the peace corps and served in south africa and went to law school and is in the state

senate now. he's very aware of the problems all over georgia and i think he's going to be a very good campaigner. his only potential handicap is the ability of republicans to raise enormous sums of money from the koch brothers and so forth that will be poured into georgia to try to shape the outcome of the election. but if he can overcome that difficulty, i don't think there's any doubt he'll be the next governor. >> we don't have much good to say about the koch brothers around "hardball" here, so mr. president, it's always an honor. always an honor to you watch you and appreciate your role in history. thank you very much. author of "a call to action: women, religion, violence, and power," former president jimmy carter. >> thank you very much. >> mr. president, thank you for your time. and we'll be right back. because i knew... it would be a scary process. when i was introduced to truecar, i didn't have to second guess myself. i felt more confident...

in what i was doing. truecar made it very easy for me... to negotiate what i wanted, because i didn't really need to do any negotiating at all. i just knew from the get-go that i was... flat out getting a good deal. when you're ready to buy a car, save time, save money, and never overpay. visit truecar.com

let me finish tonight with a salute to former president jimmy carter. in all the many years since i worked for him as president, more than a century since 1980, he has never failed to serve the planet or speak his mind. he's undeniably human, says what he thinks or what he feels like saying. you decide which. what he doesn't offer up is something for public consumption. at his age, he guards his integrity over his popularity, his pride in being jimmy carter over his acceptance into some club, whether that be the club of the politically correct or the democratic party itself. want to know what jimmy carter that has to say? ask him.

it won't go through a filter, because he's thrown it away. it won't be to garner votes in the next election, because there won't be a next election. it will be to tell the truth, as jimmy carter knows it. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening. i'm ari melber in for chris hayes. we begin with breaking news in new jersey tonight. a judge just dealt a setback, possibly temporary, to the democratic-led legislative investigation into the george washington bridge lane closings. yet the judge ruled against the legislative investigations' pursuit of documents because, because an ongoing federal investigation is reviewing potential criminal conduct by the same former aides to governor chris christie. we're going to report on that issue, the interplay between these two inquiries in a moment. but first, here's exactly what you need to know about today's ruling. it addresses two people you may