determine politics and other walks of life. >> fleming rose, the author of "the tyranny of silence" how one cartoon ignited a global debate. thank you very much for joining me tonight. chris hayes is up next. "hardball" starts right now. the reckoning. let's play "hardball." ♪ ♪ good evening, i'm chris matthews in washington. before we get started tonight, let's clear something up. president obama has been right about what i believe is the central question of our time. peace and war. he was right about iraq when practically all the other democrats, i mean, the name-brand democrats were all wrong. and don't let them tell you otherwise. it wasn't just a matter of getting the facts wrong, where saddam hussein has weapons or not. should the united states declare

war on another country because they may be a menace in the region sometime down the road? the answer again, from a number of big name democrats was yes. obama, he stood alone and said no. that's a hell of a difference. he was on the side of reason and restraint when the others were dancing in a conga line to a nasty evil war that made iraq into the cradle of terrorism that it is today. think this doesn't matter? think, as young people like to say today, just history? think again. today the president and his negotiators are working to find an alternative to war with iran. there's nothing it seems the hawks will not oblige, if it means under cutting and humiliating the people who work for peace. anyone with a brain knows that a war with iraq, and that's what the hawks want, could be unpredictable and unending.

do you think the leaders in tehran will take it on the chin if they get attacked? do you think hezbollah will sit by and defeated and held to ridicule? what then? wait out the storm while people pay the price of their keyboard bravado, their patents of the opinion page. yes. listen, i say, and remember, the people who talked us into iraq are out there talking us into war with iran. listen again, they want war. you can already see the light of their campfires. by the way, tomorrow is veterans day. gentlemen, thank you for joining us. i think we'll have to make some decisions about the election coming up, because before we have a presidential election in 2016, we're going to have a long prelude to the campaign. then we're going to have a long campaign. i'd like to hope that somewhere in that we debate america's role in the world.

what we've learned all the way back to vietnam, to the cold war. what have we learned to do, and not to do? and i'm looking at iraq in the rearview mirror and i'm looking at iran, and i'm watching the terrific attack on john kerry, for example, day after day after day. he's being ratted out even by some people in the white house. i think fighting for peace is the hardest thing to do. i want somebody to do that. that's my view. >> you may have multiple debates on the road to the elections in 2016. we don't know who is going to be running in the democratic side, but if it's hillary clinton, she swings back and forth, i think she'll be effective on what she sees as political threats. on the republican side, if rand paul gets in, you'll have a foundational debate between a conservative, non-interventionist, or someone skeptical of intervention, and the mccainiacs of the party.

there will be blood in the water on that one. saw it with dick cheney and rand paul having a feud. you won't have a bipolar debate like in the past. this will be a three or four-corner debate, ever shifting on the basis of what's happening over there. because we can talk about that, but -- >> i've been there. i've been there. the '68 democratic convention. right there, before you were born, there was a war in the democratic party, a hawk party, and a dove party. the hawks won. mccarthy was out of the race. the hawkish party won, and fed into the next hawk party. >> and hillary clinton on the democratic side, is someone who is, by democratic standards, and certainly by, if you judge her next to president obama, a hawk. someone who -- >> i agree. so far.

>> -- who is very comfortable with projecting american power. and what we could see is a situation, let's say rand paul does get the republican nomination. >> plausible. looking at the newspapers and finally a discussion. i think there's a wide fight for the nomination. >> tremendously wide. >> we don't know who will win it. it could be paul on the ticket, but not the leader. he could be the vice president. i can't predict. >> i can't imagine the republican party nominating somebody like rand paul, just on -- >> how about if he wins the primaries? >> well, if he wins the primaries, but what i'm saying, i'm not convinced he can get through the primaries as a republican who says, america is not going to defend its interests, is not going to project -- >> wait wait wait wait -- >> -- not project american power. so the point i was getting to, we could have a situation in 2016 where the democratic nominee takes on the traditional republican stamp of foreign policy -- >> let's take a look at that. rand paul has made clear he will

run against hillary on her hawkish record. let's watch. >> in a general election, were i to run, there's going to be a lot of independents and even some democrats who say, you know what, we are tired of war, we're worried hillary clinton will get us involved in another middle eastern war, because she's so gung ho. if you want to see a transformational election in this country, let the democrats put forward hillary clinton and you'll see a transformation you've never seen. >> maybe a true statement. he's likely to be the lone republican voice for the moderate foreign policy. other candidates have been far more hawkish. here's senator marco rubio. he's called president obama's efforts to reach a deal with iran a disaster.

>> my opinion, this entire thing is a disaster. it's not just an embarrassing diplomatic failure. this is a dangerous national security failure. we've agreed they now have a right to enrich at any level. >> chris christie has criticized the president's foreign policy. he said, we see russian activist once again rearing its head in the world. we see an america that backed away from a commitment it made in syria. >> right now, this week, the government of iran is sitting down with the united states government. swimming chardonnay in new york city to discuss what prime minister netanyahu rightly describes as a historic mistake, a very, very bad deal that is setting the stage for iran to acquire nuclear weapon capability.

>> that's the way he talked about the red dina fashion, all this putdown of the foreign policy elite was his way of trash -- >> i don't think the iranian negotiators are drinking chardonnay. they don't drink. it shows you how much he knows. >> maybe he had the chardonnay. >> that would make more sense then. but they're attacking the president on the basis of the fact that he's trying to negotiate a nuclear deal. what do they want? do they want us to go to war with iran now, while we're trying to do something about isis, when iran has more influence in iraq than we ever will? it's not thought out. >> when you hear that kind of talk from cruz and rubio, who i don't even get. -- he's a young fella, i don't get where his right-wing stuff comes from. but extrapolating that and projects it on to iran. is that what it is? >> it's all talking points, and it's owl isolated. -- all isolated.

if we do something with iran, it has no impact on any other interest that the united states has. that if you just go to war with iran, all these other things, iraq, isis, syria, the palestinian/israeli question, egypt, libya, tunisia, algeria, all the middle eastern countries that are quaking at the fact that isis is going to overrun them, do these people not think about the extended consequences of this one action -- >> this is his clever way, and this is why i can't stand the hawks. saying nuclear capability, saying weapons capability, the sneaky way they did that. >> jonathan makes a good point. if there's one lesson from the war with iraq, is unintended consequences. nothing happened -- [ all speak at once ]

>> to begin with, there are a couple hundred iraqi civilians who are dead, 4,800 american casualties -- >> there weren't going to be any casualties, we were told. >> no. and we have isis, it was destabilized for the whole region. we had no plan what would happen after the invasion, none whatsoever. so ten years later, this looks like one of the biggest screw-ups in foreign policy. so they think we can go into iran, which has more influence in the region than iraq did, and do the same thing, and not have other unintended consequences? it doesn't make any sense, except in the fact that we think obama's bad and we're going to go after him no matter what he does. >> last week, the "wall street journal" reported that president obama sent a letter to the president of iran, saying that both countries had an interest in fighting isis. >> i was stunned. i was frankly stunned, that the

president of the united states would write a letter of that nature and, in effect, legitimize a nation and a leadership which is violating international norms and is threatening the world. i found it astonishing. you might think, well, of course the president can speak with leaders of other nations, yes, but to suggest that somehow we might work together is something which is so far beyond the pale, i was speechless, as i heard about it. >> and there he was -- they went out there, they'll say anything for that guy, because he's a hawk, to get his money. i'm sorry is there a better phrase for it? >> they come in the bar, and say, choose me, i'll do anything you want. >> you're a student of history. is his argument that fdr should not have made a deal with stalin to beat hitler? >> that's even better.

>> but to get out there and say, you can't talk to people, you legitimize them. we're already negotiating with them. so if you're negotiating with them, why not send a letter? >> so why did he say that? wants to spend millions of dollars on the candidate of his choice. >> left time dick cheney appeared before adelson's group in vegas, he made jokes about war and the crowd laughed. >> who else was out competing for his love this week? another republican was out >> i'm not sure, but the thing here is, i love hearing mitt romney pontificating from the outside, trying to make himself remain relevant to the conversation, simply because he gave an answer during a debate, talking about russia being our number one enemy. and in some ways, being proven right. what i would like to hear from

mitt romney and marco rubio and ted cruz is, okay, so you don't like what the president's doing. what would you do? if you had all the information the president had, what would you do differently? and if you would still go to war, explain that and defend it. and then tell the american people whether you're sending its sons and daughters off to yet another war. which we can't afford! that's the other thing. >> these waspy guys go out there and say, i was born again, from the christian right. whatever they want to say, they will say going to get this war to these people. it's unbelievable. >> these people are spending lots and lots of money. >> they say these guys will say anything to any group to corner some money, cage some money. >> yes. >> that's the name of the game. if it offends anybody, think harder. anyway, jonathan capehart, thank you. >> thanks, chris. >> i'm not going to pull age on

you anymore. maybe not until next time. >> corn, you think so brilliantly, better than i do. coming up, two big shots fight, president obama and the republicans and immigration and the new attorney general. ted cruz has found a way to bring the government and the issue of her together. so now we'll talk about whether we have an executive order on immigration, and whether we have a new attorney general -- or both. that's all the brilliance of the evil one. that's ahead and this is "hardball," the place for politics. she's still the one . and cialis for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment is right. cialis is also the only daily ed tablet approved to treat symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours.

if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any allergic reactions like 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 free 30-tablet trial.

>> now is the time to stand up to the president and say, no more amnesty. [ cheers and applause ] the era of obama lawlessness is over. >> keep hold of that word. it's a favorite for him. the president made just as clear

he will use every instrument in his arsenal to fix the immigration system his way. let's watch. >> before the end of the year, we're going to take whatever lawful actions that i can take, that i believe will improve the functioning of our immigration system. >> now -- now -- now with the president's nomination of loretta lynch to be attorney general of the united states, cruz has bundled the two fights into one. he issued this statement with the senator from utah. the nominee must describe full and complete commitment to the law. loretta lynch deserves the opportunity to demonstrate those qualities beginning with a statement whether or not she believes the president's executive amnesty plans are constitutional and legal. boom. he's now lowered the boom. it seems to me now that we know it's a tough question coming from a member of the senate judiciary committee, he's going to lambaste her and say, do you think the president has a right to use his authority, whatever

else, to let millions of people living in america become basically legal residents? >> this is the fight ted cruz has always wanted. he was the one encouraging republicans to delay the immigration fight until 2015, because he felt they would be in control of both houses and he wanted to be sort of front and center in talking about this. and this is the way he's going to talk about it. i think politically, it's smart, because we all know he's angling for a very particular place in the republican pantheon of characters. so it's a good thing for him. i think it's a mistake because they've clearly tell graphed to the white house and to loretta lynch a question and they'll be prepared for it. >> they'll prepare her. >> i think so. >> they think that there's a whole body of things in their

view that president obama has done that are in ted cruz's words, lawless. so this is the tip of the iceberg -- [ all speak at once ] >> all the things he's done in the past, or hit her hard with what he thinks he says he's going to do, go to the future, seven million person, we don't know how many people will be included in the executive order. >> we don't. and we can't touch the constitutionality of until we see what it says. and i don't think she'll get a nomination hearing until 2015. so the president is likely to make the order and it will be in the past before she appears before the committee. but as the candidate for attorney general she has to answer the question about how will she enforce the law? that's what ted cruz will go after, and mike lee of utah. expect fireworks. >> these are folks who doesn't like holder at all. he will stay in the job as long as loretta lynch remains unconfirmed. so they're trying to frame her --

>> i don't agree with him on anything, but can't he ask the question very narrowly, is it your reading of the president's authority to parole people case by case? could that be extrapolated to millions of people, just say, i'm creating a format for people to apply for status in this country, if millions apply for it, they all get it, even if i don't know their names yet. because it's supposed to be case by case. >> i think any nominee will find a way to not answer that question. >> and still be nominated, still be confirmed? >> witnesses show up on the hill and what they have to do is try to say almost nothing and not infuriate the senators in front of them. holder was great, he basically treated the guys and the women on the panel -- >> you said, jonathan that they can't answer the question whether it's constitutional in this executive order, until it's been written. it will have been written by the end of the year, and the hearings will be later than that. >> then it's a relevant

question. are you going to enforce the law as it sits -- >> so she can't play dumb. >> but she can parrot whatever the administration's line is by then, whatever rationale obama comes up with -- >> they developed 60 votes, i can't tell is it 60 votes or 51? >> it's 51 as it stands now. mcconnell didn't like harry reid going to that threshold. it's a big question, mcconnell said he wouldn't support a 51-vote -- >> somebody could filibuster. you could stop this thing for a while. >> i think it's anybody's guess as to how this plays out. we do know it's going to be fireworks, how she gets confirmed. >> worse than not getting confirmed, joe barton said impeachment will be on the table if the president moves on immigration.

he was being interviewed on news match tv. j.d. hayward and news max. let's watch. >> joe, you'll have 15 seconds to answer. andrew mccarthy in national view says the only way to stop this guy if he moves forward is impeachment. is that on the table? >> impeachment is indicting in the house and that's a possibility. but you still have to convict in the senate and that takes a 2/3 vote, but impeachment would be a consideration, yes, sir. >> joe barton making it clear impeachment remains a viable option if this president moves forward with executive amnesty. >> j.d. hayward reaching for the headline. he got it. he said it remains an option. [ all speak at once ] >> casually talking about

impeachment. >> it's this word that gets thrown around more and more, ever since nixon. >> they're 40 votes away. >> they could be 32 shy, could have 32 people drop off and still impeach the guy. >> for the majority in the house, but like as was said, you got a 2/3 majority there, the republicans had a good night on tuesday. they didn't have a great night. >> so the fallback position is that the president avoids actual conviction in the senate, that's a good night for him. >> it's a bad nice for boehner if the house passes articles of impeachment -- >> what's his counter punch if the president does it? >> i think they campaign against the president and against hillary clinton presumably in 2016 as someone who would continue executive overreach. >> i think this is in some ways playing with the -- [ all speak at once ] [ laughter ] >> i think in some ways they're playing into democrats' hands, talking about impeachment, you

saw the house do that with the whole lawsuit thing. but again, they're thinking that the most conservative elements of the party are going to come out and it's going to make the entire party look out of step. >> i think it's going to enrage them. and i don't think it's going to be a tantrum. they're going to explode if he does this. they're saying, you can be the lawmaker of the country, whoever you think you are, but under my view, i'm calling the shots. mitch mcconnell and john boehner used the same phrase to describe what happens if the president moves ahead with his own immigration reform. listen to mcconnell first and then boehner. >> the president choosing to do a lot of things unilaterally on immigration would be a big mistake. it's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. i hope he won't do that, because i do think it poisons the well.

>> i've made clear to the president that if he acts unilaterally on his own, outside of his authority, he will poison the well and there will be no chance for immigration reform moving in this congress. >> let's go through this metta for. first of all, bulls are color-blind. and it's not a flag, it's a cape. but he's a bull, right? he's saying, we're the bull. >> yes, they're the bull. they want -- [ all speak at once ] >> and the other one is the poison water. the metaphor is a little bit dank. anyway, thank you both. up next, secret audio tapes of president reagan on the phone in the oval office with world leaders. i love hearing their voices. no one knew we even had these tapes, but we got them now. this is "hardball," the place for politics. back to "hardball."

boy: once upon a time, there was a nice house that lived with a family. one day, it started to rain. the house tried to keep out all the water, but water got inside and ruined everybody's everythings. the house thought she let the family down. they just didn't think it could happen. they told the house they would take better care of her... always. announcer: protect what matters. get flood insurance.

you've hear the nixon tapes and some ridiculous recordings from the johnson administration. but now, never before heard conversations between former president ronald reagan and several world leaders. the tapes were secretly recorded by the white house situation room for the purpose of making transcripts. they were classified for years, until historian william doyle, formally requested they be made public in 1996. 18 years later, they're being heard for the first time. some of the conversations reveal undescripted and at times delicate interaction on matters of war and peace. in 1983, reagan launched an attack on grenada, part of the british commonwealth at the time. the only problem, he never told manager thatcher he was going to invade. this is audio of reagan trying to explain to his closest ally why she was left in the dark. >> hello, margaret thatcher

here. >> yes, if i were there, margaret issue i'd throw my head in the door before i came in. >> no need to do that. >> listen, we regret very much the embarrassment that's been caused you, and i'd just like to tell you what the story is from our end out here. >> all right. >> i was awakened at 3:00 in the morning supposedly on a golfing vacation down in georgia, and was there with the secretary of state and so we met in pajamas in the living room of our suite, because of this offer -- or this urgent plea from the organization of east caribbean states. pleading with us to support them in this thing in grenada. it was no feeling on our part of a lack of confidence at your end. it's at our end. and so it happens, i guess, the

first thing that we've done since i've been president in which the secret actually was kept until it happened. >> as they say, it's easier to ask for forgiveness, than permission. up next, president obama is relieved his party got trounced in the mid terms. we'll explain that, unpack that. now he's free to deal with republicans without worrying about protecting democrats in the senate since they lost control that. the roundtable is coming up next. sounds like janice joplin to me. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. the conference call.

the ultimate arena for business. hour after hour of diving deep, touching base, and putting ducks in rows. the only problem with conference calls: eventually they have to end. unless you have the comcast business voiceedge mobile app. it lets you switch seamlessly from your desk phone to your mobile with no interruptions. i've never felt so alive.

get the future of phone and the phones are free. comcast business. built for business.

>> welcome back to "hardball." we have ourselves a battle over the soul of hillary clinton. is she a hawk? plus, ted cruz and the hard right, are they ready to assault the president's pick for attorney general? will loretta lynch be the hard-right's crash test dummy? and deal or no deal? the associated press has a big story today that president obama

is relieved that his own party got shellacked in the mid terms. he'd rather make a deal with republicans than stack the agenda with democratic goodies for 2016. we'll see about that. nothing else to lose. that seems to be the theme. we go to the roundtable now. thank you, guys. who wants to take this? you start first, i'm curious what you'll say. is there going to be a weird debate over the next six months with rand paul playing dove, all by himself on the republican side? hillary clinton, perhaps the most hawkish democratic cannot we've had in a while. >> i think it's going to be hard for rand paul to be a complete dove with people like isis running around and beheading the occasional american and causing much more mayhem in that region. i just think it's going to be hard to be a dove. >> what about the iran fight? >> iran will be a big issue,

depending if a new phase of a deal happens. because i don't think anyone eye think there will be a lot of surprise if iran has continued to be doing stuff it's not supposed to. if that comes out, it's going to be hard for rand paul to say, we can't do anything. >> there needs to be some kind of way that the candidates have to say that the candidates have to figure out how to be hawkish and dove-like at the same time. and particularly with all the issues that we have on the table, we have four presidents who have already dealt with iraq, going to be dealing with iraq, with the next president. someone to play dove and hawk at the same time. talk about iran. we have a lot of issues we haven't dealt with before. you have to have both gloves at the same time? >> do you think people like me fall for that? hillary will look awful good next to ted cruz. >> but let me say this. a woman has a different set of eyes on her than a man does. so she has to watch that hawkishness as well.

remember when he ran against obama the first time? they wanted to make sure she wasn't screeching. they wanted to make sure she was very straight. there's a fine line -- >> what about women hawks, joan of arc was a good example. [ all speak at once ] >> very tough leader. >> hillary's going to have to come back again, as she did in 2008, but probably not to the satisfaction -- >> margaret thatcher. >> but probably not to the satisfaction of the liberal base. she's going to have to come back and talk about iraq again and why she cast that vote. she'll have to talk more about what she learned about that vote. >> more than what she's already said? >> that's going to deposition her hawkishness a little bit. she's also going to have to support an iran deal with the administration comes up with one. it's one she worked on as secretary of state. she'll have to be with that. >> i think the pros are not going to let them cut a deal that they can keep heading

towards a weapon, i just don't think so. you can't let iran have a nuclear weapon. you got to held them back, a couple years from. catch them before they get near it and then do something. let me ask you about this loretta lynch thing. i may have heard of here. she's u.s. attorney for new york, very powerful position to start with. but people tell me, she's not a show boater, she doesn't like publicity, lets the other guy be the first chair in the prosecutions. she'll be in the first chair when ted cruz gets a hold of her. she'll be sitting there like anita hill, for weeks of bashing. >> and she's a minority woman. and with a lot of republican senators -- >> do you think they're afraid of that? >> let me say that. race has played -- >> no, defensively, the other way, are they going to be afraid of looking like? >> they're going to have to come

at it in an artful way to go after her. this president has trust and confidence in this woman from what i hear, and she was referred to by the u.s. attorney general eric holder, because she's worked with her. >> who pushed her for this? anybody we know? >> who pushed her for this? eric holder pushed her for this. he knew her. he talked to the president. the president clicked right away. >> in the room? >> yes. so she has the confidence of the president. she's going to go in there. she's being schooled now, or told how to approach this. she knows. this is going to be tough. she is going to be in the hot seat. she is going to be the face of what's to come starting in january. >> who is the person who sits behind them and prepares them? do you have any thoughts? somebody has to know the business of congress, the senate, and the weird personalities and how to protect

the candidate. >> yeah, they'll have to bring in someone of stature. >> duberstein? why are you laughing? >> they'll want a democratic version of kent duberstein. >> oh, that's right. >> a former senator or something. or a former white house counsel of distinction. the republicans are definitely going to have to calibrate this carefully. they're going to want to ask them questions and embarrass the president, but miss lynch is not on trial and they're not going to want to look like a mob. >> she has been confirmed before by the senate. >> it means a little something. beyond that, it means confidence -- [ all speak at once ] >> but it also means that i think the republicans, there's only a limited amount of political capital they'll want to spend on loretta lynch. they know it's going to blow back on them if the united states goes without an attorney

general for too long. >> let's take a look at -- >> they'll rough her up, but not too much. >> the associated press reported today that president obama is relieved, that was the word in the article, about shedding the narrow democratic majority that would have guarantied washington stayed lock in a stalemate, freeing him to compromise with the gop, rather than stacking him with agenda items his party can run on in the next election. the fact that he doesn't have to do what harry reid wants him to do anymore. he can open a dialogue on infrastructure, minimum wage, free trade. he's more free trade than all the democrats in the senate. and then issues like tax reform. has he got more running room now? >> he may have a little more running room. but i saw that story and it was interesting, everyone wants to spend a loss to make it look like -- >> what else are you going to do? >> you mentioned earlier, waving

a red flag in front of a bull. i think that's the other end of the bull. i think obama may have a certain amount of relief that he doesn't have to be -- >> it's bull crap, is what you're saying. >> thank you. >> i don't have time translate here for people trying to catch up -- it's not a bad word. april, is that true? >> it's a bunch of stew. last week, we were pressing jobs, she came out in the briefing room. i asked the question to josh, everything seemed so positive. where's the negative? it took him a long time -- he does say he was disappointed. but they are hurt, they are trying to -- >> do you teach the importance of being ernest? >> he needs to know the importance of being ernest -- no, but i like josh. >> i want a republic to work.

center left, center right, even on the extremes, would like to see a deal that was actually -- they find where both sides gain something. it's not all zero sum. you can find a way of lowering corporate tax rates and really plugging loopholes, you can do that. you can really find a way, i want minimum wage. give me my ten bucks an hour, do it over three years, and in exchange, i'll give you deals on corporations -- >> you really think the republicans will give president obama a $10 minimum wage in return for tax reform? >> over time. [ all speak at once ] >> what do you think? >> there's some oligarchs who are coming out in favor of the living minimum wage, as they call it. that guy in seattle wrote the piece that went viral about how you have to do things like that. and seattle is quite popular. maybe it's a middle ground. >> we've always done minimum wage. republicans have always gone along with it, with a different speed than democrats, but they're always gone along with it. here's why i'm worry it. it pushes up all the wage structure.

if the people at the bottom get 10, then the next guy up next 15. how are we going to close the gap between the entrepreneur and the worker bee? >> but republicans don't believe that. and come january, it's going to be issue by issue. >> that's why you have to negotiate with them. >> but it's not going to work. >> let's not have a conversation. just let's go home. >> at the beginning of the obama administration, he was trying to talk to republicans -- i'm saying, issue by issue. >> let's hope. put up the flag again. i like the new hope, but jesse's good. the roundtable is coming back with more arguments about how republicans are trying to erase this president from history. we'll talk about that. are they trying to make obama like barry bonds? he didn't make the hall of fame. he used drugs. are they going to try to put an asterisk next to the president,

he wasn't really on the list of presidents. i think he's on to something. this is "hardball," the place for politics. . your blog is just pictures of you in the mirror. it's called a fashion blog, todd. well, i've been helping people save money with progressive's discounts. flo, can you get janice a job? [ laughs ] you should've stuck to softball! i was so much better at softball than janice, dad. where's your wife, todd? vacation. discounts like homeowners', multi-policy -- i got a discount on this ham. i've got the meat sweats. this is good ham, diane. paperless discounts -- give it a rest, flo. all: yeah, flo, give it a rest.

democrats are out there looking for two rising stars to head their congressional campaign committee going forward. i like going forward. joaquin castro and joe kennedy are both being considered for the top job there. called it responsible for recruiting democratic candidates down the road and getting them elected to the house of representatives. we'll be right back.

>> we're back with the round table. michael, april, old sfrends and a new friend, tim. tim, you've got a piece out there. i'm a little bit skeptical, but i've been saying the same thing. i don't think it's america or conservative america, it's hard right, nasty america with racist attitudes. which is out there. they want to make obama not president. how does that work? that he never was president? >> that's obviously pretty impossible to do. but, certainly, there are people who -- you have the birthers who want to say he was never sbieted

to run because he wasn't born here. no one that we know, really, even prefaced that in any way. >> donald trump. >> well, again, there you have it. so there are people who would like to deny his legitimacy. >> we're heading into the fourth quarter, in football terms. how are they going to get him in the fourth quarter if they haven't gotten him in the first three quarters? >> you can argue about pop you popularity, but no one has seen him do anything that would leet e lead to impeachment. >> what is their technique to try to impeach him? >> there would be those who would like to, but that's true. not unless there's some real predicate for it. >> killed him. >> they lost a bunch of seats immediately after and the majority, you know, as well. >> here's my view of obama. and, obviously, we all know how much trouble he's in politically

right now. he lost the house by 250 votes. certainly losing the senate was predictable,but he got wol lopped. i have a sense that obama will get another look at history. the reason i said it is it's not just the first african american president, which is a stunning achievement. coming in very positively, doing the saving of the economy, doing healthy, which every democrat and a lot of moderate republicans like teddy roosevelt wanted to do, accomplished some objective things. not having a great touch in the office, not having a particular like for them. but i think he'll look good in the long term unless something bad happens. how do they do this? >> i think when it comes to history, he's going to look good for that. i talked to congressman bobby scott today. and he's very amped about the fact that that white house did not -- the economy people, he's

braught it under 6 pnt. gasoline prices now are down. under three. and then you also have issues with some other stuff. >> but they all fear the democrats, if you say something good about how things are getting better, you always feel bad for the people who didn't get any better. i agree with bobby scott. in fact, i really like charlie scott. anyway, thank you. hey matt, what's up?

i'm just looking over the company bills. is that what we pay for internet? yup. dsl is about 90 bucks a month. that's funny, for that price with comcast business, i think you get like 50 megabits. wow that's fast. personally, i prefer a slow internet. there is something about the sweet meditative glow of a loading website. don't listen to the naysayer. switch to comcast business today and get 50 megabits per second for $89.95. comcast business.

built for business. let me finish tonight with the choice facing both parties the next two years. many recent presidents, eisenhower, reagan, clinton were able to end their presidencys on a high note. they did so by learning from previous mistakes. since we all learn from mistakes, that's not a bad way to operate. in football terms, president obama is about to enter the fourth quarter. some of the best games are won in this final stretch of the game. when the will to win often decides who does. there's lot of time for that. people need successful presidency. they need to be familiar with our form of government to get things done to make this a better country. the next two years are a time to deliver on that hope. that's "hardball" for now. >> tonight on "all in."

>> i'm going to do what i can do through executive action. >> the president doubles down on immigration. >> impeachment would be a consideration. >> and house republicans put impeachment on the table. >> i'm urging the federal communications commission to do everything they can to protect that neutrality for everyone. >> the president's net neutrality bomb shell provokes a ted cruz response for the ages. tonight, republicans not sure what to do about the obama lame duck offenses. then, protesters in new mexico set fire to the president shl palace. the latest turn in minnesota pointer gate and matt pietta on his latest big bank takedown. "all in" starts right now. >> good evening. i'm chris hayes. if there was any question how president obama would respond to the drubing the democrats took in the midrm