this form and how much it costs them. ♪ the american dream, can democrats deliver? let's play "hardball." ♪ ♪ good evening, i'm chris matthews in washington. i said last night that the biggest issue of our time is that of war and peace. can we elect leaders who can avoid the knee-jerk decision to send in the american military? well, tonight the other big question. can our leaders build up the middle class? can they restore that old, very american forward momentum, where each generation does better than the one before? where each family gets to live a little better, as bill clinton

once said, when it works hard and plays by the rules? can we get back to living the american dream? in the "new york times" today, a grave warning on the democratic party. quote, we're living through the great wage slowdown of the 21st century. and nothing presents a larger threat to the democrats' fortunes than that slowdown. yes, unemployment is down, and stocks are soaring past 17,000 points. but the wealthiest slice of americans, the 1%, has received 95% of all income gains through the first three years of this recovery. the typical american feel, however, makes less than it did 15 years ago. get that. 15 years ago. accounting for inflation, middle class income is $2,100 lower than when president obama took office in 2009. and $3,600 less than when president bush took office in 2001. secretary under bill clinton,

now professor at berkeley. and democratic congressman from tennessee and now a managing director at morgan stanley. the ideas from the last campaign, convincing to the average worker, the person making 30,000 a year and $100,000 a year, that the democrats had something big in store for them. your thoughts? >> well, a lot of things the democrats could do. at least in the 2016. not sure there are many things they can do for the next two years, but a middle class tax cut, financed by increases in taxes on the very top. or student debt, or subsidize childcare, or helping with a paid family and medical leave, there are a range of things that will help the middle class and concretely help the middle class. democrats did not talk about them in the midterm elections,

but they have to be talked about now. >> if you could talk about a person making 30 or 50, and change their actual income after child-care costs and student loan repayments, after those things, you say with this bundle of ideas, if you could get them through, that that would improve someone's life quality substantially? >> it would improve obviously. and also, a lot of people now are taking advantage of the affordable care act, but for the middle class, the big problems with health care are the deductibles and co-payments and premiums. so you have to go further and help the middle class with what continue to be large and growing health care costs. you do all of those things and you can help. i would say one other idea would be corporate taxes that are inversely related to ceo pay. the higher the ceo pay and the ratio of ceo pay to average workers, the higher the taxes are going to be. the lower that ratio, the lower the corporate tax ought to be.

in other words, there are a lot of incentives that we can create in the system that will provide a broader, shared prosperity. >> i like that middle class tax cuts paid for by the very wealthy. job care, and of course the family medical leave and issues like that. what do you think the democrats can do in a hefty way to change the economic lives of their voters? >> well, first of all, it's good to see secretary rice. always good to hear his voice. i would do a couple of things, along with some of the things the secretary has mentioned first. anyone in this country earning under $50,000 a year, would pay no payroll taxes. we have to figure out how to reward work and encourage investment. along with it, i would expand the income tax credit which promotes work and puts dollars

in the pockets of hard-working americans trying to graduate into the middle class. and finally, i would cut the corporate rate tax. i know secretary rice talked about linking it to what ceos earn, i might not go that far, but i think our corporate tax rate is not competitive globally anymore -- >> how does that help the middle class person, someone in the 30s, 40s, 50s in income? how does that help them to have a lower corporate rate? >> let me just finish the point. 12.5% tax rate on anybody with a 90-day window to bring back to $2 trillion sitting overseas. if we took the proceeds and launched that infrastructure bank that governor rendell and others have pushed for, it would create jobs and tap the capital market to create higher paying jobs. and on student loans, i want better terms for them where good

paying jobs are being created. nothing against the liberal arts, i'm a liberal arts major. but we have to focus on where the high paying jobs are and provide those incentives. this is not going to happen overnight, but if we want to address some of this and put upward pressure on wages, do the things that will allow employers to pay more money. >> you guys are both big picture. that's what i asked you to do. the republican economic platform from the past campaign, especially on the issue of income equality. had a simple message. blame president obama. here they are blaming him in almost identical language. >> you know, the president likes to focus on income inequality. but incomes are lower under his watch. as a matter of fact, i would argue that his policies are driving a lot of the income inequalities that we see today.

>> you know, president obama recently has been talking a great deal about income inequality. i welcome that, i think it's great he's talking about income inequality. i'd like to him to address the fact that it's gotten significantly worse under the obama administration. >> the president is now preparing speeches on income inequality. i believe he should give those speeches while standing in front of the mirror. because under his watch, everything has gotten worse. he should talk to himself. >> that was of no value to the american people. the only difference among those three guys was the quality of their voice. i think boehner's voice is easier to take. whereas ted cruz is offensive to the ear. but let's get back to this.

robert, you worked as a labor secretary. the democrats just lost the house for maybe the next ten years based on the numbers. the senate could wobble back and forth. how do they put together what you guys talk about, major restructuring of income taxes? help the people with student loans, changing the way we finance programs like social security, all this stuff could really change the actual income of the guy or woman out there making 35 or 40 a year, it could change their life, by shoes for the kids, maybe out to dinner once in a while, could actually enjoy life, take a week or two vacation. they could live. this would change their lives by 5 or $10,000 a year. my question is, where are the democrats on this first? i don't hear what you're saying tonight in the speeches from the politicians? >> no, i didn't hear it in the mid terms. haven't heard it for years. the problem for the democrats, they have a lot of policies, but

people don't think in terms of policies. they think in terms of narratives and the big picture. the democrats for some reason have not been able or willing to talk about the fact that median household incomes are dropping. they've been dropping like a lead balloon since 2000. and people at the top are doing better than ever. inequality has been widening under republicans and democrats. it did not widen under bill clinton because the economy was so good, that unemployment was very low. but unless democrats acknowledge we have a huge problem in this country, the middle class, the lower middle class, and the poor are on a downward escalator. unless they acknowledge that a lot of the problem has to do with big corporations and wall street and the policies that republicans are pushing, we're not going to get anywhere. >> i'm not a radical, but the situation requires radical action. when people realize that 1% of the country is getting 95% of all the gains we've made since the financial crisis, that's

frightening. that's french revolution stuff. what are the democrats going to do to respond to it? >> i would agree. first you have to acknowledge where the challenge is. i think a couple things after that. one, we should try not to pit people against one another. number two, we should figure out policies that will raise wages. i'd be curious to hear ceos come to the white house not just to talk about what they should be doing, but what can be done by government to help them pay people more, and create incentives for those things. secretary rice talked about having a higher tax rate on a company that pays its ceo a lot of money. but what about lower a rate for the company that pays it's employees more? one of the reason's clinton's administration was so stressful, they focused on growth. we have to get back to doing that, not just for the top 1%. >> don't challenge them on equality. challenge them on growth.

kick them in the butt. great to the have you back. thank you both. coming up, here's another warning sign for democrats in this year's mid terms. they lost a key group of people in this country -- single women. we'll talk about how they can turn that around. coming up, it's going to be a positive show tonight. after that, chuck todd talks about his new book on barack obama. it's called "the stranger." this is "hardball," the place for politics.

>> when president obama said last week that he heard the 2/3 of americans who didn't vote, here's what he was talking about. a small percentage of the electorate voted in last week's midterm elections than at any time since 1942. just 36.4% of eligible voters cast ballots last week. we'll be right back.

at shell, we believe the world needs a broader mix of energies, which is why we are supplying natural gas, to generate cleaner electricity, that has around 50% fewer co2 emissions than coal. and why with our partner in brazil, we are producing a biofuel made from renewable sugarcane to fuel cars. let's broaden the world's energy mix, let's go.

welcome back to "hardball." more than one in five voters this cycle, 21% of the electorate was an unmarried woman and a majority of them, 60 to 38 voted for democrats. that's a 22-point margin. may sound like a lot, but it's a drop-off. in 2012, it was 68-31. in 2008, democrats won single women by 38 points, 68-30. in 2006, democrats won single women by 34 points, 66-32. in 2004, democrats won single women by 33 points. so this week's gap follows the trend. in today's washington post, said this about the drop-off. clearly for unmarried women, there was a disconnect between what they were looking to hear

and what they were hearing. they wanted a strong economic message from these candidates that stated clearly they knew what these women were going through. democrats need single women to turn out for them and the trend is not in their favor on this point. margie, i have to talk with you about this. this is a fundamental point, we talked about economics being a key issue of the democrats. what% -- obviously, reproductive rights are important to women, perhaps equity in pay, equal pay and maybe minimum wage. but is there a larger issue that women face that's more similar to what men face? >> i think there's a few issues. there's economic justice and opportunity.

it includes minimum wage and gender equity and universal preschool. that's something that allows women to re-enter the workforce, college affordability. just worrying about your family's economic security is something that women, moms in particular, that we've seen in our walmart research, but that same kind of pressure. i think that's a little bit more unique to women. we found that moms are more likely to say than the rest of the voter population that education is local issues are going to drive their vote, almost as much as the economy. and that's different from voters overall. >> i think you made a couple economic points. respond to that. women generally take care of the education of the kid more than the husband does, or partner, whatever. and women care about their parents more. women tend to make the phone calls to their parents, how are you doing on social security, how are you doing on medicare, take care of the long-term care. men go, i'll leave that to her, in many cases. but single women have to do it

all, all the time. >> and another issue democrats talked, the war on women. they didn't talk about economic justice, how to grow the economy, they didn't talk about the stresses that single women face, how to pay back student loans, how to get a job. they didn't talk about that at all in this campaign. >> you're right. with good point of purchase products at the check-out counter, but not shelves of the meat and potatoes stuff. >> i think there's a couple issues. first we want to separate turn-out from democratic performance. so when it comes to turn-out, unmarried women are voting in very similar percentages as they do in previous mid terms.

so -- >> a little down? >> a little down. but that's not what caused democratic losses this time around. >> i know that. >> it's democratic performance that really dropped. meanwhile, women overall improved their democratic performance relative to the last midterm. so that's just some context in terms of where women are. i think in the last few years, we've seen an expansion of what we think of as women's issues. it's not just abortion and birth control. although those things are very important to women on both sides. but to include some economic issues and the larger piece that is missing, frankly for both parties is demonstrating that

you get it. you get the urgency. you understand what women's lives are like. you're not coming to washington just to fight over politics for your own benefit. you really want to fight for the people who don't care what your >> first of all, women, their concerns, preschool. they want to get back to work within several months of having a baby. they have to get back to work, because they're single in some cases. if they have a husband, that's better, but still they got to get back to work, because they need two paychecks. then you have daycare, and very few people have the money to hire their own daycare people. >> men care about that too. >> do you know your kids' teacher's names? >> of course, i do. >> really? [ all speak at once ] >> most men don't know all the teacher's names. >> they should know. >> i know all of them. economic security is important. personal security is also important. the problem with this president, there's a lack of confidence and

it hurt and it manifest itself. if you're cory gardner, you had a positive message. mark udall focused only on abortion rights. did not focus on bigger issues and that really hurt him in this election. >> let's take a look at that. the center from colorado lost his seat to cory gardner, made women's issues the centerpiece of his campaign, so much so that the debate moderator asked him if he'd gone overboard? >> mr. udall, your campaign has been so focused on women's issues that you've been dubbed mark uterus. [ laughter ] have you gone too far? >> lynn, reproductive rights are important to millions of coloradoans. colorado was the second state to grant the franchise to women. if congressman gardner hadn't built his career on limiting women's rights, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. >> udall won the female vote by eight points. however, that margin wasn't enough to translate into a win from him. in 2010, women were 50% of the

electorate and they went for the democrat by a 17-point margin over his republican opponent. he didn't draw them out. >> i think when democrats don't do well, there's this reflex to blame it on women, or minorities, or younger voters. as if, because democrats -- it had to be because of women and i just don't think that's true. >> you know what i've been saying? women are the cavalry, they were hoping to come in at the last minute and save it. >> gardner was a much better candidate than buck. so that helped things. and there were other factors -- >> is cory gardner has good as he looks? >> he actually has some good proposals that were attractive. he focussed on economic security. >> anyway, thank you for your acceptance of the fact that

women vote democrat normally. and thank you both for being here. why does president obama seem reluctant to do the political side of his job. there's a great new book called "the stranger," barack obama in the white house. he's coming here to talk about him, next. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

what you're doing now, janice. blogging. 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.

welcome back to "hardball." from his debut on the political stage, barack obama cast himself as an inspirational figure. with his rise came the hope that his leadership would transcend politics as usual in washington. his vision of how government should work was outlined in his 2006 book, the audacity of hope, dismissing the cynics, obama wrote that what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart and that if

enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done. now as his presidency enters his fourth quarter, president obama's legacy is being assessed. "the stranger" presents a stark portrait of a president falling short of expectations, suggesting that instead of transforming washington, obama is coping with it. obama set the high bar for himself. he must be transformation, period. anything less would be a disappointment, at least to himself. it might have been less challenging to save the world than to manage the 202 area code. here is my interview with chuck todd, author of "the stranger." he's also nbc news political director and moderator of "meet the press." >> let's go to the basics. people are still hopeful of the

president, i am. it's another quarter, the game is changed. when did you realize that the president's ability in the back room, the wheeling and dealing, the horse trading, if you will, the politics, wasn't up to his ability to the stage, which was so inspirational back in 2008? >> i don't want to say we knew at the time, but i think in hindsight, and i spend a long time on this. almost a full chapter on this point, it's a simple omnibus spending bill, but it was a bill written the old way democrats wrote spending bills. everybody got a piece of pork. everybody got something. and he hated it. he drew the line in the sand, i'm not going to do this. no more earmarks. this was a chance for him to be the new sheriff in town. >> you're talking about the stimulus bill? >> no. it was before the stimulus bill. before health care. this is very early on. it was a spending bill left over, that bush doesn't sign.

>> with all the cats and dogs fight? >> house democrats decided to wait and said, let's let our guy do it and we can do what we want with it. there was an argument saying the president should veto this. i'm in charge now, these are the rules i set forth. he didn't do it. he accepted the bill. he signed it, and then he lectured washington, saying, i don't like doing this, i'm not happy about doing this, but we've got bigger things to do. this was the perfectly rational reaction, i think, of president obama in how to deal with washington. move on, you need these guys, if you want to do health care and stimulus. but when you look back on it, it was a moment for him to draw a line in the sand and say, this is barack obama's washington. and in barack obama's washington, you don't do this. >> you know who drew a line in the sand? ronald reagan. >> compare it to that moment. the warning he got, was don't start a fight with david obi and nancy pelosi.

>> really? in. >> in hindsight, it was a leadership myth in washington. >> i read the other day that the president only met with mitch mcconnell one or two times alone in six years. how does that happen? >> well, i've been thinking about this a lot. and i know that there's certainly some criticism of my book as you're putting too much of this blame on the president and not enough blame on the republicans for the bad relationship in washington. i wonder in hindsight if the biggest unintended consequence of the 2008 landslide for him, which brought in bigger majority in the house and senate, is that it put him in a position where he didn't need the republicans. he tried a little bit early on to work with republicans, but because he didn't need it, there wasn't this intense effort to go build republicans. >> yeah. >> and so i think that it just, that's how it started getting out of hand.

yes, maybe republicans were plotting against him, at least in leadership, but there were early on republicans he could have picked off. the reagan model was not to work with leadership. it was to grab -- >> he had the support of the conservatives. >> that's right. but all of the people that would have worked with obama -- >> you're being very structural. seems to me it's more about his personality. why didn't he call on pelosi and say, what's the story on boehner, help me out here? call on steny and say, what's the story on this guy? how do we get to kanter and mccarthy? smart lobbyists like tommy boggs, he knew how to get to everybody, if they were clean or not. why doesn't the president figure out these guys and work them? do it in football every week, the films, you watch and see who you're playing. >> this is where the rational side of him sometimes doesn't serve him well in washington. meaning, he doesn't understand why these people need the cajoling that he needs. he doesn't need the back slap,

doesn't need somebody telling him they're great. you look at that and say, wow, how normal, how nice. but he doesn't quite get -- i think he views politicians that need the back slap and the cajoling as kind of -- >> [ all speak at once ] >> who's got kids in the military? find out right away. who has nephews in the military? who has kids in the peace corps? who has people with learning disabilities? find out everybody's baseball card and talk to them on that human basis and try to win over a coalition. >> the only answer i got, it just wasn't a priority. at the end of the day, i think he didn't see the personal relationships in congress as a priority. >> how come he played cards in springfield? why did he do it then and he won't do it now? >> that's a riddle that i've

never been able to figure out. i'll tell you another one that a bunch of people on capitol hill tell me, he loves golfing, why didn't he use the golf game to just get to know people? i understand the golf game is his time. he wants private time. doesn't get much. but there's little things that he doesn't do, and you're right, the springfield poker nights, when you look back on it, he never found a way to duplicate it. >> we didn't know he's a loner. >> it's tough to be president of the united states and -- >> it's basically a political job. >> yes. >> and i guess he didn't know that. i still like him, but this is going to be in the history books. the book is called "the stranger." you see it there. barack obama in the white house. thank you my friend and colleague chuck todd. up next, today is veterans day and right now our military is taking on isis, the islamic militants in iraq and syria. we'll find out how that is going with richard engel who is on the syrian border. plus the roundtable joins us. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. will that be all, sir?

thank you. ordering chinese food is a very predictable experience. i order b14. i get b14. no surprises. buying business internet, on the other hand, can be a roller coaster white knuckle thrill ride. you're promised one speed. but do you consistently get it? you do with comcast business. and often even more. it's reliable. just like kung pao fish. thank you, ping. reliably fast internet starts at $89.95 a month. comcast business. built for business.

from oregon to maine. now back to "hardball." >> welcome back to "hardball." some of the toughest fighting in the war against isis is taking place in the city of kobani in syria.

that city has been surrounded by isis for the last few months while kurdish fighters are holding on. richard engel was one of the few western journalists to see the fighting there. here's richard's report from the syrian border. >> in kobani, sometimes the kurdish defenders of the city and the isis militants are just 20 yards apart. in some cases, just one street will separate the two. they'll be in one building, the isis militants will be in another. and the kurdish defenders know if they're captured, they'll be killed or tortured. or the women could be sold into slavery. many of the kurdish defenders keep a bullet in their pocket. they call it the bullet of honor. they would commit suicide rather than being taken prisoner. and it's that intensity that drives the people of kobani. right now it's unclear who has the upper hand. they each hold about half of the city. the defenders of kobani are not out of the woods yet. they are completely dependent on supplies from the outside world,

ammunition, food, weapons, and if that supply line were cut, they could probably lose kobani in a matter of days. the u.s. has been helping with air strikes. without those air strikes, kobani would likely have already fallen. the battle in kobani is just one front in this multinational war against isis. as the president said, he's sending more troops into iraq, 1,500 more troops, dedicating billions more dollars, but the iraqi army needs a great deal of help. the iraq strategy is very divided, frankly. you have the shi'ite government, which is becoming increasingly sectarian and aligned with iran. you have the sunni tribes who are being massacred and not being able to stand up to isis. then you have the kurds in the north who have all about declared their independence. so it's hard to see how an extra 1,500 troops are going to make much of a difference, chris.

>> thank you, richard engel. an in-depth look at the battle against isis this friday night. we're joined by michael steele and two others. howard, this war we're in, we have to remind ourselves we're at war, but in a diminished capacity. we have 1,500 troops there, the president is asking for 1,500 more in a war that involves fighting 30,000 killers. where are we at on this? >> i talked to a couple people on the hill who follow this thing closely. they say that 1,500 troops is really a drop in the bucket, if we are going to fight off the kind of attack that isis represents. so it's not clear to me exactly what the strategic purpose is, another than to show that the united states is going to be on

the scene, mostly from the air, not from the ground. and if we are going to protect every city, if we're going to help protect kobani, then there are going to be 15, 20, 30 other cities, you saw the map there, that we'll have to do the same thing in. the president has to look at the possibility that the last two years of his presidency are going to be spent kind of re-fighting on a miniature scale in another country, the war that he promised to unwind and did in iraq. >> how do you fight a war and win it if all you're doing is playing defense? they can keep trying to take these cities, eventually might take them or move on to another city. but they're always on the offense. we have a puny force of advisers over there against a zealous army that believes god is with them. >> this is one thing you've had people be concerned about in the white house, on capitol hill, and then look at the american public. you haven't seen the anti-war forces really activate or engage, but how does it go with those extra 1,500 troops?

are we going to be seeing folks come back here injured, dead, worse? any of those things happen, that's something that can change anti-war sentiment here which could mark the last two years of his presidency. >> republicans are going to make this guy make a case. your party is historically more hawkish. where is it on this war? >> i think there's a little bit of division still beneath the surface for a lot of republicans. the rand paul wing has emerged in the last year or so. you have the neo cons represented by mccain. so i think there's division there, but you make the point, the broader point is, they want to know what the president wants to know what to do here. the idea of sending in 1,500 troops, that is not enough of a commitment if you're going to be serious about this. and whether or not the

administration pulls the trigger to commit more, mr. president, you said we were coming out of engagement in the middle east, particularly iraq. now we're going back. >> i think politically, what they're going to do is let him hang. >> that's right. >> there will be some people like mccain calling for many more troops, but in fact the republican party doesn't want to commit to 200,000 troops in syria. they'll criticize obama in both directions. >> there's a push on the hill as well to have a vote to authorize military force. you've seen some anti-war liberals. people want to be on the record here. [ all speak at once ] >> it's going to be a mess. >> and to the 2016 question, now all of a sudden this becomes a hook for the hillary clintons and the rand pauls and others out there looking at a presidential bid in 2016 and the backdrop to that bid is going to be, they're going to claim they want to vote, but they don't really want to. >> you have feelings about america and our country. you know, imagine being one of those soldiers over there.

they're risking their lives because they can be picked off. are they fighting for a united country. >> chris, you're asking this question. >> who are they fighting for? >> you're asking this question on veterans day. it couldn't be more urgent. if i were in the armed service right now and asked to go, i would go unquestioningly for my commander in chief, but i would ask in my mind, who's side are we really on here? what is the real objective? how do we know what we've won? or even how do we know when we haven't lost? and all of those questions are unanswerable at this point. and i don't see any clear way to answer them any time soon. i just don't. >> and it feels like how it felt leading up to the surge. you had the same feeling. you're hearing this from troops, wondering why are we there, what is our exit strategy, people back home wondering when it would end. and then president bush spends more troops and the economy became the focus instead.

>> and what started out as a humanitarian mission, we had folks stranded on a mountain, as we recall this episode beginning. >> the yazidis, has turned into something else. that not only our troops, but a lot of americans are going to start to question openly. and the president needs to be prepared with an answer, in a sense from the administration so far, we don't really have one yet. >> this is weird, because it's reactive. we all reacted emotionally to the beheadings. if they wanted to get us out of the war, stop beheading people. that's what got us in there. any time we get into a war situation, which is totally reactive, they're manipulating us. that's scary. doing this surge, at least the conservatives in this country, generally supported the war. which party now supports the war? neither one does. and that's horrible. you can't find any people at

home that are with you. we'll talk about mitt romney who seems to be re-emerging to run for president. he says he's not, but everything he's doing says he is. he's scrambling for the money. that says he's running. this is "hardball," the place for money -- actually, the place for politics. [ laughter ] 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.

we're coming back with a mystery man of 2016. we're back with the

we're back with the roundtable. mitt romney >> we're back with the round table. mike and christine has been here before. but howard, mit romney seriously denies that he's running for president. how do you believe politicians anymore? anything he says, in his actions, otherwise, look like he's running. according to several top republicans, romney made more than 80 phone calls last tuesday and wednesday including joni ernst of iowa. to congratulate her on her victories. a group of romney supporters began endoursing a memo. wonder why they would do that, howard? >> don't forget, mitt romney

can't stand chris christie. so anything he can do to mess around with chris christie is a possibility. >> if you're coming to jersey for a nickel, come through my large body. or you're not getting a nickel. >> so there's that. that's the small-minded part of it. the generous-minded part of it is that people have said to him, you know, you would have been a better president than this guy is now. >> christie in the polls show that people are having buyers' remorse. it's the time of year when people say i'm getting tired of you. here's the thing with romney. he looked good. he looked good and he was well-educated and he spoke well. he was a gentleman. he lacked what i would call a political personality, however. can he get one between now and next year? can he go shop for one? >> the people trying to advance this story, you know, donors, top strategists that are close

to him. they think he would have been the better president. they want to see him run against him. >> but cristina, he's one of them. >> hillary clinton is one of the first people you make a phone call to when you win. your phone rings, it's election night, i don't know how many people you call, but you stay engaged. >> does she call the losers? >> some of them. >> jimmy carter built an entire campaign in 1976 by going around the whole country to everybody who lost their primary general and established a relationship with them. that's how he built a campaign. it's pretty smart. >> it is staying in the conversation. now, i think right now there's a lot of people who have the love for him to go out and do it again. >> okay. okay. >> can i be honest? my old friends in the rnc that you have to worry about. howard, tell me as we always say around here, think it through

the way of apologize. somebody on the right is going to win. and somebody on the establishment left is going to win. if christie gets in trouble legally,and it's fair to say we don't know if he'll be tagged by this thing. who is fairly close to him. orr if he's not going to run, huge opportunity for mitt to say well, i never thought about it before. >> he still has ron standing in his way. >> yes, that's exactly what he's thinking. and, also, don't forget, he doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink. >> what else doesn't he do? >> he looks great. he looks modern. he's -- he looks good, you know. he doesn't look a day older than he looked a few years ago. you're right, if chris christie self destrukts, if jeb says i'm not going to do it, there's a whole mile for mitt romney. >> by the way, hillary clinton

is back. >> you're discounting individuals who i think would make a real run, casik, pence and others. >> which one can beat romney? >> i think pence and casik could giver him a run. >> pence has got a hell of a personality. >> he knows what he did wrong. and so this is where he's, like, oh, i'm going to want to try again. maybe. this is a big, wide open politics. i'm not going to count on this. >> politics are like, you know, they just keep correcting the mistake from the day before. hillary is also getting this. if i just fixed the problem yesterday, i shouldn't have said it about corporations. what they have to be good at is what clinton was good at. an anticipating the next question. this is fun. by the way, i'd rather talk about this than war or ebola. this was our strawberry short cake.

anyway, thank you. the reason we talk about this is we like to do it. when we return, let me finish with my thoughts. this veter ran's day. and that is very important. you're watching "hardball" the place for politics. then he asked for our credit cards. boo! and after 30 days he said it wasn't free anymore. people stop paying for your credit scores! but what should we do? go to credit karma dot com! you don't need a credit card and its always free. ooh credit karma dot com, where free is really free.

a broader mix of energies, world needs which is why we are supplying natural gas, to generate cleaner electricity, that has around 50% fewer co2 emissions than coal.

and why with our partner in brazil, we are producing a biofuel made from renewable sugarcane to fuel cars. let's broaden the world's energy mix, let's go. i'm just looking over the company bills.up? 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 this portrait in the "washington post" this morning. it says americans who lost their lives in afghanistan this year. so these wars do go on.

at any moment, there's a soldier out there on-post. he knows the danger and knows the mission and does his utmost to meet it. and all the time, he knows the risks he faces, the horror that, in an instant, can come upon him. it's what he's accepted and is living and perhaps dying for because he loves his country. i don't pretend to some superior position of the world of good and bad. i just have my political observations. when it comes to soldiers defending the country and policemen guarding us on our streets, i don't pretend neutrality. not neutrality. like my hero winston churchill who stood up sometimes alone against hitler, i refuse to be impartial in the fire brigade. i root for the soldier, the american patriot out there on post right now, just at this moment, hoping to get through, wonder if his country will ever

get it, what it's like to be him. right now. when he hears that sound over there, just the sight and waits to know what his commitment to serve and to his country could cost. god bless the good soldier, god bless the good veteran who knows of what i speak. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. >> tonight on "all in." >> violence will not be tolerated. >> the governor of missouri announces the national guard is on standby as ferguson braces for a grand jury decision. >> when the announcement is made, there's no amount of force keeping people from the streets. >> today's escalation in ferguson. then, president bernie sanders? the independent from vermont makes a big campaign move and he's here to explain. plus, overrun by protesters. how do drug cartels gain such a stronghold on a mexican