as a set. >> thank you very much. chris hayes is up next. political football. let's play "hardball." ♪ good evening. i'm cris matthews on a night when the word super bowl isn't a break from political intrigue, but an invitation to more intrigue. someone deflated the footballs in the big win over indianapolis on sunday. whoever did it made the footballs just the way tom brady likes them. we no that, because he said that late this afternoon at a press conference.

if he didn't deflate the footballs, who did? i realize there are four stages of getting a football onto the field. stage 1, nfl checks the pressure to make sure it's up to regulation. stage 2, equipment managers engage in some sort of process with the ball. stage 3, brady himself engaged in a process with the balls. stage 4, the equipment managers get the footballs finally out onto the field. the question is, at what stage of custody did they get dropped below the regulation level? and why hasn't the envelope that says it's investigating the matter even spoken to brady yet. what is the story here? joining us is the great john rig gins, who was the super bowl mvp back in '83, inducted to the football hall of fame, and joined by rob simmelkar. he said he had no knowledge that the footballs had been tampered with. here he is. >> are you comfortable with yourself that nobody on the patriots side did anything wrong? >> i have no knowledge of

anything. i have no nothing of any wrongdoing. i'm very comfortable saying that. i'm very comfortable saying that -- as far as i know. i also understand that i, you know, was in the locker room reparing for a game. i don't know what happened over the course of the process with the footballs. i was preparing for my own job, doing what i needed to do. >> john riggins, this process, the word that was used about 50 times, does that surprise you how much work goes into it. and then somehow it gets to the quarterback, and he has to do a process, and then he sends it out to the field, the balls show up, and he gets the balls in his hand one at a time, obviously. what's this all this processing about. >> did you get the feeling you were asking eddie haskell? >> the one the parents like, but the kids don't? >> he says all the right things, but always has something going

on at the side. to me i understand at this point in time, it's all about the nfl shield, which is its integrity. at the same time from having been a former player, i would say this, and you haven't heard any of them say anything yet, and i don't think they will. if you're a colt, the last thing you're going to tell them if they would have had two more pounds in that ball, we would have won that game. so ultimately my take on this is it's the nfl's problem, and it's something they obviously didn't think was a big deal, because they didn't guard the balls. they allowed whatever happened. at this point in time i'm surprised they don't have a full explanation. they know who the equipment people are, they know everything. bill bell economic and most of

all robert kraft. he is sitting on information i'm sure they're not ready to release yet, but that's what i see. ultimately what i'm trying to say is i don't think it's a big problem. i think the quarterback if he wants two or less pounds, did he really cheat? i look at it like this, you're going to a top sign, there's nobody coming, you're the only person there, you go through the stop sign. you technically broke the law, but what did it hurt? >> the colts were coming the other way in this case. >> the colts could do the same thing. what tier talking -- >> but some player -- a safety, a guy who intercepted the ball called the trots on if and said there's something wrong with this ball, turns it over to the ref, and it turns out it was deflated, almost all of these are below regulation.

>> well, that's the one thing i would say. first of all, if i ever rob a bank i'm going to have bell belichick being my accomplice. i know when we get caught, and we will get caught, he will never roll over. >> i'm not sure he didn't throw his quarterback under the bus and if the quarterback didn't throw some equipment handlers under is the bus. if the quarterback didn't do it and belichick didn't know about it, because he didn't give any orders to do it, brady comes across really swell. he says basically i got the football i lined. when we were in the training room or locker room, and he's picking the ones he liked, he liked it. so he liked the way the ball was pressurized. what does that tell you? the equipment managers know what he likes and they give it to them? your thoughts. >> first of all i feel like i'm back in law school with the chain of custody -- >> i just saw the o.j. review last night on cnn, so i'm

thinking about that. >> i think the lady doth protest too much when it comes to brady. i can't believe he does not have regular communication with the equipment people about how he likes the ball. he likes it scuffed up a certain way. he likes it inflated a certain way. he has said in the past that he liked the ball to be on the less inflated side. i'm sure he tells the equipment managers that. and so this is clearly something that he has communicated. now, he should know, and probably does know there's a limit below which you can't go. >> to ensure -- >> and i'm sure he's not saying guys, let's go below that limit. >> then he 'lying, because he said i liked 12.5. that is regulation, but the question is the balls came in, the ones that were picked out in the game, all of them, were below that. >> so the question is how did

they get below that? that's something we may never really know the answer to. that may be the frustrating conclusion, is no one ever figures out how the balls got below 12.5. one of the things that surprised me that he said, here we are on thursday, and the nfl still hasn't spoken with him. i'm trying to understand what kind of investigation that is when they still haven't spoken with the quarterback, the only guy who touches the ball other than the center on every play, and here we are on thursday. >> isn't the rule in the courtroom don't ask a question unless you know what the answer is? maybe they don't want anybody to say i did it. >> maybe they're working their way up from the ball boy to the center, to -- >> i don't think so. >> i don't know, but they're going to have to talk to him if they want to get to the bottom of this. >> on tuesday the nfl executive vice president troy vincent said he hoped the investigation would taye a few days, but earlier

today, brady said he has yet to be contacted by the league. this is weirdly slow. >> have they talked to you? the league has not contacted you yet? >> no, you know, but they may. i think that's their -- i think that's obviously their choice. >> do you find that odd, though? like tom said, if they wanted to put this behind us and get ready for the super bowl. >> sure. yeah, they might. >> it's odd they haven't at this point. you're the quarterback and you're the center of the story right now, and the league's officials investigating haven't talked to you. that indicates that a lot of people that they're letting this drag on, twist in the wind. >> i'm not sure. >> have you been told that they will contact you? >> i'm not sure. >> when asked to ver -- an nfl spokesman said they are not commenting on details of the review at this point.

john riggins, a superstar for -- >> not really. >> you are. you are. you know on super bowl sunday, the first two or three hours of pregame which goes on forever, and everybody is eating their guam moil, it will all be about this. >> you would think that. here's the thing, getting back to some of the other comments i made earlier, the nfl -- this is a situation that they brought upon themselves, and ultimately, if you leave those footballs to whomever, and now you end up with a situation after somebody detects this, where do you go with this? what are you really trying to say here? i think 90% of the people that played this game would tell you that they think the effect of the game is any jib. >> not to brady and not to those who want it a certain way. >> i don't see that. >> here's the question, john. two hours before the game, they check the balls, all the balls to be used in the game to make sure they fit between 12.5 and

13.5 in pressure. they take is seriously, but then as you point out, two hours pass, you know? a lot of things can happen. obviously people can change the pressure in that two hours. of course, they could. this is what i'm trying to hammer home here. if it is so important, why aren't these balls guarded once this process takes place? the other part of tom brady's press conference that i found a bit of a stretch was the faulk he talks about he's very intimate with these footballs that he wants to know if they have the right feel or -- i get the impress v a guy who's type a, and he's checking the pressure. he's going to tell somebody they're low on air, i want a 12.5 ball. why think he would know that. i would have to consider him along with the other 31 quarterbacks, they are experts at what they do. >> let me go back to rob. can you scuff up a bay to take

pressure off of it? maybe it softer to the touch, more give to it? >> listen i'm not a physicist, but i don't see why scuffs the surface could cause the air pressure to change. stwlz a bladder inside the ball. that's what holes the air. the surface is not what's holding the air. you only thing i can think of is and it's been mentioned. it was a cold day. i don't know that the temperature can call that much depressurization, if you will of the ball in a couple hours, but we need a scientist to figure that one out. >> actually he brings up a great point. that was something i was going to add. the air pressure was probably checked where it was 70 degrees, you go out on the field. >> it wasn't freezing. >> that's a considerable drop in temperature, and you're going to

have -- the molecules are not as excited in the air. >> all i know is the player on the colds complained about it and gave it to the ref. something is wrong here. thank you, john riggins, and rob simmelkajr. sabol stage here? the speaker invited benjamin netanyahu to slam the president during a joint meeting of congress. that's coming up. netanyahu has obviously accepted the invitation. the two men, the two 2016 heavyweights are secretly meeting in utah to try to avoid a mutual battle of destruction. also republicans have a rebellion on their hands. women lawmakers have derailed the leadership's bill, because it tained can all-too family gop skepticism about allegations of rape. they have that problem again. a new poll shows numbers with hillary up double digits over mitt romney and jeb bush. does that price you? not me. this is "hardball," the place for politics. for my frequent heartburn. because it gives me...

zero heartburn! prilosec otc. the number 1 doctor-recommended frequent heartburn medicine for 9 straight years. one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. flo: hey, big guy. i heard you lost a close one today. look, jamie, maybe we weren't the lowest rate this time. but when you show people their progressive direct rate and our competitors' rates you can't win them all. the important part is, you helped them save. thanks, flo. okay, let's go get you an ice cream cone, champ. with sprinkles? sprinkles are for winners. i understand. man (sternly): where do you think you're going? mr. mucus: to work, with you. it's taco tuesday. man: you're not coming. i took mucinex to help get rid of my mucusy congestion. i'm good all day. [announcer:] mucinex keeps working. not 4, not 6 but 12 hours. let's end this

breaking news tonight out of the saudi arabia. king abdullah has died according to saudi state television. the king hats ruled since 2005, previously running the country as a de facto rejent when his brother who preceded him had the debilitating stroke. the king will be buried on friday. he was 90 years old. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." the white house is obviously stunned by the spectacle that john boehner has orchestrated on capitol hill. speaker boehner stuck it to the president's eye, directly in his eye by inviting benjamin netanyahu, a fierce critic of obama's negotiation with iran, to address a joint meeting of congress come march 3rd. speaker boehner arranged the whole thing without ever consulting the white house. netanyahu accepted, but the white house said the president will not even meet with netanyahu when he comes to

washington. this is something i've never seen before. speaker boehner maid no apologies for the confrontation he staging. i did not consult with the white house. the congress can make the decision. i don't believe i am poking anyone in the eye. there is a serious threat that exists in the world, and the president last night kind of papered over it. the fact is that there needs to be a more serious conversation in america about how serious the threat is from radical islamic jihadists and the threat posed by iran. >> anyway it's going to be about iran, not jihadists. speaker boehner told republicans behind closed doors -- the president expects us to stand idly by and do nothing while -- glen thrush, senior write with politico, and richard haus, the president for the council on foreign relations. i have seen a lot of politics and never seen anything so in your face as this. bringing a friendly foreign

leader or friend of this country, but a man of the right, a likud party leader, with his own ideology that is adver sear to this president, bringing him to the congress to address this country. in the middle of a political debate, in the middle of sensitive negotiations trying to avoid a war with iran, yet bringing him in here to put his thumb on the scale is ferocious hardball politics. i don't even know where it came from. it's hard for me to believe he thought of this, but maybe he's getting cranky in his politics. >> two words -- immigration reform. this is payback for president obama acting in boehner's view unilaterally. boehner face add vote from 24 of his own people during his leadership vote, because he was perceived as being too weak in responding to the immigration stuff. this has everything to do with payback for having absorbed that. >> richard, i want you to respond to this.

it gets tougher. bob menendez, the top democrat on foreign relations, hi attacked the white house calling it a mouthpiece for the iranian government. he's going after two white house officials at a hearing just yesterday. >> you know, i have to be honest with you. the more i hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of the tehran. it feeds to the iranian narrative of victimization, when they are the ones with original sin. an illicit nuclear weapons program going back over the course of 20 years, they are unwilling to come clean on. >> richard, i know you know this well, better than i do. i am stunned by this political performance. anytime you're dealing with israel, it's tricky business, but to go right in there, these two voices, accusing tony blanken of being a mouthpiece

for tehran, for the ayatollahs? isn't that beyond the usual politics we engage in in this country? >> you and i both grew up in the era that politics stopped at the water's edge. i don't believe we live in that era anymore. i don't know whether the white house or the israeli opposition is more unhappy. this statement will come literally days before the israelis go to the polls. >> with le hear from the others or just netanyahu. how about a balance here once in a while? just a thought. >> i expect in this case we'll only hear from the prime minister. should mr. boehner have done this? is in my view essentially not. yes, he has the right to do it, but it's tough enough carrying

out a foreign policy in this world when the united states speaks with one voice. to try to do it when we speak with many voices i think it just makes a difficult situation rougher. there's lots of ways that the congress can weigh in. i'm not sure this is necessarily the best way to do it. >> if we're looking at it did this puts him behind the eight ball. the role of the jewish community and the cristian right, we all know the politics and sensitivities. for any democrat to complain about what netanyahu says is trouble right there, what he represents. how do they deal with this, glen? what will they do except snub him? when doesn't make the president look good. parent kerry has announced he's not going to meet with him. >> netanyahu's behaved badly before, right? he was perceived and there was some either rumors or tapes, i forget which, of saying

incredibly nice things about mitt romney and coming to the country not long before the 2012 election. this is not the first time he's sort of dived into the merge political waters. i think the class the white house is making is that netanyahu will overshoot the runway, appear ingracious. remember the bomb thing at the u.n. with the cartoon bomb scenario? >> i can give you a couple netten in a hue-isms. i was over there with vice president biden, a very trong 40, 50-year friend of israel, and they announce a big housing settlement there right there. netanyahu goes to france. he invites jewish people to leave france because it's not a safe place to be and come to israel. graciousness is not his normal behavior. will he overshoot the runway or will he be mr. charm?

>> he's an extraordinarily capable politician. that's a reason he's been in office as long as he has, but he's going to make a powerful case, as he sees it about why iran is the greatest strategic threat no simply to his own countries, but countries of the region and the world, and its implicit or sxlis in his arguments is the united states is not taking a sufficiently robust stance vis-a-vis iran. he will argue for more sanctions. he will argue for an outcome in the negotiations that's probably unclefable. he wasn't iran out of the the nuclear business, that's beyond what could ever be negotiated. he's probably going to set the stage for the stage for any opposition -- >> is the administration right in saying that means war? >> no. what matters more is whether we gets an agreement is what iran does in its laboratories and how well we can monitor it.

it could be a lousy agreement or you could have a situation without an agreement that could actually be acceptable, again depending on what iran does. so i think this question of the agreementn narrow sense is probably not necessarily the right place to put the entire focus? there's a lot of diplomacy, which off -- because the conversation we're having? imagine if a formal agreement had to be debated in our congress or in the iranian political system. that would give the hardliners on both sides a target to go after. it might actually be easier to finesse it without a formal agreement. >> i always feel better after talking to you, rich. it seems to me that the republican leadership had a problem until a few days ago. what we thought about them in terms of jewish people generally, which we are talking about the jewish state over there, and there are security

concern which are offensely real. they have scalise over there, notoriously known going to a meeting that was organized by nazis. i was thinking the other day what a miserable job he now and now he has the greatest job in the world. we're going to host netanyahu, so how much is that playing, to fix the wagon when when he get caught? >> i think the dnc is printing up the t-shirts as we speak. you're slightly right. whenever you talk about israel and jewish politics, and i grew up in new york, so i have stewed in this stuff. despite mitt romney really wrapping himself in an israeli flag, this el didn't do substantially better with jewish voters. >> i agree. not since reagan. >> it would be sloppy, but i don't believe it would be particularly consequential. >> we'll see, as they say in the movies. richard, thank you so much, and glenn rush, thank you. up next, can mitt romney and job bush avoid a campaign of

mutual destruction? "new york times" reports they were meeting in secrecy. i don't see how they can get together. they're against each other. it's one or the other, and i think mitt romney knows that most. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

welcome back to "hardball." a secret meeting took place out in utah between two big-time front-runners for the republican nomination come 2016. jeb bush, of course, and mitt romney. while the meeting was originally scheduled before mitt romney

announced hi desire to run, there's an increasing tense relationship. as reported this morning in "new york times," the original idea was for mr. bush to announce to show his respect for mr. romney. the meeting stayed on both men's calendars moving that could make the meeting a tad awkward. joining me is the man who broke the story, jon man that is righten national correspondent for "new york times." jonathan, mitt romney ran one of the most rot-gut campaigns i've seen, totally utterly negative. i've never seen such a devastating dresden-style bombing campaign. now he's sitting there making nice with jeb bush? i don't think so. i get the feeling romney will run this third time with a much nastier ends justify the means approach than we have ever seen before. your thinking? >> that's what the republican donor elite is worried about. that's why i think you have a lot of republicans at the senior level of the republicans who are happy this meeting is taking place. to them at least it's some

indication that there's there's a possibility that these two party elders, as you put it, could work out a deal. i'm not saying that's going to happen. >> >> they're not going to step back at this point. >> but at least that possibility exists. the two of them have enough of a relationship to actually meet one another privately. so, look, it's still very much an open question as to whether or not both are going to run. it increasingly looks like they will. there's still a possibility that romney especially does not go forward. >> i look back at people, and you can't get too many exampleses, but it seems like when politicians lose the first time. they run more aggressively the second time. they get nastier. they get to the point of i'm not losing again. it doesn't look like he's going to give too much quarter to ma meeting today.

it's going to be like a couple fraternity guys together, ivy leaguers, we'll be sweet with each other. there's no 11th commandment. that's george romney's idea, his father. say no evil of a fellow republican. that ain't happening. >> yeah. both of these fellows have been through tough races, and i don't think they're afraid to throw punches, but i think they want the party to take back the white house. there's pressure from them from senior people to avoid a bloodbath come 2016. even if they wind up running, i think there's going to be some pressure on them to not carve up each other too much to allow somebody else who perhaps would have a harder time winning the general to get nominated. but chris, the secret nature of the meeting between the sort of two formidable figures reminds me of a moment in history, when nixon and rockefeller got together in manhattan, and sort of talked about, you know, cutting a deal. that was a long meeting, and it ultimately worked out. nixon got the nomination and the

presidency. >> yeah, it made nixon look like a wimp. [ laughter ] >> this is an attack ad that romney had ready for the 2008 campaign, the first run, linked to buzzfeed. posted today, was aimed squarely at his former opponent, huckabee. it just happened to leak today, showing that romney does have bullets in his gun. here it goes. >> i'm mitt romney and i approved this message. this is my daughter. she was pregnant with her first child. she was murdered by a serial rapist, released early from prison in arkansas. it was mike huckabee's intent that wayne demond be released. it's a pattern of bad judgment, very bad judgment. i don't know how you could trust

that person with the highest power in our country. >> i think this was lee atworld that said i was -- isn't this showing, at least by the mental memory of this terrible ad, was this a signal from the romney people look out, i'm coming and shooting, i'm going to kill huckabee in his bed and will get rid of -- this is a tough ad. >> it's a really tough ad. i think it's very possible that could be a message being sent, but i also think if the romney folks wanted to send a message today after our story in the paper, they would have leaked something about jeb bush somewhere, this -- >> but then you get him ticked off and he won't quit. >> that's possible, but i think it's unlikely that jeb pulls back at this point. he's moving around aggressively, and i think romney is figuring this thing out. >> one of on you producers said 16 candidates that seem credible? >> it could be more than that. >> what's your count?

>> it could be more than that. i think you have new perspective candidates to fill out a football team on both sides of the ball. >> wow. >> it could be over 20. who knows who actually runs, but i think you've got a really big republican field. all kinds of candidates, like noah's ark, two of everything. >> pretty wide field. great reporting. congratulations on the scoop. >> thanks, chris. they pull back their over abortion bill, again haunted by the issue of rape. this time a group of republican women have scuttled the bill over the proposed treatment of female victims of rape. you're watching "hardball," a place for politics.

welcome back to "hardball." both todd akin and ruper murdoch

lost largely due to their comments on the matter of rape. that's right, rape, creating a cautionary tale. just to refresh your memory, here they are. >> it seems to me first of all, from what i understand from doctors, it's really rare. if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that thing down. >> i think when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that god intended to happen. >> you would think the party would learn a lesson, avoid talking about rape, specifically whether or not it's legitimate or not. last night house leadership abruptly pulled a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks. that bill measure included an exception for rape, if the rape had been reported at any time prior to the abortion. proof it was a legitimate rape, a group of women and moderate republicans led the charge to pull the built. "national journal" reports that martha blackburn, a lead co-sponsor of the bill gaping an impassioned speech that because of the rape clause, the gop was fumbling over the sensitive subject instead of talking about other issues.

joining muss michael steele, spokes per for emily's list marcie stitch, and -- and this is really politics, not exactly values. franklin roosevelt just set don't mention the world "rope" in a family where there's a hanging. men especially men of a certain age sound like idiots when they say legitimate rape, in other words, was she really raped? women don't like the sound of that. >> it's clear that republicans have not learned a lesson. we saw this happen in 2012. in 2014, we saw them blur their records and get by without a todd akin moment. last night they were still able today to get to a place where they passed a bill that was also equally as dangerous. it's not just about this particular issue, not just about the politics of this. this is their agenda, and they're moving forward with it.

>> i know the platform, and it did say you're for the 14 -- basically saying against abortion in principle. >> right. >> what's this thing about rape and why does your party get into this yucky thing of saying, well, if she really was raped? let's see some legal documentation to prove it. we don't want to go by her word. a woman's word that she was raped is enough. >> there were some who said, gentlemen, shut up, hold the bill and let's start over. this is not the conversation we should be having. the politics of this, to your point, is today is the march for life in washington. so you have -- this is an homage, a bill to the base to this core constituency of is the

gop. i find that in and of itself offensive as a pro-life catholic. i find that offensive, pass a bill on pro-life day. i for a i feel so much better, you're doing so much for us, but at the end of the day the women of the gop inside the house are asserting themselves. that's a good thing. they're putting the men in check. you may not like what ultimately came out. that's your political position, that's your, you know, your moral position, but at least now you have some voices inside the caucus in particular that can help temper some of these todd akin moments, if you will. >> there are women republicans who know what they're talking about, because they're women,

they know about reproductive reality, and them rep men, let's go to the worst quadrant, men who are conservatives who know the least about this stuff. >> as is often the case it's the women sensible about this. >> that will get you home tonight. >> it will. i do think it's moderately good news for the republican party that they came to their senses last night about this. it's one of first signs that i've seen, actually that they raleigh are going to try to win the 2016 election. and i think that's significant. i think that's significant. whether they'll be able to control themselves is questionable. you'll have the iowa caucuses. for example, just this weekend all of the pro-life candidates will be trouping out to iowa to tell evangelicals how much they care about banning abortion entirely, constitutional amendment, human life amendment. that's at the core of the republican party base. so they're getting smarter, perhaps, in congress, but the

grassroots are still there to be -- >> and the pro-choice are certainly on their -- earlier a congresswoman commented on the decision. here she is, a very strong pro-choice person. here she is. >> i've been in congress for 18 years now, the co-share of the pro-choice caucus for a number of those years. i've never seen the republican leadership have to pull a bill like this, a bill like this. and let's remember, the republicans have their biggest majority since the 1920s. i think at least they republican women realize this is a divisive issue and it's not going to go to help families and women in this country. >> that's my point. that's exactly your point. >> it's very much a partisan issue. in. republican convention i'm not sure you still push the other side as hard. is that fair? >> push the pro-life?

>> yeah. >> they do. when you get closer to the convention, you do have much more noise, if you will, for people within the party who want to further strengthen the convention. >> really? i don't hear much from the candidates. >> wait a minute. they don't give big primetime speeches anymore -- >> did you hear me say that? >> no. >> what you heard me say is you have activists who push the subject at the convention. it doesn't mean it gravitates to that level. but not the candidate. >> look, we're 15 days into the new republican congress, all eyes on them. here we are the last 24 hours have been a banner 24 hours for them, fumbling, causing chaos within their own caucus, but the reason why they wanted to change this was about optics. it wasn't actually about the substance. if you listen to renee el mer, a whom who stood up and said this is going to look back with millennial.

it was about optics. that's who motivates them with women voter. >> is that fair? >> it's not just optics. >> are you saying they mistrust a woman's witness to having been raped? they were willing to go on the record and say we as a party don't trust women? >> i think that is very clear. it's not just on choice. they don't trust them --. >> hang on, everybody. >> they found a safer way to deal with the optics, twles for one day. the roundtable is staying with us. hillary clinton has a command been lead in the new polls for the presidency. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

new jersey governor chris christie hasn't recovered from the george washington bridge lane closure story, which i don't believe is anywhere near over, by the way. he's at his lowest approval ratings in four years according to a new quinnipiac poll. 46% versus 48% who don't. besides the bridge, he's taking a hit because the economy in his home state hasn't recovered as quickly as it has elsewhere in the country. we'll be right back.

welcome back to hardball where there is good news for hillary clinton again. she holds a double digit lead over jeb boosh in a hype thet kak 2016 match up. it also shows her with a 15 point lead over mitt romney for a potential run. back to the round table, i want to start with michael here.

everybody knows her. the fact is 85% of democrats in a recent poll get in there, go hillary go. she is almost like a republican candidate, it's her turn. and jeb up against mitt, and people out of the ring, like rahm emanuel. >> so is your party still just a little bit in disarray even though -- you can't be democrats, it is republicans? >> it's not even really disarray. people have not jumped in even said i have a campaign and i'm running. this is still the early stages of setting up and positioning that natural part. you have a lot of folks, you have 25 or 30 people personally. that will whittle down. i can't help that the democrats don't have a bench.

we have a very good bench, and the reality at the end of the day, they have hillary, that is about it, and we have a whole array of folks -- >> who do you think can beat her? >> pretty much all of them. >> you're such a chairman of the party. hillary clinton, another tricky thing like israel, does he run as a woman or is that implicit. >> obama ran as a son of immigrants, he was very careful, everyone thought they had a piece of him. >> i think if you look at this poll, we see that democrats and the country is ready for a woman candidate -- >> per se. >> well, yes. it is 2015, it is time. women don't vote for women just because they're women, they vote for policies and values. they vote for people who are on their side. if you look at what she has done

in her career, should she decide to run, it will be centered around economic opportunity for women. she is talking about paid family leave -- >> domestic issues. howard -- >> now she benefits from the passage of time. because going back to 2008, it turns out that it was barack obama who made demographic history. but now women in politics, i think, will become such an accepted thing that she doesn't have to run as a demographic path breaker. there is evidence to show that. most people say it doesn't make any difference. >> it s it already broken? >> yes, she can't run as a history making woman of time. >> so no last minute pull back from the polling. >> you know what i mean, people say one thing in the poll and then the next day they vote differently? >> if he runs as a person trying to make history -- >> michael made a shot at her. getting off of her private

plane. $300,000 per speech. cha chang. >> when we rurng with a tribute to the passing of the greatest leader in history. he will me finish tonight with this. this saturday marks 50 years of the great oes man of the 20th century. winston churchill. he would have been one of the most impressive people of the 21st century even if he had not 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.

he will me finish tonight with this. this saturday marks 50 years of the great oes man of the 20th century. winston churchill. he would have been one of the most impressive people of the 21st century even if he had not done what he did. my hero did have one bad habit, quote, all of the year i have been in the house of commons, i always said to myself one thing, do not interrupt and i have never been able to keep to that resolution. what he had was the courage to preek out when others did.

churchill was right when he saw then lighting a war machine. churchill knew that national morale was everything. he lost a half dozen elections in had life, but he had nothing but contempt for those that loved the word democracy but rejected free elections. democracy is not a harlot to be picked up in the street by a man with a tommy gun. most of all, though he wanted public support, though he liked, like all of us, to be popular, he was not afraid to stand alone. when hitler stood and stared a cross the channel, he stood and stared back. "all in with chris hayes" is next. a mitt romney and jeb bush summit is on.

democracy is not a harlot to be picked up in the street by a man with a tommy gun. most of all, though he wanted public support, though he liked, like all of us, to be popular, he was not afraid to stand alone. when hitler stood and stared a cross the channel, he stood and stared back. "all in with chris hayes" is next. a mitt romney and jeb bush summit is on. >> plus, antiabortion problems on the hill. >> i ask involuntary manslaughter consent to remove myself from h.r.-36. >> republican women rebel over an abortion bill. then, new criticism of bill cosby. the question, is it still okay to watch the cosby show? >> i have no knowledge --