to make your enterprise more agile, borderless and secure. hp helps business move on all the possibilities of today. and stay ready for everything that is still to come. this sunday, crises from isis to iran to ukraine. >> president putin's got to make the decision to take the off ramp. >> the obama administration calls for strategic patience. my exclusive interview with secretary of state john kerry. also, the measles outbreak. the debate over government mandates like vaccines for children, is personal liberty being denied in the name of the public good? >> mandating vaccines opens up the door for them to mandate all sorts of other things. what my child eats. where my child goes to school. >> what violence in the name of the religion, as the world reacts with horror to the atrocities committed by isis,

was president obama right to point out christianity's violent past? >> remember that during the crusades and the inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of christ. >> i'm chuck todd, and joining me this morning to provide insight and analysis are, david brooks of "the new york times." andrea mitchell, my colleague here at nbc. the bbc's katty kay. and stephen henderson. welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, this is "meet the press." with chuck todd. good morning. it's been a weekend of tense diplomacy and we're going to bring you my exclusive interview with secretary of state john kerry in just a minute. but the fate of american aid worker kayla mueller remains unknown two days after isis claimed that she had been killed in a jordanian missile strike in syria, isis still has offered no proof, and the state department says it has been unable to verify the claim. meanwhile, peace talks have been taking place at the munich security conference in an effort to end the intensifying fighting between russia and ukraine.

france and germany's leaders are now warning that the conflict could develop into a total war that could spill beyond ukraine's borders into eastern europe, unless a peace deal is reached. on friday, president obama unveiled his updated national security strategy. it's a document that has been criticized by republicans for outlining too cautious of an approach. here's the president's national security adviser susan rice, outlining the new strategy. >> while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during world war ii, or during the cold war. we cannot afford to be buffeted by alarmism, and a nearly instantaneous news cycle. >> yesterday, i spoke with secretary of state john kerry from munich, and i started by asking him whether the u.s. is winning in our goal of diminishing and eventually destroying isis.

>> i believe we are on the road to yes, i absolutely do. and i think the evidence is not in my saying it, but it's in the facts of what is happening. first of all, the coalition is strong more committed than ever, particularly in the aftermath of the burning of the jordanian pilot. the resounding reaffirmations of commitment throughout the arab world have been heartening and strong. we have already seen -- i mean here's what's happened. 22% of the populated areas that they held have been taken back already. and that's without launching what we would call a major offensive. it's with the efforts of the iraqi army as it's being retrained and standing up again. to reclaim some territory as they begin to probe. we have taken out a significant proportion of the top leadership of isis. their command and control

facilities have been attacked, interrupting their command, and control. they no longer can communicate the way they were, as openly. they no longer travel in convoys the way they were as openly, or where they do, they're at great risk. now there's a lot more to do. we have said since the beginning this is a long-term operation, not a short-term one. but we believe everything, including the governing process in iraq itself, is moving in the right direction. >> well, i want to -- i was going to say, not everybody agrees that the u.s. is doing enough. my colleague had an interview with the head of the kurdish province in iraq. i want you to take a listen to what he said about the war. >> president obama said there's a strategy in place to degrade and defeat isis. do you believe him? >> he is the president of the united states -- >> do you believe there's a strategy to do that? >> i hope there is. we need that strategy to be translated into action. >> so you're not seeing it?

>> not yet. >> you're not seeing the strategy? >> we have not seen -- >> that could degrade and defeat -- >> yeah, so far we have not seen any serious action that can quickly defeat isis. >> or slowly? can it work over the long term? >> it can. it can. but once again, i mean, we are sacrificing more lives than putting many innocent lives at risk by allowing isis to survive for a longer period. >> secretary, that was chancellor barzani, that's what he was telling richard engel, he's essentially saying they need more support. they need swifter action from the united states. what do you say in response? >> well, you heard the key word there. which was not quickly, but he said over time it can work. and we have said consistently that this is going to take a certain amount of time. now why? is that because we want it to take amount of time? no.

the fact is that the iraqi army itself needs to be retrained and stood up. there have to be ground troops involved in order to win this victory. and it's clear they're not going to be american, they're not going to be british, they're not going to be french and european, they are going to be iraqi. and that's the way the iraqis want it. but they're not ready to move yet, and it would be a great mistake strategically for them to move before they are ready. so i understand president barzani's impatience. i fully understand it. the peshmerga have been particularly brave and courageous. we have supplied them with enormous amount of ammunition, weapons, other things. and others are supplying them. our allies. so, i think as we said from the beginning, people need to be recognizing the importance of putting in place a strategy that can win. >> now you're pleading for patience. it was something a former

colleague of yours in the u.s. senate lindsey graham was sort of mocking and had to do more with a speech that susan rice gave on friday outlining the new national security strategy, and he tweeted this. he said, i doubt isil, the iranian mullahs, or vladimir putin will be intimidated by president obama's strategy of strategic patience. and the other implication here mr. secretary, is that impatience, waiting too long, is what allowed an isis to gain a foothold. that we didn't react soon enough, and now we're paying the price for it. >> well isis gained the foothold that it gained in iraq principally because the army had been personalized, and fundamentally become a sectarian entity, and so within sunni areas, unfortunately, there weren't enough people with a stake in the game in order to stand their ground because it wasn't their army. so there are a lot of reasons

for how we got to where we are today. what we need to understand is that we have moved from instant one, to buttress iraq to build a coalition. people were astonished that we were able to get five sunni nations to join us in taking on the challenge of syria. i think we have put together a strong coalition. i just don't buy into that. i know that vice president biden gave a speech at the munich conference, essentially on ukraine, saying that the united states would be there to provide assistance to ukraine. he didn't quite outline it. but, obviously it was an indictment of what russia's been doing in there. the weapons they've been providing. how soon will the united states be providing more security assistance, heavier artillery, to ukraine? >> well i'm not going to go into precisely what items are

going to be provided to ukraine, but i have no doubt that additional assistance, of economic kind and others, other kinds, will be going to ukraine. and we do so understanding there is no military solution. the solution is a political, diplomatic one, but president putin's got to make the decision to take an off-ramp. and we have to make it clear to him that we are absolutely committed to the sovereignty is integrity of ukraine, no matter what. >> is he irrational -- do people believe president putin is a rational actor here? because you outlined the economic sanctions and the drop in oil have had a huge impact. and yet it has not changed his behavior. >> well i'm not going to get into characterizations except people can draw their own on conclusions based on what they see. he is leaving the leaving the global community with no choice but to either continue to put more sanctions in place or provide additional assistance to ukraine and hopefully he will

come to a point where he realizes the damage he is doing is not just to the global order, and the process, but he is doing enormous damage to russia itself. and i'm convinced, i think most people are convinced, that each month that goes by, that will catch up to him ultimately in russia itself. the nationalistic card is playing for the moment. but ultimately people want their lives to be better. >> quickly, last question, the iran nuclear talks, i know that's also front and center. you have a very, very busy agenda these days. on -- is it just a deal or no deal or is there a chance that you extend the current sort of temporary deal that's in place now? >> well, the only chance i can see of an extension at this point in time would be that you really have the outlines of the agreement. but if we're not able to make the fundamental decisions that have to be made over the course of the next weeks, literally, i think it would be impossible to

extend. i don't think we would want to extend at that point. either you make the decisions to prove your program is a peaceful one, or if you're unable to do that, it may tell a story that none of us want to hear. >> is there any scenario that you would run for president in 2016? >> i have no scenario whatsoever in my mind. i haven't thought about it. as you can tell, i'm pretty busy. >> i know. is it a never say never? >> well, nobody says never. but i'm not -- never -- i have no concept of it. thank you, chuck. >> all right, secretary kerry. safe travels. thank you, secretary >> thank you, sir. appreciate it. and this morning, in what's being seen as a last-ditch effort to salvage a peace deal between russia and ukraine, it's been announced that the leaders of russia ukraine, france and germany -- no united states -- will attend a summit in minsk, belarus, on wednesday.

i'm joined now by michael mcfall, a former u.s. ambassador to russia and of course a panelist. david, andrea, katty and steven. gas ambassador mcfaul, let me start with you. we talk -- you heard me ask secretary kerry about essentially is vladimir putin a rational actor here? how do you answer that question? >> he's a rational actor who's also very emotional. like most people, by the way. he's playing a long-term game here with multiple objectives over a long period of time. i think the kind of fundamental tension that you see is that the west, we want to solve the problem. we want a deal. we want a peace plan. putin's purposely happy not to have a peace plan. to let this linger. to let it fester. and that will help him achieve other goals. >> there was a report earlier this week that there's some secret dossier from a war college examination that vladimir putin has -- might be have asperger's syndrome.

now we actually e-mailed a professor, simon baron cohen, director of the autism research center in cambridge, who is a relative of the comedian sacha baron cohen, and he said that the claim that putin has asperger's syndrome based solely on movement analysis is unlikely to stand up to valid scientific scrutiny but obviously you guys do this. the intelligence community tries to assess leaders emotionally or psychologically. what is the psychological profile of vladimir putin that you've read? >> well, i've read lots of them over many years. let me give you my base analysis, is that he's a person who feels aggrieved, who feels like the west helped to destroy the soviet union. he sees the world in zero sum terms. and he assigns a lot of power to our covert capability. he's obsessed with the cia. with respect to ukraine he thinks that we led the coup in ukraine. the ukrainians in his view have

nothing to do with it, it was all the cia. so therefore what you see him doing today, first in crimea, and now with his proxies in eastern ukraine, that is him striking back against what he thinks is american-led imperialism. the second really important thing, chuck, he's become much more conservative over the last several years, in my view. and by that i mean just small "c," conservative. and he sees the west as the kind of decadent liberal west and therefore this is not just a contest about interest. this is also a contest about values for him. >> all right. i'm going to bring in the panel. andrea mitchell, we are three or four days away. angela merkel, actually, the german chancellor is going to be here in the united states. >> right. >> i think she's on her way now. she is the one doing everything to stop the u.s. from arming ukraine here. it really is sort of a clash here. she is -- she's trying to be the peacekeeper of europe. >> right. >> and the united states is united -- this is not one where

there's a republican and democrat divide about arming ukraine. >> there is that divide somewhat. >> not big. >> but the fact is that this is merkel and hollande who went on friday, saw putin, came back, she gave this very strong speech in munich saying do not arm, this will, you know, escalate everything, and she's come here to tell president obama that. and she's meeting with the senate foreign relations committee first on monday morning, tomorrow morning. the fact is that that decision is fraught with problems. there's a lot of support in congress. the bipartisan delegation in munich, of senators, are talking about radar. they're talking about drones, surveillance drones, they're talking about anti-tank missiles. but the fact on the ground is that they're going back to moscow on wednesday, again to negotiate with putin. putin and these separatists, so-called separatists, these russians have taken 500 square miles since the cease-fire was negotiated in minsk. and you know -- >> right. >> they are taking the ground and the big definition is how much of a demilitarized zone

will they get to -- >> it does sound like merkel is willing to give the russians more. this divide between the united states and europe on ukraine is i guess much wider than it was before. >> it is wider. and you have the british foreign secretary this morning being quoted as saying again that he opposes the idea of arming the ukrainian government. the fear in europe is that you put arms into a volatile situation, ukrainians cannot win this militarily. and all you're doing is upping the stakes. european leaders talking about making cannon fodder out of ukrainian soldiers. that you're sending on a mission with american arms, which increases america's role in this, and what's the end game? you're not thinking two or three steps ahead. you're not thinking about escalation. and the realization that president putin, it matters much more to him to keep ukraine than it matters to the west to lose ukraine. >> i guess, david, this is sort of what happens, do you, i mean you know you hate to throw the "a" word around because it gets, i think -- is europe appeasing putin?

>> america's from mars, europe's from venus. i'm for arming them. i think we should arm them. putin has driven, as michael said, from quasi-theological realistic versions, i'm told he's being strongly pushed by his security apparatus. we're not going to defeat him but we can raise the cost. so this works with milosevic, this has worked before. you've got to raise the cost. >> steven henderson you're the editorial page editor, what do you write? >> i think, you know, arming the ukrainians makes some sense. you don't want to do it unilaterally. you want to get the european allies -- >> you have a problem with the european allies don't support. >> i think that's a fool's errand. that's the kind of action we've seen come back to bite us in recent years. >> ambassador mcfall, have you have the last word. where are we headed here? are we going to arm them? >> my guess is yes. and i do support that.

i think the ukrainians should have a vote in their own security, by the way. but where we're headed is we're going to be talking about this for months and years to come. i don't see this resolving any time soon. >> ambassador mcfall. coming to us from stanford. i appreciate it. we'll be back. we've got a lot more. the panel will hit the pause button here. when we come back, two likely presidential candidates question the value of vaccinating children. sort of. did spark a national debate. that's all coming up next. of. it did spark a national "meet the press" is brought to you by -- boeing where the drive to build something better inspires us every day.

how much money do you have in your pocket right now? i have $40 $21. could something that small make an impact on something as big as your retirement? i don't think so. well if you start putting that towards your retirement every week and let it grow over time, for twenty to thirty years that retirement challenge might not seem so big after all. ♪ ♪

welcome back. both the british philosopher, jon stewart mill and supreme court justice oliver wendell holmes," cited the example of shouting fire in a crowded theater as a moment when personal freedom should be restricted for the greater good. and that fundamental argument about what role the government should play in our lives was resurrected this week. when two presidential candidates, rand paul and chris christie raised questions over the wisdom of government mandating vaccines for children. ail this coming against the backdrop of an outbreak of measles right here in the united states. ♪ buckle up for safety ♪ >> from the debate over seat belt laws. >> for years it's been proven how safety belts save lives but nobody is listening. >> to the effort to ban smoking in public places. >> the whole thing about secondary smoke. how is that going to -- smoke's going right up in the air. >> the question of how far

government can limit personal freedom to protect public health is a familiar tug-of-war. >> if you want to eat a lot and get fat you have a right to do it. but our job as government is to inform the public. >> the limits of what critics call the nanny state were tested when former new york city mayor michael bloomberg tried, and failed, to ban oversized sodas. now, with confidence in public institutions near historic lows, the debate over the appropriate role of government has touched a public health issue where scientists are in near universal agreement. vaccines. >> you have one of the most highly effective vaccines against any virus, and you have a highly contagious disease, measles, that can have serious complications. so to me, it's really a slam dunk. >> but a small, yet significant, percentage of parents aren't listening. in 17 states, preschool vaccination rates are below 90%.

the baseline goal set by federal health officials. last year 644 measles cases were reported in 27 states. a 20-year high. and this year's off to a bad start. >> in some ways i think you can say that vaccines have been a victim of their own success. if you have a child today, you're not likely to have lived during a time when thousands of americans were infected every year. and hospitalized every year. >> the anti-vaccine movement gained steam in 1998. when a now-discredited study linked the measles shot to autism. that medical journal later retracted it, calling it utterly false. >> i believe many parents do not trust the cdc or the government or think that they're putting our best intentions first. >> megan is a mother of two toddlers, and an anti-vaccine advocate. she and her husband have chosen not to vaccinate their children, even though he performs vaccinations at the clinic where he works as a family doctor. >> mandating vaccinations opens up the door for them to mandate all sorts of other things. what my child eats. where my child goes to school. how often my child sees a doctor.

>> the vast majority of parents, republican and democrat, vaccinate their children. >> but the fact that the science is clear hasn't stopped politicians from pandering to this small minority. >> we vaccinate ours. but i also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things, as well. >> i've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children, who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. i'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. i think they're a good thing. but i think the parent should have some input. >> after criticism, both christie and paul jumped to clarify their comments. paul posted this picture of himself getting a booster shot. christie's office put out a statement saying quote, there is no question kids should be vaccinated. of course during the '07 and '08 campaign both candidates barack obama and hillary clinton were cautious on vaccinations. citing the concerns of the autism link at the time.

katty, first of all, is this vaccination debate, does this, is this, does this happen in europe, as much as it happens here? >> well, it did happen in britain, of course, because the original study came out of britain, which is now being called the most dangerous medical hoax in the last 100 years. that that study, which has been retracted, has caused so much damage. look, the science is absolutely clear. if we want to keep the public safe, 92% of people need to be vaccinated against measles. some people can't be. their immune systems don't allow them to be. those who choose not to be are putting their own children at risk and putting other children at risk, as well. >> steve i imagine you wrote about this this week. >> yeah, this is a pretty clear public health issue. it is not hey freedom issue. think of the things that the government mandates that we do already. lots of things. this is -- this is one of the ones that shouldn't be debated. and it's really disappointing to see people who want to lead the country pander this way. i think there's a real question there about pandering versus leadership. >> i feel like, david, this is the perfect storm of what happens when we've combined the way social media can spread

misinformation, people doing the more research they do the more you can find your biased research. to how presidential candidates pandering to vocal fringes, naturalists on the left. we've seen what beverly hills like one of the more lower vaccination rates and of course the anti-government movement and then the trust issue with leaders. i mean you heard that woman talk about the cdc. i can't trust what the cdc -- what? if you can't trust what the cdc says we've got a problem in america, right? >> they're nefarious down there. i wonder if there's a vaccine for pandering. we could open up a little shop on every street corner. no, i agree. it starts with the distrust. distrust of institutions. a lack of common sense about our common communities. like the air we breathe. that is what we have in common. >> right. >> the microbes and things that travel that's what we have in common. and the most disgusting thing is you know, rand paul knows the truth about this chris christie knows the truth, glenn beck, who's been mouthing off, they know the truth about this. they're doing it for a media strategy for political liability and it seems to be a test of integrity in leadership is

telling people the truth even if you're trying to get their votes. >> it's funny what you say about glenn beck. let me play this glenn beck quote from earlier this week. >> the measles hoax? is it possible we've been lied to about the measles, this outbreak? and that we are now being told all kinds of things for one purpose? for the herd mentality to get us all to grab our children and obey the government? >> you know it's interesting here, andrew, before i get you to react is we actually surveyed the political unit we surveyed every member of congress. >> that was really interesting. >> every member of congress, about half of them got back to us. not a single one, not a single office, said that responded to us said that they didn't vaccinate their children. every one of them did. so these elected leaders, do as they do, not as they say. >> rand paul is a doctor. he's a medical person. i mean he doesn't get a pass at all. both obama and hillary clinton

in the '08 campaign both sort of tried to hedge it on a on a -- >> and you know how that happened? because they're raising money out in california and we know from some of the more prominent donors were there. >> i am the daughter of someone who had polio back in the day. and we were vaccinated. our, our, our parents were so intent on vaccinating us when the salk vaccine came out because we knew and we came out of the generation that knew that the horrors of these kinds of diseases. >> and that's the irony. that there are countries in africa where they have higher vaccination rates than here in the united states. because when people really need it and they see the effects that measles can have on their communities, they will make sure their children are vaccinated. >> michigan is one of the states that has a really low rate of vaccination. ann arbor, where the university of michigan is located. >> intellectual elites. >> has a real problem with this in its schools. this is not about unintelligent or ignorant people. it's a deeply held emotional belief. >> well, it is something else. and i guess this is the issue of

the larger issue of, sort of personal freedom versus the public good. which does do divide the two parties. >> how about -- >> i would say it's a trust issue. if you ask americans do you trust government to do the right thing most of the time. through the 20th century, 78% now it's down to 23%. can you trust most of the people around you, it's plummeted. the group with the lowest level of trust. it's not old people. it's people in their 20s. >> no i know. it's -- this is an important discussion, not because of the issue of vaccinations, but because of this issue in collective community trust. all right. when we come back was president obama right to cite the crusades as an example of people justifying their actions in the name of christ? that debate is next. name of christ? that debate is next. ♪ hey, john! john and horace dodge launched their first car in 1914. but they were not only business partners, they were brothers. competitive... stubborn... and always pushing each other,

the way only brothers can. ♪ one hundred years later, their spirit lives on. what's that thing? i moved our old security system out here to see if it could monitor the front yard. why don't you switch to xfinity home? i get live video monitoring and 24/7 professional monitoring that i can arm and disarm from anywhere. hear ye! the awkward teenage one has arrived!!!!

don't be old fashioned. xfinity customers add xfinity home for $29.95 a month for 12 months. plus for a limited time, get a free security camera call 1800 xfinity or visit comcast.com/xfinityhome. welcome back. the annual national prayer breakfast brings together the president with faith leaders of all walks. it's not supposed to be a controversial event. but during the obama years, it has always seemed to attract a little bit of extra attention. this week, the moment that grabbed headlines was when president obama referenced the crusades in pointing out that violence in the name of religion

is not unique to islam. >> unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the crusades and the inquisition, people committed terrible things in the name of christ. in our home country, slavery, and jim crow, all too often was justified in the name of christ. >> that drew criticism from many republicans. including a couple of possible candidates in 2016. former senator rick santorum of pennsylvania said the remarks by the president, quote, were inappropriate, and his choice of venue was insulting to every person of faith at a time when christians are being crucified, beheaded, and persecuted across the middle east. another republican, governor bobby jindal of louisiana said the medieval christian threat is under control, mr. president. please deal with the radical islamic threat today. and former new york mayor judy giuliani responded this way friday, on fox news. >> absolutely the wrong thing. at absolutely the wrong time.

and the president as weak a historian as he is a president and as weak a theologian. >> stooim joined by jon meacham, executive editor at random house, but also author of "american gospel: god, the founding fathers, and the making of a nation." i don't know if there's any person that understands the cross section of religion in politics better. pick up on rudy jewelu lanni's the quote there, that the president is not a good historian and a theologian. >> well the crusades were not good. that's a fairly safe bet. complicated, two centuries, 109 5 to the end of the 13th century, the pope was one of the central figures. a lot of scholarly debate about how much of it was about religion itself. how much of it was a reconquest of muslim land. how much was colonization, a search for wealth in which religion became a justifying force. complicated debate. what is not complicated is that on the christian crusades there were many, many atrocities.

what i think the president failed to mention was -- what he did fail to mention -- was that the crusades were in some ways an exception to a rule. and the rule of christian history in the middle ages forward into the modern era was one of christian humanism. the crusades ended and the renaissance began. the idea of aquinas and dante was born shortly after the end of the crusades. so the idea that christian faith had a huge amount to contribute to the rise of what ultimately became democratic capitalism is inarguable. so if you're going to start this debate, it's better not to do it with one or two sentences. >> it's interesting. so jane michaelson of the religious news service wrote this analysis and i want to read it to you because i wonder if the president has said it this way if there would be less debate. the other narrative is that all people, all creeds, all nations contain elements of moderation and extremism. thankfully racist christian extremists are today a tiny minority within american christianity. but only 100 years ago they were as popular among american christians as the islamic state

is among muslims today. thus in the battle against islamic extremism it is extremism that is the enemy. christians should not be insulted by the facts of history, rather all of us should be inspired by them to recognize the dangers of extremism wherever they lie. had the president explained it that way, is there no furor? >> there's probably less furor. my question is why he felt compelled to bring this up at all. >> i have my own theory. you're not a big fan of the prayer breakfast, i think, and i think he almost enjoys creating a rhetorical -- >> yes. and so he brings up unquestionably the sins of christianity, which are many, and part of the drama of religion is trying to live up to an ideal. but knowing that on this side of paradise we're always going to fall short. and so i do think that when you're talking about politics, when you're talking about civilizational shifts, which is what is going on here, the lessons out of christianity to my mind is that christianity

managed to reform itself through the years. dark chapters, but ultimately working towards light. and the hope here is that islam itself will find its own sense of reformation. and push forward. >> did you find the extreme pushback of the president, because there's been some -- you know, almost as if, you know, the part of this goes to they believe the obama administration doesn't acknowledge the religious aspect of this. >> sure. >> and that then they the some obama folks is like too many people on the right want a religious war. and that's the -- that plays a hand. >> this was a -- not quite seasonal yet but it was a hanging curve ball for the right unquestionably. the president brings up the sins of christianity at a moment when the, the airwaves were full of the extremism of the islamic world, and the perversions of that. the president i think to some extent missed an opportunity here.

because what you i think what you want to talk about is how does a civilization with dark impulses, because all civilizations are like that. we're all fallen, we're all sinful, how do we overcome those? and i'm just not sure how many people are really on that high horse. >> right. >> so i think it's a little bit contextual, too. >> jon meacham, like i said not many people can have this niche discussion that you can have. >> urban ii is very important. >> appreciate it. want to get the panel over here. david brooks, is our political discourse, are we too immature to have this debate? >> i know i am. >> okay. >> why are you asking me? >> i feel like you're the guy we look to here in some ways. it does wonder can, can politicians have this debate? >> well, i'm pro-obama. i'm totally pro-obama on this. i think he said the right thing. it was a gospel of humility. what sorts of people need a little gospel of humility, people in washington, pundits, religious believers, i happen to

be all three of those things. and so we're told to we're told to walk humbly in the path of the lord, the lord's ways are mysterious and so you're saying we're prone to zealotry as jon said we're fallen. >> but you don't talk about -- >> that's useful in washington today, that's useful always. >> you don't use the word "crusade," number one, in any context right now. it's just too fraught. and the week after a pilot is burned alive, in a video shown, you don't lean over backwards to be philosophical about the sins of the fathers. you have to deal with the issue that's in front of you or don't deal with it at all. talk about faith. >> -- our political culture does not allow for much nuanced debate. unfortunately, this is as you have just shown with jon meacham, this is a very nuanced debate to be had and should be had. but having the context of 30 seconds added into the speech of the prayer breakfast where the impulse of the president's opponents is just to jump on him

and criticize him for anything, whatever he said, is very unfortunate but i don't think it's possible. >> should the president not have done it? >> i think it was fine to do it. i think one of the things that's bothering people here is the invocation of race, which this president doesn't do all that all that often. talk about our racial history, and -- >> you think it was that last element that set people off? >> i think that's what set people off. and i also think that it's important for him to be doing that. think of all the context right now in which we're having a moral, frank discussion about our racial history. we see it on big screen in movies like "selma." i think the president was trying to echo some of that. at the breakfast. >> you do sit here and you say, the president himself, david, and you spent a lot of time with him, he would be, he wants to have more conversations like this. but, perhaps presidents can't. you can't do it until after you leave office. i mean is that, is that where we're at? >> no i think he was right. he gave the race speech.

it was a beautiful speech. he's given a whole series of great speeches, trayvon martin. this was really fine. this is exactly the moment you want to say this. we're the most moral danger to ourselves when we're caught up in a righteous fervor against an evil foe which is what we have. while we exercise hard power we have to take morally hazardous action, we can get caught up in our own self-righteousness this is exactly the moment to -- >> there are a lot of politicians, conservative politicians, who invoke religion when talking about fighting -- >> but he's the president. >> -- isis. >> he's the president and you can't really going back to 1095. >> you think he made a mistake. >> i do, because it's so out of context, and it is so much in passing. if you're giving a major speech about theology, perhaps. but this is the prayer breakfast. and remember, you know, the context of that. it's very limited. >> just a reminder katty why europe loves to be secular. this is the biggest difference between the two you know the basic western divide and western europe is there's you guys are a bunch of secularists and we aren't. >> i think the big divide is god, guns and government. the three "gs."

we are much more secular. we are much more prone to liking government. and we cannot understand the gun culture in this country. that's really what divides us. and i think it's, i think you're absolutely right. this discussion needs to be had and this is the time to have it. i just think that the american political debate at the moment is so hyperconscious of elections and winning elections and people criticizing each other that it's very difficult conversation to have. >> you know actually this issue of extremism, and it's going to come up again in a couple of weeks right the white house is going to have this summit and it's about how to deal with islamic extremism, but the question i -- you know it's coming. as far as some are going to be concerned, steven it won't be enough focus on radical islam. >> right, well and you know, that's the that's the achilles heel here is that you've got his opponents wanting to make this about religion and wanting to define our enemies in religious terms. and i think he's right to resist that. i think he's right to construct

this summit in a way that resists that and pushes back against it. and to stand firm on that. >> it's one of those classic cable catnip stories. you can just like he almost, you almost wonder did he intentionally say watch this you know and all that. anyway. thank you much. we've got a lot more to come including a fascinating screen about presidential age requirements. we'll be right back. ements. we'll be right back. ring ring! progresso! i can't believe i'm eating bacon and rich creamy cheese before my sister's wedding well it's only 100 calories, so you'll be ready for that dress uh-huh... you don't love the dress? i love my sister... 40 flavors. 100 calories or less. there comes a time in everyone's life when you want more. like a new meticulously engineered german sedan. finely crafted. exactingly precise. desire for such things often outpaces one's means. until now. hey matt, new jetta? yeah.

introducing lots of new. the new volkswagen jetta. isn't it time for german engineering? ♪ stouffer's mac and cheese with real aged cheddar now in a convenient cup. new stouffer's mac cups. made for you to love. you're clean. bam! charmin ultra strong cleans so much better it meets even the highest standards of clean. with a soft duraclean texture, charmin ultra strong is 4 times stronger. and you can use up to 4x less. charmin ultra strong. why do i cook? because i make the best chicken noodle soup. because i make the best chicken noodle soup. because i make the best chicken noodle soup. for every way you make chicken noodle soup, make it delicious with swanson®.

a personal note. there are few things that are more uncomfortable for those of us who report than news than to become the news. and as most of you know, nbc news has been the news this week. well, last night, nbc news released this statement from my colleague, brian williams. "in the midst of a career spent covering and consuming news it has become painfully faerntapparent to me that i am presently too much a part of the news due to my actions. as managing editor of "nbc nightly news," i have decided to take myself off my daily broadcast for the next several days and lester holt has kindly agreed to sit in for me to allow us to adequately deal with this issue. upon my return i will continue my career-long effort to be worthy of the trust of those who place their trust in us." we'll be right back. you know... ...there's a more enjoyable way to get your fiber. try phillips fiber good gummies. they're delicious... and a good source of fiber to help support regularity. mmmm these are good! the tasty side of fiber.

from phillips. ♪ ♪ the bold nissan rogue, with intuitive all-wheel drive. because winter needs a hero. now get 0% financing or up to $1,000 back on the 2015 nissan rogue. nissan. innovation that excites. can this decadent, fruit topped pastry... ...with indulgent streusel crumble, be from... fiber one. fiber one streusel.

nerd screen time and today we're going to take a look at 2016 and how much a candidate's age matters whether he or she gets elected president. turns out it may matter more than you think. take a look at this. if you look back at the past century and the results are pretty clear, younger is apparently always better. since woodrow wilson on average when we've elected a new president that president has been on average seven years younger than his predecessor. in fact every successor since wilson has been younger than the man he replaced with the exception of just two people. george w. bush and the president he succeeded bill clinton were

the same age. both born in 1946. and of course ronald reagan, the oldest president to assume office, completely broke the mold. he was 13 years older than the man he defeated jimmy carter. but bush and reagan are the outliers. so what were the biggest jumps from older to younger? well barack obama was 15 years younger than george w. bush when bush left office in 2009. president clinton was 22 years younger than the man he defeated for re-election, president george h.w. bush. president clinton was 46 when he took office. h.w. bush was 68 the day he left. but the biggest gap in the past century, between presidents, was dwight d. eisenhower and john f. kennedy. kennedy was 27 years younger than eisenhower. kennedy, of course, 43 at the time when he took office. kennedy was the youngest candidate ever elected president, by the way. so what about 2016? looking at the current wide field of presidential contenders, there's a real mix.

some are younger than president obama, including governor chris christie. senators paul, rubio and cruz, governor scott walker, and even former maryland governor martin o'malley, again, all younger than president obama. here are the list of candidates that are older than him. including businesswoman and former senate candidate carly fiorina. former governor mike huckabee. governor john kasich and on the democratic side vice president joe biden, senator elizabeth warren and former senator jim webb all older. but the two people considered by many to be the front-runners, both are older than president obama. take a look at this. jeb bush would turn 64 just after taking office. he's eight years older than the president right now. and hillary clinton, she would be 69 on the day she would take the oath of office. 13 years older than president obama, and technically a bigger threat by a couple of months, than carter and reagan. what's more she would become the second oldest person ever elected to the presidency for a first term after reagan. so why does this matter? well, generations matter.

we have two baby boomer presidents in a row in clinton and george w. bush. barack obama was sort of the first post-boomer president. do we really go backwards and elect another baby boomer president, bush and hillary clinton both would be that? or do we go full-fledged gen-x like a scott walker or somebody else? generational stuff. it matters more than you think when you start talking about future versus the past. something to watch on the trail. we'll be right back. past. how much money do you have in your pocket right now? i have $40 $21. could something that small make an impact on something as big as your retirement? i don't think so. well if you start putting that towards your retirement every week and let it grow over time, for twenty to thirty years that retirement challenge mi msnbc msnbc ♪ ♪ good job! still running in the morning? yeah. getting your vegetables every

day? when i can. [ bop ] [ male announcer ] could've had a v8. two full servings of vegetables for only 50 delicious calories. take zzzquil and sleep like... you haven't seen your bed in days. no, like you haven't seen a bed in weeks! zzzquil. the non habit forming sleep-aid that helps you sleep easily and wake refreshed. because sleep is a beautiful thing. if i can impart one lesson to a new business owner, it would be

one thing i've learned is my philosophy is real simple american express open forum is an on-line community, that helps our members connect and share ideas to make smart business decisions. if you mess up, fess up. be your partners best partner. we built it for our members, but it's open for everyone. there's not one way to do something. no details too small. american express open forum. this is what membership is. this is what membership does. i will disappoint some of you out there if you don't do 16 at least for a couple of minutes on the show, right? anyway, the '16 race is heating up, especially on the republican side. in fact, feel like each week we're going to be able to show you stories that actually mattered and three of them this week, these things actually mattered. and tell us something about the race going forward. first of all the two likely republican candidates two of them proved to be pretty thin skinned this week. chris christie had a train wreck

of a week in london and rand paul got hit from all sides for his comments about vaccines. we talked about it earlier in the show. second was the news that hillary clinton has hired yet another obama official for her campaign just one more sign she's not running away from the president. there's not going to be a split. is it obama's third term? we'll let other people decide that. and last was wisconsin governor scott walker continues to become as "the washington post" put it the first it candidate of the 2016 race and david brooks if we're going to label people front-runners, if people want to label jeb bush front-runner fine but you better call him the cofront-runner guy. he may be the money guy, scott walker is the poll guy. >> don't look at the fund-raising, don't look at the institutions, spring training you're looking at a pitcher. do they have stuff? chris christie has wild stuff. and so -- >> can't find the strike zone very well. >> the guys who are showing stuff right now are scott walker and marco rubio who's come out with a lot of really good ideas. they look the best to me right now and i would ignore all that other stuff at least for now.

>> it's fascinating. i cannot figure out how rubio gets out of jeb's shadow. you know. andrea and yet i -- he is blowing people away on the right on his policy speeches. >> and mitt romney is not so quietly, you know, getting behind him. because he keeps talking about the next generation. -- >> mark row rubio? >> oh, he's anti-jeb bush. his view is i believe you cannot have they can't both be it it's got to be either jeb or marco rubio when it comes down to the finish line. so if you pump up mark yo rubio that stops jeb bush in his tracks. >> katty london is like -- >> london -- >> are you guys hosting a caucus or something? because scott walker is headed there, too. i guess it's raising money? >> it's clearly treacherous territory. because you remember mitt romney went there just before the olympics and made that comment about how the olympics were not going to be safe and he had a disastrous week in london. chris christie's just come back from london as well and one thing we learned from chris christie and rand paul is don't

shush female reporters. it never looks good. which is what rand paul did. and if you're abroad and you refuse to answer a question on foreign policy and you are there to beef your foreign policy credentials you look like a lightweight. >> steven going to the hillary clinton hire so the communications director for the obama white house is about to go do the same job over there. is that -- >> is that the strength of the obama administration? >> wow. >> but i think one of the reasons was interesting in her hiring in particular is that she has good relations with the press. hillary clinton historically has not. >> right right. i mean i think that's got to be something to think about as we're gearing up for this this campaign. how to make her more sort of, you know, amenable to the press coverage and dealing with those of us who write about it. >> i was just going to say, what were your interactions? do you feel like they weren't that good eight years ago? >> you know, i -- i shouldn't -- i shouldn't have said that. maybe as harshly as i did. i just think this is a white house that has had a hard time communicating.

and certainly has not had great relations. we all know about the sort of harsh look at at what we do, the, the use of the espionage act against members of the press. i think they have had a hard time communicating. and that's not been something i would hold up as a star for them. >> yeah. >> and i think they feel the clinton campaign feels that they need to warm it up. they need to reach out. they've had a lot of defenses. and they need to take a different posture. >> clinton, this does seem as if they're not going to, you know, there's always been the speculation you've got to try to split from obama. she's not doing that is she david? so that's probably that's probably why we create a problem for yourself on the left when you should when you're not going to have a challenge. >> i think she has to move left i do. but obama's moving left for her that state of the union address was moving in the direction she wants to go. the party is significantly to the left of both of them. i still think if she doesn't significantly move left to where the core of the party is, not only the left of the party but what used to be the right of the middle of the party, guys like

larry summers -- >> he's moving left. larry summers is suddenly a populist. >> suddenly -- if she doesn't -- politics abhors a vacuum, so somebody will get there. >> steven jeb bush was in your town. >> sure. >> how did he do? >> i have to say i thought the written speech was interesting to me. i thought his oratorical skills need a little -- >> it's interesting you've seen this republican candidates pick up this mantra of picking up the lower end of the economic ladder and expanding opportunity. one thing that was notable to us was that he gave the speech at the same time wayne county was meeting with people who are behind on their property taxes, talking about taking their houses. you had hundreds and hundreds of -- >> that's a stark don contrast. >> sure in that hall at the same time as that the jeb bush is talking about doing things differently and the question is, what policies are you going to implement to -- >> by the way i thought we talked about chris christie and

rand paul not handling questions from the press very well. jeb bush was stronger in the q&a in both informal and formal -- >> -- out of jeb bush's shadow, a much better speech. >> that he does. before we go vox.com posted eded an article this week by an anonymous member of congress. it's garnered quite a bit of attention here in washington entitled confessions of a congressman and it lists nine secrets from capitol hill of those of the following -- to those of those nine secrets these stood out to me. congress lists best to money and writes campaigns are so expensive that the average member of congress needs a million dollar war chest every two years and think about that you're paying us to do a job and we're spending that -- you're paying us asking rich people and corporations for money. then this one you have no secret ballots anymore. you notice how easily we find out what primaries you vote in and since there are not that many good candidates they know who you voted for. he admits congressional committees are a waste of time david brooks.

congress is simply a stepping stone to getting a lobbying job and the best people don't run for congress. we've been screaming about this for a decade. i guess thank you anonymous member for telling us. >> another act of courage. >> why i. >> no he also said we have a parliamentary system not a congressional one which is just the leaders control everything as katty knows parliamentary system, road to ruin. >> i was meeting with some israeli political leaders and they were talking about they can't govern domestically because of how crazy their parliamentary is -- >> i think the lobbying issue is one of the big factors, the best people don't run and the fact that it is such a revolving door. we've known it. they want to get on committees to raise money and get a better lobbying job. >> it's the only reason to get on a good committee. anyway it was a great piece. don't be anonymous. that's all for today. we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." back next week because if it's sunday it's "meet the press."

they patrol our streets, our highways, our borders, where anything can happen. >> we're having a baby. >> from birth to death. >> it was, like, a tremendous explosion. >> and everything in between. >> stop the car! >> i'm, like, i've got to do something. i've got to do something quick. >> officers of the law see it all. >> a very young male driver. and i'm talking young. >> and so do their cameras. >> there's gonna be a killing tonight. >> the eyewitnesses that never lie. >> i got the police report and i was, like, lie.