this sunday, she's in it to win it again. >> i am all about new beginnings. another new hair style, a new e-mail account. >> hillary announces today. why this time her biggest opponent may be herself. also rand in the race. >> i think the thing is about the clintons is that there's a certain sense they think they're above the law. >> but after this week some are asking whether he has the temperament to be president. i'll bring you my interview with the senator from kentucky. plus cameras on cops and that police shooting in south carolina. >> i saw him running like -- >> how would that story have been covered if no one this come

forward with the video? i'm chuck todd. joining me this sunday morning are david brooks of "the new york times," maria inosa, and radio talk show host hugh hewitt. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." good morning. it's unsurprising and predictable, but it is big news just the same. hillary clinton is making official what everyone knew was inevitable. she's running for president of the united states again. this time she hopes to do it with a lighter touch, on twitter and facebook sometime this afternoon. it'll be less 2008 and more 2000 when she ran that successful campaign for u.s. office new york senate. officially, the campaign is called hillary for america. a not so subtle illusion to president obama's two successful campaigns. in a moment we'll talk to the

campaign manager of hillary clinton's successful senate run. the man who is now mayor of new york city, bill de blasio. first, let's take a look at the beginning of a campaign in which hillary clinton's biggest opponent may very well be hillary clinton. >> i am in. i'm in to win. >> i'm in. i'm in to win. >> i'm running for president, and i'm in it to win it. [ cheers and applause ] >> on social media today and in iowa this week clinton will attempt to do what she failed to do eight years ago, go small. >> she launched as clinton, inc. it was a juggernaut suffused. humility is the order of the day. >> eight years ago, clinton toured iowa by air. >> i'm having a great time on the helicopter. >> and dismiss the early state activists. >> you know my sense of caucus states. they're primarily dominated by activists. they don't represent the electorate. >> this time she'll stop in an

iowa living room. the model, her advisers her campaign for senate in 2000. >> voters felt they were connecting with her authentic self. when they felt she was really speaking if her heart and her gut and not from talking points. >> i just don't want to see us fall backwards. >> hillary clinton's challenge is not all that different from sitting vice presidents like george h.w. bush in 1987 or al gore in 1999. how to create a first impression again. >> i am all about new beginnings. another new hair style. a new e-mail account. >> but can a candidate who's been in the public eye for more than two decades really reinvent herself? and can she do what ted kennedy

could not do articulate a compelling message? >> why do you want to be president? >> well i'm -- uh -- >> one of my complaints for this year or two of ready for hillary e-mails is that it wasn't clear what you were ready for. >> clinton advisers say her campaign will center on boosting economic security for working families. and casting clinton as a tenacious fighter able to get results. >> i anticipate she'll begin with an actual genuine big idea you're really going to focus specifically on the middle class. >> as clinton tries to prove inevitable does not mean she's taking anything for granted. i'm joined now by new york city mayor bill de blasio. he served as hillary clinton's campaign manager when she ran successful for the senate in 2000. mayor de blasio welcome back to "meet the press." >> good morning. >> let me ask you about what you're hearing about how she's launching her campaign that it's all about copying the blueprint you put together in

2000. smart? >> well it was certainly a team effort in 2000 and it worked. one of the important points was she did go out and listen to what was happening to every day people. i think that's going to be more necessary this year than ever before because people in this country are hurting. the great recession set people back on their heels in a way we've not seen in decades and decades. i think it's important for hillary to hear those stories of the american people and i think it'll make her a stronger candidate. >> you have wanted to talk about pushing her more to a progressive agenda. you're not alone here. there's a lot of democrats on the progressive side of the party that are trying to push her in that direction. i've had somebody said to me they hope it's hillary rodham that runs for president and not hillary clinton. what say you to that? >> look, i think she has a very progressive history. we certainly saw that in her early work on behalf of children and families. we saw that when she took on the big insurance companies to try and achieve health care reform in the early 1990s. there's a lot there that progressives will appreciate. look, here's the bottom line. the income inequality crisis in

this country is out of control. the worst income inequality since the great depression, get getting worse. a typical american family is making less today than they were a quarter century ago. that has to be addressed. i think progressives all over the country, i think every day americans are demanding their candidate for president and every other level really say that we have a plan that we can believe in for addressing the income inequality. it has to improve progressive taxation. it has to include increases in wages and benefits. it has to include the willingness to tax the wealthy so we can invest in infrastructure and education again. that's what progressives and every day americans will be looking for from hillary and other candidates. >> there's a lot of democrats worried that she doesn't yet have a message, that it's not clear she's answered the why question. a former democratic capitol hill aide writes this. american voters don't want to be sold a new hillary, which is reminiscent of an earlier politician whose handlers invented the term new nixon.

they want to be trusted enough to be led into the world of the real hillary, informed about her plans for america to believe their lives will be made better if she's elected president. how does she make her message the star if right when she announces later today it's a video and she's listening, there's no big idea yet. >> i think it's important she come out with her vision as soon as possible. but there's certainly time. it's only april of 2015. i think the reality here is there's a tremendous opportunity for her to present a vision because of how different the circumstances are today than when she was last a candidate. 2008 was a very different time. we've now had the greatest economic crisis since the great depression. again, families falling backwards economically. tremendous economic insecurity. people who do not assume now across the country the next generation will do better. and the economic recovery we've seen most of that 95% of all additional earnings since this recovery have gone to the top 1% of americans. in that context, there's a lot of new material.

there's a lot of new issues for hillary to address. and it's a chance for her to offer a bold vision. >> obviously her opponents are going to try to make her a candidate of the past. rand paul we're going to give you a first look here. rand paul's first tv ad is an attack on hillary clinton. here's a quick clip. i want to get you to react to it. >> what path will america take? will it be a path to the past a road to yesterday, to a place we've been to before? hillary clinton represents the worst of the washington machine. >> how does she overcome -- again, this is rand paul's first ad he's going to run later this week. presidential campaigns are about the future. her last name obviously signifies the past. how does she deal with that? >> i think the substance and the vision does it. look, rand paul and republicans at this point are the party of trickle-down economics. that has failed the american people. too many democrats have not offered an alternative. you know i believe strongly that's what happened in 2014. democrats did not offer a progressive economic vision and

voters didn't move to democrats. in fact a lot of democratic voters stayed home because they didn't hear anything meaningful from their fellow democratic candidates. so i think there's an opportunity here to break with the past to break with what's wrong with washington by offering a bold vision that actually talks to what the american people are going through. look progressives around the country are saying this. this has created almost a primary-like dynamic on the substance. progressives are demanding an actual vision on economic change. we had a meeting of progressive leaders last week. we're going to offer next month a progressive contract with america to say, if you're serious, you got to be ready to tax the wealthy. you've got to be ready to raise wages and benefits. you've got to be ready to have tax fairness in this country. and i think that is a chance to say, hey, we're going to break with a washington formula that failed the people of this country over the last quarter century. >> well the last quarter century had a clinton as president for eight years. so that's going to be difficult. let me ask you this. are you for her now, unequivocally? or do you want to wait to see if

she takes your advice on moving to a more progressive agenda? >> i think like a lot of people in this country, i want to see a vision. that would be true of candidates on all levels. it's time to see a clear, bold vision for progressive economic change. >> so you're technically not yet endorsing her? >> not until i see -- and again, i would say this about any candidate. not until i see a vision of where they want to go. i think she's a tremendous public servant. she's one of the most qualified people to ever run for this office. >> do you want to see her get a tough primary? >> i think what's happening now almost synthesizes some of the reality in the primary. clearly we're demanding for a vision. that's creating some of the same process. she doesn't need to be vetted. but she has to address the issues and that could be done with or without a primary. >> all right. mayor bill de blasio the first campaign manager for hillary clinton when she first ran for office. thanks for coming on "meet the press." >> thank you, chuck.

>> let me bling inring in the panel. maria, a vision. that was interesting there. mayor de blasio her first campaign manager, still not ready to technically endorse her because of this -- you know you talk a lot to the progressive community. is there a real hesitance or is it just pressure? >> i think you see the hesitancy right there. he was her campaign manager. you would expect him to say -- >> i'm in right. >> so what i'm hearing, at least from, for example, immigration activists activists, is they want to continue to push to a more progressive side of things. and that's going to come in interesting ways. but ultimately it comes down to those questions. humility and authenticity. how do you make that happen? the one time i saw hillary clinton, and i've covered her a lot, but the one time when it really clicked was when there were no cameras, she had barely no makeup on a little gloss and some mascara, had just flown in. she was speaking from the heart because she knew she wasn't being covered. how do you replicate that? >> david you've probably heard

story after story. we've also had off the records with her where there's this warm person and she struggles in the public light. there's a whole bunch of polls this week. i want to show them to you about honest and trustworthiness in hillary clinton. in iowa upside down. in virginia even worse. colorado, even worse. this is part a little bit of the authenticity issue, but obviously the e-mail issue. >> i'm waiting to see if bill clinton is ready to endorse, whether he's still on the fence. >> were you surprised at mayor de blasio? >> i was surprised. it's the pressure thing. she's not going to win the authenticity, the integrity, the honesty thing unless she has issues. the most underappreciated skill for a politician is imagination, the ability to put new things together in new ways to have creativity. she's shown a lot of great skills over the course of her career. she's not shown that one. i think they're asking her to show skills and offer a package. the instinct from the campaign staff is we got a monopoly here let's not put out anything it'll give people something to attack let's hang back let's be grandma.

but that's the wrong strategy. i think de blasio is right. >> this goes to caution and her being risk averse. that's her history. >> she's right to be cautious. but when you see the retread of the republicans' arguments, it's just frustrating. i always say, what's wrong about -- all the things they say are wrong about hillary clinton doesn't make any of the republican arguments or any of the candidates any better. you know i think the thing that's strong about the democratic party is we have a solid field. we're excited about hillary clinton. we're excited about all of the other people. >> are you endorsing her? >> as dnc secretary, i cannot. >> fair enough. just wanted to get that out. >> i am very proud. i don't think you should read too much into de blasio's comments. people don't want a coronation. when you ask someone to come out ahead of her announcement that's what that speaks to. people want a race. people want to hear from her. i think that's what he's saying. >> hugh the republican party this morning made sure they came

in. they said they have something the rnc called stophillary.gop. they send out a thumb drive that claim has her e-mail. they went to all the news divisions this morning and did this. i look at an obsession on the right of beating obama and beating clinton, bill clinton, over the years and they're 0 for 4. is there a point where you do this too much? >> well, no, not with hillary. that was a little surreal when the mayor said she'd been thoroughly vetted. that was the talking point they'd asked her to make sure they got out there. she hadn't been thoroughly vetted. calling her the new nixon, this is like a new koch moment as well. it's like a "weekend at bernie's" moment. i'm afraid they think they have a candidate they have to prop up from now until november of '16 if there isn't any substance, isn't any charisma and most of all not trustworthy. that's what those polls showed. she fails on the trustworthy question again and again. >> it seems as though this is a

challenge for her to sort of break out of this. >> and how far left she goes is the big one. you know there is the mess of ine inequality problem, but democrats have not persuaded the country that government is the solution to that. >> more infighting isn't the answer either. what we're hearing is more of the same. >> and they would argue, they'd rather be allowed arguments because they think think know how to win that campaign. we're going to pause here and talk more hillary clinton later in the show. but in a moment secretary of state john kerry. why do the u.s. and iran have such different ideas on what they've supposedly agreed to an

hello. it was unthinkable years ago president obama hailed a meeting this weekend with cuba's raul castro, brother of fidel. as a moment that will turn the page between the u.s. and that old cold war enemy just off the coast of florida. the meeting comes as the country countries gradually normalize relations. i'm joined by secretary of state john kerry. mr. secretary, welcome back to "meet the press." >> thank you. glad to be with you. >> let's clarify something. there has been anonymous sources that say you have recommended taking cuba off the state sponsor of terrorism list to the president. have you done that? >> well, chuck, as you well know, i don't discuss publicly whatever advice or

recommendations i make to the president. so the president will make his decision at an appropriate time. we have forwarded the recommendation of the state department and now is in the interagency process. and he will make the decision. >> if -- i take it though the fact that there is a process means you recommended a change? >> well, either way it has to be evaluated, chuck. i'm not going to tip my hand as to what we're doing but we made a recommendation. >> let me move to iran. iran is on the state sponsor of terror list. why -- how is it you can do a nuclear agreement and trust a country to abide by that agreement that you also believe that our government believes is a state sponsor of terror? >> well, the bottom line is the word you used, trust. we don't trust. there is no element of trust in what we're doing. you have to build trust and that takes place over a long period of time. this is an agreement that is based on transparency, accountability verification. you have to be able to know what

is happening. and we believe, you know, the president's responsibility and my responsibility in support of him is to guarantee and protect the security of our country and of our friends and allies. and we believe that this agreement does that. we know that the american people overwhelmingly would like to see if we could resolve this question of iran's nuclear program peacefully. and that's what we're trying to do. but it requires a protocol of visibility, of accountability of insight, of transparency, so that we know what iran is doing. and over a long period of time, we believe that we can indeed do what is necessary to make the guarantees that are important to everyone. now, what is key here is that what we have done shuts off the four principle pathways to a

bomb. we think that we -- we don't think, the science tells us that we have an ability to know what iran is doing and to be able to shut off those pathways to a bomb. that makes the world safer. >> and there are plenty of people that say if you're -- what you say the agreement is is the agreement there are plenty of people even some republicans who say that it is a good agreement. however, the leader of iran, the ayatollah, and everybody knows this is the guy that calls the shots, he tweets this out in english, i trust our negotiators, but i'm really worried as the other side is into lying and breaching promise an example was the white house fact sheet. you look at the differences whether it is president rouhani and what he said or what the ayatollah has said, the united states said there is going to be a gradual relief of sanctions based on progress. the iranians say there is immediate sanction relief. the u.s. says there is limits on uranium enrichment. the iranians say there is no

mention of uranium enrichment. why are they publicly lying if that's what they're doing? >> well i'm not going to get into accusations back and forth. that doesn't help our process. it is not going to -- >> are they being trudgethful? are the iranians being truthful here? >> let me say this chuck they're going to say the things they feel they need to say with respect to their deal at home. and all i can tell you is this, when we did the interim agreement, there were the same kinds of discrepancies or spin if you want to call it that with respect to what the deal was or wasn't. but in the end, the deal was signed and the deal has been agreed to and lived up to no one contests iran lived up to every component of that agreement and the deal is what we said it was. now, with respect to the fact sheet we put out, just yesterday, the russians released a statement saying that the

statement released by the united states is both reliable and factual. so i will stand by every word that i have uttered publicly, and i will be briefing the united states congress in full, the house tomorrow, the senate the next day, and we will lay out all of the details to them, some of which are obviously classified, but we will have a long discussion about what the facts are. >> if the iranians insist that immediate sanction relief has to take place immediate that all sanctions have to be gone will you walk away from that deal? >> again, i'm not going to get into one side's or another side's characterization of what the deal or isn't. we made clear when our needs are, what our expectations are. we have made it very clear that if we can't achieve our goals, we will not sign a deal. we said that again and again to congress, to the world. we want a good deal. we believe that the outlines, the parameters that we have laid out thus far are the outlines of

that good deal. is it perfect yet? no. are there things that need to be done? yes. that's why we have another two and a half months of negotiations. and what we're looking for is not to have congress interfere with our ability, inappropriately, by stepping on the prerogatives of the executive department, of the president, and putting in place conditions and terms that are going to get in the way of -- >> mr. secretary, you've run for president before. there is big news this morning. hillary clinton, your predecessor at the state department, is running for president. you came through a tough primary in 2004. you think she needs a tough primary? does that make you a better candidate if you have a real primary or is coronation healthy for the democratic party? >> the virtue of my job right now, chuck, is that i'm out of politics. i don't have to comment back and forth on that. i wish her well. i think she did a terrific job as secretary. she's a good friend. she's highly qualified. and i'm confident we'll wage no

matter what, with, without a primary, a formidable campaign and we'll go from there. >> mr. secretary, thanks for coming back on "meet the press." your 37th appearance, tied for seventh all time on the show. >> thank you. in a moment, a unique look at the police shooting in south carolina, how differently the story would have been covered had no one recorded video of the incident.

welcome back. the videotaped shooting of a south carolina man by a police officer intensified the calls for police officers to wear body cameras at all times. this morning we want to look at the significance of recording encounters with the police in a way you haven't seen before. this week, the folks at the huffington post wrote a print version of how the north charleston encounter would have been covered had there been no tape of the incident. so we thought we would try to do a television version of what they did, how tv would have been stuck covering the story with no video to contradict the claims of the police department. here it is. remember, what you're about to

see did not air anywhere. it is a version of how television would have had to cover the story if there were no video. and it had to rely entirely on information from the north charleston police department. every quote in here is real, released in the initial aftermath of the incident. >> a routine traffic stop turned deadly saturday when police say a north charleston officer was forced to open fire on a driver who tried to overpower him. it began when officer michael slager pulled over 50-year-old walter scott for a broken taillight and scott suddenly fled the scene. slager said he pursued scott, and his lawyer told the local newspaper when confronted officer slager reached for his taser, as trained by the department. and then a struggle ensued. the driver tried to overpower officer slager in an effort to take his taser. police say scott was able to gain control of the taser and that feeling threatened slager then reached for his gun and opened fire. scott was hit and fell to the ground. >> shots fired. subject is down. he grabbed my taser.

>> police say other officers rushed to the scene, delivering first aid and performing cpr. scott was pronounced dead at the scene. walter scott has a long rap sheet that includes charges of assault and battery and failure to pay child support. in a statement, north charleston police chief said this is part of the job that no one likes and wishes would never happen. this type of situation is unfortunate, and difficult for everyone. >> remember, everything you saw there was based entirely only on the information that was released by the police after the incident. the only way we could have covered the story without the video. and so what we learned once the video was released was a very different story. walter scott was running away when he was shot. he was shot in the back. no cpr was performed and it isn't clear at all that walter scott grabbed the officer's taser. let me bring in the panel. mayor blake, you're a mayor of a big city. the importance of, to me cameras on cops, is 100%. >> we announced we'll have our

pilot program for body cameras, police body cameras up this year. it is very important as leaders to work to rebuild the bonds of trust that have been broken over time. this incident underscores that need and you have to be proactive and willing to do what the leadership down there did which was to denounce it immediately and to move forward. you can't cover it up. you can't be willing -- you can't be afraid of scrutiny. you have to lead. >> hugh, there has been a study of the pilot programs where there have been cameras on cops and where there have been body cameras the number of complaints against officers down 88%. and the decline in police use of force down 60%. i think we know the solution, don't we? >> bwcs are changing, revolutionizing both what the police do and what suspects do. they all react differently when being watched. i must say, that was a very provocative and well done piece and it does present to you why this video makes so much sense. on the front page of the

washington post today they have gone back ten years 54 prosecutions of police, who shot people, only 11 convictions some still pending and you wonder if bwcs were available, whether those numbers would be different. but the downside is, if you've seen "furious 7," god's eye, do we want police recording everything all the time? >> look, the aclu said this, there is fourth amendment issues here and frankly also a cost issue too. somebody has to pay for these. >> yes. but all of this would not have happened if it wasn't for -- who is an immigrant from the dominican republic that most people are like where is the dominican republic. >> a lot of baseball fans know where the dominican republic is. >> the united states has 3.1% of dominicans. here is this young man who said i wanted them to know that they weren't alone. he's recording the whole thing and, of course, when he goes to offer to the police department, they dismiss him, like, who is

this, probably black immigrant with an accent what could he possibly know own that motivates him to go to the next step and he's being hailed as an american patriot, as somebody who has changed the discourse because as journalists we depend on facts. when the police department says these are the facts -- >> you trust the police department. >> we have to. >> i can't help but wonder, do we have -- do you think -- i wonder if there is a difference in how suburban police forces, smaller, not as much scrutiny, not as much funding, hire their police officers versus how big cities who have a -- probably have a -- we know this. the big cities, right now, look like -- their police departments look like the communities they police the suburban ones don't. where are we having the trouble? >> first on your report my career as a police reporter our slogan was if your mom tells you she loves you, check it out. that's -- >> that's a lesson. >> what we have hopefully done in this case. i do think it is hard to know i do know the police when i was covering them big city, like chicago, and they do something

bad, they cover it up. and -- >> with a lot of pot lines, we know this. it is everybody's instinct. >> i'm much more ambivalent on the cop cams. i support them, because i think they are for the truth. but i think there is going to be a lot be lost. most of what cops do is not big capturing a felon. it is getting somebody's home in their private life at the worst moment of their life, in domestic violence if there are cameras on there, that we can trust, if those cameras -- if those videos go on youtube, as they will -- >> i know. that's the other thing. i can picture supreme court case coming where we have this issue on sort of the camera being an illegal search and seizure. >> but if it is that -- or somebody getting somebody shot we have to have the dialogue, which is what we're doing, which is great. >> and work the issues out will you be able to pay for all the cameras? >> the feds have to participate if it is going to be a meaningful program. but we have to have -- you have to pay for your priorities. and trust with the police is a

priority. >> all right. take a break here. when we come back it turns out what many have suspected about their tax rates, on the boy: once

upon a time, there was a nice house that lived with a family. one day, it started to rain and rain. water got inside and ruined everybody's everythings. the house thought she let the family down. but the family just didn't think a flood could ever happen. the reality is floods do happen. protect what matters. get flood insurance. call the number on your screen to learn more.

nerd screen time. since wednesday is tax day, we thought we would make this all about taxes. common sense will tell you the more money you make the higher rate you would pay. on state and local level right? not exactly. according to the institute on taxation and economic policy, low income americans have a higher tax rate on the state and local level than the wealthy. in fact, overall the bottom 20% pay an average effective tax rate at the state level of 10.9%. the top 1%, ready for this, on

the state level they pay just 5.4%. that's because taxes on everything from food, shelter and clothing to registering your car, eating at a restaurant, they hit the poor the hardest. by the way, if you're in the top 1% might want to think about moving to one of these states. nevada, wyoming south dakota and florida. they're the top 1% pays an effective tax rate of under 2%. for more on the politics and geography of your taxes, head to our website. up next, i flew to vegas yesterday. not to hit the tables, trust me. i always like to do th

didate to jump into what is going to be a very crowded field for the republican presidential nomination. and the senator from kentucky did not exactly garner the national headlines he would have liked in his first week of campaigning. after a few tense interviews including one with my colleague savannah guthrie. for my first meet the candidates interview, with a republican presidential contender i sat down with senator paul in las vegas. and i started by asking him, which country or entity he views as the biggest threat to america's national security. >> i think there are a lot of threats around the world. everybody talks about iran. i think iran is a significant threat. i think the countries that already have nuclear weapons are somewhat of a threat also, north

carolina is a loose cannon with nuclear weapons. pakistan there is always the threat of instability over there. also having nuclear weapons. so i think there is a number of threats. i think in the last year or so, russia has become more problem than problem solver. there was hope maybe a year or so ago that when russia helped to broker getting rid of the chemical weapons in syria there was hope among some of us they would want to participate in making the world a better place. quickly dashed after the invasion of crimea and into ukraine. >> there is a quote you gave, new yorker, you said it in july of last year, in the october new yorker, you said, when you have so many confusions, how can you ask an american jihad to fight and lose his life for something but in the neighboring country we would be fighting with many people who hate israel hate the united states hates christianity. makes no sense. i take that quote to think right now you think the u.s.' presence

in the middle east is too big. >> i don't think i would put it that way. i would say the quote is to mean that the middle east say very confusing place and before we leap, before we put gis into something where they could lose their lives or where we're putting american gi lives at risk, we have to think before we act. i think if i can think of one thing that is true in that mass that i think is inconintrovertible and hard for anybody to object to is every time we toppled a strong man we have gotten chaos and we have gotten the rise of radical islam. that includes wars that were promoted by republicans as well as wars promoted by democrats. i think hillary's war in libya is an example. i also think the toppling of hussein is another example of when a strong man went, chaos ensued. >> do you think we're spending too much time debating iran and not enough time debating the isis resolution that congress hasn't voted on. >> i think they're both important. i think they both need to involve congress. the -- our founding fathers were very, very specific that congress had a role in foreign

policy, a big role. in fact, they gave the ultimate role you know in declaring war to congress. and that was intentional. to make it difficult, and to make it that we only went to war when we had consensus. >> there is an intenseity on iran, we have to debate every facet of the deal. none of that on isis. >> i think that's disappointing. before christmas i brought it up in the foreign relations and i introduced a declaration of war against isis because -- i did try to attach it to a water bill, which annoyed some people. people are like why are you attaching a war resolution to a water bill. that's all they'll let me attach it to. i forced them to debate. that's one of the things to me that has been most exciting about being in the senate. i could be at home saying congress should declare war and why won't congress get involved? but now i'm actually there and i can say, you know what, i'll make them vote on this. and they will have to discuss war and they did. we had a great discussion. it didn't come to a resolution. but i'm still pushing to say, look, you should not be at war. i've said the president, if he wanted to be a great leader,

last august should have come before a joint session of congress and laid out the plan and then should have asked for permission. he would have gone down in history as a uniter and great leader if he had done that. instead, we mickey mouse around him no one made a decision, are we at war are we not at war. >> the iran deal, i know there is confusion, the iranians saying one thing about it, the americans saying one thing about it. assuming the deal is what john kerry and president obama are saying, is that a deal you would nullify on day one if you took office? >> i think that's the real problem is assumeing what it actually means. i talked to the administration about this. my concern has been, and i told them from the beginning, one of my biggest concerns is the day the obama administration came out with their fact sheet on what the agreement would mean, the foreign minister of iran comes out tweeting in english and says, well, no, it means exactly the opposite of what the americans mean. you have to question the sincerity of the iranians and it goes to credibility on this agreement. is this really going to be an agreement that we can whole

heartedly get behind. >> going back to the description, the agreement is the united states described it, good enough agreement for you? >> i think there are good things in it. i'm not one of the republicans who will say oh because the president is a democrat, i'm never going to say he can't do anything good. i believe in negotiations. i want to have negotiations. but i also realize that negotiations have to be from a position of strength. many conservatives who are hopping mad and all they want to do is criticize the president they don't remember ronald reagan's talked with the russians. we negotiate with the russians for decades. didn't mean we trusted them. reagan said trust, but verify. i'm in the same camp. when i want a deal i don't want a bad deal. all i've seen is the fact sheet so far. i'll tell you it greatly troubles me the iranians are saying it doesn't mean any of this and the ayatollah is spouting off with you know aspersions toward the u.s. and czar zarif saying it doesn't mean anything. if they can come out and say,

you know, yes, we're agree with the administration on what it means, there might be a chance for people to look at the agreement objectively. >> you said something right after the 2012 election, about your dad. you said, maybe, just maybe the ron paul revolution is the last best hope for saving the gop from oblivion. if you run a good campaign and not the republican nominee, gop headed for oblivion? >> sometimes we have flowering rhetoric that we use. >> think you overdid it there? >> probably not me of course. other politicians have been over the top. but never me. i think we say a lot of things. i do mean -- i was very sincere that, you know, i was a great fan of my dad. i think he's one of the few honest and genuine people in politics. i do mean that in my support. but i think also when we say it is our guy or oblivion, we may be using a little rhetorical flourishing. >> where do you disagree with your dad? three areas. >> you first. where do you disagree with your dad and then i'll go to mine. >> you're both elected officials.

and your campaign, a lot of ron paul fans that showed up today. >> i would say the best way to describe it has to be in general terms unless we have a few hours, you know. the thing is that i would say that we both believe in the original intent of the constitution, we both believe that government should spend only that comes in. we both believe in a strong national defense. and we both believe that maybe in the spectrum of foreign policy, that maybe we intervened too much. there is disagrees s degrees of how much you intervene around the world. he may be more to the side of never intervening and i'm on the side of deciding how we intervene through congress and a think there are times to intervene. i think isis is one of those. >> this week, there has been a lot of attention to some of the interviews you had, one or two contentious. one with my colleague, savannah guthrie. men and women by the way. do you think you have to grow a thicker skin? >> you know, it depends when you get me. if i had my coffee, and, you

know, had some -- no. >> are you not a morning person? >> i am very much a morning person. i'm a surgeon. i love the morning. and i'm better at 7:00 in the morning, no complaints. it was early in the morning. but the thing is, i guess that, you know, most of my profession has been as a doctor. and so if you ask me a question and it is about your eyes or about, you know, a pain you have here i try to be very direct with the answer. i don't like it and i sometimes have a hard time hiding that i don't like it when a lot of the question is built up into, well, you've changed -- you've changed your opinion, and i guess this is your opinion, at least for now. and that kind of tipped me off as sort of like, that's snide. this is your opinion. at least for now. >> welcome to the nfl. >> i know. but the thing is then i push back. i don't know for better or worse. people come up to me of both stripes and said thank goodness you stood up to the liberal media and other people, maybe my wife said count to ten and try to let them spit out their question, even if it is a biased

question, and let the question come out. i don't know. i think we could all be better. i think some interviewers could be better sometimes and i think politicians could be more tolerant of interviewers. >> hillary clinton getting into this race, you have been comfortable bringing up a lot of her past. a lot of bill clinton's past. and saying it should be thought about and debated. you're hesitant about your past, you don't like your associations with your father being a part of your campaign. >> right. >> isn't that a little hypothetical critt hypocritical? >> there is a certain sense that they think they're above the law and a grand hypocrisy for the clintons in the sense that we have this whole thing, this war on women thing, that they like to dotalk about and hillary clinton has taken money from countries. we should be boycotting voluntarily boycotting a country not buying stuff from a country

that does that. >> you want a boycott, you're the president saudi arabia, no longer an ally. >> in south africa, there was much that was voluntary boycott saying, you know what, personally, you know i'm going to try to tell my university not to invest in this country because of what they do to women. i think i would expect hillary clinton if she believes in women's rights, she should be calling for a boycott of saudi arabia. instead, she's accepting tens of millions of dollars and it looks unseemly. there will be some explaining she'll have to come up with. >> senator i have to leave it there. are you rungning for both offices at the same time? >> yes. >> the anti-washington candidate wants to be a voice in washington. >> government has gone way too far. you'll see a thousand people out here that want me to still be that voice. >> all right. senator, stay safe on the trip. >> thanks. >> that was my interview yesterday with senator rand paul of kentucky on his last stop of his announcement tour. back i'm brian vickers, nascar® driver.

i'm kevin nealon comedian. and i'm arnold palmer, professional golfer. know what we have in common? we talked to our doctors about treatment with xarelto®. me, when i had a blood clot in my leg that could have traveled to my lungs. that's why i took xarelto®, too. xarelto® is proven to treat and help reduce the risk of dvt and pe blood clots. i took xarelto® for afib... an irregular heartbeat that can lead to a stroke from a blood clot. xarelto® is proven to reduce the risk of stroke in people with afib, not caused by a heart valve problem. hey, well i'm glad we got together. for people with afib currently well managed on warfarin there is limited information on how xarelto® and warfarin compare in reducing the risk of stroke. i tried warfarin before, but the blood testing routine and dietary restrictions had me off my game. tell me about it. let's see, golf clinic, or blood clinic? ooh, that's a tough one. not this time. not with xarelto®. anything else? i'll have another arnold palmer. ok. make mine a kevin nealon. really, brian? hey, safety first.

like all blood thinners, don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor as this may increase your risk of a blood clot or stroke. while taking xarelto® you may bruise more easily and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious bleeding and in rare cases may be fatal. get help right away if you develop unexpected bleeding unusual bruising, or tingling. if you have had spinal anesthesia while on xarelto® watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve, or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto® tell your doctor about any conditions such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. xarelto® has been prescribed more than 11 million times in the u.s. and that number's growing. like your guys' scores. with xarelto® there is no regular blood monitoring, and no known dietary restrictions. treatment with xarelto® was the right move for us. ask your doctor about xarelto®. you may be able to get up to 12 months at no cost.

"saturday night live," take a look. >> i am running because i want

to be a voice for women everywhere. >> hillary would make a great president. i would make an even greater first dude. this election is about you. i don't want to hog your limelight. i am leaving. look at me go. bye. i'm gone. >> aren't we such a fun, approachable dynasty? >> nice to see him back to do that. look, it did hurt hillary clinton back in '07, '08 a little bit. he seems to know it. it does look like they're trying to give him the same role that president obama did, which is use him as little as possible until you really need him. >> i think -- i mean for me i'm of the clinton generation. for me use him as much as possible. >> majority of the country likes bill clinton. let's remind people of that. >> i think she'll learn lessons from the past campaign and use them appropriately. i'd like to see more bill

clinton. >> you want to see more? bill clinton, help or hurt? >> hurt. big issue is trust. i go back to rand paul. rand paul is a high-trust candidate. hillary clinton is a low-trust candidate. bill clinton is a lowerer-trust candidate. if trust is the issue, you say bill clinton is not an asset if trust is the issue. >> david axelrod compared bill clinton to nuclear energy. a little bit is really good. but it could be radioactive and explosive in a hurry. >> i think he's a total winner on the message. he's a great politician, great messenger. substance is the interesting thing. bill clinton was a moderate democrat. that democratic party doesn't exist anymore. so how does hillary clinton move off the clinton economic policies of the 1990s? >> right, which we know the left wants her to go left. you're right. the mid sl going somewhere else. another issue. it's called the rauch rule. a long-time colleague of mine now at brookings. he said candidates for president, they all get elected if they have been in the arena

for 14 years or less. 4 14 years is sort of your sell-by date. that's your expiration date. hillary clinton, according to his math, has been in elected office 15 years. never mind as first lady for 25. christie cruz jind the, walker rubio. the ones quote/unquote stale are biden, bush huckabee clinton, and santorum. how does hillary clinton deal with this fresh issue? >> the terms expiration date and stale and too late for you as a woman, it's like i don't know if men have the same reaction. that's nuclear. it's like you're telling us we've expired. i think that's problematic. and i think that actually bill de blasio who was on the show, he showed that anything can happen. he had been around. politics anything can happen.

it's stale if you continue to be stale. there's no reason why things can't get mixed up. >> you didn't like the test at all. >> but this is different. hillary is like the cornea transplant you didn't know you had. she's been in your vision since 1990. the tammy wynette interview was in 1992. she's been there since then. that's not about a sell-by date. >> but here's what that also means. there's a whole slew of americans who are going to vote for the first time for her who never had to vote for bill clinton. that could be an asset. >> i think it's an asset. i also think when you talk about stale, i would say the republican party, who's been very stale, not been willing to expand so where do they stand on the rauch test? >> that's what we did. i went through the whole thing. that's a big problem for a guy named jeb bush who has the same issue. before we go big news this week. we have friendly competition between the sunday shows.

bob, you love your purple socks. i will be wearing purple socks in your honor on your last show i . >> i guess since you're a big tcu fan, i hope i get this right. frogs. he's one of the class acts of washington. i think i speak for everyone at this table. we're all going to miss you. i would do my bob schieffer but i'm told i would get in trouble be i do too much of my accent, but gosh darn it, why can't we get this town together and get this town to work better together. >> we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's meet the press.

good morning. right now on "first look." hillary clinton has made it official. >> i'm getting ready to do something too. i'm running for president. >> she is on the road as we speak, driving in a van from new york to aye iowa while talking to americans along the way. more police involved shootings over the weekend and the message from a young man seen millions of types that's creating quite a stir. >> then to a 21-year-old man who stuns the golf world as he takes the masters by storm. that and much more. "first look" begins right now. good morning and thanks so much for waking up with us. it is official. hillary cl