and what i want as our last word about david letterman on this program, i wanted to -- by and about david letterman, i want tight be velcro man. let's take one more look at that. >> okay. could you -- ♪ kevin curran, tom shales, thank chris hayes is up next. you broke it, you bought it. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews out in san francisco, to give this weekend's commencement at st. mary's college. even from this beautiful city, it's hard not to see the

ugliness in the partisan effort to put the hell of isis entirely on the shoulders of president obama. it's as if the u.s. invasion of iraq, which broke that country apart, had nothing to do with today's iraqi turmoil. an invasion bush and cheney sold with the now provenly bogus claim that saddam hussein had nuclear weapons and a connection to 9/11. watching the republicans contort themselves in this effort is to watch them prance in front of funhouse mirror. one group says that reality doesn't matter. it doesn't matter that their claims of a nuclear iraq or an al qaeda-connected iraq were bogus. the u.s. invasion wasn't to end the idea, they say, even if it's left over $4,000 americans and over 100,000 iraqis dead. another group says that now, because the case made for the u.s. invasion was bogus, you can't blame the people who came up with those bogus claims. i know. this is hard to follow. a third group is similar to the first. it says, okay, we should have never invaded iraq, but it's still cool, because we got rid of saddam hussein.

well, the fourth argument, catch this, sort of covers all the bases. it doesn't think through the horror of the war or the dishonesty that led to it, it simply lumps it all together and blames it all on, guess who, president obama? let's start with those who say, we should have gone in, no matter what. bill kristol writes, we were right to invade iraq in 2003 and to remove saddam hussein and to completely the job we started in 1991 and the obama administration threw it all way. and here's lindsey graham. >> was the iraq war a mistake? >> no, i don't think so. the biggest mistake we made was leaving iraq, without a follow-on force against sound military advice. >> well, michael hanlan is a senior fellow with the brookings institute and michael tomasky. what do you make of the neocon argument? it's an ideological war, we admit it, we never really did believe in the wmd, we're glad we fought it, because we got rid

of saddam hussein. >> yeah, well, look, saddam hussein was a really bad guy, chris. nobody argues with that. but the the world better off now? no. the world is not better off now. some portions of the iraqi population are probably better off. the kurds are probably better off. there's no complete black and complete white here. it's a very complicated picture. so, yeah, some people are better off because saddam hussein is gone, saddam hussein was a complete monster. is the world overall better off because iraq exploded like this and because they went in there and thought iraqis were going to throw rose petals at our feet and they didn't plan for what kind of regime they were going to build. they didn't plan on replacing or maintaining the security constitutions of that country, when they tore that country apart? no, the world's not better off. we've got isis and all these problems. we've got a much-strengthened iran because of this invasion not better off. >> michael, same question to you.

>> well, chris, i don't think we're better off either. the hope i had two or three years ago, and even then, as you know, the doses, as you have often underscores, had been horrendous. but the hope i had was some day the middle east would have improved enough and iraq would be working well enough that at that time we could perhaps say, the benefits were worth the cost. that was the hope i had a couple years ago. if that's still a hope, it's a very long-term hope, and it's certainly being dashed year by year right now. at this juncture, we have to say, the war was not worth the cost, and based on the premise that we went into the war, i cannot defend the decision, even though, at the time, i did not oppose it. >> yeah, well, that's where the american people are right now. there are others who acknowledge mistakes, but blame it all on bogus intel, like jeb bush. here he is. >> the facts that were there for the president and a bipartisan way approved, bipartisan in every extent, was grounded on faulty intel.

>> hindsight, based on the faulty intelligence and the security issues that i wouldn't have gone in and mistakes were made and my brother concurs with that, as do a lot of other people. >> well, that poor guy is simply not keeping up. this was more than faulty intelligence involved. we set that record straight on our show on tuesday night this week. we were told firsthand from the top guy at the cia that the bush administration manipulated the intelligence to say that saddam had a nuclear weapon. they lied their way into war. let's take a look. >> we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. >> was that true or not? >> so, we were saying -- >> is that true? >> we were saying -- >> can you answer that question? is that true? >> that's not true. >> michael tomasky, this was a quite a revelation to get the top cia briefer, to say he never believed there was a nuclear weapon. they also, in his book points out that there wasn't any connection to 9/11 or to al

qaeda generally. your thoughts? >> well, first of all, it raises questions about why he didn't say this at the time. but, be that as it may -- >> i tried to pound that out of him, michael. i couldn't -- >> i know, i saw the segment. you did your best. but, look, this is a lie and everybody outside of the 25 or 30%, you know, in their corner of america knows that it was a lie. it wasn't faulty intelligence. it was cooked intelligence. it was bogus intelligence. they were getting some good intelligence, actually, that said, no, he doesn't have a nuclear program. no, he doesn't have a pick stockpile of wmds, but they didn't want that intelligence. so they cooked up their own intelligence. everybody knows that they're not fooling anybody, except theirselves, if they're really fooling themselves. >> the other argument against president obama is that the war in iraq was worth it because saddam is gone. here's marco rubio on that point. >> was it a mistake to go to war with iraq?

>> two -- >> i'm asking you -- >> yeah, but it's not the same question. >> but that's the question i'm asking you. >> it was not a mistake for the president to decide to go into iraq, because at the time -- >> i'm not asking you that. i'm asking you -- >> in hindsight? >> yes. >> the world is a better place because saddam hussein is not there. >> it's hard for me to figure out some of these guys, because i don't think they've done much homework on this. they're out raising money and being candidates and covering all their bases on common core and everything else and immigration and they don't really put too much study into what happened or the evidence that was there or the evidence that wasn't there. they don't seem to keep up to date. what do you make of marco rubio, because he seems to be the hotshot on the republican side right now. >> i still want to hope that he's learned some lessons from watching this, because it's obviously been an ugly experience. he's in a tough political spot, you and i know that. one more thing senator rubio may have said, you know, in addition to the misuse of intelligence, there was some other big problem happening at the time, which is that the administration was deliberately underplanning for the difficulty of the operation.

this is where we could also be critical. if you want to learn from history, you can say, anytime you go to war, you better be prepared for it to be a lot more ugly than you might first hope. and mr. rumsfeld and others at the pentagon did not have a plan that allowed for that possibility. that's where i've been the most critical, and i think that senator rubio, for example, could have chosen that tact. >> well, the situation in iraq is a function of what happened back in 2003 and what happened subsequent to that. let me stay with you, michael o'hanlan. it seems to me they sold the war as absolutely essential because he had a nuclear weapon and he was connected to al qaeda. all the reasons we had to go in, and at the same time, like a good salesperson, the cost would be short. it would pay for itself in terms of cheap gasoline. all of those arguments were thrown in to say, not only in a sense did we go in, this is going to a jackpot for us. it's not going to be that tough.

who made the case to the president this was going to be an easy war? >> there were some iraqis who did. there was a guy who wrote beautiful books, very moving books about the tyranny of saddam's rule. so he really wanted to see his people liberated and he used the line, as you know, that american troops will have roses thrown at their feet, as they enter baghdad. and that was widely circulated thereafter. so it began there. but, frankly, bush administration strategists should have known that you can't plan a war on your best hopes for how it might go. you can devise a strategy that increases the chances of a optimistic outcome, but your better have the possible preparations, just in case you're wrong. and that's something that any pentagon planner really should have been focused on. and some of that was kept from the senate, by the way. that stuff was not well discussed publicly, or even with the congress, at the time. so i think it actually is one more reason why you have to be a little more critical of the bush administration, a little less critical, even of those who voted for the war in the congress.

>> well, here we are, and there's always the default option right now, blame everything on obama that's going on in iraq now, as a result of all of these years of mistakes. and lies, basically. let's take a look now at the argument against it. >> isis didn't exist when my brother was president. al qaeda in iraq was wiped out when my brother was president. >> when it comes to blaming people about iraq, the person i blame is barack obama, not george w. bush. >> isis is the face of evil. what undermines the global effort is for the president of the united states to be an apology u.s. for radical islamic president. >> i believe this president has committed presidential malpractice in his foreign policy and i think that exhibit "a" is what he's done with the middle east. >> okay, president obama responded to those critics in an interview with the atlantic. quote, i know that there are some in republican quarters who have suggested that i've overlearned the mistake of iraq, and that, in fact, just because the 2003 invasion did not go

well doesn't argue that we shouldn't go back in on one of the central flaws i think of the decision back in 2003 was the sense that if we simply went in and deposed a dictator or simply went in and cleared out the bad guys, that somehow, peace and prosperity would automatically emerge. and that that lesson, we should have learned a long time ago. i'll get back to you, michael, because that seems to be his argument, is the one you made a moment ago, which is this idea that somehow, it would be like the overthrowing of those governments in eastern europe, like the cold war, that all of a sudden there would be a blooming of democracy and a better country overall. >> of course, in eastern europe, the revolutions were typically a lot more peaceful, a lot more political, and they were in countries that had stronger institutions that were undergirding the society. i do share some of the criticism of president obama's decision in 2011, but i think it's a much lower magnitude mistake than to go into iraq in 2003 with no significant preparation. and by 2011, there was reason to hope that the iraqis themselves

would hold it together. now, prime minister maliki and others made some big mistakes thereafter, and i think president obama was wrong to pull out u.s. troops. but it wasn't going to be easy to stay, and obama did keep forces there for twice as long as he had promised on the campaign trail, along the time frame that president bush himself had sketched out. i would give president obama some criticism there, but not nearly as harsh as -- >> so the criticism you leveled at obama is that he followed out the bush plan? >> well, apparently. he had his own choice, but, yes, it was the logic that had been established before. mr. obama deserves some of the criticism, but not nearly as much as he's getting now. >> okay, mike, my problem with that argument is you can always say, if we'd only stayed a little longer. you can always argue, if we'd only stay there had with more troops, more combat troops in the field, you can always argue, but that's the best argument for not going in, because you can never leave. >> that's right. you can always argue that, and,

you know, we might still be occupying western iraq today, with a substantial number of troops. look, who negotiated the reduction of our troops and the withdrawal? not barack obama, george w. bush did in 2008. and then, you know, i agree with michael o'hanlan that the obama administration can be criticized for some things and he wanted to get the troops out by 2012. undoubtedly partly for electoral purposes. but look at that another way, chris. he campaigned in 2008 on getting those troops out. that was a campaign promise he made to the american people. the other guy, john mccain, was promising something else. the american people, fairly decisively, chose the guy who promised he would get the troops out and he got the troops out. isn't that keeping a campaign promise? isn't that what we always complain these guys never do? >> there's a certain value in sticking to your word. thank you, michael hanlan, thank you, michael tomasky, this is something we've been debating for years. coming up, do hillary clinton supporters really care about her e-mails and finances and what friends she keep? will any of this stuff keep her out of the white house? i doubt it.

plus, jeb bush was supposed to save the republican party from its far-right fringe. remember how he would he would lose the primary to win the general? why is he now out there denying what every scientist says about climate change? is this to keep the flat earth types happy? and who's going to get shut out when the republicans hold their first presidential debate. this is going to be fun. anyway, let's find out which candidates won't make the cut. finally, let me finish with the best thing hillary clinton will have going for her next year. this is "hardball," the place for politics.ll more like a foyer. i want his bedroom to smell like he's away at boarding school. surround yourself with up to 6 hours of luxurious, long-lasting scents... ...introducing new unstopables air refresher.

former texas governor rick perry has been a voice of san ty about that fear that the united states army may be invading texas. that's the military training exercise that some on the far right fear, supposedly will be a takeover of the lone star state. well, texas governor greg abbott even put the texas state guard on guard to monitor that exercise, just in case. and ted cruz blamed the panic on president obama, because when cruz called distrust in the

federal government. well, initially, governor perry tried to calm fears, saying we should trust the military, but now, he's right there with cruz, blaming president obama. >> let's say that i were to become the president of the united states. i think that will be a clearly changed attitude towards that office, what comes out of that office, the messaging that comes out of that office. >> well, governor perry says if he were president, people would trust government again. that's the military operation scheduled to begin in july. we'll be right back.ro ntic why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? cialis for daily use, is the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms

of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision or any symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. insurance coverage has expanded nationally and you may now be covered. contact your health plan for the latest information.

welcome back to "hardball." the press on hillary clinton lately has been full of news on possible scandals involving e-mails, the clinton foundation, and big speech money. but how baldly as the front-runner actually been hurt

within her own party? according to at least one focus group, carried out with iowa democrats by bloomberg politics, the answer seems to be, not much. >> i guess it would be her honesty. like you were talking about benghazi, this whole e-mail thing that she supposedly deleted the e-mails. she's just very closed, quiet, closeted person. and i think that's probably one of her downsides. >> there are some questions about her, but i think most of the questions of honesty and the stuff are overblown. >> it seems pretty silly to me that she thought using a g-mail account was acceptable for diplomatic-related stuff. but, really, i don't care. i've got e-mails that i don't want people reading, not because there's bad stuff in there, but that's my personal stuff.

>> i love that line, "really, i don't care." is hillary weathering this storm? at least with democrats. it looks like, michael smith is with "the new york times." john, you're out here, over the months from back in new york and we'll get to michael in a minute. what do you think the reaction is to all this talk about hillary's friends said bloomenthal, who i've known for a hundred years, who's been around her, helping her out in every different way. this e-mail thing gets more murky all the time. or the fact they're making fat paydays and speeches. does it bother the clinton people? >> i think when you've been in the public eye as long as hillary clinton has been, people have already made their decision. i mean, there's nothing that's going to come out that's going to convince the people that don't like her that she's a wonderful person and they should vote for her. and just on the other hand, unless something in the e-mails that come out show that she's a member of the brotherhood of evil mutants or something like that, they're not going to be changed either. so, she is what she is and she is where she is.

>> well, "the new york times" today got its hands on a batch of clinton's state department e-mails. among them are memos about libya sent by that hillary friend, sid bloomenthal, who had business dealings in that country. and the day after the benghazi attacks, sid bloomenthal e-mailed clinton, essentially echoing other earlier reports. she wrote, quote, a senior security officer said the attacks on that day were inspired by what many devout libyans viewed as a sacrilegious internet video on the prophet muhammad originating in america. but the very next day, sid bloomenthal sent new information. quote, these officials do believe that the attackers have prepared to launch their assault. they took advantage of the cover resided by the demonstrations in benghazi, protesting an internet production seen as disrespectful to the prophet muhammad. another question, how did dloin react to this new information that turned out to be accurate, she forwarded the memo to jake sullivan with the memo, we

should get this around asap. so it seems to me reading this, when she got the second bit of advice from sid bloomenthal, on the a second day, which ended up being closer to the truth, which was that there was a terrorist attack that cost the life of four americans, that using the process as a smoke screen, it was a separate terrorist attack that did the deadly deeds, that that was accurate and she passed it around to her colleagues, including her top people. she wasn't trying to hide that story. so that would seem to be challenging those on the right who have been saying hillary's been putting out a cooked story. >> that's true about hillary, but the difference is, is that it raises questions about the white house's account. you had jay carney, right after that, come out and say, we have no evidence at all to suggest that it was a planned attack. although it doesn't really change anything about her, it provides us with new information about what was floating around inside the administration.

>> well, this stuff is getting what is to say, smokestacked, that term that would get out one stack and nobody else was read it. and sid balloonen that'll turns out he was the enlightened man, the guy who really knew what happened, told his friend, the secretary of state, she put it around to her people, and somehow it didn't get to susan rice, who went on "meet the press" a couple of days later. >> it would be nice if there was a crisis, we could say, one thing, what had, come out and say, this is what happened. but it's constantly evolving on things like this. and i think that's what you're seeing. the story changes sometimes, but it changes because more information comes out, different people are heard from. >> what do you think's the bottom of this story here, so far, michael, as you reported? what's the oomph in this? >> well, i mean, it's not clear, i think one of the more remarkable things here, is that at a very important time in her, in her time at the state department, she was receiving this sort of live information from a longtime confidant who wasn't supposed to be working for her.

and in this really high-profile incident, she's being fed private intelligence cables by him. that's just different than, i think, the way that most intelligence is supposed to move. it's supposed -- intelligence is vetted, there's a whole system that was created after 9/11, to make sure that principles get stuff that all different parts of the government have looked at. this was different. >> yeah, but it turned out to be accurate. >> actually, it didn't. parts of it turned out to be accurate. ultimately, there was no protest. and ultimately, the narrative from the government is that it wasn't something that had been planned for a month. it was something that had been planned for a few days. so this certainly shows the type of confusion and the type of information that was flowing in. >> yeah, i just don't see the nefarious aspect of this yet. >> again, you're seeing the sort of thing that comes out. the worst sources of intelligence, the better.

you have the public sources of intelligence, you have people sending out letters, you go through all of this and somebody, somewhere, has to troll through them and decide, this is what's actually happening. >> i think that focus group is fascinating. it seems to me there is something -- franklin roosevelt, probably the best president we've ever had, was very secretive and manipulative and we still thought he was a good president. if hillary clinton is secretive, we know that, is that going to help us get any further. michael, thanks for coming offen the show. up next, david letterman says farewell and he's joined in his big finale by bill clinton, barack obama, and both george bushes. that's pretty presidential. and that's ahead and this is "hardball," the place for politics. 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.

my fellow americans, our long national nightmare is over. >> our long national nightmare is over. >> our long national nightmare

is over. >> our long national nightmare is over. >> our long national nightmare is over. letterman is retiring. >> you're just kidding, right? >> welcome back to "hardball." david letterman signed off with a funny and classy good-bye to 14 million people watching. let's watch a bit. >> it's beginning to look like i'm not going to get "the tonight show." >> best line of the night. he offered some of his self-deprecating midwest humor as well. >> people come up to me all the time and they say, dave, i've been watching you since your morning show, and i always say, have you thought about a complete psychological workup? >> and he acknowledged his own family. >> i want to thank my own family, my wife, regena, and my son, harry. thank you.

>> joining us right now, is "los angeles times" television critic, the great steve batalia. what did you make of last night? i had to go to bed, because i had to fly out to this beautiful city. by the way, the picture behind me is not a picture or a mural or some green sheet, that's this beautiful city, the san francisco bay. just wanted to let people know that. go ahead, steve. >> first, i want to say, i'm not the critic for the "los angeles times." i cover media and television. i thought the show was terrific, because it was david letterman as we have loved him over the years. it didn't get too schmaltzy or caught up in those sentimental farewells, it was pure letterman and the stuff we like about him. making fun of himself. and i also think what you show

there had, that opening tape, which had four presidents in it, that i think tells you how important this show was to the national conversation. you had to connect with dave if you wanted to connect with america. >> wow. well, here's letterman with some of the presidential hopefuls after they stumbled. let's watch some of the fun. >> rick perry excuse number nine. >> i don't know what you're talking about. i think things went well. >> what exactly happened? >> can i give you an answer? >> please. >> i screwed up. >> i have no proof, but i have a feeling canada is planning something. >> what did you make of the comment by howard stern, i

thought it was brilliant, that david letterman is not a comic, a stand-up comic, he's more of a broadcaster, a guy like stern, if you want to stretch it, who basically keeps you interested in the way his mind works. you want to know what he's going to do in the next segment after the commercial, so you stick with him. >> he has -- he is a comic, and he is a comic personality, but i think over the years, what's happened is that he's become a great conversationalist. what dave says he likes to do best is to talk to interesting people in front of an audience. and he really moved away from the type of stunts that you saw him do, the found comedy outside of the studio. that was really groundbreaking at the time. but, you know, after a while, you know, when you get to be into your 60s, maybe it didn't play as well anymore, and he really found a new place for himself, as someone who can comment maybe look with a raised eyebrow, about what's going on in the world and say interesting, funny stuff.

and it was a very intimate relationship that he had. you know, being on late-night, you are probably watching alone or maybe with your spouse. it's the end of the day, you're winding down. you just want good company. and dave always managed to be that. he got away from that edgy comedy that he was doing, that really made his name in the 1980s and '90s and just became, you know, more of a person that you just wanted to be with, i think. >> and i think a lot of it has to do with time of day, as you suggested. larry king was always great at midnight, driving across the country, larry was the greatest company in the world, with someone like don king for an hour. and david letterman is great late at night. king didn't work in the daytime, david letterman didn't work in the daytime, ellen degeneres works in the daytime. it's so fascinating how people find their sweet spots. >> ellen's is a very different type of show. ellen does a very different type

of show. that's really a variety, comedy show and really it's very produced. it doesn't depend that much on that, on the type of conversation that letterman does. although, i mean, she does engage with the audience, and again, it's companionship television. i think what all these talk shows are, and that's why they work. if the person behind the microphone or in front of the camera is good. >> i agree. conan o'brien, by the way, says he owes a great deal to letterman and last night he encouraged his own audience, never saw this before, on tbs, to switch over to the "late show." let's watch something unusual. >> if there happen to be a few of you out there, probably stoners, i'm going to let you -- i know my crowd. i'm going to let you know, i'm going to let you know the exact moment when dave's show is starting, and i'd like you to switch over.

>> thank you so much. thanks, by the way, steve, thank you for joining us tonight. who's in and who's out, when the republicans hold their first presidential debate? you need to be in the top ten to make the stage, and that means trump could be in, and some elected officials, big-time governors will get yanked out. they won't even make the table. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

0 if you want to succeed in business,

mistakes are a luxury you can't afford. that's why i recommend fast reliable comcast business internet. they know what businesses need. and there's a no-mistake guarantee. if you don't like it, you have thirty days to call and get your money back. with comcast business internet you literally can't mook a mistick. i meant to say that. switch today and get the no mistake guarantee.

comcast business. built for business.

welcome back to "hardball." there may be 18 republicans running for president in 2016, but the first presidential gop on august 6th won't feature 18 candidates on one stage. fox news, which is hosting the first debate, decided to limit the debate to the top ten announced candidates based on an average of the most recent five national polls before the debate. as it stands today, according to polling that nbc news recognizes, the top ten republicans would include jeb bush, scott walker, marco rubio, ted cruz, rand paul, mike huckabee, ben carson, chris christie, rick perry, and -- bonus prize -- donald trump. well, based on these national polls, the debate would exclude the governor of the state in which the debate is being held, that's ohio's john kasich. it would also exclude the field's only female candidate, callery fiorina, rick santorum who won the iowa caucuses in

2012, lindsey graham and bobby jindal. let's bring in our roundtable. betsey woodruff is a political reporter with thedale beast and danny is a republican strategist. everybody jump in here but start with jonathan. this is going to be something of a jam. they're all trying to get in. i remember all the fights with ralph nairt saying he couldn't get in, raising hell, even legal suitings, and sh going to get to the point of litigation to try to get into that door, which only holds ten people now? >> well, it depends on who among them is litigious. but i do think that the rules that are being put in place by fox and by others to limit the number of candidates on that stage are reasonable, in that when you've got 18, 19, we could probably have 20 people running, you have to figure out how you can turn that debate -- and not turn that debate stage either into the al smith dinner, which has two rows of guests, or have

it end up being -- >> three rows, buddy. jonathan, i'm up there, it's three rows. >> okay, it's three rows. but you also don't want it to turn into like a friar's club roast, where you've got the oddball candidate who's there, you know, lobbing one-liners and zingers, just catching attention, when what republican primary voters will want to hear and what the rest of the country who are tuning in to hear are substantiative debates on substantiative issues, or as much as they can. >> i agree with jonathan on this. i think ultimately the point of these debates is to add value for republican voters who are trying to figure out who they should be president. and if you have everyone, you know, plus their dog on stage, if you have berman supreme thereupon, who knows, he might be able to poll 1% in some sort of poll, it stops becoming a debate and becomes a goofy, protracted press conference. it's not going to be as interesting. >> so what do you do? >> i think what they're doing makes sense.

i get it. you have to draw the line somewhere. you can't have every single former governor be in these debates. >> you have to draw the line somewhere, but also have to make sure that you have a process in which some of the potentially serious candidates who have something important to say have a venue for which they can say it. and unfortunately, some of these polls can swing violently, week to week, day to day in some cases. >> so what's your answer? >> the answer is probably -- either you make something that's even more complex in terms of the process, or you have a couple of debates, right? so maybe you have a -- >> it looks like that's what they're going to -- >> that's what they're going to do. instead of having a number of candidates you can count on one hand, you've got to count them by the dozen now. so that's going to be -- and you don't want to free fall or circus, but you do want to have a process by which they can interact with each other, the american public can hear from the candidates the real substantiative points they have. a process by which rick santorum and john kasich are eliminated

from the process is not a good process. >> but when you showed the candidates that would not be included, carly fiorina, who is an announced candidate, i think, maybe a modification should be, if you are an announced candidate, but you drop off by the wayside, any of those people out there like donald trump, who's not an announced candidate, that last person should drop off in favor of the person who's actually declared. once you put your skin in the game and you're out there raising money -- >> that's excellent -- >> -- putting your body on the line there, you could be included in the debate. >> that's an excellent point, because donald trump, at the end of the day, we all know that he is the king of pr, but he is not anywhere close to being a serious commentator on substantiative issues. >> i also think what's interesting is what cnn is doing, having a second segment for the people who are only polling at 1%. >> how would you like to be at the little kids' table. >> as a reporter, i'm delighted.

>> what do you think of the little kids' table at thanksgiving? the table in the corner of the room. what do you think about that table, for the nine that don't make the top ten? >> you know, little kids' table is better than being outside with the dogs. and as a reporter, i am delighted that we're going to have maximum commentary and most people sharing their hot takes on public policy. >> okay. speaking if somebody does want to hear -- here's somebody who doesn't want to hear from me too much. today, national republican committee chair reince priebus says he doesn't want a gop traveling circus at the debates. here's his thought. >> we're not going to have a six-month slice and dice festival with a meandering primary season up and down and all over map that nobody can figure out. it's going to be a faster process, but it's going to give enough time for all the candidates to make their case, we're not going to have a 23-debate traveling circus in front of chris matthews. we're going to help pick the

moderates and debate partners this time around. >> hey, jonathan, that's certainly throwing the red meat at those guys. we're not going to have me as the moderator. >> right. >> i don't know what to say. go ahead. >> he doesn't want a traveling circus, but, clearly, what -- from what we see with all the candidates announced and unannounced, that traveling circus bus, the wheels are going to fly off no matter what they do. >> presidential primaries are so fun. >> go ahead, betsey, they want to pick the candidates, they want to pick the moderator. as he just said there, priebus did, are they going to pick the questions, too? are they going to let the candidates write the questions? >> i don't think so. chris wallace gets republican candidates in trouble every single time they go on his show. he's an incredibly incisive interviewer. we've seen marco rubio get in trouble, we've seen scott walker get in trouble.

i don't think they're going to have their paws too involved in this. it's going to be tough. >> chris, i think you absolutely ought to be one of the moderators. it will keep it interesting and fun and keep the momentum going, at the end of the day, that's what people want to see, they want to see activity and action and see people getting energized and motivated by the debates. >> and they'll see a unicorn. >> i like that, one of those put your hands up, how many believe the earth is flat? those will be the questions they really hate. the roundtable is staying with us. and up next, so much for not pandering to the far right? why is jeb bush speaking to the flat earth society, questioning man's role if climate change all of a sudden. what's changed? this is "hardball," the place for politics. so when we had him, we bought one of those he washing machines just trying to keep up but that thing ran forever turns out it wasn't the machine, it was our detergent. so we switched to tide turbo clean and now we get way cleaner clothes way faster which is so appreciated make a mess make a mess make a mess, make a mess make a big mess your first words tide he turbo clean. 6x cleaning power in 1/2 the time. that's my tide what's yours?

progressive insurance here and i'm a box who thrives on the unexpected. ha-ha! shall we dine? [ chuckle ] you wouldn't expect an insurance company to show you their rates and their competitors' rates but that's precisely what we do. going up! nope, coming down. and if you switch to progressive today you could save an average of over 500 bucks. stop it. so call me today at the number below. or is it above? dismount! oh, and he sticks the landing!

i love this. listen to what the voters want to find out about the presidential candidates. according to google, the top searches about hillary clinton during the past week include things like, how old is she, and how tall is she. believe it or not, top questions. in fact, the age question was the number one search on google for a lot of candidates, including bernie sanders, ben carson, jeb bush, marco rubio, scott walker, carly fiorina, and mike huckabee. now look at this, when people search for chris christie, they wanted to know how much he weighs. and about lindsey graham, the top question they have is whether he's married. he's not. seems like voters today want these basic primitive questions answered about people they are looking at to be possibly president of the united states. we'll be right back after this.

at the round table jonathan, betsy and danny. to win the general election this

coming year, they said you have to lose the the republican primary. in other words, take the primary side on hot issues, now it appears he is panicking to the crowd he said he'd challenge. yesterday, jeb bush told a group of new hampshire voters, it's not clear it is caused by human activity. from the climate is changing. i don't think the science is clear of what percentage is man made and what percentage is natural. i just don't, it's convoluted and for the people to say the science is decided on this is just really arrogant to be honest with you. this intellectual arrogance you can't have a concensus on it. >> climate change is, in fact, man-made. among peer review, scientific literature since 1991, 97.1% endorsed the consensus that humans are endorsing -- jeb bush

lamented the republican party was among other things being anti-science. here he was. >> way too many people believe republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-woman, intanti-grey and anti-worker. the list goes on and on and on. >> it doesn't appear the last couple days bush is trying hard to change that perception of his party now. what did jonathan, danny and betsy, all of you now, this question, why is bush buckleing that he was aware for common science for an enlightened education policy. now it seems he is getting panicked the right wing just isn't buying him. >> i mean, it's pandering, chris. i mean for him to say for the people to say that this is so is arrogant. the people are the scientists. you put the statistic up there 97.1% of scientists all agree with the consensus that humans are causing climate change.

it's mind boggling for somebody who is so good on a whole lot of issues from immigration to education to other things that he is going to buck to the far right of his party on climate change. >> i think the important context here, too, though, is that bush also has said he favors negotiating with foreign governments to lower carbon emissions. so he's kind of trying to be all things to all men. he is using the talking points that it's not settled science burks he's also quietly saying, but, we know, some of climate change is man-made. we know people can probably do something to mitigate it. if i was president, i might change public policy to try to solve the problem. so he's kind of trying to get both ways. that can get him in trouble. >> you know what's the shame, chris. >> danny, once you get to the politics of this, it's tricky. it has a lot to do with it. new hampshire has a critical state for jeb bush if 2016. james pinnedle points out today of the boston globe, influential

granite state republicans who in the past enthusiast click backed bush in '88 is so far not offering that support to the newest bush among those who have not come out for jeb bush or john sununu, it's not why he's getting wobbly on policy, he says we got to do something about climate change. he doesn't want to voice the words. he wants to act like he's anti-elitist on this. >> that's a big factor. at the end of the day, he knows he has to come in first or second in new hampshire. if he stands a chance of being able win the primary. that's a for, for him in new hampshire. it hasn't yet materialized. there is a portion of the base in new hampshire and across the country that's not yet convinced that climate change is largely mostly man-made. but my point is that there was a missed opportunity for bush. he should have been able to step in and say, look, whether you believe it's most, larger,

somewhat caused by human activity, the fact of the matter remains that there is too much pollution there. too many people getting sick around the world, not just in the united states, but in china, india, brazil, mexico, other places by a dirty planet. we need to clean the planet and from an economic perspective, the u.s. ought to be a leader in innovation, technology and energy innovation. that's a great thing for our technology, we can export that technology. >> good idea. paraphrasing, you are your opinion not your own planet. thank you for joining, making up the round table today. i'll be right back after this.

i mean, let me finish tonight with this. the best thing hillary clinton will have going for her next year is common sense. she was smart to condemn the u.s. invasion of iraq, smart to say she will cut her losses pure and simple to authorize it. why? simple. did you see a lousy movie and hear they're making a sequel? would anyone in their right mind pay money to see the se sequel if they had seen the first movie and found it stupid and dreadful. no one is going to buy their power when they take us down another rabbit hole. they suffered a lot of democrats and frankly all the republicans in 2002 and 2003. since then, the polls and the smart columnists have been saying people got the message, don't trust this crowd. so let the bill crystals and the

lindsey grahams blow their bugles and beat their drums t. american people are not going to go touching that same stove again. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for joining us. >> tonight on "all in." >> second degree, depraved heart, murder, second degree neglect assault. second degree intentional assault and gross negligence. >> big news from baltimore as a going returns indictment on the six officers involved in the death of freddie gray. then jeb bush defends his position on climate change. >> why do we have to have a debate where people pay have doubts like this are considered neanderthals, that's the arrogance. >> in california, crews are working to clean up a nine-mile oil slick. >> cleanup doesn't occur overnight. it's a belong process. >> then the latest on a disturbing murder of a wealthy