bargain or bomb? let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in los angeles. what's it going to be, a deal or no deal? a deal or let them go nuclear? a deal or bomb them? try for peace or all-out war? you buy your ticket, you take your chance. one ticket that doesn't lead to war. john mccain once said bomb, bomb iran to beach boys music and now some of the writers sing it for real. obama's the one trying for peace. also on "hardball" tonight, yes, it's true, it can happen to you. donald trump is now the front-runner officially for the 2016 republican presidential nomination. anyway, the iranian deal finalized in the early hours of this morning will limit iran's nuclear capability for at least a decade in return for relief from sanctions. president obama said the deal isn't built on trust but rather

on verification. and he warned congress he would veto any legislation that tries to block the deal. >> today, because america negotiated from a position of strength and principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region. because of this deal, the international community will be able to verify that the islamic republic of iran will not develop a nuclear weapon. i welcome a robust debate in congress on this issue and i welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement. but i will remind congress that you don't make deals like this with your friends. >> i'm joined by nbc chief foreign correspondent richard engel who is in tel aviv, israel. let's start with the united states. why did we make this deal? >> reporter: well, i think the u.s. made this deal because it felt the sanctions regime

couldn't last forever, that there were states, notably russia and china, that were keen to break it, that the idea of putting sanctions in place was that the sanctions would eventually lead to a deal so there was the pressure. and there's also a hope. so there was a push and a pull. and i think the hope is that by having a deal, by reaching out, by encouraging the people who are on the streets of tehran tonight, that you can help engage with iran, help empower some of the reformist elements who got elected in iran's last elections and have a historic rapprochement and try to bring more peace to this world with a fewer number of dangerous weapons. so it has quite lofty ideals. we'll see if it works. it is a big gamble, though. >> well, the option on that gamble would be to basically have no deal and eventually have to bomb their facilities, it seems to me.

if that's the case you guarantee the hostility of the iranian people left to right including the secular people, the rowhani people. you're the expert. that if we don't deal with them and we bomb them that means the end of any chance of rapprochement in our lifetime. >> it depend on how you view changing regimes. how do you convince a hard line, rogue regime to come out of the dark and become more moderate, become more responsible and reasonable in its behavior. you can continue to punish that regime, to strangle them militarily, to strangle them financially and they will cry uncle and change their ways. that traditionally that hasn't worked. the deeper they repeat and more hostile they become.

the other philosophy is the one that this administration has been trying with myanmar, been trying with cuba, to try and offer some incentives, offer a different path. if there's an opportunity to change the dynamic. israel doesn't believe that with iran, with the theocracy that is in place there where for so many years destruction of israel has been a bedrock of the foreign policy there that you can coax the regime enough to convince them to change their ways. >> what do you think? can you objectively or is it entirely subjective, to tell us the hopes? is it possible to open up this kind of engagement with iran after all these years of hostility, could permit the middle over there to shift toward nonhostility to the

united states? >> reporter: it's possible. there are some encouraging signs. just tonight if you look at what's going on in tehran, people are in the streets. our bureau chief there is desperately trying to make his way back to the bureau, but he is stuck right now in traffic because so many people are out on the streets honking their horns, cheering, celebrating. they see this as a real moment to celebrate. a moment of renewal, of hope when they could maybe improve their lives, their freedoms, their financial freedoms, their ability to live a decent life in tehran. the hard-liners in iran, i think, will try and resist this. they will try and take the money and not change the society. so i think there's going to be a struggle -- a struggle there. but giving an option to a hard line regime in some ways is like

giving it a trojan horse. it can upset the regime from the inside and cause it to change dramatically. i think that's what's under way in cuba. the question is, is iran ready to embrace that change, or will, as israel believes, iran just take the money and then eventually crack down on the people around the streets tonight, tell them that the deal is off effectively and move on? there is also one other scenario. i can just imagine the horrible disappointment that the people who are on the streets of tehran tonight feel if in a few weeks the u.s. because of internal domestic disputes decides that they can't carry out this deal. that would be a huge blow to u.s. credibility as well. that is also on the line. >> i'm glad you said that because i think we all should know that as we watch this debate at home. thank you, richard engel in tel

aviv. senator corker joins us. this deal, i mean, i guess i'm looking at the option plays here. we've all known the options, continue the sanctions, if you can. if you can't, you can't. if you can't get china and russia to go along with continued sanctions you have a deal, it seems to me. if you don't deal and they continue their march toward a nuclear weapon, the pressure in this country will be to bomb them. am i right or wrong in that assessment? >> chris, i think just saying that whatever deal has been negotiated is the deal. it's amazing to look at where iran has come over the last two years. they were a -- they are a roguish nation that had a boot on their neck and with six important countries they have come out and actually achieved every single goal they wanted to achieve. i hear you and i understand you're trying to create a context that makes it very difficult for congress to vote

its conscience but i think that's what's going to happen. look, we have 159 pages today, a portion of the deal. there will be more coming from the secretary of state, we'll have robust hearings and regardless of you painting a one-sided context of this, and i understand why you're doing that, i think people are going to want to vote their conscience. we want to go through a thoughtful and deliberate process and understand this fully. it is kind of remarkable we've gone from dismantlement to managing their proliferation and unlike april 2 where people were somewhat surprised with the specificity that came out in this case my sense is as we've gone through this document i think it's eroded in a way that will cause some concerns but, again, i want to make sure we honor this process and do it in the right way and i want to make sure that we create a vehicle and a method to vote their

conscience on what they believe is best for our country. >> the deal faced sharp opposition from hawks in congress, even before the details were out there. let's watch some of the commentary. >> it's going to hand a dangerous regime billions of dollars in sanctions relief while paving a way for a nuclear iran. we're going to do everything we can to get to the details and if, in fact, it's as bad a deal as i think it is, we'll do everything we can to stop it. >> this proposed deal is a terrible, dangerous mistake that will pavin the path for iran to get a nuclear weapon. i believe congress will kill the deal. >> we've ensured they become a nuclear nation. you've created a possible death sentence for israel. this is a virtual declaration of war against sunni arabs. this is most dangerous, irresponsible step i've ever seen in the history watching the mideast. this is a terrible deal.

it's going to make everything worse and i really fear that we've set in motion a decade of chaos. >> senator, even the real hawkish people out there, i'm not sure all of israel agrees with that, assad agrees with it, if we bomb all the known nuclear facilities in iran because we can't get a deal with them, we won't really stop them for long, maybe a few years. here is a program that the president has laid out with secretary kerry that would stop them for ten years. why not take a peaceful ten-year moratorium rather than a violent means to a shorter term delay in their nuclear program? >> and, chris, i think people will be weighing it. it's really more of an eight year as we've gotten into the details today. there's a transition date at eight years where things dramatically change. i know you laid out the hawks and i respect the orientation of the program you're on. if you also went and looked --

>> it's my orientation, senator. senator, let me explain to you how the orientation works here. it's mine. not somebody else's. >> let me speak then and say there's a host of people on the left that have already applauded. i think in fairness there are people that have -- are pretty solid in where they stand, but i think the qualitative issues of how this has been completed relative to pmd, relative to research and development, relative to ballistic testing, relative to how the sanctions evolved. those kinds of things anytime, anywhere inspections, i think there's a number of people that will be looking at qualitatively how are those resolved? and they will be making up their mind. in any issue like this, chris, people end up being solidly in different places. congress will vote its conscience and we'll provide the forum for people to do that in a very educated and thoughtful way.

>> thank you so much. by the way, just point of information, i've had this view of this since i first started rooting for obama because i hoped and prayed he would take this approach to the middle east and try to be optimistic and hopeful. thank you so much for coming on, sir. >> absolutely, thank you. >> thank you. senator jean shaheen is a democrat from new hampshire. she sits on the armed services committee. thank you so much, senator. my view of this is if you bomb all the facilities over there like some of these people want to do, just bomb them right now, you'll slow them down three or four years at the most. if you have a deal with them to relieve sanctions and get them to quit for ten years and hope that things will be different at the end of those ten years, that's a smarter option. what's your view? >> well, i think a negotiated agreement is better than military action assuming it's an agreement that, as you point out, is going to keep them from getting to a nuclear weapon in the next ten years. there are parts of this agreement, as i understand, i haven't had a chance to review

it yet, that address ten years but some things like keeping them from doing what they need to get a weapon is delayed for 15 years. they're looking at the supply chain and the mines for uranium. that's even longer. i think we need to closely examine this deal and make sure that the verification mechanisms are there. make sure that we know what's going to happen with the sanctions. and i hope that's what congress is going to do rather than to come to a decision immediately that this is not a good agreement. >> well, when i look at it, it takes the president to override, to override the president you need 67 votes in the senate. if he can hold 34 away from voting to overrun, he can sustain this treaty. is that a reasonable hope that he can hold at least 34 senators to support the treaty? >> well, i think it is. i think that was the way the legislation was designed to give

congress input, but, also, to make sure that this is an agreement that has the support of enough members to make sure that it's a good agreement, and that's what we're beginning to look at now. this is only day one. it's disappointing for me to hear so many people already coming out without having a chance to review the agreement and saying this is a bad deal. well, we need to take a look at it. we've spent years negotiating this, and now congress needs to spend the next 60 days looking at what's in it, making sure that this is an agreement that we can support and not automatically saying that people don't support it without ever looking at it. >> what's your estimate of our ability to just destroy all their nuclear program right now? just turn it into nothing. do we have that capability? if we chose to go the hawkish direction, which i think is the alternative to what we're talking about here.

>> well, that is the alternative many people who don't like the agreement are talking about. and i think a negotiated option is better than a military option. i don't think people want to go to war and what we've heard from some of the experts is that even if we bombed the sites in iran that it would delay the nuclear program only, as you pointed out, for a couple of years and that's not an answer to what we want. >> okay. senator jean shaheen of new hampshire. congratulations again on getting re-elected. i covered your campaign. it was a great campaign. >> i'm glad to be here at this momentous time. >> coming up, the over-the-top reaction from some republicans running for president. you've heard some of it. jeb bush seems like a moderate sometimes calls it appeasement. lindsey graham calls it a death sentence. and later today's announcement is another huge legacy achievement, if you will, for a president who is having a very successful summer historically. the president said interesting

things happen in the fourth quarter. i guess he's proving it. plus, it's tuesday and that means it's time to rev up the right-wing clown car, the tuesday clown car. it's in the center ring as donald trump takes the lead. he's now the leading candidate for the republican nomination in 2016. the leading candidate. finally let me finish with this deal just struck between the world leaders and government of iran. and this is "hardball," the place for politics. we see birds with all types of problems. when a bird gets oil on its feathers, it destroys their waterproofing. dawn is absolutely essential to the wash process we use tons of it. i was surprised that they use something that i use at home to wash the oil off the birds. it's a wonderful feeling to be able to say that i helped return this bird back to the wild. i love wildlife, how do you love wildlife? look at that beautiful hotel on tripadvisor.

wait. why leave the site? don't you know the tripadvisor you've always trusted for reviews, book! now checks over 200 websites to find the best price? book...book...book! over 200 sites checked to find the best price. so don't just visit tripadvisor... book at tripadvisor. john mccain will face a primary challenger in his 2016 re-election bid. state senator and physician kelly ward announced today that she'll take on the five-term incumbent. mccain has had a rocky relationship with the right wing of his party out in arizona, but in 2010 he easily beat former congressman j.d. hayward in a battle with mccain earning nearly 60% of the vote.

flo: hey, big guy. i heard you lost a close one today. look, jamie, maybe we weren't the lowest rate this time. but when you show people their progressive direct rate and our competitors' rates you can't win them all. the important part is, you helped them save. thanks, flo. okay, let's go get you an ice cream cone, champ. with sprinkles? sprinkles are for winners. i understand.

welcome back to "hardball." more now on today's historic nuclear agreement with iran. while the president is hailing a deal as a step for a more hopeful world, others are slapping it as disaster. what is the alternative? do they want a deal, no deal, or just go bomb iran? marco rubio responded today by saying, quote, i expected a significant majority in the congress will share my skepticism of this agreement and vote it down. scott walker thinks this deal, quote, will be remembered as one of america's worst diplomatic failures. and here's jeb bush's reaction. this isn't diplomacy. it is appeasement. mike huckabee went even further saying, shame on the obama administration. john kerry should have long ago gotten up on his crutches, walked out of the sham talks and went straight to jerusalem to stand next to benjamin netanyahu. and ted cruz offered this rebuttal or prebuttal saying this deal, if it is consummated, would transform the united states government into being one of the leading financiers

against americans. a speechwriter for vice president joe biden, a republican strategist, and david ignatius is a columnist with "the washington post." david, i want to start with you. what was the option play for the president? i've been saying deal, no deal, bomb them. is there something else? >> well, you would just leave the situation as it is, walk away from the table. >> no deal. >> and say come back when you're ready to talk seriously and assume things will stay in place. what struck me about the deal, i read every page of it today, was that there had been a lot of fear secretary of state kerry would pull back from the framework negotiated in april. in fact, the squishy parts of that framework are made more solid and there's some new quite useful controls on iran that have been added. so all this talk about a cave-in, i just don't see it in

the text of the deal. >> let me go to john. it seems there's real extreme talk on the republican right. some of it, i think, is just being supportive of israel politically which is not a bad move to make in any primary and the other is this very extremist, almost assassination of the morality of this, like there's something wrong with the effort to even do it. it's very strong criticism from the right. >> it's campaign season. i think bob corker is taking a more measured approach and as the chairman of the foreign relations committee he's right to do that. i think he'll be the lead spokesman on behalf of the senate on this. i think the republicans have to take a look at this agreement. there also is a third option, chris, and that is a better deal. >> how do you get it? >> and one that israel is not, you know, doesn't think is an existential threat to their existence. >> john, you have to have other

players here. we have to get -- we can't have sanctions program of any significance, just us. it requires the world to sanction them, russia and china were at their limits apparently. go ahead. >> i agree with that. you don't have to freeze out israel which is what happened during this whole negotiation and i think that there's a lot of different players here, chris, and i think the israelis have a right to be really concerned about this deal not only for long term which is nuclear but the short term which is $150 billion in the iranian coffers. i think that's a legitimate threat. >> let's go to regional rivalry here. england would never allow a strong power to dominant the continent of europe. israel is never going to let a country like iran become the regional power. >> they shouldn't. >> even if they're not nuclear. >> but john is right. israel has a right to be concerned. it's status quo. what they will have is a lot more money. they can do that.

the bet that obama is making is that you can't say 100% that's what happened. >> try the other way. all three of you, all the experts, military, if you go in with a strong bombing campaign and bomb every target you think is credible, they'll be back at it would or three years. we're holding them off ten years with this deal. the ultimate right-wing alternative. >> there is no great deal to be had. this just may be the best of a bad world. iran is capable of getting a nuclear weapon or to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon you basically may have to pay them off. that might be true. it's not a great situation for anybody, but you can't -- there is no alternative. i think obama is making the best of a bad situation. >> david, what's the case? people use phrases like everything is on the table which means either threaten them with an attack on the nuclear facilities or deliver one. but is that a credible alternative? is it? >> well, you certainly could attack certain facilities and

set back the iranian program. i think this exclusive focus on the nuclear issue is a mistake. the problem here is less the agreement, which i think is stronger than many expected six months ago. the problem is iran. iran's behavior. iran is a reckless destabilizing force in the middle east. it's at war in yemen. it's at war in iraq. it's at war in syria and concerns from the israelis and from the saudis and the whole region are, i think, justified. i wish people would focus more and president obama's point is it's easier to deal with that problem of iranian bad behavior if the nuclear issue is off the table for ten years or whatever the precise calculation is. easier to deal with the real problem of a revolutionary destabilizing iran. >> but, david, i have a question for you. i agree with everything you

said. the big question, is it easier to deal with them with the sanctions off or the sanctions on? and i get the whole thing about the russians and the french and everybody wanting to get the sanctions done with, but the fact of the matter this is the best time to strike a much better deal than i think with only the nuclear issue and your point is exactly right that they are a bad force and we've got to try to find a way to moderate them and bombing is not a good option. it's a terrible option. >> david, answer that charge. do we really have a position of strength now? i get the sense listening to you and others our position of strength is waning, that we don't have many more weeks we can call the shots. >> i think obama has been in retreat from the middle east. i think he's coming back. we are engaged in iraq in a significant way. there's more coming with syria. we have signaled to our sunni allies, saudi arabia, we're going to stand with them. we're going to support their getting arms, taking actions to prevent further spread of

iranian influence. so i think our position is not as weak as a it was, but i think, chris, your point that bombing the nuclear facilities, the options that israelis and republicans imply are out there are just don't serve america's interest. don't even serve, i don't think, israel's security interest because iran would come back so quickly and in a more menacing way. >> but these countries -- let me just say, john, the republican party, these guys have come out, jeb bush, says it's appeasement. scott walker says we can do sanctions by ourselves. i mean, some of these positions are really ridiculous. no matter what obama does, there's this fantasy there's a better deal because obama is doing it. but this just may be the best of bad alternatives. >> thank you so much, matthew. we'll have john on again and again and again on this. thank you, john and thank you, matthew, and thank you, david, for your sober opinions that teach us all. up next, hillary clinton's meeting with the congressional black caucus, the hispanic caucus.

when a moment spontaneously turns romantic 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." hillary clinton stormed capitol hill today holding meetings with half a dozen groups courting her party's top lawmakers as the front-runner of the presidential race. there she is. president obama has been accused of having a frosty and somewhat distant relationship with his former colleagues on the hill but clinton showed a true insider move choosing to walk the capitol's labyrinth of corridors. bernie sanders is doing better than many expected. nancy pelosi has nice things to say. the secretary pleased the members with her discussion about fairness and growth. she would be one of the most

prepared to do so. >> too many flags? the former speaker hasn't formally endorsed. the famous tip o'neill that every politician must ask for your vote directly never goes out of style. and joining me now is the assistant democratic leader of the house, jim clyburn. he was in one of those meetings with hillary clinton today. did she ask for your jim clyburn vote or support for president of the united states? did she ask you? not directly. thank you for having me but, no, she did not ask directly. i think mrs. clinton knows i have made it a practice that as long as south carolina remains a preprimary state that is allowed to move, iowa, new hampshire,

nevada and, of course, south carolina. i have made it a practice not to publicly get involved until after the south carolina primary. and she knows that. by the way, i was in three of her meetings today. >> you've given us the protocol. can you imagine endorsing bernie sanders, webb, chafee, who is the other guy running? >> i have a very good

imagination. you know me very well. yes, i can imagine it. we'll see what happens as it progresses. >> what was the pitch to you? did you hear something different today you thought was a new appeal she was making to win to lock up this nomination? >> i think everything was pretty of the same on substance. i saw a style today that i have not seen before. and i've talked to quite a few members in the full democratic caucus. i talked to a few members after the congressional black caucus meeting and they were ecstatic as to how comfortable she was, how personable in making her presentations and i thought she acquitted herself very, very well today.

usually you hear things people are concerned about but i didn't hear anything that she ought to have. >> i love to hear politicians are warm towards each other. thank you, james clyburn, yet to announce his favorite for the democratic nomination until the south carolina all-important primary down there. thank you, sir. up next, a great month and possibly his best summer ever. what this deal means for his presidential legacies up ahead. this is a big one. you're watching "hardball."

>> the list is long and my instructions to myself have always been that we are going to squeeze every last ounce of progress that we can make when i have the privilege -- as long as i have the privilege of holding office. >> he's anything but a lame duck. what turned out to be a good week at the beginning of this month is turning into president

obama's best summer ever as his hot streak seems to be continuing. first the president scored a huge win on his trade deal in congress followed by landmark decisions at the supreme court level ensuring the survival which is important of his health care law and legalizing gay marriage nationwide which he has been supporting. the unemployment rate dropped to 5.3 this june, the lowest. and then to foreign policy where he took the step of re-establishing diplomatic relations with cuba after freezing that country out. today the president made history with the announcement of an agreement over iran's nuclear program capping off a historic summer of second-term accomplishments. joining me to discuss president obama's legacy michael steele, the former chair of the national republican, and it seems like the president is like he was in the campaign against hillary clinton looking like he was the sleeper.

he was falling behind in delegates and all of a sudden he came along with this amazing strategy of winning in the caucus and we were sitting around as worrywarts and he went scooting right past us in the final curve or pretty much the final curve. he seems like his administration, his two terms of presidency of his, is following that pattern of scooting along late in the game, as he calls it, the fourth quarter. >> well, i have to admit, he knows how to finish strong. there's no doubt about that. the president has had a good year, a good summer, and a lot of that, interestingly enough is due, maybe ironically, is due by the actions of others, whether it's the republicans in congress delivering his trade deal, the supreme court upholding his health care bill and even recently, you know, world partners coming to his rally to get the opposite pieces to work for him in a significant way. republicans in particular in

some interesting positions to defense against but i have to give the president credit for at least winding up this year rather strongly. >> and, amy, it's not like he's going for the usual suspects, the stuff everybody likes, the democratic coalition. he took on the trade unions, many of the hawkish with israel. he was already attacking on this before it happened. he's not like going for the easy stuff. >> no, but here's the real question for barack obama. when these results are going to result in an increase in his overall job approval rating. what's interesting is he has had a very good summer. i think you're seeing part of democrats feeling better about not only how he's doing but the chances for hillary clinton and yet his approval rating. it's like he has this very narrow trading range. he's stuck right now about 46%.

we know historically for the person he wants to follow a two-term president it helps to have that president up above 50%. i don't know that this president is going to get there and if he's not there now i don't know how he gets there by the time we hit 2016. >> what's his ceiling based on? if he gets 80% or so of the democrats or 85%. >> that's right. so it's these people who define themselves as independents who, quite frankly with more republican leaning than they are republicans. i think, also, there was a time at which, not that long ago, republicans, even if they knew they weren't going to vote for a democratic president or a democrat knew they weren't going to vote for a republican would have given them credit for doing well whether that was bill clinton in the '90s or ronald reagan in the '80s. those days are sort of gone. so maybe now 46 is the new 50. >> i think that's smart. michael? >> i agree with that, chris. i think we're done with the age of 66% approval ratings as

politicians leave office. bill clinton had that. ronald reagan had something like that. barack obama is not going to get close to that. however, i do think if the economic recovery continues and if wages go up in 2016, i think he could get north of 50%. >> explain that because -- michael, you're both on to something. here is bill clinton. he gets impeached. i know everybody has forgotten that but he was impeached. he was impeached. it will be in his obituary, fourth or fifth draft now. he comes back with a very high 60% rating. people say he didn't tell us the truth about the affair he had. i don't care about the affair he had. i guess that's what we're saying. we like something else about him. i would argue it's economic good times. times kept getting better. we kept coming up with new toys, new electronics stuff, everyone had something in their pocket and they loved being around in the '90s. it's environmental. it's how things feel that tells you how you like a president. your thoughts? >> yes. that's exactly right. incidentally i just looked this

up the other day. jeb bush talked gdp growth. we averaged 2.8% over the last four years. the last four years were four consecutive years of 4 plus percent and that's basically what it was all about. obama is not going to have that. he's not going to get close to that and returning to iran the verdict will be out on iran for a long time. i think cuba is a no-brainer. i think that one is very clearly his. >> by the way, i know i'll be accused of saying this. i'm going to say it, michael steele, but in terms of politics i believe in economics. i'm a marxist determinist in that sense. economics drives. you know what harry truman's growth rate was in 1948, michael? guess? explain why he got re-elected. 6. it was booming. the farm situation was booming for farmers. stupid pollsters that stopped polling about, what, two months before the election didn't get it. times were great.

truman won. the roundtable staying with us. it's time for clown card tuesday. donald trump now leads, catch this, not just the clown car that he's steering. he's leading the circus. he is now the official front-runner for the republican presidential nomination in 2016. live with that one. and this is "hardball," the place for politics.

a day after commuting the sentences of 46 drug offenders

president obama is rallying support for new criminal justice reforms. in an address to the naacp annual convention in philadelphia today the president pushed for shorter sentences for nonviolent offenders. thursday in oklahoma he'll continue his push as he makes the first-ever trip by a sitting president, catch this, to a federal prison. that is johnny cash stuff. we'll be right back.

we're back with the round table. it's time now for the tuesday clown car. first up is donald trump, who is now leading the republican field. according to the latest usa today poll, trump is at 17% right now. three points ahead of his

nearest rival, jeb bush. followed by walker, cruz at 6% and rubio at 5%. michael, your party seems to have a problem of mush. there's nobody in the way of donald trump. if there was anybody serious up there, like an eisenhower, reagan or nixon, they wouldn't have been pushed aside as easily as this guy pushed them aside. >> i disagree. >> is push strong? is jeb bush the party's choice? why is he in second place? >> you have people still coming into the race. at least one more candidate is going to announce for the office next week. i'm not judging this the way a lot of folks are looking at it right now. trump has momentum. no doubt about that. this is an opportunity for the jeb bushes to push back if they want to. i think the telltale moment, and i want to see how the party and country reacts after the first debate in a couple weeks' time. this is fun fodder.

we're having a good time, and trump is ahead of the polls. it means nothing until after the first debate. >> or first two debates. >> right. >> amy, how do you push the guy back, if he's being prejudice against hispanic people, how do you push back without shaming him and forcing him into a third-party situation? is he going to walk away? i have to quit politicians because i've been accused as being a racist so i'll fold my tent and go away. he's not going to do that. >> he's the most dangerous candidate because he has a lot of money and absolutely no shame. he has nothing to lose. right? the more you push him, the more, you know, sort of engaged he gets. it's like what you learned about, not letting a bully, not engaging with a bully. he can keep going and keep going. i agree with michael. i think that now that he is on top, the media scrutiny is going

to continue. it's not just going to be about what he says about mexican-americans. it's going to be what his positions have been on a host of issues. what his personal finances are. what he's said and done. the scrutiny is going to start and will continue in the debates. we'll see if he's still on top. >> that's when he turns on us, by the way. you get this, wisconsin governor scott walker took to fox news, where he called the bush push for minimum wage a lame push. >> the left claims they're for american workers and have lame ideas. things like the minimum wage. >> he might pay for that. a lame idea if you're working as a dishwasher somewhere, you're working at a fast food joint. an increase in your wages may seem important to you and the people you're feeding. >> he's not going to pay in republican primary process, but if he makes it to a general, there's no request he'll pay.

the opponent is presumably going to be hillary clinton and is going to be for a $10 or $12 minimum wage. i wonder if scott walker knows, if we had walker on this show and were to ask him what the minimum wage would be in this country if it had kept up with inflation since 1978, or kept up with productivity, he bet he wouldn't know the answer to those questions. >> what is the answer? >> it's about $12 in the first case and about $19 in the second case. >> i once proposed working for a center for utah. i proposed taking it as an automatic increase. bring it up by both standards so we'd have a real minimum wage. that didn't pass the democratic control in the senate. >> by the way -- >> go ahead. >> mitt romney supported indexing the min welcome wage to inflation in 2012. that would be a no-go in this republican party. >> thank you.

we'll be right back after this.

let me finish tonight with this. i refuse to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire. those were the words of winston churchill. let's apply them to the nuclear deal just struck between the world powers and the government of iran. who is the fire brigade, the people who struck this deal or those who are out there whacking away at it? it keeps iran from building a

weapon for a decade. for one thing, iran has no restraints on helding toward a nuclear weapons arsenal, and no way for us to know how quickly it'll be for them to get to it. it'll be a question of how quickly we'll have to bomb them. is there any other way we could enforce sanctions against iran without being in agreement with other countries. if we can't get iran to accept a tougher deal, is it reasonable to assume we got the best deal? it comes down to three options. deal, no deal and bomb. that really comes down to two options. deal and delay the iranians or don't deal and get around to bombing them, which will have the ability of delaying them in building a bomb. isn't it better to get what we want without going to all-out war? that's hardball for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts now.

tonight on "all in." >> because america negotiated from strength and principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region. >> the president announces a landmark nuclear deal with iran, and republicans go ballistic. >> this is a terrible deal. >> terrible, dangerous mistake. >> you know the iranians are going to cheat. >> tonight, how the obama doctrine is changing the course of history, and how the president's opposition plans to dismantle a deal. the author called "required reason." ta-nehisi on his new book. a look at the terrifying villain of a california drought. >> if people are making more money at almonds, they'll plant more almonds and take something else out. good evening from