stay with us all week. since i'm here, happy anniversary, babe. i love you. best decision i ever made. that is all for this evening. rachel maddow starts now. >> i register an objection from kate that you're in california on your anniversary. >> a legitimate objection. >> she didn't tell me directly, but i'm putting that in there for her. there you go. well done, man. thank you. thank you to you at home for joining us at this hour. at the end of the vietnam war, on the night that saigon fell, april 29th, 1975, nbc news did a special report that night looking back at the war. this is the night saigon fell. their special report was 7382 days in vietnam. this was this huge, retrospective report about the war, about all that had been lost there. at the end of this nbc news special report, david brinkley ends it with what is basically a commentary from him on what was lost and what future presidents should learn from that experience.

watch how he does it. i'm going to play the end of it here. what he says here, and the way he articulates it, is part of the point. the real point he makes is made visually. just look at this. >> the united states did not lose the war. it never really tried to win it. instead, trying to help south vietnam to win it and found it could not or would not do it. though the u.s. did not lose the war, it did lose a great deal. the money, we know about. the inflation, we still live with. the social discords in this country are still to be seen. the other loss, we also know about. even though we don't talk about it very much. when we do, it is as if it were some kind of index or score. 56,000 lives, plus about 150,000 seriously wounded. many of whom will never recover. so when some future politician

for some reason feels the need to drag this country into war, he might come out here to arlington and stand maybe right over there somewhere to make his announcement, and to tell what he has in mind. if he can attract public support, speaking from a place like this, then his reasons for starting a new war would have to be good ones. >> reasons for starting a new war would have to be good ones. that was an nbc news special report on the last day of the vietnam war. as saigon fell in 1975. in 1976, jimmy carter, four years later, in 1980, it was ronald reagan, four years later, 1984, ronald reagan. 1988, it was george h.w. bush. george h.w. bush was a legitimate war hero from world war ii. 58 combat missions, shot down over the pacific.

continuing missions with his engine on fire as he piloted his avenger aircraft. george h.w. bush, legitimate world war ii hero. but after that election, in which he was elected president in 1988, our presidential elections after that couldn't just be about our candidate's heroism in the war that the country felt good about winning. after 1988 and poppy bush getting elected, some of the candidates started to be young enough that what we were talking about at election time was not world war ii, but rather, where they were during vietnam. this war about which we have more complicated feelings as a country. so it was bill clinton and his student deferments in 1992. in 2000, it was george w. bush and his assignment to the guaranteed state side in the national guard. the bush campaign turned it around in 2004 when the democrats chose a war hero, john kerry, to put up against w.,

when he was running for reelection. the republicans said kerry faked the medals he earned. by 2008, the republicans were running their own legitimate vietnam war hero for the presidency, john mccain's extraordinary service and bravery and almost unimaginable personal sacrifice in vietnam. based on his biography alone, that should have made the 2008 election about the vietnam war, as well. by 2008, something else was going on when it comes to war. by 2008, the country was obsessed with a different war. another war, ongoing war, that was basically the spindle around which the campaign of 2008 spun like a broken record. the primaries, in the general, all the way through, it was about the war in iraq. >> what i believe was the single most important foreign policy decision of this generation, whether or not to go to war in iraq.

i believe i showed the judgment of a commander in chief. i think that senator clinton was wrong in her judgments on that. senator clinton mentioned the issue of judgment. i think it is much easier for us to have the argument when we have a nominee who says, i always thought this was a bad idea. this was a bad strategy. it was not just a problem of execution. it was not just a problem of execution. i mean, they screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. that is an argument i think we are going to have an easier time making, if they can't turn around and say, hold on a second, you supported this. that's part of the reason why, i think, i would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security. >> this is an area where senator mccain and i have a fundamental difference. the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place. six years ago, i stood up and opposed this war.

at a time when it was political risky to do so. >> against a primary opponent who had supported the war in iraq and who he defeated, against a general election opponent who supported the war in iraq and who he defeated. a large part of how we got president barack obama in the first place is the country was so horrified by the war in iraq. he was not only against it while he was running for president in 2007 and 2008, he had been against it from back before the war started. i mean, the iraq war was not everything about the obama candidacy, but without that factor, there would be no president obama. without that factor, we wouldn't have even had democratic presidential candidate nominee. he beat senator mccain. not everyone celebrated when barack obama won the presidency, but there was considerable elation about his winning the presidency, both here and around the world. heck, the norwegians gave him

the nobel peace prize. less than a year after he took office. when that happened, by all accounts, the white house was mortified. but they gave him the nobel peace prize. president obama accepted the peace prize, a few months into his presidency. but in so doing, it was interesting at the time. when we went to pick up his nobel peace prize, the speech he gave accepting the prize was a robust defense of american war. >> i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my reseat of this prize is i am the commander in chief of the military, of the nation in the midst of two wars. we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. there will be times when nations, acting individually or in concert, will find the use of

force not only necessary, but morally justified. i face the world as it is. and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the american people. make no mistake, evil does exist in the world. a non-violent movement could not have halted hitler's armies. negotiations cannot convince al qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. to say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism. it is a recognition of history. the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this. the united states of america has helped underwrite global security for decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. so, yes, the instruments of war

do have a role to play in preserving the peace. >> that may be true. but it must have been a hard sell to the room full of norwegians who had just given him the nobel peace prize. that was in 2009. that was the first year of his presidency. now, we are deep into his second term. we are still a country at war in afghanistan, iraq and syria, and these undeclared drone assassination wars in countries around the globe. but even with that being true, part of him, part of barack obama, is the man who became a contender and who became president because of george w. bush's war in iraq, and what obama thought was wrong and dumb about it. part of him, all this time, has been the guy who said this on the day he first became president. in the first hour that he was president. >> for those leaders around the globe to seek to blame their society's ills on the west,

their people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. to those -- [ applause ] to those who cling to power through corruption and deceit, and the sigh dense -- silencing of decent, you are on the wrong side of history. we are willing to extend a hand if you ever willing to unclench your fist. >> it matters who is president, and it matters what the president believes. there has been a core value at the center of barack obama's politics and his rise to be a national and international figure. never a pacifist, but he values and has been able to articulate from the beginning of what he sees as the value of trying to negotiate and being willing to talk even to the people in the world with whom our country has the biggest disagreements. and so, today, alongside everything else, because of that value of his, because he is president, today was basically

the day that it could be proclaimed from the white house that despite all appearances to the contrary over recent decades, we're not actually going to have a war with iran. >> today, after two years of negotiations, the united states, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not. a comprehensive, long-term deal with iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. this deal demonstrates that american diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change. change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure. >> it matters who is president. it matters who is president here. it matters there, too. the iranian president was elected in 2013, promising to the people he would find a way to end the crippling

international sanctions against iran, and to end the international isolation of iran because of its nuclear program. within months of him being elected in iran, he and president obama became the first iranian and american heads of state to speak directly by phone in more than 30 years. soon thereafter, the united states and iran started what would amount to 20 straight months of talking. that had never happened before. that could not have happened without a president on both sides saying it had to be done. in the george w. bush administration, they had also pursued sanctions against iran. not as strict as the ones imposed by and internationally agreed to under president obama. but george w. bush had pursued sanctions against iran. president george w. bush and vice president dick cheney, however, said they would never talk to iran. they expected their vague threats of war against iran and the sanctions themselves to somehow just make iran give in and do what the united states wanted. under that genius strategy,

iran's nuclear program went from basically zero centrifuges to more than 6,000 by the time he left office. under this president, while the sanctions got tougher, but the goal of the sanction became not capitulation, while we called them the axis of evil, that was not going to work. the goal under president barack obama was to use those sanctions to, instead, get iran to talk. to get them to the table to negotiate. it worked. they came to the table, and they negotiated for 20 straight months. lately, for 18 straight days without a break. they've got a deal on the iranian nuclear program and, yes, the right is going nuts. the "washington post" editorial page will feel hot to the touch for several days. republicans will run ads about how terrible it is, and congress will be full of people giving excited speeches, though they sometimes mix up iraq and iran

and sunni and shia. there will be news in the beltway like you can't believe. the majority of the american people will say, they like this deal. as yet, washington might, as yet, screw this up. the iranians might screw it up, in terms of their own government and hard liners. the iranians might also cheat and blow the deal that way. there's all sort of ways this might get screwed up, but i might work. in which case, no war with iran, which has been the threat of my lifetime, i'm 42. i have expected a war with iran my entire life. if this works, no war with iran. it also means no nuclear bomb in iran. and it means this president will have achieved the only diplomatic world transforming achievement big enough to make us forget all about him, also ending 50 years of cartoonish foreign policy toward cuba, which he also did a few minutes ago.

we don't know if the iran deal is going to work. if it does, it will be the major foreign policy achievement, not only of this presidency, but of this american generation. at which point, the people in the not distant future will look back at this presidency, they'll look back at this president and say, of course they gave him the nobel peace prize. that make sense. joining us now is joe, president and one of the best people at explaining nuclear things to non-nuclear people. thanks for being here. >> my pleasure. >> do you think this is going to work? >> yes, i do. i also think the stakes are exactly the way you put them. this is a war or peace issue. this is our chance to solve a problem that has vexed every president since ronald reagan. every president since reagan has tried to stop iran's nuclear program.

four presidents have tried. four presidents have failed. obama may have just found the right formula. the right combination of force and diplomacy. this deal cuts off all of iran's pathways to a bomb. this deal puts in place an inspections system unlike anything we've ever seen, that will make it extremely difficult for iran to cheat or break out of this agreement. this deal keeps together the global coalition that negotiated it, including our closest allies in europe. so if iran does cheat, we have sanctions that can snap back to punish them. this is a way to stop iran from getting a bomb without going to war. it has its risks, but those risks pale in comparison to the alternatives. >> people who are taking a much more -- taking the opposite take on this as you are, people saying, this won't work. the reason it won't work is because the iranians are wilier than we think, is be they have no intention of being honest about this, and they have every intention to cheat. this isn't set up in a way that'll prevent them from

cheating. what that boils down to is basically that the iaea isn't up to the job, in terms of their responsibilities to be the watchdogs, to be the inspectors, that they'll get duped, locked out, they won't know when they need to raise the international alarm. what is your view of whether they're up to the job? >> it is a daunting challenge. i've spoken to the head of the iaea, and he assured me and the world they are up to the job. this is a deal that they helped negotiate. it's based in part on the talks that the secretary general had with the iranian leaders just in the last few days. now, this is not based on trust. it's not based on good intentions. it's not based on the technologies that we've used in iraq, for example. this is 21st century technology. state of the art. fiber optics seals, audits, inventories. 24/7 inspections on all the declared facilities and the

right to inspect suspect facilities, including the military sites that have been in dispute. iran could possibly evade one layer of these inspections, but the chances of them evading them all is remote. we're going to track every aspect of iran's production. those inspections, there's no expiration date. they're like diamonds. they last forever. >> joe, thank you very much for your time tonight. as soon as we found out the president was going to be making a statement, i said, book joe. we have to have him explain what happened. great to have you, my friend. >> thank you, rachel. >> joe wrote a piece on this for slate.com today i thought made an important point. he said this new agreement doesn't overthrow the clerical regime in iran. doesn't change the policies toward israel or arab neighbors. the agreement only does one thing. but it's a big one.

when you hear people criticize this deal, most of what they're criticizing is stuff that it's not about. iran is terrible in all these other ways. right. iran, i'm sure, there's a lot to complain about in other ways. this deal is just about the nuclear program. if you take it on those terms, it's the best chance of avoiding a war in iran that has happened in the course of my entire lifetime. i'm wicked old. we'll be right back. five, six, seven o'clock. eight o'clock pop. ♪ ♪ nine, ten eleven o'clock ♪ ♪ twelve o'clock pop ♪ ♪ we're gonna pop around the clock tonight. ♪ ♪ put your glad rags on and join me hon' ♪ ♪ we'll have some fun when the clock strikes one. ♪ ♪ we're gonna pop ♪ ♪ ...around the clock tonight. we're gonna pop, pop, pop ♪ ... 'till the broad daylight. ♪ ♪ we're gonna pop around the clock tonight. ♪ pop in new tide pods plus febreze a 4 in 1 detergent that cleans brightens and fights stains. now with 24-hour freshness. 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.

programming note, which might affect your day tomorrow. late this afternoon, the white house announced president obama is going to be doing a press conference tomorrow. he'll be taking questions from reporters about the deal with iran. president obama addressed the nation about it early this morning. but it was so early that statistically speaking, if you are awake and watching me right now, statistically speaking, you definitely were not awake and watching the president at 7:00 this morning. you were either watching him then, or you're watching me now. everybody within the sound of my live voice, your chance to hear

the president address this issue will be tomorrow afternoon as he takes questions at the white house. we'll bring it live when it happens. it is a comfortable 1:00 p.m. early tomorrow afternoon. that'll be live on msnbc. we'll be right back.

for the past three months, i've been silent on the revelations about iran, and you must have been thinking, why doesn't he tell us what's happening? why doesn't he just speak to us as he has in the past when we've faced troubles or tragedies? a few months ago, i told the american people i did not trade arms for hostages. my heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. >> if you ask my heart, it will tell you i absolutely did not trade arms for hostages.

if you look at what actually happened in real life, well, that was president reagan in 1987, addressing the nation on the iran-contra scandal, which the reagan administration illegally sold weapons to iran and used the money to fund regime change efforts in nicaragua. it was illegal and 14 people were charged, including the defense secretary under reagan, this guy who was on the fox news channel and others. iran-contra was the biggest political scandal the country had experienced since watergate. so it has been turned into our collective memory when it comes to america's history with iran. a big part of our national memory chip about what our relationship is with iran is this giant reagan administration scandal that's still astonishing it didn't lead to impeachment. that is one infamous historical moment we think about when we think about iran. this, of course, is the other. the hostage crisis, november

1979. iranian revolutionaries stormed the american embassy in tehran. held the hostages for 444 days. clearly, the darkest period of our modern history with iran. if you remember anything about american-iranian relations, you remember this, the embassy. tonight in iran's capital, this was the scene. these men are chanting "death to no one." "long live life." it's handy to have a speaker on staff, which we do. following the announcement of the nuclear deal today, iranians poured into the streets and tehran to sing and dance and rejoice. at one point, holding up the image of an american flag. nbc's correspondent in tehran almost got swallowed up by the jubilant crowd in the best

possible way. >> reporter: they're singing and dancing on the streets of tehran. scenes you need to see. they're saying they love obama. people are overjoyed. [ cheers ]. >> he got sucked up into the happy crowd. >> we've had a dramatic and difficult history with iran, to say the least, but maybe this is a moment when, in place of or at least in addition to the things that loom large, the iran-contra affair and the hostage crisis, maybe now, we can also think about today. maybe we can also add this historic day to our mental catalog of what we think about when we americans think about iran. a country where these people with chanting about loving president obama. bravely holding up this picture of an american flag.

here in this country today, there was no dancing in the streets following the announcement of a deal, but you know what? we haven't been living under crippling sanctions like iranians have for years. we're not singing and dancing in public. doesn't mean the same thing to us as it does to them, but that doesn't change the fact that americans really do want this deal. i don't know why this doesn't get discussed more in the beltway discussion about the politics of this issue. look, quote, a clear majority, 59% of those polled, support the nuclear deal with iran. from an nbc news poll, by a 2 to 1 margin, more americans support pursuing a deal than oppose it. 77% of voters want to see a negotiated settlement to the nuclear crisis. look at this. this is just oklahoma. the reddest of the red states. oklahoma, just picking a random sample, 73% of those polled say america should negotiate a nuclear deal with iran. in oklahoma. but you would never know it in our nation's capital today. right? in the beltway media, it's one republican member of congress after another.

following one republican presidential candidate after another. all talking about how obviously terrible it is that we have a deal with iran, and how everybody obviously hates it. no, it's true. we americans are not dancing in the streets the way the iranians are dancing in the streets. americans, if you ask them, really wanted this deal and want this deal, too. actual people outside of the beltway are into this. actual people are into this on both sides of the aisle. in our country and in iran. joining us now is the dean of the johns hopkins university school of studies. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> i asked joe moments ago, who is a nuclear specialist, about the simple question of whether or not he believes this deal will work. he believes that a technical level, in terms of the implementability of the deal, the deal will work. do you believe it will work? >> yes, i think it will work. i think both countries cannot really deal with failure.

in washington, there is a lot of talk about that they don't like the deal. republican candidates promise they'll walk away. if they think about what the failure of the deal would mean for the united states and the middle east, they'll do everything they can to make the deal work. same with iran. both countries are dealing with a middle east that's talling -- falling apart. you have ices threatening the borders. a confrontation between u.s. and iran would be bad for both of them. i think the deal is, right now, the best thing for them going forward. >> there's a lot of focus in today's american political news on what options opponents of this deal have to try to scuttle it, to screw it up at the congressional level. if a republican president succeeds, what a president could do in the white house to screw this up. there's been a lot of attention on that.

overstating the prospect of this being derailed within american politics. what about the prospect of this being derailed within iranian politics? inside the government and its factions? >> inside iran, there was broader consensus that the country wanted this deal. not only because of the economic pressure that sanctions had brought about, but i also think iran takes the isis threat in the region very seriously and wants to focus on doing that fight for the time being. and wants to have an opening with the west. where the difference in iran existed was whether the deal that was reached with the united states would be a good deal. whether they would be humiliated at the table, did they have to give up too much? one thing iran has been worried about is they might sign a deal, they might even work a year to implement the deal and then congress or a new president

could pull the plug. then they would be left with nothing, in effect. they have to take a big risk. still, everything looks risky to them. >> doctor nasr, in terms of what happens next, if it works and there isn't political calamity or a cheating scandal in the deal, does this open up the prospect for american and iranian cooperation on matters of shared concern, like isis and some of the other issues that iran and the united states find themselves on the same side? >> i think, already, big things have happened. for two countries that didn't talk to one another for 37 years, never agreed on anything, saw one another as mortal adversaries. to sit down for two years to negotiate, for the foreign ministers to spend hours on walks around geneva discussing issues together, and for the two countries to agree to sign a deal, i think it's a big deal. particularly in iran, a major taboo has been broken. the taboo of openly, publicly talking to the united states and

making a deal with the united states. the next set of negotiations is going to be a lot easier than this one. now they've arrived at the deal, they can arrive at other deals. >> doctor nasr, great perspective from you this evening. thanks for being here. >> thank you. much more ahead, including a real life 2016 presidential candidate in the studio. his name is not lincoln chafee. big show. stay with us.

we got a mysterious tip about my favorite intentionally terrifying 25 foot statue. over the interstate outside of nashville, tennessee, the city council voted they would put up shrubbery or grow trees to hide from the interstate this terrifying fiberglass sculpture of the founder of the ku klux klan. that statue is huge, and so are the many flagpoles that surround it, usually flying various confederate flags. tonight, we have a tip about something that has happened to that statue. the tip came in the form of a picture. i will show that picture and try to parse what it means. in a moment. i already feel like we're the most connected but i think this solo date will seal the deal. sure! i offer multi-car, safe driver, and so many other discounts that people think i'm a big deal.

and boy, are they right. ladies, i can share hundreds in savings with all of you! just visit progressive.com today. but right now, it's choosing time. ooh! we have a winner. all: what? [chuckles] he's supposed to pick one of us. this is a joke, right? that was the whole point of us being here.

it will left claims american workers and they get lame ideas. things like the minimum wage. >> minimum wage, so lame. am i right? lol. cray-cray. totally lame. wisconsin governor scott walker last night appearing on the unofficial official television network of the republican party. just hours after he became the 15th major republican candidate to announce he's running for president. calling the minimum wage so

lame. in its role as republican television, the fox news channel decided that not all of the candidates who are running for the republican presidential nomination will be actually allowed to compete for the presidency. fox news says only ten of the republican candidates are going to be allowed on the debate stage. they, fox news, will decide who those ten are by using national poll numbers, even though national poll numbers at this point in a presidential campaign mean precisely nothing. ask presidential herman cane, or hillary clinton who, at this point, eight years ago, as of this week in the 2008 presidential race, hillary clinton had come in first in the national polls about what would win the nomination. he had come in first place in the national polls in 30 straight national polls. 30 straight. national polls mean nothing about who is going to get the nomination. fox news is using national polls to decide which republicans are

going to be allowed to compete for the nomination. which candidates will be allowed to debate and which candidates will be cut off. today was a new national poll, which should be pointless and worth ignoring. but it actually will be determinative this year, in terms of who is allowed to run. thanks, fox. fox's exact criteria, it's a little fuzzy. to estimate, so we can try to estimate how they might choose the republican field, we have started operating our own who is allowed to compete cable-news derived random pick. if you add the newest numbers out today, you learn two interesting things. number one, donald trump wins the latest national poll. this is the second national poll that has him in first place among republican voters. yee-haw. that's the mind of the republican voter right now. second thing, ted cruz is

gaining. ted cruz, i have to say, is still doing terribly, but he is doing slightly less terribly than he has been. before today, we've been able to look at the ridiculous national poll standings, the average of the most five recent national polls, which is how fox news says they're going to decide who is allowed to debate. before today, we've been looking at the average of the last five polls and it's seemed clear seven of the ten is safe. with the new poll, it's starting to look like not seven, but maybe eight of the top spots on the debate stage are safe. with this new poll, ted cruz rises slightly above all of the other guys who are stuff at the kids' table and not being allowed to compete. now, the who is allowed to compete cable-news derived random number generator says maybe ted cruz can be added to pretty safe bets to land on the stage. there are still two slots available. that means these nine candidates

are fighting amongst themselves for the last few spots. chris christie, santorum, kasich, lindsey graham, my friend jim gilmore. good luck, you guys. forget iowa. forget new hampshire. this is how fox news says we are going to do the republican primary this year, for some reason. today, donald trump told nbc he's going to release his personal financial disclosure statement either tomorrow or the next day. if fox news thought adding that as a prerequisite might keep mr. trump from debating, apparently that strategy isn't going to work. today, chris christie added a new surprise event to his campaign schedule. he's going to be diverting the chris christie express tomorrow to maryland.

he's going to a diner in maryland. his last surprise trip like this was to a diner in maine, where he got the endorsement of maine's governor. now that he's going to maryland tomorrow, we can safely assume that chris christie is continuing his endorsement sweep of republican governors who vaguely look like him in states that begin with the letter "m." the governor of maryland, hogan, expected to endorse chris christie tomorrow. michigan, you're next. as usual, because there are ten gazillion people running on the republican side, and because they have to run in this insane way this year, because fox news says they have to, as usual, today, most of the news in the race for the white house is news on the republican side. on the democratic side, there is also some big news today. in the form of the maryland governor who preceded larry hogan, martin o'malley is running for the democratic nomination for president. he was the first one in on democratic sides against long odds. martin o'malley is here tonight. next. stay with us.

we got him! joining us now for the interview is the former governor of maryland, now democratic presidential candidate, governor martin o'malley. great to have you here. thank you for coming. >> glad to be with you. >> i know you're busy, so i appreciate you taking this time. >> my pleasure. >> what is your reaction to the iran deal today? >> it's promising. i have yet to read the 100-page agreement, but i believe and have long believed that a negotiated settlement is the best path forward here, provided that it is verifiable, enforcement. we cut off all paths to iran's ability to develop the nuclear weapon. i think there's a lot of promise here and, hopefully, it is the beginning of a new day. >> one of the dynamics i find interesting, and it's true about the cuban deal and about the iran deal now, is that in washington, if you pay attention to the beltway press, you'd think this is so controversial, it's on fire. like the president absolutely flouting public opinion and

doing this crazy thing that everybody knows is nuts. that's how it's talked about in congress. then look at public opinion polling. americans love the cuba deal. the american people really want a deal with iran. there is a really big difference on the international issues between what the people want and what washington thinks is normal. what do you make of that? >> what i make of it is that the people of our country are actually ahead of their leaders, especially on the national level. i mean, as i've traveled around the country, what i'm encouraged by is that when you talk to younger americans under the age of 40, you rarely find people that deny that climate change is real. rarely find people that want to discriminate against gay people or people that want to bash immigrants or blame them for our nation's problems. that tells me our nation is moving in a more compassionate and generous place. in our engagement in the world, people want us to be engaged in waging peace, looking for opportunities to collaborate with other nations to make this

world a safer place. that's american common sense. >> if that's true, if the people are ahead of the supposed leaders in washington, particularly on international issues and the social issues you were talking about, why is washington following so far behind on these issues? why is every republican candidate for president saying, if they don't want to change the u.s. constitution to ban gay marriage, they'll do everything else they can. why is washington so far behind? >> i don't know. i think it's a couple of reasons. look, we have a very gerrymandered congress. we need to find a better way to draw the district lines. because they were drawn by a lot of republican governors, quite frankly, after the 2010 election, we have a house of representatives that's not really very representative of mainstream america. and then you look at public opinion polling, american people love the cuba deal.

love the resumption of relations with cuba. american people really want to deal with iran. there's a difference between what the people want and what washington thinks is normal. what do you make of that? >> what i make of it is that the people of our country are actually ahead of our leaders, especially on the national level. as i've traveled around the country, what i'm encouraged by, as you talk to younger americans under the age of 40, you rarely find people who deny that climate change is real and discriminate against gay people. that tells me that our nation is moving in a much more connected, compassionate and to a much more generous place and especially in our engagement in the world, people want us to be engaged but want us to be engaged in waging peace, looking for opportunities to collaborate with other nations to make this world a safer place. i think that's american commonsense. >> well, if that's true, if the people are head of the -- our supposed leaders, particularly on the social issues that we're talking about, why is washington so sporadic? why is washington falling so far behind on these issues?

why is every candidate for president saying if they don't want an institution to ban gay marriage, they will do everything in their power to ban gay marriage. why is washington so far behind? >> we need to find a better way to draw our congressional district lines and because they were drawn by a lot of republican governors, quite frankly, after the 2011 election, we have a house of representatives that is not really representative of mainstream america and it tends to have a polarizing effect and that's holding us back as a nation. that's why you see, you know, broad support for things like marriage equality, why you see growing support for immigration reform and yet we still can't seem to get it done even though it's in our nation's best interest because of the extreme way that the congressional lives are drawn. i don't know a way to get through this except to have a better and deeper conversation in the course of the national election about what is important to us as people, what is in america's best interests. people are sadly very cynical that concentrated wealth, has

concentrated power in washington and that we can't get things done anymore. and the two phrases i hear everywhere i go are the phrases new leadership and getting things done. we know we are working harder yet falling further behind and we also feel vaguely like it's not a fair fight anymore. we can't get our government to step up and save us from another crash. anger and frustration never built a great country. so i'm confident that in the longer consideration here as we approach the presidential election that people will start asking the questions about which of the candidates in our party has the best shot of actually pulling people together, getting things done and moving us out of these rather divided times and that's what keeps me going. >> when you say new leadership, are you criticizing hillary clinton when you say that? is she all but the prohibitive front-runner but it's a long fight to go, does she have some record that you would criticize as not being able to get things done? >> i have a lot of respect for secretary clinton and she'll be able to defend her own candidacy. i can tell you from my part what i had to offer in my party where i'm looking forward to a robust discussion that the progressive values that we can actually get things done, i'm going to advance my candidacy and that is a new perspective. it is a younger perspective. a perspective of a new generation. i was watching one of your pieces earlier and one of the truths of these presidential primaries is that inevitable front-runner is inevitable but only up until the first contest. >> right. >> and the other truth is whatever candidate is surging in the summer is not necessarily the candidate who is surging in january. people in iowa and new hampshire expect to see each one of us two, three, four times, see us on our good days and bad ideas and we have the ability to move our country forward and that's the process right now. >> governor martin o'malley, i've got to say, if i had to be a presidential candidate, i'd rather be in your shoes facing the long odds against hillary clinton than i would be one of those guys at the bottom of the polls fighting fox news for the right to even compete for the nomination. governor, nice to see you.

will you come back? >> i absolutely will. much more to come. stay with us. it's like she's saying i love you. that's why aveeno® baby lotions... ...active naturals® oat formula... ...is designed for your baby's sensitive skin. because, while you count each miraculous toe... ...you know they're counting on you. [baby coos] aveeno®. naturally beautiful babies.

one day on the show last week we asked you to send us your stuff. send us the stuff you see happening around you. send it to rachel.com. turns out, you have delivered. we have mysterious stuff from you that is news that we could not have gotten without you. and that's straight ahead. stay with us. it was the year 2000, he was in between the ghost of tom jode

it was the year 2000, he was

in between the ghost of tom jode and the rising. it was the year 2000 and bruce springsteen was doing a string of shows at madison square garden and on one of those nights, chris christie was there. look, second row, rocking out. sage green pole low shirt, singing along, having an excellent time. and i have one thing to say about that. thank you. thank you for sending that to me. last month we set up, send it to rachel.com asking for your newsworthy stuff, stuff that happens in your town, stuff that gets mailed to you, stuff that you come across in your daily events. stuff that you think might be news but you're not seeing it in the news. particularly, we're interested in the campaign for president but even if it's not and you think it might be news, please, send it to rachel.com. for example, we've been following this issue in tennessee of this ghoulish statue of a ku klux klan leader which sits on private property

surrounded by more than a dozen confederate flags. it's clearly visible from interstate 65, just outside nashville. lawmakers have been trying to find a way to hide it from the interstate. today, we received a picture from one of you guys showing what that statue looks like today. what looks like that statue in full view still but with all of nathan's confederate flags lowered. we're not sure why. maybe today's laundry day. i don't know. we reached out to the owner of the land on which these statues sit. we haven't heard back yet. we'd like to know the meaning of this. if you find out for if the flags go back up, please, nashville, let us know. it's been a great start but, please, keep it up. send it to rachel.com. if you get campaign mailers that you think is news, stuff pops in your local paper, local

newscast, if you happen to see a presidential candidate doing something interesting, send it to rachel.com. something amazing. rock on. ""first look" is up next. it is wednesday, july 15th. right now on "first look," president obama will discuss the deal in a news conference as he tries to convince allies and lawmakers there was no better alternative. the tunnel el chado used to escape from prison. a nasa probe sends back inspiring photos from the edge of the solar system is. dash cam video of a hit and run involve an orlando police officer. jimmie fallon takes on lebron james in a game of