today's statement from the president came at a lunch with 49 republican senators. interestingly, he was seated next to dean heller who is targeted with an attack ad aligned with president trump for posing with senate plan. but the president tried a new approach with heller as his lunch companion. a charm offensive. >> this is the one you're worried about. you're going to be -- you're going to be. look. he wants to remain a senator, doesn't he? okay. i think the people of your state which i know very well, i think they're going to appreciate what you hopefully will do. >> i want to bring in our entire team of reporters, nbc's kristen welker at the white house, along with jonathan swann from axios, and a "washington post" congressional reporter and susan glasser, international affairs columnist for politico. i think you can forgive someone for being confused about where

donald trump comes down on health care. this was at least his third position in three days. yesterday, he was for letting obamacare fail. i think 48 hours ago he was for just repealing obamacare, but not replacing it yet. and then he -- then he sort of blamed it on the marketing of it all. saying the republicans never discussed how good their health care bill. it will get better at lunch time. the democrats screamed death as o care dies. what's the current state of the president's mindset on health care right now? does he really think there's something that could get passed this week? >> i think he's feeling an immense amount of pressure to make sure something gets passed, nicolle. but the political reality it will be incredibly difficult as you rightfully point out. there's a lot of whiplash. it's as if the president said let's go back to plan "a" and that's repeal and replace obamacare. what i found so striking about

the comments today he said we are very close. we're so close to getting something done. and of course as you know as i know, we've been covering this, they are not close. lawmakers have a range of disagreements over the health care plan that was making its way through the senate and it never came up for a vote on the one hand, you have senators like rand paul who say it doesn't go far enough to repeal to fully repeal obamacare. on the other hand, you have more moderate senators who are saying that ultimately it's going to strip medicaid coverage for americans. so they have a lot of work to do in terms of getting down into the nitty-gritty and the criticism privately on capitol hill is that the president hasn't been engaged enough and hasn't been immersed enough in the details. you heard that during the house fight. although in the final days of that house fight you saw the president get out into the public and start to sell the bill. there is a sense within some quarters of capitol hill that this is too little, too late for this president. remember, he was having dinner with senators who supported the

bill on monday night when those two senators came out and actually -- and effectively said they weren't going to support the bill and that killed the bill. he was caught flat footed. caught by surprise, nicolle. it underscored he wasn't engaged in what was happening. i think he was trying to get engaged now. we have to see if it pays off. >> it undercores, maybe they have the wrong guest list, maybe they should have had senators murkowski down for dinner. you speak to what kristen welker is reporting today, that you posted last night, that trump was frequently disingaged, making calls on the fence senators but otherwise selling the bill at the big rallies on issues he champions. for better or for worse, donald trump is able to drive at least sort of a bumper sticker length message like none other.

what is the explanation for why he didn't throw his millions of social media followers or his branding jujitsu power behind the republican health care effort? >> that is anybody's guess. they asked for that privately and people within the leadership circle in the senate have said they wanted the white house to go out there and have a rally, to go be the salesman that they thought he would be for this. but it never materialized. instead, they got tweets that were at cross purposes to what they were attempting to do. we saw that this morning. everything that the president had come out and said has come -- kind of a strange time when the majority leader is trying to lock down votes. when he's trying to convince people to be there on the last few days. the president is coming out there with completely different responses. it's been very confusing for senators and been very confusing for leadership. >> and it's not a story of the trump white house, we have a story of personal pique and there's some reporting that one

of the people he's extra mad at is unsurprisingly someone who spent a lot of time on tv disparaging the health care bill and that's rand paul. what do you hear about efforts to get him to stop attacking republicans? >> there was a very funny moment in that meeting, my sources tell me. where donald trump said to rand paul, you need to go and play golf for three days and get off tv. and he said, i'll go play golf with you for three days if its means you're off tv bashing us and everyone was laughing so it was a very funny moment. >> not a terrible idea. just for the record to reflect that i'm not laughing. >> i got a text in a rep -- from a republican involved in this who said i'm -- this is not someone who's particularly with trump. i'm totally with trump on this one. but look, we're going to have a report very shortly an axios.com where we give a full account of that meeting. it was a fascinating meeting. trump told the senators, he says basically i want you to work late into the night tonight.

they're going to barrasso's office around 7:30. it's all the senators who are on the fence. they're going to sit around a table. tom price will be be and it's basically get around a table and sort this out. and they'll work late into the night. trump made clear in the meeting i'm told by my sources that he said he prefers repeal and replace. but at a bare minimum because they have made this promise for so long, at the very least they have to repeal it. so there's a lot of people who are very skeptical about this as you can imagine. but they have agreed to go to the office tonight and at least make a hash of it. >> you scooped yourself, i'm going to press you on that. does your report -- about "the post" on axios any minute now leaving out the republican moderate women who have been lashed by rush limbaugh for being leftist but who certainly hold the key to any legislative promise for health care, are

they invited to tonight's meeting -- >> everyone is invited. everyone is invited i'm told. >> do you know though if castro and murkowski -- >> i don't know if they're going. this is not confined to moderates or conservatives, i s it's -- it's anyone who has issues. sit around and a table and figure it out and president trump said i want you to work late into the night. >> let me go back to kelsey again and ask you, what is it that donald trump asked them to do today that they hadn't already tried? >> i think he just said he wanted them to keep trying. i spoke to a couple of aides they don't know what's left. why they want to have the vote on tuesday next week, because continuing to talk hasn't helped them so far. and there's some hope that if they force a vote, people have to pick one or the other, yes or no. maybe just maybe they'll live to vote another day and get to the

amendment process and this bill can pass. but not a lot of evidence so far that there are enough votes to even open up the debate yet. >> i want to turn to another front on which the white house is pushing and spinning pretty hard today and that's questions about this additional one-on-one time that president trump spent with vladimir putin at the couple's dinner at the g20. susan, just in the context of the conversations that we had day after day after day, if this were a one-on-one conversation with any other president or with this president with any other leader, i imagine we wouldn't be talking about this. because most people view it as positive for leaders to spend time together when their spouses are around at a social dinner. but it's this president, it's the russia cloud and it's vladimir putin. >> well, that's right. and of course both donald trump and vladimir putin are well aware of the politicization of everything having to do with their relationship first of all. neither one of them was going in

unaware. what i was struck by, why did this come out because sources at the g20 dinner -- that's the leaders of the world's biggest industrialized nations at least two of them told ian bremer, a well respected political scientist, first hand accounts of this. why? because it struck them as so unusual and surprising that donald trump would basically get up at a dinner where all of the united states' most close allies were present and sit down beside, is and spend by their account close to an hour. the white house is disputing that. but close to an hour in an animated one-on-one conversation with no other americans present, with no american interpreter present, so only the russian interpreter. once again, trump had to know this would raise questions and that also that it would come out. i think it's striking that the white house didn't mention this in the past when president obama for example met with or even encountered president putin on the sidelines at events like this. his staff would give a readout

of the conversation. why? because the u.s./russia relationship is extremely politicized and there's not like a casual interaction that you can have between the two. now, are we seeing actions that follow up up between the two conversations? we're starting to see that in a new report, "the washington post" just let out a few minutes ago that says that trump has agreed to a major putin ask which is to end u.s. support for cia backed rebels inside syria. that something the russians have wanted for a long time. >> kristen welker, let me bring you back into the conversation. let's listen to sarah huckabee sanders responding to all of this and then talk about it on the other side. >> he was seated next to the first ladies of japan and argentina and we didn't offer readouts of either of those conversations. >> do you have a time frame for how long the talk was? >> we weren't following him around with a stop watch, but like i said it was a brief conversation and certainly not

an hour. >> i mean, kristen, they don't need a stop watch but maybe a little hand recorder to record any policy issues were discussed. this significant policy shift in syria, a program that was fought for by i believe hillary clinton was an advocate for this program at one point. john mccain advocated and fought for this. it's now kaput. does the white house have any capacity to understand that they bring in to question potential ties and coziness with russia when they make any sort of foreign policy decisions that counts as a win for russia and vladimir putin? >> i think so. you heard sarah huckabee sanders really get questioned sharply on that very point. and was asked specifically if this program came up when

president trump had that meeting on the sidelines of the g20 dinner. did he discuss it with russian president vladimir putin? sarah sanders said not she was aware of. so we'll try to stay on top of that and see if we could get any more policy details about what was discussed there, but i think that's where the problem comes, nicolle. the fact that you have this discussion that lasted some length of time. and that the white house hasn't provided a readout to the point about well, they didn't provide a readout for his other meetings that evening. it was clear based on those in the room that it was substantial or longer. and just think about how much attention the meeting earlier in the day with president putin got. the extent to which we asked questions about that, the white house did provide a readout of that program. you'd think they'd say, hey, we're going to give you this information to sort of get ahead of any of these potential questions, but i get the sense

that some staffers here were caught off guard, nicolle. i get the sense they had to go back to the president yesterday and ask him about this meeting that happened on the sidelines because remember, the president didn't have any of his own top staffers there, any of his national security team there. so they needed to get up to speed on exactly what happened. it's possible that we'll get a more in depth readout in the coming days but based on today's briefing not that likely. >> susan, i want to give you the last word here. we now know from kristen welker the white house's story, always subject to change from this white house, but would vladimir putin who isn't known to make much small talk or to -- i mean, my recollection of him and from the stories george bush told us he's utterly humorless. i can't imagine they were talking about "the apprentice." what would have vladimir putin have used one-on-one time up to an hour at a private dinner with only a russian interpreter, what would he have done with that kind of one-on-one time with the

american president? very enamored with him as we know. >> it's very clear that one of the russian goals has been to personalize this as quickly as possible with donald trump and in many ways it's surprising he went along with it. in fact, several former ambassadors to russia including mike mcfaul have said on this program and others that they think the smartest thing putin could have done in the run-up to the g20 was to get trump alone. he effectively got him alone at that dinner and basically was alone with him and the secretary of state, no other advisers in that meeting. no ambassador, one wasn't even appointed so it's a dream scenario from the point of view of the russians. where i would disagree, i think that vladimir putin he's a former kgb officer, trained in their trade craft. which would be to find a common ground and a connection. and even when his famous first meeting with george w. bush he talked about his mother had him baptized to try to find a connection with george w. bush and it worked at least

initially. >> it worked. george w. bush said he looked inside his eyes and it worked. but the relationship certainly evolved or devolved. how ever you want to look at it. thank you to kristen welker and jonathan swann. kelsey and suze reason sticking around. president trump called coverage of his additional chitchat with vladimir putin sick. but is the white house simply reaping what they have sown by allowing so much smoke around the russia question? and what do atomic blondes have to do with anything? well, they just might hold the key to saving us from ourselves. we promise to explain. >> i have always been a running mate. you didn't want to see it. >> as my vice president -- >> iput a lot of thought into. >> you couldn't -- >> no children, no nepotism, i have run through them all. you can't win without me.

there's nothing more important to me than my vacation. so when i need to book a hotel, i want someone who makes it easy. booking.com gets it. and with their price match, i know i'm getting the best price every time. visit booking.com. booking.yeah! let's take a look at some numbers: 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom... is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease? preventable. and 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened

and help take control of your health. we're life line screening... and if you're over 50... call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more. dad: flash drives? yup. that's dad taking care of business. laptop setup? yup. but who takes care of dad? office depot, office max. this week, all hp ink, buy one get one 30% off. ♪ taking care of business

when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night... so he got home safe. yeah, my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. what?!? with liberty mutual's 24-hour roadside assistance, get a jump, tow, and more - any time of day. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. liberty stands with you™. yogig-speed internet.me? you know what's not awesome? when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids. and these guys. him. ah. oh hello- that lady. these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh. sure. still yes! you can get it too. welcome to the party. introducing gig-speed internet from xfinity. finally, gig for your neighborhood too.

what do you make of this second meeting between trump and putin at the g20? >> i have no idea, it lasted an hour or 20 minutes, i know. melania said it made sense to go talk. it's not what they say, it's what they do. they can talk all day long. i want a sanctions bill on the president's desk punishing russia for interfering in our election. i wish the house would get on

with it. >> that's lindsey graham on president trump's previously undisclosed conversation with vladimir putin at the g20 just 12 days ago. graham doesn't know what to make of that encounter and how could he when so many statements on russia have proven to be incomplete, mistaker up on untrue. i want to bring in the panel. joining me is rick stengel from diplomacy and public affairs. princeton university professor and msnbc contributor eddie glod. and frank brewny and joining us from the aspen security forum, senior national analyst and susan is still with us. juan, let me bring you into the conversation that susan and i started in the last block about the stopping or cutting off the cia program to arm syrian rebels against assad which was on vladimir putin's honey do list we know as a foreign policy

objective for russia. what do you make of the fact that we have an announcement that the program ended. it would put the presidential decision making process before the g20, but still, all of these questions about the trump white house and their ties to russia and all of these decisions that seem to favor putin's foreign policy objectives. >> well, nicolle, first of all, thanks for having me from here -- >> thanks for being there. it's way too pretty. it's beautiful. >> i'm sure it looks like a fake back drop, yeah. >> it does. >> i think what you described, nicolle, is the big problem with the russia controversy infecting foreign policy and national security. so there can be an honest debate about whether or not we should be arming rebels on the ground. whether or not it's been effective. whether or not there should be another strategy altogether with affecting what's happening on the ground. the problem of course is it's

all viewed through the lens of the suspicion of the relationship with russia and all the revelations coming out. as you said earlier a lot of the smoke that hasn't been explained and certainly hasn't been transparently described by the administration. even if it's a good decision, i like you don't think there's sort of a sequence here that points to this decision following the discussions in germany. but, you know, it all looks dangerous and nefarious and certainly to a certain extent advantageous to russia. even if it's the right decision from the u.s. national security perspective. >> let me -- >> supporting the allies so i'm not sure i agree. >> is it the right decision? pompeo was apparently in the meeting with the president where the decision was made. should we stop arming the rebels? >> i'm not in the classified brief tionz but i think the

reality is we need to be shaping the environment on the ground. we need to be supporting our allies who are willing to fight with us or for us or for our interests. and despite what many critics have said, we do have allies in the ground who are -- who are capable allies of taking on isis, al qaeda affiliates and even potentially elements of the iranian revolutionary guard on the ground. if we were to resolve the issues diplomat mattcally in syria we have to have a hand on shaping on what's going on on the ground. part of that is arming the allies for fighting for what we care about. i don't know if the cia program was a right way of doing it. i don't know what factors went into the decision making, other things are happening. and that being said, i think we do need to be playing a hand in what's happening in syria. otherwise, the russians, the iranians and others that we don't want shaping the environment will. >> rick stengel, president obama

was so reluctant as i remember and so difficult to convince of the value of arming syrian rebels. i don't know about what the process is with convincing him about the specific cia program, but i just remember in the larger debate on what was the public space he was so reluctant and cautious. it was not likely this was a sort of a cowboy like program. this was carefully considered and vetted by your old boss. what do you make of the fact that this president has decided to halt the program? >> i'll tell you what's most disturbing, it's not the ending of the program. these guys are not boy scouts -- >> imperfect. >> this is a front, it's a witch's brew of people there and that's why president obama was reluctant to get in. what bothers me about what trump did, he gave a gigantic bargaining chip away in his negotiations with russia before he even began negotiations. this is a huge thing to be able to offer on the table. let's make it an exchange for what else you're doing in syria or what you're doing in the

ukraine. i'll give you back -- i'll withdraw my support if you get out of ukraine. the great negotiator donald trump gave this away to vladimir putin. >> susan, what about that? in russia it's a big victory and it's not clear at what price or cost this win came for vladimir putin. >> look, i think rick makes a very important point. one of the sources quoted by "the washington post" who was inside the government overseeing this program, putin won in syria. now, you can argue that had already happened before president trump became president, that president obama was wary of intervening in syria. the result was more or less to leave an opening there for the russians. they took it over the last couple of years. they have become a dominant military outside presence in syria shoring up and changing the course of the war with their intervention. they basically were able to prop up the assad regime at various

points in which he'd fall. that was the usual -- the official u.s. policy to follow through on that. so the bottom line is, putin came into a vacuum that arguably existed during the obama administration. he won in syria. you can say that this trump policy reflects facts on the ground but i think it's a very important point. what did we get in return for this? why are we -- are we negotiating with russia, the utter lack of transparency and the complete confusion around what is our policy toward russia right now i think anyone who pays attention to this honestly if you said to them, what is it that president trump is trying to do with the vladimir putin, what is our policy toward russia right now, there's no one who could give you an honest and clear answer to that. >> i'm guessing you might say it's personal. i mean, you have written about the personal affection and that more than decade long romance

that trump -- i mean, you would argue that the policy toward russia is one of personal admiration. >> you get the strange sense that donald trump is desperate to be liked by putin. why that is so i don't think we'll ever know. but another thing that's important that speaks to the snippet from lindsey graham to add to the policy, what is going on? the senate passed a unanimous package of tough sanctions against russia. that was weeks ago. the white house is trying to water down those sanctions before the house takes them up. the senate republicans are furious about this. bob corker has been public about it. what's going on there? and when we add that to the rest of this what are we supposed to conclude? >> and it gets us attention over the health care, but it's as profound of a divide in the republican party, at least among senate republicans and this white house on putin. >> that's what makes the pull aside so strange. the optics are bad obviously,

but it's making causal linkages. so it deepens the suspicion. this is outside of my wheelhouse, so we only rely on common sense. you put one and two and three and four and five and six and seven together and you conclude there's something going on with donald trump and russia. >> looks that way. you were next, why the apparent collapse of the republican plan to repeal and replace obamacare reflects a larger problem for the party overall and how it could get worse. >> for seven years republicans have told the voters if you elect us we'll repeal obamacare. i think we will look like fools if we can't deliver on that promise. (vo) dogs have evolved, but their nutritional needs remain instinctual. that's why there's purina one true instinct. nutrient-dense, protein-rich, real meat number one. this is a different breed of nutrition. purina one, true instinct.

you doyou'll see whatet but in you're really made of. after five hours of spinning and one unfortunate ride on the gravitron, your grandkids spot a 6 foot banana that you need to win. in that moment, you'll be happy you partnered with a humana care manager and got your health back on track. because that banana isn't coming home with you until that bell sings. great things are ahead of you when your health is ready for them. at humana, we can help you with a personalized plan for your health for years to come.

we have four or five or six people that are not prepared to support the senate proposals

that are before us. and that's disappointing. we as republicans achieved this, we have the house, the senate and the white house and the republicans didn't like obamacare and they wanted to repeal and replace it. virtually everyone campaigned on it and we need to continue to work on it. >> that was republican senator marco rubio earlier today with his on party for failing again to reach a consensus on health care. the fracture is a symptom of a problem that goes all the way to the party's soul. with the republican party divided the fights are expected to continue and potentially intensify. trump has shown an ideological openness to support any bill that has a chance of passage. hoping to notch a legislative victory after experiencing numerous defeats. joining is the president of the american action forum, a former director of the cbo and former adviser to the mccain campaign. doug, let me start with you.

is it not the case that it used to be a benefit to be the party with the most ideological diversity, but the republican party is having one heck of a time figuring out how to govern with senators like shelly mark capito and others who are not taking away entitlements like rand paul and ted cruz want to repeal the whole thing? >> i think it's fine to have a lot of diversity as long as there's a commitment to the party. >> or some sort of principle. what is it they're trying to achieve? take stuff away. i don't understand the republican principle. >> do you? >> if i went to them in january i'm going to build you a bill you'd love. we'll reform two entitlement

programs, fantastic, let's do that. that's what the health care bill was. and they went, oh, my god, not fantastic. they split apart. and that started earlier because the people who liked those kinds of bills didn't get the nomination. donald trump got the nomination. and so it really is a split. and there's a really ride is -- divide and a lack of allegiance. when you think of the white house's role who are they going to provide air cover for? the establishment guys or the guys who brought them in? >> i think it's working the way it was supposed to work because their allegiances are to their constituents. shelly mark capito and susan collins don't oppose the bill because they're not loyal people or not because -- because it doesn't serve their constituents. >> it attacks -- it's a tax cut and it rolls back two entitlement will programs and the question is what about health care? well, will people be covered? what about the 20 plus million folk who are worried that an

illness will destroy their families? so what we have here is a misdescribed bill. it's not a health care bill. it is a tax cut bill and so what i see here at stake here in this debate, maybe -- it might over the soul of the republican party. but for me it's a question of whether or not the party has a soul. >> i remember the good old days, you covered -- yes, go ahead. >> i'm an economist and i have a soul. >> i can vouch for his soul. >> okay, the key is remarkably inarticulate they can get coverage to the people they should care about, they can target programs effectively -- >> who should everyone care about, what are you talking about? >> everyone should be covered. >> what about pre-existing conditions? >> pre-existing conditions should be covered, yes. >> people in poverty -- low income people? >> absolutely. >> so the medicaid should be fully funded. >> medicaid has always been there.

the dispute in the medicaid is really simple. why should the taxpayers pay 90 cents on the dollar for someone who is above poverty and able to work and not pay for a poor child. that doesn't make sense. >> those who oppose the bill would say they don't have access to health care. i think that's the argument there. but i want to understand the establishment -- so we would cover the poor. people with pre-existing conditions. disabled folks? >> yes. >> there was more money in the medicaid for the elderly than in the base line. it's poorly understood. it's their fault. >> if it's poorly understood i have never seen in my lifetime a major piece of legislation pursued with this little explanation from the president with this little of an effort. we're talking about all the stuff he's doing over the last couple of day what has he been doing over the last couple of months? he's been shifting his position. we have to repeal and replace, no we can repeal.

we have a president with a serious attention deficit -- and i'm not being -- >> is that covered under the new bill? >> probably not. that's going to follow him after this when it goes on to tax reform, if it ever gets over to infrastructure. if he doesn't learn how to be disciplined, how to get out there and sell something on the sustained basis to the right audiences with the right language he's not going to get anything done. >> keeping this conversation going, women in washington. are they the only ones willing to stand up for the president? >> you already have three senators all women, shelly capito, lisa murkowski saying it makes no sense and i know that the president is having them over to the white house, the entire republican caucus tomorrow for lunch i don't think a tuna fish sandwich is going to change the minds of the three strong women. ♪

your body was made for better things than rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz is right for you. xeljanz is a small pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. xeljanz can reduce joint pain and swelling in as little as two weeks, and help stop further joint damage. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell

counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz can reduce the symptoms of ra, even without methotrexate, and is also available in a once-daily pill. ask about xeljanz xr. (singsong) budget meeting. sweet. if you compare last quarter... it's no wonder everything seems a little better with the creamy taste of philly, made with no artificial preservatives, flavours or dyes.

for all of the television that president trump watches there's one thing that he and the republican party should take note of. and that's the rise of women. frank brewny writing in "the new york times" too many wonderful women to count. television is enjoying a golden age part of which is the juicy opportunities for female actors. in terms of gender parity it puts trump america and the trump administration to shame. joining me is joy reid. thank you for being with us and kelsey snell from the political post and susan glasser. i love the piece because it's not just about politics but it makes a pretty powerful point about how hollywood is not known by your own colleague maureen dowd who wrote a devastating piece. >> yeah how few directors there

are. >> by -- behind the camera there are big problems and what comes up with our friends, what are you watching on television? >> what are you bingeing? >> if you think about the answers and what we're watching, television has realized what a lot of the country hasn't. which is that if you tell the stories of over half the population, you know, if you use the talents of over half the population, female actresses you'll have a better product. if you go through the shows we watch, you are struck by how many strong women and strong women stories are out there. >> you have that list. >> the trump administration could learn from that. the senate could learn from this. the senate has sort of learned what happens when you ignore women. i think it's something -- it's something positive to talk about and it is a lesson for other corners of society. >> and joy, why do you think it is that as frank says this is a story -- these are stories they're not far away stories. i mean, half of us are women. and everyone knows a woman or two. i mean, you know, why are -- why aren't women better represented

or more appreciated in the halls of congress? >> you know, that is a good question because i do think when it comes television partly it's the consumer. women watch more television, particularly women of color, so sort of logical that television should start to gravitate toward the big audience. when it comes to politics i think it's such a man's world for so long it's so much of politics sort of driven by men telling women what's best for them. and that has not caught up to the 21st century in a lot of ways. i think the most glaring spectacle we have seen is this 13 member all male, all white commission deciding what's best for health care including women's health care. >> and men, look how that worked out. >> and the three republican women saying no. and these three republican women leading kind of the resistance to the bill even within the gop. i honestly have to say that, nicolle on the trail last year covering the campaign i noticed

among white women in particular there was not a drive a see a woman in the white house for its own sake. but after the election women are saying wait a minute. we are being taken advantage of and women are stepping up a little bit as well. >> kelsey, can i ask you if senators capito, murkowski and collins are being ostracized by their republican colleagues or are they being celebrated by their democratic colleagues? being ignored or sought out? what is the state of play for the three women suddenly famous? >> i think part of the problem when the meetings started i think their forgotten about and not considered to be the people that leadership was most worried about and that kind of -- >> why not? >> you know, i think it's because they were really worried about the right plank because the right plank are the outspoken big personalities like senator ted cruz and rand paul. they're known for going rogue. i think there was a sense that,

you know, if they would get around to dealing with the moderates and, you know, the women later. and it's part of a broader thing that seems to happen up here in washington and i don't know -- so last year, last time i did a whole reporting project about women in power and in washington. one of the things that people said they didn't feel comfortable saying i feel left out because of my gender. they wanted to say my gender doesn't matter. i am here, i was elected i can be powerful. but the longer people spend in washington, sometimes the dynamics are really at play here. >> doug, i mean, you could argue that the women we're talking about were the ones who helped avert a government shutdown. it's not like they don't have a track record of being able to deal in diplomatic ways with members of the other party when things get difficult. why wouldn't they be the go to coalition when men like ted cruz screw things up? >> so -- >> because --

>> because the majority -- >> bring a man in here. go ahead. make your point and then we'll go to doug. >> talk right over me. that's the problem. >> go ahead. go ahead. you have the floor. >> just that they were -- there was a sense that these women would come around, they would be the deal makers. >> of course. >> they have to come to them first. >> because we compromise. that's what women do. >> as a matter of the mechanics you don't pay as much attention to the people who won't rock the boat. >> in all seriousness, the most profound point made -- >> called the leader a liar. so they're worried about some other actors in the party and that's real. that doesn't explain the fact that their views weren't sought. it's not as simple as women, just to note for the women. jodi ernst is a woman, they signed on. so you know the basic issue here --

>> and in fairness, kasich a governor and portman -- >> the three women were worth considering. in the case of susan collins has she has a lot of background on the health care issue and in the case of capito and murkowski they're from states that are dealing very seriously with the medicaid issue. you want to say what can we do to them in the legislation because those are emblematic states of others. >> i would argue honestly with murkowski, that was discussed at length, maybe not with susan collins. i agree with that. >> i want to talk about the idea of rocking the boat. >> because you have to remember that collins has the history of being the most sought after votes on -- she's the go to that the republicans would turn to because she has a history of crossing the aisle and not playing ball with the party. >> really quick. >> patriarchy is still alive. >> start it off, we have to sneak in a break.

don't go anywhere. ♪ ♪ where all the walls echo with laughter ♪ ♪ and every room has its own chapter ♪ you've carried on your family's tradition. let us help you prepare for your family's future. financial guidance while you're mastering life. from chase. so you can. only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol® and when youod sugar is a replace one meal... choices. ...or snack a day with glucerna... ...made with carbsteady... ...to help minimize blood sugar spikes... ...you can really feel it. now with 30% less carbs and sugars. glucerna.

(woman) there's a moment of truth.etes, and now with victoza®, a better moment of proof. victoza® lowers my a1c and blood sugar better than the leading branded pill, which didn't get me to my goal. lowers my a1c better than the leading branded injectable. the one i used to take. victoza® lowers blood sugar in three ways. and while it isn't for weight loss, victoza® may help you lose some weight. non-insulin victoza® comes in a pen and is taken once a day. (announcer) victoza® is not recommended as the first medication to treat diabetes and is not for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take victoza® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to victoza® or any of its ingredients. stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck or if you develop any allergic symptoms including itching, rash, or difficulty breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis,

so stop taking victoza® and call your doctor right away if you have severe pain in your stomach area. tell your doctor your medical history. taking victoza® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. the most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. side effects can lead to dehydration, which may cause kidney problems. now's the time for a better moment of proof. ask your doctor about victoza®.

we're back. we've been talking about gender and souls and all sorts of other good stuff, but i cut off -- go ahead. >> the main thing i said is patriarchy is still alive and well. we're seeing these powerful women, not only the women who organize the women's march. we see folks outside of the political process actually bringing pressure to bear from

the grassroots. >> so let me ask you what you think of the women inside the process, the three republican senators who stood against their president? >> i think it's absolutely important. i think it's kipt with their representation of their constituents. this goes to the point, what are we valuing, to whom are we loyal? and when we ask that question, then we can get at the heart of what the real stakes are in this debate. >> i want to bring this conversation back to just, you know, we've been talking about the soul of the republican party when it comes to health care. you say it has a soul and -- but it wasn't that long ago that john mccain who is one of the strongest voices against vladimir putin was the gop nominee. ible those days. i worked on that campaign. when mitt romney was largely mocked for saying russia represented our largest geopolitical foe to now the white house spent much of the day cleaning up secret time spent with vladimir putin not because there's anything wrong with spending a foreign leader

but because there's so many questions about the u.s. russian relationship. i wonder if you can just weigh in on how much has changed since the 2008 and 2012 cycles with donald trump's victory. >> yeah. this has been a wholesale change, and you say it correctly. whole say mocked is exactly right, including by the president of the united states. you remember that debate. i was there in florida for that debate, and the president of the united states mocked mitt romney for his warning of the threat from russia. and so, you know, i think we've in some ways come full circle and there is a split in the republican party. you see this clearly with those who understand that russia remains a foe under vladimir putin. it's a country that's trying to regain its geopolitical status, and he's a leader that has declared that the greatest tragedy of the twentieth sentry was the fall of the soviet union. this is not a country we can trust. it's a count we likely have to work with. and so you can't blame any

president for trying to work with russia, but we've got to be very careful as to how we do that. and sort of the lack of concern over what russia has done and what they may continue to do in terms of cyber infill tragsz, hacking, not just of u.s. systems but of allied systems is really problematic as well. so there's a lot of soul-searching to go on here, but the key is what do we value in terms of our national security, and that is the security of our systems, of our electoral process and the trust in our government. russia has tried to undermine that, and unfortunately, this whole russia scandal is undermining trust and confidence in our system. >> joy, let me get you to respond to that. i mean, president obama may have started ouft wanting a reset or wanting more flexibility, but he certainly ended with some pretty tough sanctions, punishment for russia's meddling. i mean, he took away those compounds. it's now a republican president who at least reportedly has

received the request from the russians to give them back. what do you make of just the role reversal and the question of russia in the democratic party. >> it's amazing because as you said the obama tried and the reset was sort of put aside. we went back to sort of the traditional posture of the united states. my old cold war reagan iet father must be spinning in his grave to know that the united states -- he's african, so the desire to limit the expansion of russian spheres of influence led us to support the apar tied gof of south africa over nelson man dell la. now we have a republican party that not only at its base is becoming pro putin -- >> and it's not just the president. there are loud voices in media who celebrate as sang. >> that's right. and for a lot of reasons they

feel he's advancing white christian it. whatever it is, russia is an adversary of the united states, wants to dismantle our influence in europe. trump seems to agree that we should have less influence in europe, that we should detach ourselves from the nato alliance. that we should even detach ourselves to cybersecurity and make ourselves more vulnerable to russia, their influence. it's shocking to see a republican president essentially captain late to almost everything vladimir putin could possiblyment, the full menu, his christmas list of what he wants from the united states and wants to do kaish. >> donald trump wants to -- >> hang on. i've got to get to -- susan, can you just -- it seems to me that putin by the fact that the domestic politics in russia don't roll and rock like ours do so putin always wants the same thing, to restore the glory of the old days. how is he vangd by our rough and

tumble domestic politics? >> well, look, that's right. arguably the goal wasn't really to elect donald trump because no one thought that was possible. the goal was to increase the division and uncertainty inside the ns. well, that's what it's done. it turns out that even reflexive antirussia antisoviet views inside the republican party were not a fixed principle of the republican party. there was a recent poll, by the way, that suggested that actually vladimir putin was more popular with republican voters today than obama and that speaks to the deeply distorted conversation we've been having about russia inside the united states. it's not really about russia, but vladimir putin doesn't have the same domestic politics for his foreign policy. >> right. >> and i think -- you're slightly right -- >> they jail dissidents, they poison -- >> but he seize it as zero sum game. but he has been very clear and russian foreign policy has been

very clear for some time that their goal is to recreate a multi-polar as opposed to what they call a union i polar world with the united states being the unionry polar world. the goal of vladimir putin is to seek advantage against the are united states wherever possible because they see that as the way to restore russia to its rightful place as a super power. and i think what's mystifying to people is that donald trump has played right into it. you said they spent the last couple of days cleaning up over this putin meeting. i don't think they've cleaned anything vup successfully. every time there's a new revelation and i expect there to be more, it seems to me we have more questions about donald trump. and by the way, what's interesting is their policy questions as well as questions about the president's own conduct and that of his family member and aides. these things are converging and they're both questions. >> let me give you the last 30e seconds of the program. where do you think the republican party goes from here? >> i don't know. but i think an important point to make is other presidents, other administrations have tried

for a different kind of relationship with russia. they've had the desire, the wish for a more constructive relationship. donald trump is the first one who has drawn a moral he kwifs between the united states and russia and the fact that so many republicans have gaup along with that that's what makes one question the soul of the party. >> all right. we got everyone to say yes at the same time. that does it for this hour. mtp daily starts right now. >> hi, nichole, and if it is wednesday, is political whiplash covered under the latest republican healthcare plan? tonight, huddling on health care. why leader mccome is calling for a repeal only vote. it's wanted likely he'll win. >> we're going to vote on the motion to proceed to the bill next week. >> we'll talk to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. plus, why did it take weeks for the white house to disclose the president's second talk with vladimir putin? >> i'm not going to get into the specifics