we turn now to our muggle affairs correspondent. >> "harry potter and the half blood prince" opens midnight tonight. so psyched. >> yeah, cool. >> the wait is over, planet potter. time to get your snape on. in episode six, harry and hermione fend off their own rampaging hormones. merlin's beard. >> i'd like you to see it. >> good new snews, it's gettin

fantastic reviews. rotten tome it ao gave it a 9.6. it promoted friendship, altruism, loyalty and self-giving. this is a story about wizards and wish craft. the whole potter phenomenon has morphed into something bigger than movies and books. there are potter-themed wizard rock bands like harry and the potters. ♪ >> graco and the malfoys. ♪ and my favorite the hungarian horn tails. ♪ and quiddage is more like a bunch of dudes playing dodgeball

in capes and industrial goggles. okay, they can't fly. i won't tell them if you won't. >> i have to go get in line. >> yeah, absolutely. "hardball" with chris matthews is up next. race. guns. abortion. capital punishment. anger management. al qaeda. the whole shebang. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. leading off tonight, let's find something to fight about. nothing that sonia sotomayor has said has received more attention than her now famous wise latina woman comment that said that she could render a better judgment than someone else. she started today by saying this to the committee chairman. >> i want to state up front

unequivocally and without doubt, i do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. >> that wasn't good enough for alabama republican jeff sessions, the ranking republican on the committee who hit her hard on the issue. that's when she went further and said that she had said what she had said about a wise latina woman being able to give a better decision was bad. it was bad, she was forced to say. we'll get an evening update on the day's hearings from senator arlen specter, a veteran judiciary committee member. plus, more on those reports that dick cheney ordered the cia to withhold information about an alleged plot to kill al qaeda leaders. i'd like to know what gives the vice president of the united states the legal right to do any such thing. the house intelligence committee is now asking the agency to provide documents about the program. "newsweek" investigative reporter mike isikoff is covering this story, and he'll be here with us tonight. we also have one of our

favorite and funniest guests coming here, bill maher. host of hbo's "real time." he joins us. something tells me he has some great material on sarah palin coming our way. and speaking of palin, there was a terrific comment today in today's "toronto globe and mail," the major paper in canada, pointing out the oddity of how republicans love the relatively inexperienced sarah palin so much, but are ready to hate the self-made sotomayor. and how this is exactly the kind of thinking, if you call it that, that's driving the party off a cliff. we'll get to that in "the fix." and, finally, we have a useful translation of what people in these supreme court confirmation hearings are saying and what they really mean when they're saying those words. from ron fournier, a great reporter with the associated press. he's going to give us a decoder ring to figure out what they're saying. that's in the "hardball sideshow" tonight. we begin with day two of the sotomayor hearings with senator arlen specter, democrat from pennsylvania, a member of the judiciary committee. senator specter, what did you

make of that backoff by the nominee about how i was bad. it's almost like little person talk. it's almost juvenile talk, i was bad to say that comment about a wise latina woman perhaps offering a better judgment than someone else in a court case. >> well, chris, i think she's just trying to put out a mild fire, but what she said, they're making a mountain out of a molehill about it. she was making a statement of self-confidence. you and i make those statements all the time. she thinks she's competent, and very often people are put down on the basis of race, ethnicity, or one reason or another, and she was just asserting herself. it is by no means a major matter, certainly not a disqualifier. >> what do you make of lindsey graham, your colleague on the republican side, saying if he had said something like that in reverse, if he had said a white guy can make a better decision in a court case than someone else, that he'd be out of business politically?

do you think that was overstating the case? >> i think lindsey is wrong. i think lindsey is so talented he could make a mistake like that and much bigger mistakes, lots of mistakes, and still be elected in south carolina or anywhere. he's so talented. listen, gaffes are made by people all the time, and quality guys like lindsey graham outlive them and survive them. so had he made a statement like that, i think he'd still be a united states senator. >> let's get to a hot issue, affirmative action and the appropriate way the law should read on that right now. you're the expert on this. the whole question of the courts, you're an expert. let's go to this question. the ricci case up in new haven where the appellate court upheld the decision by the district court and said it's okay for the new haven city council to basically throw out a test because the results basically had no african-american passing the promotion exam. if you'd sat on that court, that appellate court, would you have

given that narrow cursory decision or would you have acted in a way that might have set a better precedent here? >> well, i would have sought to decide the case. these affirmative action cases going all the way to bakke have been very, very subtle with very, very nuanced distinctions, and they can really go one way or another. what you want to do is you want to be fair. you want to have an opportunity for minorities to get jobs, but you don't want to discriminate against white people who are competing for the same jobs. when you have 5-4 decisions, chris, nobody can say who is right and who is wrong because the court is going to change, and they're going to come down with a little different decision. i could give you lots of situations which are indistinguishable and the courts have gone both ways. >> let's look at what the nominee herself, sonia sotomayor, had to say about the ricci case.

that's the new england case involving -- new haven case actually involving the firefighters who claimed they were the victims of reverse discrimination. here she is. >> in the end the body that had the discretion and power to decide how these tough issues should be decided, not along the precedent that had been recognized by our circuit court and another, at least the sixth circuit, but along what the court thought would be the right test or standard to apply. and that's what the supreme court did. it answered that important question because it had the power to do that, not the power, but the ability to do that because it was faced with the arguments that suggested that. >> i'm just wondering how she squares that with her statement that she made in that duke university speech a while back where she said the appellate

level, the circuit level on which she serves, was the place where policy is made, and then to say that she was circumscribed in what she was allowed to do. isn't it a place where a judge is allowed to establish a precedent or is it one where you just have to go along with something that had been decided at a lower court level or by some other circuit court? >> the circuit court can make whatever decision it chooses interpreting the law unless there's a supreme court decision which determines the decision. if another circuit decides it, the second circuit can disagree. >> so it's fair to say that she should be judged as a person who agreed with the district court in that case, that she liked the decision they made and she upheld it. she did so on a matter of principle. she thought it was okay to throw out a test in which they didn't like the results. >> she thought the law on affirmative action was directed there and she decided it that way.

>> okay. let's talk about an issue that's obviously very hot in pennsylvania. we're both from pennsylvania. i am ultimately, you are the senator. let me ask you this about guns. explain to me what this whole discussion is about whether he's a fundamental right, whether the right that applies to the states as well as to the federal government. the federal government in the case -- the howard case, it's been decided it is an individual right, has nothing to do with militias, you have a right to own a gun. now, does that apply to the states? >> it does not apply to the states, chris. the determinant is that the court would -- the supreme court would have to say that the due process clause of the 14th amendment, which applies to states, incorporates by reference the second amendment. now, the court has said that the due process clause to the 14th amendment incorporates the first amendment right to freedom of speech, fourth amendment search and seizure, and so forth. but in an old case decided that

it did not apply to the second amendment. >> what do you think? is it a second amendment right, like you know when kids study the bill of rights in school, is it a fundamental right in the common way you use the term fundamental? is it like freedom of speech, is it like freedom of religion, freedom of press, of assembly? is it one of the fundamental rights as americans that are god-given or is it something that can be denied by a state? >> well, if i were on the supreme court, i would not make distinctions among the specified constitutional rights that are set forth in the bill of rights. here you get into analyses of what is fundamental and what is not fundamental, and i would say that if the framers -- when the framers put a right in the constitution, whatever the number was, and you start to incorporate rights of the first ten amendments through the due process clause of the 14th

amendment, i wouldn't pick and choose on vague distinctions like what is fundamental. i would include them all. >> okay. thank you for joining us, senator arlen specter who sits on the judiciary committee and will be one of those to judge this confirmation. coming up, did dick cheney have the constitutional authority to keep congress in the dark about a secret cia plan to assassinate terrorists? and when are the democrats going to investigate this matter, if ever? (marco andretti) i race to win. i know when it's the perfect time to change my tires. when it comes to shaving i know when to change my blade. (announcer) gillette fusion's indicator strip fades to white when it may be time to change. fresh blade. better shave. ♪ she does. obviously they do. ♪

oh, and her. in a long line of amazing performance machines. this is the new e-coupe. this is mercedes-benz. there's no one exactly like bill maher and he's coming up, here on "hardball." just 2 aleve have the strength... to relieve arthris pain all day.

an eleven sixteenths wrench over here? here you go. eleven sixteenths... (announcer) from designing some of the world's cleanest and most fuel-efficient jet engines... to building more wind turbines than anyone in the country... the people of ge are working together... creating innovation today for america's tomorrow. thanks! no problem! two identical rooms. so why does this one cost so much less on hotwire.com? when four star hotels have unsold rooms they use hotwire to fill them, so you get them at prices lower than any other travel site, guaranteed.

er, call 1-800-4-boniva. welcome back to "hardball." did former vice president dick cheney have the authority to conceal from congress, its

leaders in fact, a secret cia plan to dispatch hit squads overseas to track and kill senior al qaeda leaders? well, the house intelligence committee has asked the agency, the cia, to provide documents about the program which may set the stage for an investigation of the plan and why it was not disclosed on purpose to the congress. "newsweek" investigative reporter michael isikoff reported on this story today, and lawrence o'donnell is an msnbc political analyst. first, you, michael, who gives this vice president of the united states we just had for eight years the authority, since he says he's not a member of the executive branch -- no, seriously. who gives him the executive authority to tell the cia to do anything? to do anything? >> we went back and forth on which branch in government he -- >> who gives him the right? why did they take orders from him on anything? i don't get this. >> ultimately the cia is part of the executive branch. the executive branch is answerable to the president. if the president delegates his authority -- >> did he? did this president ever say to dick cheney, you're in charge of

intelligence in this country? >> he was -- well, we do know as a de facto matter he was playing a huge role in overseeing the intelligence community. he'd go down to the cia and get personal briefings. he would summon cia officers to his office to get briefs and he would give -- >> the former president has billed himself still today, and i'm sure in his biography, as the decider. who decided to put together hit squads and keep that information from congress? >> well, from what we know, this is one of a number of plans that came up within the ranks of the agency, within the clandestine service under director of operations. and look, it -- >> who decided to keep it secret? we were told by "the new york times" in its lead the vice president decided that. he made a direct order to the cia to do that. >> he told them not to inform congress about it, but first of all -- and to keep it secret, it was all secret at the time. i mean, every -- the president's order giving the cia broad

authority to conduct lethal operations against al qaeda remains classified to this day. we haven't seen the wording of the national security directive on that. we know of its existence. so -- but, look, everybody knew post-9/11 that the agency was going to try to kill top senior al qaeda leaders. we sent drones armed with hellfire missiles to kill top al qaeda operative in yemen, far from the battlefield in afghanistan. that was public -- became public -- >> let me bring in lawrence. there's a national security provision that requires the cia to notify the congress when it's doing these kind of things or if it's anticipating doing something like this. it didn't do so under orders from the vice president. what do we make of this? >> chris, it goes back to your first question which i think is the crucial question is where is the moment? where is the scene? in any of the investigative books that have come out over this period of time, where is the scene where george w. bush says to his vice president, this is your power.

i'm going to hand you this presidential power. in fact, in bob woodward's first book there's a scene on september 12th, the day after september 11th, where the vice president tries to grab the steering wheel by saying, let me run a separate meeting instead of the national security council. he was also interested in being the guy who would chair the nsc meetings. and bush very specifically in that scene says no. and really shoots down the vice president and says i'm going to run it. i'm going to stay in control. i have not found the scene anywhere that would justify what we're now reading in "the new york times" and other places that david addington, that cheney's aide was the guy who was in charge of deciding who in the congress would be informed of these things, especially when the law says, as you just said, the law says the president, the president, not the vice president, the president shall ensure that the congressional

intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed, including about actions they anticipate taking. where is that scene, chris? that's your first question. i don't know who has the answer to that. when did the moment come when this power was handed over to cheney or it was seized by cheney? >> and i ask this in a broad context. we've been through this, mike and lawrence, because everybody has, in the role played by the vice president in the uncovering of the identity of that cia agent, valerie plame, and the whole question as to what he does and how much of a renegade he truly was. did he have any tether on him? did the president ever come in and say, what are you up to today? what do you have for me? >> that's only a question that george bush can answer. because it was -- >> well, have you ever seen the white house layout on the west wing? they're about, what, 20, 30 feet apart from each other. if the president wanted to walk around the corner to the office across, he could have asked. you're saying he didn't ask. >> you know, what took place between the two of them nobody has divined.

clearly, as lawrence just pointed out, there was tension at times between bush and cheney, we know that. but we also know that cheney played an extraordinary role throughout the bush presidency, particularly on intelligence matters. he fancied himself the expert in the white house -- >> he was the intelligence chief. the scary thing is he never felt the need to respond to public inquiry. he never answered questions even about who was on his energy task force. >> right. >> let alone what his role was with halliburton and all the rest of it. here he is, we find out now, okaying the concealment of a secret operation by the cia. in fact, ordering it. and i'm just wondering, what was george tenet's response when he said you're not to tell the congress? george tenet is a product of the congress. he was a staffer on the hill like i was and like lawrence was. how can he say, okay, sir. i'm not going to tell the people i'm supposed to under the law, the national security act, i'm supposed to inform. i'm going to do it because you told me not to do it. >> if you go back in the context of the time, there's no question that george tenet was trying to establish himself with the bush

white house -- >> after blowing 9/11. >> he was the favored -- >> after blowing 9/11, right? >> well, you know, the tenet people said at the time they were going in with hair -- tenet was going in with hair on fire trying to warn them about 9/11 but they weren't -- >> you mean on august 6th. >> there's plenty of blame to go around. >> let's look at dick durbin here. i don't buy this that we're all guilty. i think some people are guilty. here is dick durbin talking about the concealment of that cia program from congress. he's the number two democrat on the hill. let's listen. >> the executive branch of government cannot create programs like these programs and keep congress in the dark. there is a requirement for disclosure. it has to be done in an appropriate way so it doesn't jeopardize our national security, but to have a massive program that is concealed from the leaders in congress is not only inappropriate, it could be illegal. >> so you want the intelligence committee to look into this? >> absolutely. >> let me go back to michael and the law here, first of all. i'll get to lawrence on the law,

too. i understand the word assassination means killing political leaders. there's a gray area there, like munich. golda meir says, go get the guys who killed our athletes. at what point does a person become a political leader and not a terrorist, an operative? >> a couple things. first of all, as we reported today, that was in some part patterned after the israeli mossad operation to gun down palestinian terrorists after the munich olympics. >> which everybody saw in the movie. >> and they request did. you also remember mistakes were made. in one case they got a moroccan waiter who they mistakenly thought was a palestinian terrorist in norway, and members of the mossad team were locked up by the norwegian criminal justice system and spent time in jail. this was one of the things the cia was worried about. you know, that -- risk of exposure, risk they would send these squads into cities around the world and they might get -- someone might tip them off and they might get busted. but, you know, all that said, where was the authority? look, after 9/11 these guys -- we were at war. congress passed the

authorization to use military force. they were military targets. so i don't think there would have been a lot of quarrel about the legitimacy or the legality of doing the operation at all -- >> next step, who is going to cover this for history? lawrence, it took a long time for the church committee back in the '70s to get to the bottom of what the cia had been up to all those years. the crown jewels, if you will. do you think anybody on capitol hill has the stuff, the stones, if you will, to call vice president cheney up there to get the answers out of him under oath? >> they don't as of today. but this story is moving. this story is alive. they certainly didn't last week. it's hard to tell where it's going to be next week, chris. it's all about that momentum. if the momentum moves in that direction, they're going to be forced to do it, and then they will. and eric holder is also -- has the portfolio here that could get us into an investigation that does go on and into some real depth, and you know, chris, going back to your point about tenet, the director of the cia reporting to the vice president or not reporting to the vice president, it seems like we have a collection of people like tenet, for example, who loved his job too much.

you got to remember as we do, dick cheney ran the transition. dick cheney was the guy who was saying to the president-elect, here is who i think you want to consider for cia, here's who i think you might want to consider for defense. so tenet owed his job to clearing cheney's transition filter. and allowing him to stay in it. having been appointed by a democratic president. you know how that works when they keep them in-house like that. i think tenet got compromised at a character level and was owing more to cheney than he should have been. >> let me ask you, michael, where is he? nobody seems to be able to get a hold of cheney. liz, his daughter -- >> cheney? it's very odd that this week after all the speaking out he was doing weeks ago and months ago defending himself, defending bush administration policies, he's been completely silent. >> where does he hide? >> at an undisclosed location. >> it's not funny at some point. the man is -- well, he's impenetrable. i think history will decide some big things about this guy. as well as scooter. who, by the way, i wish he'd write a book.

i'd love to hear his chief of staff tell the whole story. i don't think the guy was out doing stuff on his own. i don't think scooter libby was a renegade. anyway, mike isikoff, thank you. lawrence o'donnell. up next, we've heard judge sotomayor and her senate questioners for two days now. but what are they really saying? the associated press has done something wonderful. they've actually translated what we're watching during these hearings, those of us who have been watching them, and told us what they really were saying. what they really meant. it's great. it's on the "sideshow" coming up right here on msnbc's "hardball."

it can be tough living with copd... but i try not to let it slow me down. i go down to the pool for a swim... get out and dance... even play a little hide-n-seek. i'm breathing better... with spiriva. announcer: spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled maintenance treatment for both forms of copd... which includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. i take it every day. it keeps my airways open... to help me breathe better all day long. and it's not a steroid. announcer: spiriva does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. stop taking spiriva and call your doctor if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, or have vision changes or eye pain. tell your doctor if you have glaucoma, problems passing urine or an enlarged prostate, as these may worsen with spiriva. also discuss the medicines you take, even eye drops. side effects may include dry mouth, constipation and trouble passing urine. every day could be a good day to breathe better. announcer: ask your doctor if once-daily spiriva is right for you.

back to "hardball." time for the "sideshow." first up, tell us what you really think. how many times have you watched someone say something on tv and knew, just knew, what they were really saying? well, we can thank the good old associated press, ron fournier reporting, for doing the honor of giving us the real world

translation of what supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor, chairman pat leahy, and republican -- ranking republican jeff sessions were really saying during opening day hearings on her confirmation. we start with judge sotomayor herself. >> my career as an advocate ended and my career as a judge began when i was appointed by president george h.w. bush. >> what judge sotomayor really meant, according to the ap, was i'm not as liberal as they say. bush appointed me. the senior guy. when senator jeff sessions said this -- >> i expect this hearing and resulting debate will be characterized by a respectful tone, a discussion of serious issues, a thoughtful dialogue, and maybe some disagreements. >> what he really meant, this republican, this is a life-time appointment, folks, we're not going to roll over and play dead.

and my favorite, democratic committee chairman patrick leahy. >> judge sotomayor's journey to this hearing room is a truly american story. >> that was a warning to republicans, if you love america, you're going to love sotomayor or at least do yourself a political favor and vote for her. well, there you have it. speaking of clever word play, listen to barney frank, chairman of the house financial services committee, as he talked message politics last night with my friend jon stewart. >> the unemployment rate continues to go up. what is the stimulus money doing? >> the stimulus money -- actually i will tell you i'm not supposed to call it stimulus. the message experts in washington have told us that we're supposed to call it the recovery plan, that that works out better with focus groups. i was puzzled by that because i have found most people would rather be stimulated than recover. i don't know why i'm -- >> whatever floats your boat. time now for tonight's "big number." remember last month when governor mark sanford jetted off to argentina to meet with his

love interest? well, sanford was there. while he was there, he got a bunch of calls from his chief of staff. 15 in all. and how many did sanford ignore? according to the state newspaper down there in columbia, all 15. governor sanford basking in that argentinean love nest, there's a mixed metaphor, ignored all 15 calls from his top staffer. tonight's "big number." when we return, the host of hbo's "real time," bill maher, will join us with his unique take on politics. we'll get his thoughts on sarah palin's resignation, on what dick cheney was thinking about when he kept that secret cia assassination program secret. bill maher will be here right after the break.

are you all right? a ferocious white whale wrecked my boat. well, i'm sure we can help you, captain... ahab. well, it looks like you haven't had a claim in over four years, so you don't have to pay a deductible. that means you saved $500! $500? i could get an electronic fish-finder. that's the spirit. saving you money on boat insurance. now that's progressive. call or click today.

here's what's happening. police in florida now have seven suspects in custody in the murders of a couple known for adopting special needs children. they now say a safe was among the items taken from the scene. the murdered couple owned several businesses including a finance company and a used car dealership. nasa will make a sixage tempt to send the space shuttle "endeavour" on a delivery mission to the international space station. bad weather and hydrogen leaks have forced nasa to scrub the last five attempts. president obama threw out the first pitch at major league baseball's all-star game in st. louis. fans of harry potter waited in line across the country to see if the boy wizard can still work his magic on the big screen. "harry potter and the half-blood

prince" sold out screenings nationwide. now back to "hardball." welcome back to "hardball." joining me right now is bill maher who hosts "real time with bill maher" on hbo. it's on live at 10:00 this friday night. god, bill, it was great being on your show. it was just great. thank you, sir. and i have to ask you -- >> chris, you were on fire that night. >> what is it like touring the south, as you just did? i'm looking and i feel like this is you with stickers on your trunk. greenville, atlanta, nashville, new orleans, austin, dallas. i was just thinking, south carolina, the home of mark sanford. that must have been fun. and then you went to new orleans, the home of david vitter. i mean, you're making the tour. you got all those republican trouble spots. >> gee, i wish these dates were upcoming, you're plugging them and i already did them.

what good is this? >> i already plugged your damn show. >> you're right. i know. no, i had a lot of fun. chris, i love going to the south. the south is the funnest place for me to play because, you know, you go to a place like greenville or i was also in tulsa, oklahoma, let's plug that one, i did it in april, and, you know, there are so many progressive people who live in these states. now, of course, they're marbled in and surrounded by a bunch of hillbillies and rednecks, but the fact that they're just there is a very positive thing, and when i come to their town, they all come out of the woodwork and they come to my show, and i feel very good that these people do exist everywhere in the united states and i think they feel good that i didn't forget them and say i'm not going to go to that state, that's a bunch of hillbillies. i went there and said, no, i recognize there are people like this everywhere. i have a great time in the south. >> isn't it refreshing to meet southern liberals? because the great thing about

southern liberals is they're not competing for the latest nuance of sexual freedom like in greenwich village. they are liberals meaning they're for black equality, for example. things like that that are pretty nice and wholesome. >> you mean new concepts. yes, and, i mean, you saw that all day with the sotomayor hearings. you know, all these white people, especially these white men, who are so incensed about reverse racism and sotomayor because, you know, the problem, chris, is for too long puerto rican women have had their boot on the neck of white men in america and this must stop. you know, i mean -- >> i just love lindsey graham going after her today about anger management. and here is a guy who was the biggest supporter of john mccain, and he wanted mccain to be president of the united states and he was wondering whether she might have a temperament problem.

did he ever check in with his number one hero on that point? >> temperament and background. they all act like, you know, her background as a puerto rican woman, i don't know how you walk around being that, is somehow different than, you know, like jeff sessions' background as a southern, you know, come on -- i mean he was sort of cast as a racist at one point, like that doesn't come into play in his decision-making. >> no, he's made some unfavorable comments about the naacp over the years. let me ask you about this, how do you handle home state favorites like mark sanford or david vitter? i think you didn't make it to some of the other states where there's problem republicans, but they're all over the place. vegas has got a problem with ensign out there. there's so many of them. you have rick perry who wants to secede from the union down in dallas. you were down there. there's always somebody local to bang. >> right. right. i love it, you know, and i don't

shy away from it. you're right, i was just in austin and dallas, and i talked about rick perry who was just incensed about obama trying to give his state stimulus money to help the poor people of texas, and because of that he threw down the "s" card, the secession over stimulus money. and i said to them, please, texas, what will we ever do if texas secedes from the union. how can we get along without the state that's 48th in literacy and first in air pollution? and you know, there was -- there was a smattering of boos. >> you're not going back there for a while, are you? >> i like to go into -- no, i mean, these people have a great sense of humor about it, and to arrive in south carolina as i did the day after the sanford story broke, and i actually kind of defended him. not that i'm defending hypocrisy or conservative christian right wing republicans, but, you know, at least sanford was truly in love, and i think he looks very

good next to all the other cheating politicians we've seen in recent years. i mean, this guy with e-mails -- >> i'm with you on that, sir. >> what did we see in his e-mails? what's this? you agree with me? >> i'm with you on that one. especially after what ensign did. he just cashiered this lady and said, you know, i acted on my pleasure and selfishness, you don't exist as a person, whereas this guy, you read the poetry of his letters and his e-mail, he obviously, whatever you make of it, and marital fidelity is obviously important, but whatever it is, it's the real thing it looks like, and it is what it is, you know. >> right. i mean, when you read about -- we're so accustomed to bill clinton with monica lewinsky and john edwards and eliot spitzer and, you know, all these politicians, ensign, as you mentioned, and it's always just sleazy. they're just having sex with the easiest road kill they can find. oh, my gosh, the door just closed, my wife is in the other room, come over here and touch

me. you know, it's just very sleazy, quick kind of sex, and this guy sanford, i tell you he could win women back if he just went to this mistress because obviously that's who he loves. that's the third act of the movie. the first act is he falls in love. the second act is he tries to reconcile with his wife, and the third act is the wife finally says, go to her. it's she you truly love. >> so, bill, bill maher, you're not married yet. do you love anybody? >> well, i love your show, chris. >> i just love that back and forth between you and larry king. i just loved it. you'd go after him on your show the other night about how many wives he's had, what, nine or something, and then he comes back to you and says now let's talk about you. you know what they say about -- you know, i just -- anyway, that was high school and i love high school humor. bill, good luck with your show. you don't need it but i love that show. >> since brando died, larry has

nobody to kiss. thank you. >> you're great. bill maher, one of the funniest guys on this planet. "real time" airs fridays at 10:00 p.m. he's moved it up. it used to be at 11:00. on hbo. i want to thank bill for having him on this show occasionally. up next, why did the same republicans who criticized sonia sotomayor just love sarah palin? what is this double standard here? a canadian -- well, a columnist writing up in canada has had an interesting point that we can learn from. who says there's nothing like the taste of cool whip ? ♪ she does. obviously they do. ♪ oh, and her.

(male sportscaster) this has to be perfect. [excited crowd murmuring] it's got the line. it has a chance. will it? will it? (male announcer) something new to crave. the cr-v, from honda. coming up, the clock is ticking on health care reform. president obama is going on the offensive. can he win? can he get congress to do the job this summer? everyday clean to a deep micro-clean. olay deep cleansers reach the micro-particles of dirt some basic cleansers can leave behind for a clean so deep its micro-clean. olay deep cleansers.

an eleven sixteenths wrench over here? here you go. eleven sixteenths... (announcer) from designing some of the world's cleanest and most fuel-efficient jet engines... to building more wind turbines than anyone in the country... the people of ge are working together... creating innovation today for america's tomorrow. thanks! no problem! thanks!

a day on the days that you have arthritis pain, you could end up taking 4 times the number... of pills compared to aleve. choose aleve and you could start taking fewer pills. just 2 aleve have the strength... to relieve arthris pain all day.

we're back. time for "the politics fix" with the politico's roger simon and ruben navarrette of "the san diego union tribune." thank you, ruben for joining us. let's look at something that was written in "the toronto globe and mail." by the way, that's the number one paper up there. she's an american who moved up there. according to leading republican pundits, judge sotomayor is a hot-tempered, dim-witted bigot whose judicial activism, read nutty identity politics, could play havoc with the constitution. amazingly, these are the same people who continue to insist that sarah palin is qualified to run for president of the united states. i thought -- this grabbed me as a brilliant comparison. it really is. because the very qualities of sotomayor, which is up by your

boot straps, studying hard, you know, bringing yourself up, and then this other person that they seem to like based upon no preparation like that, no homework, no scholarships, no effort to manifest, what's the story on the republicans? why do they like someone who has shown no sweat equity? against somebody whose shown nothing but sweat equity? >> because the question is ideology. where do these two women stand on the issues? one is a liberal, one is a conservative. they like conservatives better. there's a confusion in this column. aside from what you quoted, which was the most sensible part, the author goes on and says sarah palin is a train wreck. she's the most scarily incompetent vice presidential nominee in history compared to a dog that, quote, peed all over the carpet, end quote. but she says she's not the subject of a vicious attack by the media. you know, the thing is the trouble with that analysis is it confuses where sarah palin stands on the issues, which you're free to dislike, with how good or bad a campaigner she was. she wasn't a bad campaigner in the last campaign. >> right.

>> so how can you blame republicans for saying, she's a conservative, not a bad campaigner. >> she's an attractive politician because she can give a speech, which separates her from 99% of most of them these days. >> exactly. >> let me go back to ruben. television has destroyed the ability of most politicians to prove their oratorical skills. they can come on shows like this and answer questions with three or four sentence answers and sound delightful. to hold an audience for half an hour, to turn on a crowd is a rarity, and she can do it. that said, there are problems with sotomayor, are they ideological? are they background? are they what? they're going to vote against her. most republican senators will vote against her. >> yeah, i think that's true. chris, i think that, you know, the white house is talking about maybe getting ten republicans to come along, they'll be lucky to get that, but it's possible. a lot of it is ideological. a lot of it is what's coming out in the hearings. this really discomfort people have of the notion of a wise latina giving a better decision than a white male -- >> i don't want to jump the guns here. but what about the temperament issue that lindsey graham raised today, that she's got a temperament problem, when you

have a governor up in a state who just dropped the job, who just in the middle of her four-year elected term just said, i think i'm going to do something else. does that say something about temperament or flightiness or what word would come to mind? >> it's situational ethics. i'm a fan of sarah palin in many regards. you forgot to mention not only can she draw a crowd, 20,000 people strong in many cases. she lit up the mccain campaign. that's no small thing. every politician would love to draw crowds like that. there's a lot to sarah palin and her appeal to folks. back to sotomayor, i think the temperament issue is a false one. because obviously, they've never been yelled at by antonin scalia. harry blackman had a very bad temper. this idea that somehow you go to the supreme court and you mellow out, that's not true. those folks can really yell at attorneys like nobody else. >> what about mccain? what about mccain? >> and mccain has a famous temperament. >> lulg su r >> lindsey graham loves john mccain, has supported him so dutifully and wonderfully.

but everybody knows john can have a hot temper. which i do too. a lot of people have. to say he has a hot temper and yet she needs anger management, i'm sorry, you're laughing because he was tutoring her today. that was condescending. >> if lindsey graham says you're going to make it unless you have a meltdown, what's the point of the hearings? come on, give us some guts. >> that's the worst condescending thing you've ever said on this show, roger. >> what? >> you're taking lindy graham takes orders from a republican senator -- >> i wouldn't stoop so low. >> i thought senator graham was con desecond with his remarks about giving people a second chance. maybe you did something wrong. there's a lot of people who think sotomayor did anything wrong. >> what do you think of him making her doing the dog walk on buying into the views of the war

on al qaeda, we have to not release them until the combat is over. he was going in a direction of saying unless you're willing to basically heel when i talk, do exactly what i tell you, i'm going to vote against you. that's pretty tough. >> that this was after establishing that sonia sotomayor boeing at new york was at ground zero. he was arrogant and condescending all at once. >> i don't sense republicans we'lly, really like sotomayor. they know they're going to lose. >> do you think anybody thinks she's an arrogant lefty? an arrogant elitist lefty? the worst kind of imagery, does anybody look at her that way? >> i don't think so. >> let me ask you this. you know what an arrogant liberal looks like. you're supposed to be educated, superior, they don't read the right books.

i don't think she's come across that way. >> she sweated her way through college. >> they're not angry with her. they don't want to be the party who blocks the first hispanic justice to the supreme court. >> it's not that -- >> she's filling a slot. >> it's not that important of a vote to them. >> we're going to come back and talk about this whole question. i'm going to talk about -- well, let's talk about the health care thing. i think we may have hit a snag on this abortion issue.

we're back with roger simon and ruben from the politics fix. ruben, you lead off here. we get the word now that the president's going to make a lot of tv appearances tomorrow, making the case for health care. he seems to have gotten the word on his trip overseas to africa and europe and russia and everything else, meeting the pope and everywhere, that he's got to really step on the gas now if he wants this thing to get done. >> absolutely. and you know what the problem is, it's democrats, it's members of his own party, they've said all along, conservative democrats, this is a nonstarter for us. we're not going to go and stick our necks out on this plan. i'm not sure that the president

involving himself gives those blue dogs the cover they need. i'm not sure how popular he is on this issue in their districts. >> what do you make of the 19 house democrats who said there can't be any abortion funding in this bill? no national house funding payments for abortion? and by the way, bob casey of pennsylvania yesterday voted with the republicans to ban any money from this bill that's supposed to be for national health going to pay for abortions. >> it's the last thing obama needs. the issue is complicated and divisive and controversial enough without bringing abortion into it. the american people are getting mixed signals. they say they don't want to pay for the program, but they do want to cut costs and they do want some kind of reform, but don't get in way of my doctors and the tests they might order. they're all over the map. politicians are trying to be responsive to all of that. it's a tough enough issue without bringing abortion into it. obama's in a tough spot. i don't think he gets this through. >> i think he did -- i think he will, but he's got to deal with this thing. what do you think, roger? this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. when i see it coming, it came from nowhere.