day -- i'm keith olbermann. good night and good luck. and now a little bit more serious look at the o'donnell campaign to discuss what happens in delaware doesn't stay in delaware. ladies and gentlemen, live in newark, here is rachel maddow. good evening, rachel. what a time in politics. i am not a witch. not since richard nixon said "i am not a crook" have we heard such a grotesque claim of innocence. it came from christine o'donnell in her biographical ad. >> i'm not a witch. i'm nothing you've heard. >> tonight, we've got this and

all the latest op the races around the country, including a new poll that has some good news for democrats. plus, remember the words of deep throat, "follow the money"? now, there's a new report that the u.s. chamber of commerce, which is backing republicans, is running attack ads, or a number of them, from cash raised overseas. who are those companies and what do they want for their money? also, it's gaffes like calling yourself a witch or claiming there are headless bodies in the desert that have led some arizona candidates to hide from the press. is it the tea party a halloween party? will republicans pay the price? plus, it turns out that joe miller was for unemployment benefits before he was against them. apparentally, he picked up his constitutional objections after his wife was receiving them. that is in the side show. let me finish with this question. why can't politicians just fess up when they get caught

red-handed? let's check the newest polls. we'll start with two of likely voters with very different story lines. "the washington post" has republicans up six points now, 49-43 a month ago, that same poll had them up by 13, but here's the bad news for democrats. in a new gallup poll, very big leap for republicans. 13 points among likely voters. now to state races. in the senate race in california, boxer in front over carly fiorina by four points.

in connecticut, democrat dick blumenthal had a seven-point lead over linda mcmahon in a poll taken before the debate. now to florida, where republican marco rubio is at 46% with charlie crist and kendrick meek way behind. governor's races, jerry brown picking up a seven-point lead over meg whitfield -- whitman and that has to do with her employing an illegal all these years. and in the new york's governor's race, cuomo over carl paladino. he says he's going to take out anybody he doesn't like. we'll continue to check the scoreboard each night leading up to election day. let's go to msnbc analyst pat buchanan and mother jones' david cornyn. i think you two are my favorite guys here in terms of belief. you both have very firm convictions. here's christine o'donnell on bill maher's show talking about her involvement with witchcraft. >> i was dabbling into every other kind of religion before i became a christian.

>> you were a witch. >> i was. >> i was, i was a witch. now, here's christine o'donnell's newest biographical tv ad paid for by her campaign. let's listen to her campaign. >> i'm not a witch. i'm nothing you've heard. i'm you. none of us are perfect, but none of us can be happy with what we see all around us, politicians who think spending, trading favors and back room deals are the ways to stay in office. i'll go to washington and do what you'd do. i'm christine o'donnell and i approve this message. i'm you. >> well, that's a nice little tune playing on the piano. >> i thought it was john tesh. >> that was a real piano. don't be mocking. that was a real piano and i think it's a real person. the question is, how does she square her innocent appeal, she's a very likable person. i'd like to meet her, who says she dabbled into these things, including witchcraft. >> maybe she's goofing around on bill maher and that stuff. >> that was a joke in high

school? >> probably made up a lot of it. what she's doing here is running against the washington establishment and against the people -- mocking, ridiculing. >> you never heard of him. >> she's not running against coons. she's running against you. >> but i like her, so it's not going to work. >> people mocking and ridiculing her. she's saying -- you know what she's saying? >> no. >> i'm one of you. it's us against them. >> david cornyn, what people are saying about her is what she was saying about herself in the tapes of bill maher. go ahead. >> no one's making this up.

this reminds me of pat's old boss saying i'm not a crook. when you come on saying what you're not, she's not a hobgoblin or sorceress. she's said so many silly things, not about herself, but policy. china has a plan to take over the united states. that scientists have created mice with human brains. the witch thing is indeed silly, but she has shown she's just not ready for prime time. >> pat, i don't know where you stand on evolution, but she said the other day in a quote, she doesn't believe in evolution, but she said otherwise monkeys would be chasing in front of us. >> the vast majority of people believe evolution and christian creation should be taught side by side, but again, look at what she's doing. >> you weren't taught it. >> i never took biology. they made me take greek, chris. she is down 14 points. this is the for you. what she's trying to do, she's trying to connect with the people of delaware. it is us versus them. >> would you vote for her or coons? >> i would vote for her in a second. i would not vote for coons.

the guy is a bearded marxist. is he mention that? >> i think you got the nail in that coffin. >> intelligence, policy doesn't add up, pat. listen this woman is just not ready. she barely got out of college. she barely got out of college. >> what a snob you are. barely got out of college. harry truman didn't go to college. >> what's worse, a clean-shaven marxist or bearded marxist? >> he called himself -- >> i want to know your calibrations. you think this is better, here's the mcmahon campaign. a devastating ad right before last night's debate. we're going to show you the ad followed by blumenthal addressing it. let's see who won. >> would you lie about serving in a war? >> we have learned something very important since the days that i served in vietnam. >> dick blumenthal did, again and again. >> i'm proud of my military service. on a few occasions, out of hundreds, when i commented on it, i described it inaccurately

and i regret it. i take full responsibility for it. it was not intentional, but that is no excuse. and i want to say that i am sorry, particularly to our veterans and most especially to the veterans of vietnam. >> can you explain the fact that i take full responsibility for it but it was not intentional? how do you say you served in vietnam unintentionally when they have the quotes, just like they have on o'donnell? >> the interesting thing about this, chris, even in some of the same speeches, he said it right sometimes and wrong. he contradicted himself really within five, ten minutes of one another. it doesn't seem it was an outright deception, like in congressman kirk's case and others. >> why would he do it? >> i think it's inexplicable and he'd be up 20 points if he

hadn't of made these dumb mistakes. >> you saying serving in vietnam is a slip of the tongue. unintentional, an inaccuracy? >> at the same time in the same speeches, he described his service accurately. if he's trying to lie, he's a really bad and lousy liar, which might be a good thing to have in politics. >> i think you speak with forked tongues on these issue. i don't know why you're defending him. you defend every single democrat. >> every single democrat? not necessarily. >> name one you don't support. >> well, i don't -- >> name one you don't support. >> chris, i don't endorse candidates. >> you just endorsed him. >> i tell you what i think about him. he talked -- >> okay. >> i have a problem with this guy's statement. i think it's a problem -- >> i think it's a problem more

than anybody. >> when i came home from vietnam and when i was in vietnam, come on. >> here's linda mcmahon. let her do her thing. we don't have to do it. let's hear what linda mcmahon has to say about him. >> and we need people who know how to create jobs. we need people who have walked in those shoes. we need people who have experienced when things aren't so good. i've been bankrupt. i've come back from bankruptcy. i've had the opportunity because of the american dream and this country to grow and to experience what a lot of our folks are experiencing now. mr. blumenthal doesn't have that experience. he's been on the government payroll all of his life. >> that is an effective shot. she's got two. first, this guy lied about vietnam. secondly, he's been on the government payroll his whole life. i don't know if she can win, but if there's any two messages -- >> she's been exploiting wrestlers. she's been taking advantage of workers and saying we don't -- >> okay. i don't have any idea. this is the flip of the coin, this baby.

i want to know who's going to defend carl paladino. here he goes, the two faces of carl paladino. first, threatening a reporter and then in his new ad, where he comes off as rather pleasant. let's listen. >> take you out, buddy. >> how you going to do that? >> watch. >> this is not about my family. this is not about divorces or affairs. it's about a plan to restore prosperity and economic growth to new york state. >> we see him in an unstructured and perhaps unscripted moment where he says, i'm going to take you out, buddy. >> first one was a real guy. >> i can see it, chris. >> okay. you're a journalist. you went to the columbia journal institute. he probably doesn't like you. if he said that to you, what would you make of that phrase?

"take you out." >> i think i would take him seriously. >> what do you think of the phrase, "i'm going to take you out." i think that's the best quote of the campaign here. david, i don't know where you're coming out, but carl paladino, good guy, bad guy? >> i think he's a thug. if this is the best you can come up with in the entire state of new york, then the party is in a lot of trouble.

>> lazio got rough with hillary clinton. this guy, comes up, i'm going to take you. imagine him defending. >> because he came off as -- >> he is 24 points behind. we just showed you. >> he is behind. >> fred dicker. >> fred dicker. >> before that, he was really moving, had cuomo really upset. cuomo was cussing. six points, i think this hurt him badly. >> he was moving because no one knew anything about the guy. >> they like the tough guys. they like that guy. >> they liked the racist cards he sends. did he send you one, pat? >> he didn't go to college either. >> okay. i like it when you're against the upper classes, pat. i do. doesn't speak well of you, mr. cornyn, to be taking the position of the cultural elite. >> saying that having a college education is usually a good thing for government officials. usually a good thing. 20 years to get out of college usually means something. >> you were a speechwriter for the president. >> i had eight years. >> well, that's a long time. >> you were the establishment. he had the post office. >> i had nine. >> if you can count working as a capitol police, couple of senators, speaker of the house, yes, about 10, 15 years. they're both on the payroll. >> watching out for pat buchanan when i leave the studio. there are new reports that the u.s. chamber of commerce is

raising tons of money from overseas to help republicans win elections. we will follow the money, next. you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc.

with the democrats hope to stave off big losses this november, they'll need their core supporters to show up and vote. that's why president obama's holding a town hall with young people next thursday. it will be live on mtv, b.e.t. and cmt. the president will take questions from the audience and also via twitter. the youth vote helped him win two years ago. he needs them to get out there and save the democrats in the midterms. boy, is that a challenge, getting the young people to vote in a midterm. "hardball" back, after this. l. he's a mess! what? no... guys, we're called dedicated claims reps because we each stay with an esurance customer throughout the automobile claims process. it's not because we think we work harder than you. well, you don't.

[ sanjeev ] am i a mess? [ joey ] you slept in the vending machine... [ male announcer ] want a great deal on car insurance? go to esurance.

this is going to be hot stuff. are foreign dollars funding campaign ads in the u.s.? thinkprogress.org has a report today about the u.s. chamber of

commerce and the fight for control of congress. listen to this. here's what they say. the largest attack campaign against democrats this fall is being waged by the u.s. chamber of commerce which can raise and spend unlimited funds without ever disclose anything of its donors a think progress investigation has found the chamber funds its political attack campaign outs of the general account, which solicits foreign funding. editor and chief of thinkprogress.org and vice president of the center for american progress joins us. thanks for joining us. i have never met you before. fascinating report. can you discern where this money's coming from that's apparently going through the u.s. chamber, down here in front of the white house this powerful building down there and going to republican candidates? how's the money run? where does it go? >> let tell you how to works. the chamber is running a $75 million unprecedentsed ad campaign to defeat democrats. it runs that out of a general account. that account, as we reported today, is funded by foreign entities, including foreign owned corporations.

we don't know exactly how that money gets transported, but we know that money is going into a central account being used for running attack ads. >> so, it is fungible, it goes into a big pile of money and out another door? >> that's it. >> is there any way they can argue the money didn't go through that route and out another source? >> they could argue they didn't have internal controls. >> here's what the chamber said, their spokeswoman said -- the report is completely erroneous, the american chamber units around the world are independent organization and they do not fund political programs in the u.s. we have a system in place for ensuring that they are not government-controlled entities. the chamber is proud to have global companies among our membership. we are careful and sure that we comply with all applicableaws. no foreign money is used to fund political activities. >> we want to know what the system is. they claim to have a system. it's not enough to just trust them. >> if you throw a pile of dollars into a pile of dollars,

what difference does it make? the money is fungible. i think they're operating as a pac, chris. you know how pacs are. but the difference here is that packs disclose the money. >> let's go to the motive. i always like to know why. why would somebody overseas want to give to a congressional candidate in the united states? free trade? . the chamber operates like a vessel. health insurers gave them money to run attack ads against health reform while pubically claiming they were supportive of obama's efforts. wall street gave money to the chamber to fight regulations. >> is it a money laundering operation?

you're afraid of that term? >> i'm afraid of that term. i don't know what the point of the companies are. if the record proves anything, it is that people give them money for a reason. when bp gave money, we'll lobby against -- >> so, your story is the money came in the door through foreign sources. went out in terms of campaign contributions to kill democrats and that's all you know and you want to know more? >> if they say they have a system, they should talk about their internal system. the current law prohibits foreign companies -- from foreign companies from donating into american elections. the chamber has lobbied against the disclose act. they said they want transparency. why are they fighting the disclose act? >> we don't know which foreign

entities are giving the money. >> if you are a bahrainian businessman, you are a lobbyist, i would hand you this application. this is an actual application and it says foreign companies are eligible. you're asking, am i eligible? you can get $10,000. where does your check go, chris? right here to washington, d.c. to a general account. so explain your system. >> thank you so much. let's turn now to maryland congressman chris van hollen, the chairman of the democratic national campaign. what do you make of this charge that the u.s. chamber of commerce is basically filtering money from overseas into the pockets of republicans' campaigns? >> it's a troubling possibility here because what you would have then is foreign-controlled interest directly trying to influence u.s. elections by using the chamber of commerce as a conduit. here's what we know. we know that the u.s. chamber of commerce bitterly fought efforts to take away taxpayer subsidies, loopholes that went to companies that ship jobs overseas, that outsourced american jobs. we got that passed over their vigorous opposition. the fact of the matter, their position has been one serves the interest of overseas profits of multinational corporations over

american workers and american jobs, so it's not surprising to see them taking these actions in american elections. but we're seeing the potential now that out of this big, general fund, they are using it for foreign contributions as part of it. we need to get to the bottom of it and the easiest way to do it is for the the chamber to disclose who is putting the money in. >> here's the scary part. you work for an american car company in the country, you work for an american steel company in pittsburgh. you're trying to fight for your job and you find out that somewhere in japan, there's somebody sending money to your senate or house candidate. in other words, they're against free trade and some sort of trade deal. this foreign government that want the trade deal, way to open the market in united states or beat us in some market situation, they're trying to defeat your congress person. doesn't that scare you? >> it does scare me. look, this is a moment of truth for the american voter. are they going to demand -- is the voter going to demand that these third party groups

stumping millions of dollars of secret money into campaigns, are they going to come clean and tell us who's bankrolling them? whose interests are they serving? we know in this case that the u.s. chamber of commerce worked hard to stop legislation that would end these taxpayer rewards for offshoring american jobs. but 60 plus is an organization, chris, that is funded by the health insurance industry which would make hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, from the republican plan to privatize medicare. so voters have got to wake up and ask themselves the question, why are these outside interests secretly funding these candidates and what's their agenda, because i can assure you it's not the agenda that serves the interest of the people in these districts. >> how do you get regular >> how do you get regular people in the country, not far left people or far right people, people who are sort of center left or down the middle voters to get up on the morning of november 2nd and make an effort to vote when they don't have a lot of visceral anger out there? angry people manage to get to the polling place. regular people say i think barack's done a good job. i like the health care. see how it works. i don't like the tax breaks going only to the rich. they agree with your party, but they do it with less passion than the haters do. how do you get them to vote? >> well, look, they need to be reminded about the fact that the day that barack obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs every month. we've made significant process since then. we're not where we want to be but we are making progress. why in the world would we want to return to a set of policies that serves narrow special interests and took the economy

into the ditch? what we're seeing now are these outside groups, americans for prosperity, 60 plus, coming in. they were very well served by the bush economic agenda. that agenda didn't serve the vast majority of people in this country. the interest of the people in these districts. >> how do you get regular >> how do you get regular people in the country, not far left people or far right people, people who are sort of center left or down the middle voters to get up on the morning of november 2nd and make an effort to vote when they don't have a lot of visceral anger out there? angry people manage to get to the polling place. regular people say i think barack's done a good job. i like the health care. see how it works. i don't like the tax breaks going only to the rich. they agree with your party, but they do it with less passion than the haters do. how do you get them to vote? >> well, look, they need to be reminded about the fact that the day that barack obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs every month. we've made significant process since then. we're not where we want to be but we are making progress. why in the world would we want to return to a set of policies

that serves narrow special interests and took the economy into the ditch? what we're seeing now are these outside groups, americans for prosperity, 60 plus, coming in. they were very well served by the bush economic agenda. that agenda didn't serve the vast majority of people in this country. those groups are fighting hard to take us back and this is a wake-up call, chris, to people who don't want to go back. this latest issue about foreign-controlled interests trying to influence the outcome of american elections should send a little shockwave through the electorate. >> thank you very much, congressman chris van hollen. up next, hypocrisy alert. republican senate candidate joe miller has been railing against unemployment benefits, saying they're unconstitutional. apparently not when they go to his wife. check out the "sideshow" next. it gets better and better. back to "hardball." now the side show. first, do as i say, not as i do. alaska tea partier joe miller has taken a particularly tough stance against unemployment benefits. here he is last month on fox. >> why are unemployment benefits unconstitutional, and in a time of a tough economy, a recession and now a kind of jobless recovery, what are you going to do for the 44 million people who are living in poverty? >> i think what you need to look at is the context. we had an extension of unemployment benefits several weeks ago beyond the past. what we have in the -- that if all goes wrong, it's the federal

government's role to get in there and provide for the general welfare. >> well, talk like that makes the following story all the more rich. back when joe miller worked as a federal magistrate judge, his wife worked in his office as a part-time clerk. after she left that job, you guessed it, she applied for and received unemployment benefits. isn't hypocrisy wonderful? next, an oldie but goodie from christine o'donnell. ♪

( music stops, gasping ) mother nature's no match for tampax pearl compak. with a 40% smaller applicator, it's full-size protection... only cuter. ( click ) ♪

back to "hardball." now the side show. first, do as i say, not as i do. alaska tea partier joe miller has taken a particularly tough stance against unemployment benefits. here he is last month on fox. >> why are unemployment benefits unconstitutional, and in a time of a tough economy, a recession and now a kind of jobless recovery, what are you going to do for the 44 million people who are living in poverty? >> i think what you need to look at is the context. we had an extension of unemployment benefits several weeks ago beyond the past. what we have in the -- that if all goes wrong, it's the federal government's role to get in there and provide for the general welfare. >> well, talk like that makes the following story all the more rich.

back when joe miller worked as a federal magistrate judge, his wife worked in his office as a part-time clerk. after she left that job, you guessed it, she applied for and received unemployment benefits. isn't hypocrisy wonderful? next, an oldie but goodie from christine o'donnell. she said she had classified information about the chinese plot to take over the u.s. here it comes -- >> in terms of the government, i

>> close but no comment by o'donnell on that little sugar plum. time for the big number now. let's look at world war i and how it officially ended on sunday. that's when germany finished paying off its debt from reparations imposed by the treaty of versailles. some historians are calling this the real end of the conflict. by that measure, how long has world war i lasted? 96 years. almost a full century from start to finish. 96 years from the beginning of the war to the settling of the german war debt. big numbers. up next, republicans in some big races are avoiding the press. will voters run out the clock without ever answering the tough questions? you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. i'm millissa rehberger.

a mor tore round exploded not far from the embassy. no word on who was behind the attack. the afghan government has launched secret high level talks with the taliban. another round of severe weather is snarling road and air travel for the second night in new york. and a sentence to a man who femt no remorse. and a burglar -- >> and an 8-year-old girl was rescued by an alert driver who recognized a suspected abductor's van and blocked him in and allowing her to jump out.

now back to "hardball" welcome back to "hardball." from tea partiers like christine o'donnell and sharron angle to senators like david vitter, a number of candidates have gone m.i.a., but can they win by dodging reporters and running out the clock on the press? you're chuckling already. i'm going to start with john. let's look at this angle and the latest from her. sharron angle had a tough time clarifying her comment that people may seek second amendment remedies, as she put it. here she is with abc's john carl, followed by her original statement in january followed by her comment with radio host lars larson. let'st let's listen.

>> when you said it, if things don't turn out the right way in this election, people may seek first, second amendment remedies, what did you mean? >> i don't think that was -- >> you tell me. >> we were discussing once again, in a context of the second amendment, we were having a discussion about the founding fathers and why they have put the second amendment into the bill of rights. our founding fathers, they put that second amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. in fact, you know, thomas jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years, i hope that's not where we're going. but if this congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking towards those second amendment remedies, they're saying my goodness, what can we

do to turn this country around? the first thing we need to do is take harry reid out. >> i don't know how to put that. there's an interesting juxtaposition there, john, of this frightening language about using gun play to kill members of congress if you don't like the way they are voting and then that wonderful old phrase i grew up with, "oh my goodness." what is this folksy gun play? is this frontier's woman talk? how can somebody put someone like this in the senate? just thinking, just asking. . i think what disturbs me about watching sharron angle is her

careless rhetoric. you can't actually believe, chris, that she thinks people should go out and shoot members of congress. she said they are domestic enemies inside capitol hill, as if there are some quizlings that we have to worry about. at the end of the original sound bites, she said, we have to take harry reid out. she backed off from that that is very incendiary kind of language. i just don't think she understands the impact of it or if she does, she suddenly gets amnesia about it. >> here's her latest fiasco. she trashed the republican party in a secretly recorded audiotape. let's listen -- >> well, what do you make of that? i don't know if that offends anybody. the republican machine is not exactly in great shape. it's not they are winning the

elections, it's potentially the attitude of the voters. they don't like what is going on, the economy and so forth. how can this -- these kinds of candidates, we're going to run through two or three, if they can elude more serious questioning, i guess they're hoping the voters will forget these incredibly wild comments. >> i think they hope the voters forget that they've already said and they're hoping they don't say any more. it's interesting that with these new candidates, what they lack is experience. and so we often hear from them are real conversation that will take place behind closed doors. and so they don't have the filters that an experienced politician does when they're careful not to say these things when out in public. as john was saying, a careless use of language and in some cases, very dangerous language. i think what we're seeing

several of them do is to pull is is is way back so they can't be caught making a mistake like this again and then, you know, try to run the clock out, as you said earlier, chris, to election day. >> here's jan brewer helped to support that tough immigration law. antiillegal immigration law. here she is having a brain freeze during her opening statement during a debate. i'm not sure what this tells us, but i'm going ask what it tells you. let's listen. >> arizona has been brought from the abyss. we have cut the budget, balanced the budget and we are moving forward. we have done everything that we could possibly do. we have -- did what was right for arizona. >> well, here's how brewer dealt with reporters asking her about

her erroneous claims that illegal immigrants were behind beheadings in the desert, something she said before. let's listen to her defense. >> why wouldn't you reanswer the comment you made earlier about the beheadings in the desert? >> that's a serious question, governor. >> this was an interesting evening tonight. >> do you still believe that? come on, governor. >> okay, thank you all. >> governor, what do you make of -- >> jean and then john, what do you make of that, with the candidate doesn't seem to -- either is having a lack of anything coming to mind or is just saying i don't know. i don't say anything wrong, i

won't get hurt. >> i think this is my favorite one because it is clearly just such a brain lock and i can't imagine like the sheer terror that must have been running through her when she realized she needed to keep saying something. this is a veteran, not a newcomer necessarily. and when i at least can respect in jan brewer, when she was asked recently, when will you go into another debate, she says when my poll numbers start to fall. maybe i'll go then. so she admits she is just trying to run the clock out. >> i think it was jonathan martin in politico this morning that said there used to be the old dean smith four-corner offense in north carolina where you just keep running the clock out. then they have the shot clock and you can't do it anymore. i guess there's no shot clock on these candidates. they can just not shoot the ball, not say anything when they've said stupid things before and don't want to talk about them. >> well, what's interesting, chris, and you have known a lot of skillful politicians, if they get thrown off their script or don't remember their script, they'll pivot and go somewhere else. what's interesting in brewer and angle is that brewer started to chuckle in the same way you say sharon angle chuckled with jonathan carl when taken off script.

she does that a lot and it's clear if they go off of their script or taken off of their script, they get into trouble, which is why they're doing the four corners to run out the clock and hoping and here in nevada, they're just counting on the fact that so many people, so many just hate harry reid, that they'll vote for anybody but harry reid. she can still win this race with that strategy. >> could it be that ignorance is bliss? maybe it's right. the old phrase. anyway, thank you. i hope not. i hope you have to know something to get elected. thanks a lot. i hope you have to answer questions, too, john. up next, republicans look to tie a popular government to president obama governor while the tea party ties to label lisa murkowski a sore loser. we've got hot new campaign ads, next.

we're learning more about the tea party and its supporters, a new poll found that there is significant

overlap between the tea party and the christian conservative movement. roughly half of tea partiers say the bible is the literal word of god, literal, and the same numbers say public officials should pay more attention to religion. in addition, the poll's author say there is no significant demographic differences between tea partiers and christian conservatives. no surprise there at all. "hardball" will be right back.

back to "hardball." with one month to go in this election, political ads are powerful and they are nasty. can they make the difference? michelle bernard is the

president of the independent . his new book is called di sint grags, the splintering of black america. we will talk more about that. this ad against west virginia senator candidate. >> obama's messing things up. >> spending money we don't have. >> stimulus, obama care. >> and joe supported it all. he turns into washington joe. >> and washington joe does whatever obama wants. >> we'd better keep him here in west virginia. >> away from washington. >> it's the only way we're going to stop obama. >> so hokie but what do you think? don't trust them in washington. >> this has been the most effective argument against joe manchin. people like him a lot. he's a popular governor.

let's keep him here and keep him away from the washington -- >> corrupted. >> this ad from the karl rove group. you would probably expect this to be what it is. let's listen. >> the choice is clear. rubio stood up by saying no. charlie crist embraced it. marco rubio opposed obama care with its $500 billion medicare cuts. charlie crist has flip-flopped. >> you think there's only two people in the race. >> and you'd never know one of them used to be a republican. they've turned crist into a democrat, tying him to barack obama. no mention this once was a poster boy for the republican party. >> they don't even mention the democratic candidate. >> don't even know who it is. >> they don't worry about him. this group criticizes lisa murkowski.

she's the one who lost the primary to joe miller. here is part of the ad. let's listen. >> now lisa is trying to pretend she's running to serve us. yeah, right. >> so i am here to tell you, you are disenfranchised no more. >> you lost, lisa. and it's time you respect this senate seat doesn't belong to you. >> there you go. a pretty strong knock there. >> a strong knock. i don't know how well that will work in alaska. this is a group trying to win in alaska politics. she is well known. they're alaskan to the core. i don't know if this is really going to work. >> republican miller and murkowski, both republicans in a statistical tie. remember, voters have to write her name in.

i'm not sure that's hard to write a name in. don't even have to spell it right. just get a strong effort there. let's go to wisconsin and russ feingold running for his life with this ad. the nfl has some problems with this video. this is the add put out by russ feingold to save himself. let's watch the ad first. let's listen. >> there's dancing in the end zone. >> in pro football they call this excessive celebration. >> that is disgusting. >> and they punish it with fines and 15-yard penalties. that's exactly the kind of behavior the corporate special interests and ron johnson are engaging in. they think they're going to change it. fortunately the game isn't over yet. >> what do you think of that ad? is that pathetic or what? >> i don't like -- i don't particularly like the ad and the nfl doesn't like it because they

protect the brand. they don't want the brand. >> hot dogging in the end zone, spiking the ball, the whole thing we've been through. i don't think people get it anyway. thank you. come back and we'll talk about it. michelle bernard, thank you as always. they don't say, i got me ever. ♪ [ woman ] my house wants me to live here for a long time. [ man ] my retirement savings have places to go. [ male announcer ] plans...dreams... they're important to you.

[ woman #2 ] our girls should focus on their future, not ours. [ male announcer ] but you can't overlook the possibility that down the road, if you needed some kind of long-term care, everything you've planned for could be at risk. so i got long-term care insurance. [ male announcer ] help protect your plans with aarp long term care insurance from genworth financial. it can help cover the high costs of long term care, like assisted living or in-home long term care. it's a choice we made for each other and our kids. [ male announcer ] call now to get your free information kit. the national average cost of care is well over $75,000 a year. and, generally, it's not covered by health insurance or medicare. aarp endorsed long term care insurance can help protect your assets, your family, the things you've worked hard to build. choose from a range of affordable plans; including plans with nursing facility and in-home long term care coverage. and typically, the younger and healthier you are when you apply, the lower your rates will be.

call for your free information kit to get started. these plans are offered by genworth life insurance company, a leader in long-term care insurance with over 35 years' experience. and they're endorsed by aarp. but you don't need to be a member to call. long-term care is just one of those things many of us may have to face. if you have dreams, and we all do, now is the time to protect them. i enjoy today because tomorrow has a plan. [ male announcer ] help protect your plans with aarp endorsed long term care insurance underwritten by genworth life insurance company, and in new york, genworth life insurance company of new york. call now or go online for free information.

let me finish tonight with the refusal of politicians to

admit it when they're caught. believe me, this is bipartisan. people in both parties right now are denying what everyone else can see. they have their heads so deep in the sand that all we can see is their rear end sticking up in the air. who should i start with? okay, how about up in connecticut we showed you democratic senate candidate richard blumenthal captured in that tv ad by linda mcmahon captured claiming, on a number of occasions, he'd served in vietnam. he didn't, of course. he never stepped foot in the country much less got there when the bullets were flying. he was never in it but got himself caught on several occasions saying he was. last night in the debate he said

he regretted describing his service inaccurately. why is he still talking like this, refusing to say he never served in vietnam, should have never said he did and it wasn't a slip of the tongue? why don't they admit it when caught? you got me, when we were playing cops and robbers. was he one of the ones who refused to say it when he was clearly hit, when he fouled a guy in basketball, is he the guy you want representing what's happening in washington, representing you in washington when you can't get a simple admission out of him when he's caught red-handed? how about meg whitman? she hired someone for a decade and then says she never knew the person she claims she knew like family. you had the money to hire someone legally documented and you went for the cheaper deal. now you're paying for it. okay, christine o'donnell. it's impossible not to like her for the reason she seems childish about who she was, who she is. i don't know what sounds weirder, when she said on bill maher without a hint of embarrassment that she was a witch on in the new ad where she says almost in a caricature of richard nixon, i am not a witch.