the 2,304th day since declaring victim in afghanistan and the disaster in the gulf. i'm keith olbermann. good night and good night and now to discuss christine o'donnell using rachel maddow in a fund raising letter, ladies and gentlemen, here is -- wait. hold on. i have it. rachel mad disease dow. good evening. >> you are in it, too. >> oh, terrific. what happened to our idea? >> that we were going to try to take a cut from these guys? >> charge them for it. if o'donnell keeps campaign funds, why can't we keep some of these campaign funds? >> it seemed vaguely illegal and now nothing's illegal in campaign finance. >> just as long as nobody touches anybody or themselves, we're fine, right? >> i'll see if i get bahrain to pick up the tab for it. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you for staying with us for the next hour. this is a cable news show that talks less about sarah palin than most other cable news

shows, at least as far as i know. has to do with the fact that miss palin does not have a job or any sort of formal position in any sort of political entity other than the position at the fox news channel. however, in miss palin's capacity as conservative celebrity without port noel owe, she's done liberals and democrats a huge favor for this year's elections. she's picked a fight that is exactly the kind of fight that liberals and democrats should want to be having across the country right now. that is coming up this hour and richard angle is live here in studio and a very large chart we are very proud of. lots coming up. we begin with the republican establishment making an unexpected choice today. about how to handle one of the most high profile races. they have to make difficult decisions about candidates, specifically the more colorful unorthodox candidates who have unseeded more establishment republican choices across the

country. for candidates in republican primaries this year, nothing was beyond the pale. there was no policy to make a republican primary candidate seem too conservative. this year, there was nothing that screamed unelectable about arguing that women should be forced to barer that rapist's children or we should get rid of the right to elect senators or threatening that conservatives will turn to violent revolution. they will use the right to bear arms to get their way if they don't by voting in the elections. none of that too extreme for candidates competing in primaries this year. not this year. but now, it's no long the primaries and the republicans powers that be have to assess who's viable? who gets triaged and cut off and left on the side of the road by the republican party because that person has no shot at winning? who still gets party backing? who might make it? they have to decide and that from which of the candidates the

party is going to accept leadership. they have to figure out which of these candidates' positions are going to be adopted as the republican party's own positions. hard decisions to make for the republicans this year. hard decisions to make particularly in a year when the candidates, the party chose, didn't win. well, in the last 24 hours, remarkably the republican party decided to get behind probably their least viable major ticket candidate, a new -- aalso decided to adopt what is original bring the single craziest position that candidate has taken and when's been a crazy campaign. here's christine o'donnell speaking at a debate during the 2006 senate primary in delaware. >> i think that in making a statement whether china is a friend or foe we have to be careful not to label all chinese but in terms of the government, i think that there is a very carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over

america. i think that china, the chinese government is definitely a foe. there's much i want to say that i -- i wish i wasn't privy to some of the classified information that i am privy to because i think that -- we can't be -- >> can i interrupt you and say how are you privity to classified information? >> because i've been working with various non-profit groups for over 15 years and we have been sending missionaries to china for a very long time and these missionaries go to china and -- with risking their lives because you are not allowed to be a christian over there. so a country that forces women to have abortion and mandates that you can only have one child and will not allow you the freedom to read the bible, you know think they can be our friend? we have to look at our history and realize if they pretend to

be our friend, they have something up their sleeve. >> credit to the poor guy who's saying, you have a security clearance? you have a security clearance to handle classified information? she's like, shut up. i have more to say about china. i can't tell you how i know it. the existence of this argument from christine o'donnell unearthed by the associated press earlier this week that dug up the audio. christine o'donnell not commenting on this revelation since it was made public. we called the campaign to get a comment. shockingly none was offered but the republican party, the actual republican party by way of the current chairman michael steele and the former chairman still appearing to be not so secretly running things with some real power there ed gillespie asked about the proposition that she had classified information of an impending chinese takeover of america, how's how they responded. this is incredible. start with the michael steele

clip of him speaking last night with lawrence o'donnell. >> do you agree with christine o'donne o'donnell? do you wish she wasn't privy to classified information? i mean, america would be safer if she was not privy to classified information, wouldn't it? >> christine o'donnell is a fantastic candidate for us and i can't wait to call her senator. >> she is lying about the classified information, right? reassure the country -- >> i don't -- do you know that, lawrence? >> she doesn't have any class y classified information. don't worry. >> do you know that? do you know that? is it legal for her to have classified information? >> do you know that for to sure? >> to an absolute certainty. >> deduce your evidence and invite me back on the program to talkn't it. >> she is absolutely lying. >> do you think o'donnell has classified information? >> i don't know what information christine o'donnell has.

i think there's a very legitimate concern about the extent to which china controls our debt and the impact that's going to have on our economy. >> that's -- >> and the fact that china -- >> you know that's not the question. the question is her making a statement that she has classified information -- >> well, chris, i don't know what information christine o'donnell has or doesn't have. >> do you think it's likely? >> whether it's classified or not, i don't know. >> chris januarysing with ed gillespie. he says he didn't know. it's possible christine o'donnell has classified information about a secret chinese plot to take over the united states. she had that classified information leaked to her, leaked to her in her capacity back in 2006 as a religious right anti-condom activist. do you think that's -- do you think that's right, huh? getting a security clearance so as to be privy to classified information is not as easy as you might imagine involving a

polygraph test and investigations and visits from the fbi. you don't get that far unless the government decides that you need to know secret classified information. my guess is conservative pr reps with friends who are missionaries probably not at the top of the government's need to know list even in the bush administration. if someone who did have access to classified information did somehow leak classified information to christine o'donnell, that would most likely be a crime. leaking information to anti-condom activists or anybody else without a security clearance is punishable by u.s. law with prison time and everything. so if we're actually to the point where people taking this claim that christine o'donnell was privy to classified information, seriously, making that case both on this network twice in the last 24 hours then by rights there should be calls for a criminal investigation into a leak of classified

information to somebody who should not have had it but the republican party chairman and the former chairman who secretly seems to be running things with karl rove, they're just going with this. you know, christine o'donnell today down 17 points in one poll and down 24 in the other. but the republican party's leaders are with her. on what might be the craziest thing she has ever been found to have said. so far. who knows what bill maher will unveil on friday? meanwhile, if there is a secret chinese plot to take over the united states, maybe they're starting with our government. democrats have apparently decided to use that prospect as a cudyul to beat them over the head this election. you know of the operation of this elections, more on crossroads, american crossroads coming up in a moment. but do you want to know who's spending more on conservative causes and candidates this year? the chamber of commerces,

chambers pledge to spend $75 million this campaign season. there's no bigger dog in the dogfight of outside groups funding ads this year. $75 million. think progress at the center for american progress yesterday exposed how with the chamber spending $75 million this year, nobody has any idea where that money comes from. to quote the chamber funds the political attack campaign out of the general account which solicits foreign funding. so $75 million being spent to influence the outcome of u.s. congressional races out of a fund that reportedly accepts contributions of foreign entities. the chamber has freaked out about this allegation from think progress. putting out statement after statement. i think it's at least five statements at last count attacking think progress for having made this allegation. but so far the only thing they have said to assure us their $75 billion big foot anti-democratic ad binge is not fueled by

foreign money by, say, chinese companies, trying to decide who's elected in the united states, the only thing to say to refute that charge is they have a system, an internal system to make sure that the foreign money they solicit into their general fund doesn't touch the attack ads they produce and fund out of the general fund. a system the details they will not disclose and pinky swear that it isn't really what they're spending on the massive ad war against democrats. they promise. are you assured? are you assured by the promises? democratic candidates are counting on you not being assured by that. here's what democrat of virginia had to say about an ad in his home district. >> this latest move is beyond outrageous. to being fundamentally unearn and undemocratic. i'm outraged. i think senator hurt's just got to decide at this point whether

there is any principles more important than winning and i would think protecting american democracy and american jocks up there. >> hitting his opponent for letting the chamber of commerce fund ads on his behalf. quote, why won't ken buck stand up to the practices of these expebd which you ares to fund smear campaigns. ken buck should reject the chamber's support and stop running ads on his behalf with tainted foreign money. the size of the worry about this allegation from think progress, the size of the worry about this prospect of foreign funding of an effort to shape the u.s. government, the size of the worry about this allegation on the right is evident in the size of the freak-out about these allegations on the right and they are freaking out. joining us now is scott thomas, former chairman of the federal

election commission. thank you for being here. a real pleasure to have you on the show. >> thank you, rachel. happy to be here. >> can you help us understand how serious this charge is? if foreign money is in the ads, is that illegal? >> well, most likely, yes. there's been a prohibition, a flat prohibition of foreign national contributions and expenditures for many, many years and so if it turns out that any money, in fact, is being knowingly put into the process from foreign companies or from foreign government sources that would be a serious problem. >> how are -- how are you those laws against foreign contributions to american political campaigns enforced? if so many of the outside groups don't have to disclose the donors, how do you enforce it? >> well, we do have a very weak disclosure system right now and it makes it much harder,

obviously, to track the kinds of things to get the leads that would help people unearth these kinds of connections. the federal election commission, bless their hearts, they have issued a series of rulings recently that have made the disclosure almost non-existent because in essence a donor can avoid disclosure by basically not earmarking their money to be used for particular ads, for particular candidates and so we are seeing far less disclosure so the chances of people picking up on these stories is certainly less these days than it used to be. >> at this point, the way that the law is set up with the fec rulings, citizens united precedent in the supreme court, am i right to think that the only real protection that we have got about this is voluntary? it's the honor system, that these pacs that don't disclose the funders assure us that the

donors are americans, that foreign governments and or state-owned companies, foreign companies assure us they're not trying to influence things in american government, but there's -- we sort of have to take their word for it. >> well, it's an area where there are lots of lawyers and accountants busy scurrying about to try to make sure they can demonstrate, say that they always had sufficient other kind of money on hand and didn't have to use the foreign money. that's what we lawyers do, for example. but you're right. the reality is that you can't really know for sure without a thorough system of disclosure. you can't blame a lot of these organizations. i represent these kinds of organizations on a daily basis and as a practical matter nobody really wants to have the role of did nors disclosed if they can avoid it but i think a llt ot o citizens are becoming more aware of the gap in the disclosure system and frustrated not

knowing who's behind the ads so, you know, i think there will come a time, maybe by the next election cycle where someone will tighten up on the disclosure system and we'll be able to know more. >> after the damage is done, as it were, in this election round. scott thomas, former chairman of the federal election commission, helpful to have your advice to call on tonight. thank you very much. >> happy to help. still to come, a giant adorable chart. that moves. and maybe shim mys. there's also apparently been a public sighting of delaware's christine o'donnell who singular devotion to voerts has begun in a controlled environment, of course. she's out there. highlights ahead. orld. with us, in spirit, was every great car that we'd ever competed with. the bmw m5. and the mercedes-benz e63. for it was their amazing abilities that pushed us to refine, improve and, ultimately,

develop the world's fastest production sedan. [ engine revving ] the cts-v, from cadillac. the new standard of the world.

here's something i learned from my trip to delaware yesterday. two words that the republican party thinks can get the base riled up and fat check writing mode. two words, two words that rhyme

with smrachel smaddow. back in the 80's, it was really tough for me and my family. i was living on welfare and supporting a family of four. after i got the job at walmart, things started changing immediately. then i wrote a letter to the food stamp office. "thank you very much, i don't need your help any more." you know now, i can actually say i bought my home. i knew that the more i dedicated... the harder i worked, the more it was going to benefit my family. this my son, mario and he now works at walmart. i believe mario is following in my footsteps. my name is noemi, and i work at walmart. ♪

will republicans take over the united states senate in this year's elections or will democrats hold them off and ri tan their majority? for whatever that's worth. who gets to decide the control of the u.s. senate this year? well, you do. you the voter get to decide. but to the extent that money helps sway things one way or the other, too, you should know that on the democratic side, it's the democratic senate campaign committee, the dscc of the democratic party that's doing most of the senate spending, about 96%, 96% of that spending

according to open secrets.org comes from public conors. okay in that's the major senate spending on that side. 96% of the donors are public. we can or at least can find out who nose donors are. and there is a republican counterpart to this led by michael steele and the fire nancy pelosi school bus thing and it's the private plain crowd, they're funding groups like karl rove and ed gillespie's american crossroads. as reported today, mr. rove and mr. gillespie's groups announced a brand new giant ad buy all of which american cross december roads translated into new tv ads in eight states by sunday. that will make it $18 million that american crossroads and counterpart crossroads gps spent

to get republicans elected to the senate this year. 18 million bucks. 18 million bucks trying to get republicans elected to the senate. where did that 18 million bucks come from in who's trying to buy that much influence in the senate this year? to explain, we'll use pie. not the delicious kind that if you were on a diet you just stare at rather than consume but the delicious kind you consume by staring at it. this pie chart here, we got it? yes. represents every bit of american crossroads' new ad buy. 75% of the money there came through karl rove and ed gillespie's second fund raising arms. crossroads grass roots policy strategy. that's where 75% of the funding came from for the new ad buy and a moniker and never know the global positioning of the people that gave the money. donors that send money in through the gps and 75% there, those donors remain anonymous.

anonymous donors. okay? so the dscc an the democratic side, 96% public. crossroads gps giving a big advantage in ad buys, 75% private. don't worry, though. we may never know they promise none of those donors is foreign. they're secret. won't know about them before the election but karl rove's group promises us, comforting. yay, shot a democracy. what's more interesting is what and who we do know about. 25% of the money from the american crossroads not the gps part. we know those donors. they disclose those do lors. actually, this 25%, we know who they are. i love to talk about this in more detail. they deserve a closer look. sort of small. can you blow this pie up? explode that little part of the pie there. well, hello! it's billionaire impersonator.

kent jones. hello. >> hello. i have part of the pie. >> thank you very much. you have exploited the pie. >> indeed. >> thank you. in his hands here, what you see is remaining 25%. all right? of this funding. almost all of that, the part that is in gold, that huge chunk is three guys, three people, as we have talked about previously, justin elliott of salon.com reported that the three guys make up 91% of that group's funding. they're trevor reece jones, robert rouling and carl linder represented by living dollar signs. 91% of the donations in august. 75% of this big, new ad buy we're never going to know who donated and most of the rest of it comes from three guys. ta-da! that's your senate this guy. the grassroots anti-incumbent tidal wave financed by 75% of the people you'll never know and

25% by mostly three guys. democracy. joining us to discuss the campaign finance is peter stone from the non-profit organization specializing in investigative journalism. thank you for joining us. >> thank you very much. a pleasure. >> can you put this new american crossroads/gps ad buy into some sort of historical perspective? how big a deal is this? >> what we are seeing this year on the republican side is really could be quite unprecedented. i mean, they have already raised tens of millions of dollars. american crossroads and allied gps raised $32 million thus far and they seem on track to reach their goal of 52 million. the chamber of commerce is trying to raise 75 million. they have spent about 20 million thus far. they have really stepped in as you indicated before to avoid. they have taken over much of the function that used to be done by the republican national

committee. and they moved in, they started thinking about this seriously late last year when the republican national committee was beset with one problem at another. image problems. over expense problems. and gillespie and rove started meeting with others and they really had a game plan for putting together american crossroads which they were the top outside advisers to, informal advisers, how they started raising money for it and the supreme court decision came along in january and was a g godsend, a blessing basically because it allowed the groups to accept unlimited contributions from corporations and individuals. something that they could not do before and spend them directly on ads advocating for and against individual candidates. >> when we look at the disclosure rules now, some of them seem not just loose, not just like they've changed and

become more laissez-faire but strange. for example, trying to figure out who the donors are, the vast majority of anonymous donors to this big, republican ad buy for the senate right now, the news on this is essentially the donors might be disclosed next year. that the money's going to be spent in this year for this election cycle and that we may eventually find out who the do noers are and required to disclose who they are and could happen as late as november 2011. why does that even make sense? >> right now, under the irs rules they never have to disclose their donors but file reports on their spending and other activities sometime next year. but the irs now grants groups like gps 501-c-4 and chamber of commerce total freedom not to disclose the donors and most of the new groups set up this year have been set up purposefully as 501-c-4s to protect the identity

of large donors who are nervous about the climate this year. nervous because the supreme court decision just came down several months ago. they're nervous because 80% of the populace said in polls they a oppose the decision. many corporate donors decided safer to go with groups that will protect our identity, safer to go with groups under the radar basically. >> we all have to pay the price. amazing. peter stone, center for public sbeg ri thety, thanks. >> thanks. turns out that former alaska governor sarah palin and i agree on what maybe should be the big national issue for this year's elections. careful what you get paid lots and lots of money to wish for story of 2010 coming up next. our first grandson. he sees you.

( laughing ) ( speaking korean ) ( children squealing, laughing ) dwight eisenhower: in the goodness of time all people will come to live together in a peace guaranteed. ♪ you may say i'm a dreamer ♪ ♪ but i'm not the only one ♪ - ♪ i hope someday... - good night, baby. ♪ ...you'll join us ♪ and the world will be as one. ♪ announcer: together. we are the human network. cisco. kowalczyk. [ man ] emergency, kowalczyk. what is your emergency? the intern forgot the donuts for the status meeting. ♪

bingo. [ tires screech ] ♪ ♪ bang. [ male announcer ] that's right. we put a turbo in a sport cross. the all new nissan juke. innovation for success. innovation for all. st. cloud, minnesota. ask me what a cloud feels like. and here are the first real people to sleep on those brand new clouds. ask me what it feels like to be comforted by a cloud. a new tempur-cloud supreme by tempur-pedic is the plushest, softest, tempurpedic ever. ask me why we love our cloud. ask me how it's soft as a cloud and it still supports me. tempur-pedic. the most highly recommended bed in america. take the first step! call today for your free information kit with dvd. call the number on your screen or visit tempurpedic.com/cloud.

it's a biggest advance of the boergs industry in america truly has been as of late the passage of obama care. >> the abortion industry. she says the abortion industry. you know, it's like the defense industry. or even the military industrial complex. but for abortion. you know, the abortion industrial complex. >> biggest advance of the abortion industry in america truly has been as of late the passage of obama care. that's why it's essential that we use the 2010 midterms to

elect a congress that will make undoing the damage of obama care its first priority. >> because of the abortion industry. former alaska governor republican vice presidential candidate sarah palin speaking last night for money. it was a paid speech, reported speaking fee is $100,000. last night, it is apparently that fee was apparently paid by a conservative media group that runs anti-abortion ads. i don't really know what she means by the abortion industry but clearly the anti-abortion industry is paying very well this year. the idea that there's government-funding for abortion services in the health reform bill is, of course, bull puck i can and in the fund raising juggernaut of the anti-abortion world, that's sort of beside the point. the profoundly, profoundly profane and excellent long-time political blog wonkette wrote

about the for-profit anti-abortion speech. quote, of course, the pro-choice folks were angry about health care reform because the administration created the hoops to make sure that no federal money was spent on abortions, specifically to not anger pro-life democrats. apparently they shouldn't have instituted and instituted a big money for your fee which you say program instead because the republicans are going to complain about it anyway. god bless them. big dollars for your fetus. who's important about this speech is not just that conservatives are running on supposedly pro-choice and in their termed pro-abortion policy that isn't real, they have made something up about abortion rights to rile up the base. that is not news. that's tuesday. that's any other day of the week that ends in "y." what is important and novel about this for this year's elections is sarah palin

influential conservative celebrity without port noel owe using the giant platform as a conservative celebrity to argue that the right wants this year's elections to be about abortion rights. you really want to have a debate about abortion rights? this year, the year republicans running the most extreme anti-abortion crusading candidates? you want a national debate about abortion rights when republicans are running all of these candidates whose position on abortion rights is the government to force girls and women raped to bear the child of the rapist or relative who impregnated them through incest? this year, this year you really want to have a national debate about abortion rights? that is a sarah palin for-profit invitation that every democrat in the country should be very excited to rsvp to. [ male announcer ] you are a business pro.

lord of the carry-on. sovereign of the security line. you never take an upgrade for granted. and you rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle. and go. you can even take a full-size or above. and still pay the mid-size price. i deserve this. [ male announcer ] you do, business pro. you do. go national. go like a pro.

[ male announcer ] you do, business pro. you do. investors are putting their money back to work. but not just anywhere. this time around, i want facts. i'm probing. analyzing. td ameritrade's made for that. they give me free, objective research...

from standard & poor's... morningstar... independent experts. and i can call td ameritrade anytime... day or night... or visit a branch. for help, not just a sales pitch. they actually know the difference. call, click, or come in to td ameritrade. on my orders, the united states military has begun strikes against al qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the taliban regime in afghanistan. >> the time difference between the eastern united states time

zone and afghanistan is 8 1/2 hours. they're 8 1/2 hours ahead there which means tonight it is already tomorrow in afghanistan. which means it is nine years ago that we invaded afghanistan. if the war were over, we would call that an anniversary. because the war is not over instead what we have to say is that tomorrow is day one of year ten. of america's war in afghanistan. joining us tonight for the interview is nbc news chief foreign correspondent richard engel, thanks for coming in. >> good to see you. how are you? >> good business weirded out by starting ten years in afghanistan. >> i speak with military commanders as you know a lot and ask them how things are going in afghanistan and some recently say, well, you know, we are still trying to get our handle around the cultural significance and the ramifications of afghanistan. now. recently. this is nine years in. they're still trying to figure out the cultural nuisances and how the different tribal

politics work. in the start of year ten. >> while we're doing -- while our military strategy hinges on this incredibly culturally sensitive counter insurgency idea to create a space for a government. >> first counter terrorism and then it was we're going to make hearts an enminds and make friend and now the idea is, well, we'll come up with a peace deal with the insurgents so there's been a lot of strategies and i think the u.s. is still searching for what to do in afghanistan. what is it trying to accomplish there? general petraeus told "the new york times" last week, quote, this is how you end these kinds of insurgencies. essentially saying this is how the war ends, talking about the fact that the karzai government negotiating the w the taliban i think trying to prep the american media for the idea that the war will end by talking. >> that is what he wants to do. remember, general petraeus didn't want to be there. he didn't want this job. he had a better job, if you

will, at cent-comm and when the previous general pretty much imploded he was drafted in. and by all accounts he wants to be there for a year and wants to wrap this conflict up. the only way to do that is to come up with a negotiated settlement and to come up with a smaller objective, what was the objective? was it to get rid of al qaeda in afghanistan? you can do that if you make a deal with the militants and say, okay. we will give you some sort of an arrangement but get rid of al qaeda. and i've spoken with taliban leaders saying they're willing to do that. you just have to find a consensus and find a way that gets everyone on board. >> how far along are these talks and how involved is the united states? >> the talks are probably not as far along as "the washington post" implied today but they're pretty far along. the taliban is a divided organization. and i've spoke within senior u.s. military intelligence officials and they say that the

top leadership of the taliban living in pakistan want a deal. they want to go home. they've had enough of this. they're losing control of their own organization. that some of the more radical leaders on the ground who are fighting in eastern afghanistan or southern afghanistan no longer listen to them. and that this older generation of the taliban may have learned something from its experience deeply regrets defending osama bin laden and would like to come back to the party k. you trust them? can you make a deal and still relevant when the people who are on the ground fighting, carrying the ak-47s don't listen to the older leadership? that's what general petraeus wants to do. classic divide and conquer. make a deal with the people willing to make a deal. eliminate those who won't and what he did in iraq and that is the way you end this conflict. >> isn't pakistan then the most important wild card? crossing the checkpoints, shooting people in pakistani

territory, how important that is and politically. >> look back at pakistan. a shadow war in pakistan sometime now and everyone in pakistan shows that it happens but the pakistani government doesn't talk about it very much and it's been drone attacks in remote areas. what happened over the last two weeks has been significantly different. last week, first helicopters crossed in and attacked killing about 50 people. a lot of them insurgents according to the u.s. military. then last week helicopters again crossed over and killed two or three, pakistan says three of the border guards. now that is an act of war. when you have helicopters crossing into an allied country and attacking the -- your friendly forces there. so pakistan went very -- they got very upset.

they were insulted. they thought their sovereignty was violated and they responded which in a draconian way cutting off the supply lines so now you have hundreds of tankers going through pakistan that can't get into afghanistan that are literally stuck by the side of the road. >> sitting ducks. >> sitting ducks. a lot of them set on fire and that's the situation right now. today, the ambassador, the u.s. ambassador in pakistan apologized. >> right. >> that apology could unblock this crisis but it is a real crisis and it also shows how -- to understand when's going on in pakistan right now you have to understand the political situation in the country. the government is weak. >> very weak, yeah. >> the media in the country is very, very aggressive. so, when everyone saw that helicopters were coming in, it became a media frenzy in pakistan and the government had to react to placate its own people. >> incredible stuff.

i mean, it's america's war, afghanistan has declared america's war in some sense and pakistan whether or not we talk about it as a war but it's pretty incredible to think about year ten in afghanistan starting tomorrow. richard engel, thank you. >> one thing to remember, this -- this sums it up. there was an opinion poll recently and said that 6 in 10 pakistanis believe that the u.s. is an enemy and only 1 in 10 called the u.s. a partner. >> wow. >> that's a real troubling number. >> but remember it's not a war. coming up on the last word with lawrence o'donnell. hillary clinton as vice president in 2012? what about joe biden? on this show, what happens before a campaign kicks you out of the headquarters. here's a hint, cha-ching. look, it's a rescue helicopter. [ helicopter noise ]

[ crunch ] [ grunting ] [ helicopter departs ] [ birds chirping ] [ male announcer ] introducing new wheat thins crunch stix. one month, five years after you do retire? ♪ client comes in and they have a box. and inside that box is their financial life. people wake up and realize i better start doing something. we open up that box. we organize it. and we make decisions. we really are here to help you. they look back and think, "wow. i never thought i could do this." but we've actually done it. [ male announcer ] visit ameriprise.com and put a confident retirement more within reach.

can stop frequent heartburn before it begins? heartburn happens when stomach acid refluxes into the esophagus. prilosec otc uses a unique delayed-release system that protects the medicine as it passes through the stomach's tough acid. then it gets absorbed into the body, turning off many acid-producing pumps at the source. with just one pill a day, you get 24-hour heartburn protection all day and all night. prilosec otc. heartburn gone. power on.

it is a strange campaign syndrome this year. raise money off of this show. campaign against this show. criticize this show's reporting. but never come on this show. there is a growing caucus of politicians endorsing the strategy. we'll both document that and whine about it coming up in just a moment. ♪

[ female announcer ] mousse temptations by jell-o. decadently delicious. 60 calories. it's finally me o'clock. time for jell-o. try new chocolate mint sensation. it'll cost a fortune to insure you. nationwide insurance, we need a freeze-frame here. let's give parents a break, right ? let the discounts they've earned be passed down to their teens. save mom and dad up to 25% versus the competition. we'll call it the nationwide family plan. here you go, and there you go. unfreeze ! keys ! savings ! ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ road trip !

we walked in, there was nobody at the reception desk. we said, we're here, we'd like to speak with ms. o'donnell or any representative of the campaign. they said, hang on a second. and over came a third gentleman, who was less happy to see us. >> oh. >> and he said, what show are you representing? i said, the rachel maddow show. he said, that's unacceptable. >> unacceptable was his response to you saying the name of the show? >> yes. you slammed her, ripped her. >> trashing, something like that. >> essentially, i remember classless for sure. >> we can't find the o'donnell campaign, and when we did find them, they insulted us and told

us to leave. >> within moments of that happening, within moments of us getting booted out of christine o'donnell's headquarters yesterday, the great oliver willis popped up on our show's self-serving rss feed when he blogged about this e-mail from the o'donnell campaign. it reads, dear patriot, the charade is over. even the liberal media led by rachel maddow and keith olbermann can't cover up the truth. help me lead the charge against liberals by donating -- >> it's oddly flattering to learn that the o'donnell campaign thinks we're important enough to raise money off of? if you are unhappy with our coverage of you, ms. o'donnell. if you think we intentionally cover-up the truth, i can assure you our reporting on you would

be so much better informed if you were actually in it. if you would actually talk to us, instead of having your staffers call us names and getting some angry man to yell get off my lawn. we know you're busy, we would have been happy to talk to anyone from your campaign. we would like to get your side. we would like to improve our coverage of you and you won't let that happen. now you're complaining to your supporters that you don't like the results. for those of us who work here at msnbc. one of the most surreal things about this particular election year has been conservative politician efforts to make us, msnbc part of the elections. republican, politician or conservative activist x complains they're not representing in our coverage and then refuses to be represented in our coverage. claiming we're afraid to bring you their point of view, and then refusing to share their point of view with us.

you may remember earlier when scott brown of massachusetts did this. scott brown sent out a fund-raising e-mail to all of his supporters complaining about me. rachel has a nightly platform to push her agenda. what about you? >> would you like to push your agenda on my nightly platform? you are invited to do so. you don't like what i'm doing with my nightly platform? please, sir, help me change it, participate in it, be on the show. every time we've asked scott brown to come on the show, he says no. complain about you not being here all you want or refuse our invitations to be here, but you can't simultaneously complain about not being here, and also refuse our invitations to be here. you can't, you are, of course, but it's craven and pathetic. come on? remember this scary ad from liz cheney's conservative group keep america safe? >> what are they so afraid of? why don't they want to talk substance? why are they panicked? why don't they want to debate

the issues? >> ms. cheney, you could totally run that ad if we hear at msnbc were afraid to zee bait you. when we asked you to come on and debate over and over again and you say no? then you can't complain we're afraid to debate. there's also the phenomenon of republicans using my name or the name of somebody else here at the network to raise money. >> proud moment there. that was part of a fund-raising ad put out by marco rubio. marco rubio must be right because rachel maddow says he's wrong. even if i'm inherently wrong about everything, marco rubio has declined every one of our requests to interview him. likewise, sarah palin. here's the new piece of red meat

she's throwing to her fans. >> he looked up and asked where i was from. i said alaska. then the clerk turns beat red, the veins pop out of her neck, kind of like rachel maddow sometimes. watch, that clip is going to be on the air for her show now. >> i did not foresee becoming a stump speech applause line for politicians who won't agree to do interviews with me. we asked sarah palin to come on the show i don't know how many times, she has never agreed to come on. unhappy to tell me why she's using me in a stump speech, to my face. it's been a weird year for us at msnbc, as conservatives have tried to run against us, instead of running against their actual opponents. here's the deal. we have big egoes those of us in this tv business. we all love seeing our faces in

political ads, getting mentioned in speeches. we love seeing our names in black and white. you cannot simultaneously complain you are not being allowed access to the liberal media juggernaut that is msnbc's prime time airwaves, and then refuse to come on when we offer you access. so say yes, christine o'donnell fp it will be fun, i promise. say yes, sharron angle, you will get a fair shake, pinkie swear. say yes, sarah palin, have you our number, i know you do. ken buck, liz cheney, to anybody in your family, actually. any cheney, any time. it will be fair, it will be fun, and then, then, then you can brag about not being afraid to actually talk to the liberals that you complain about as a means of raising money. come on, you guys. come on, come on, come on, come on, come on. that does it for us tonight, we will see you again tomorrow