since the republicans took control of the house. mr. bane, where are the jobs? i'm keith olbermann. good night and good luck. now to discuss what democrats bush's exit strategy. let's play "hardball." >> good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. leading off tonight, bushed. ambassador joseph wilson blew the whistle on the bogus intel the bush people used to push the war with iraq. a new movie, "fair game", tells the story of what happened to him and his wife, valerie, directly thereafter. is that what you get when you stand up for truth against the white house operatives, neocons and political hacks who beat the drum for war with iraq? our top guest tonight, joe wilson himself, to talk about

the former president who's out there now defending his war in his self-described sickening feeling when he learned that those nuclear weapons did not exist, the ones he swore were there, the ones he used to sell the war. also aboard tonight and right up front, mike isakoff reports that bush didn't so much as burp when he heard those weren't there. and will there be a democratic mutiny? the fight over who's in charge of the house, tonight. there's also a leadership fight be among republicans, some of whom want to replace michael steele and find someone else to take the reins of the party, despite the fact they kept winning under steele. and a look at hillary clinton that might make, let's put it this way. had you seen this hillary clinton back in 2008, i think a lot of people would have made her president. we will show you a piece now. >> in your role as secretary of state, you have such high-level meetings, have you ever said the

phrase, "you've just made a very powerful enemy"? >> no, but i've thought it. let's start with joe wilson. also with us, an msnbc news reporter, michael isakoff. ambassador wilson, thank you for joining us. i saw the film last night. it was a great film. i thought it was so well scripted, so well acted by naomi watts. sean penn as you. those people were great. something more important, the issues behind the film. on wmd, the president is writing -- what's your reaction to hearing the president say that, ambassador wilson? >> well, i think mike isakoff

who has reported on this far more extensively than i do probably has a better take, but it was very clear to me and to valerie, has been for a long time. that whether there were weapons of mass destruction or not, that was not the rationale for going to war. that was the excuse to mobilize support. for whatever reason they wanted, whether it was to redo the politics of the middle east, as bill crystal has said publically, or bring democracy to the middle east or overthrow saddam, whatever it is, it had

nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. i was in europe at the military command when we were doing the no-fly zone over the north. at that time, our generals were saying, this was in the mid-'90s, that it wasn't worth the time or money we were spending on it because there was no threat from there. that threat level didn't change the entire time we were there. >> you're the reporter on this case. what did the president do when he heard there was tho weapons? did he act that was the reason he went to war because it wasn't that important to him? how did he act?

>> that quote, which is probably the biggest news bite in the book did leap out at me because david corn and i reported on "hubris." >> david kay describes the meeting in which he told president bush about the wmds not being there. quote -- so this book is not an honest recounting of what happened? ambassador wilson says he didn't go to over over wmds, so wasn't shocked they weren't there. your reporting? >> that comes from a passage where we're describing david kay briefing bush for the first time in july of 2003. the guy, david kay, had been sent there to find the wmd and he's, for the first time telling bush, i don't think we're going to find what you told the country we're going to find. he's trying to be gentle about it, but he's being complete. >> and it didn't really bother bush? >> it leapt out at david kay that bush hardly reacted at all. he showed not the least bit of concern. >> ambassador wilson says it really was a sales pitch, it wasn't the real reason for war. a fine film, whatever your view of the war. if you were against the war and were suspicious about the reasons given for fighting it, you will particularly enjoy it. this is the part will valerie plame learns she's been outed as a cia act. >> never worked for the cia --

>> as an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. he just went ahead and did it. >> did this run overseas? >> it's in the newspaper, valerie. novack's column is he syndicated overseas? >> everywhere. >> well, the number of people that had a hand in outing her, you could argue in terms of reporting to the press were, as you know, michael, fleischer said something to pincus, novak said something to miller. there were a lot of people out there talking. >> right. it was, it was -- look, dick armitage of the state department was the first one to disclose valerie plame's name to novak, but the white house jumped on it very quickly on their own. before novak wrote his column, rove was confirming it. ari fleischer got out there and dumped this information on him and judy miller got it from scooter libby. so, there is definitely a white house effort to use this information for whatever. >> to destroy joe wilson's wife. ambassador wilson, your view watching the film and putting it together, what's the historic

importance of this? a boy or girl in high school trying to understand how we got to war with iraq, a country that never attacked us, which was basically comprised of thugs from saudi arabia, some sharpies from around the world, nobody from iraq, how do you explain we went to war with iraq? >> i think you've asked two questions. one is about the film, which i think is a timeless story of power, the abuse of power and how one stand up to limit power and it goes back to the time of the constitution when power and what to do with it was the central question and led to separation of powers, led to coequal branches of government and the enshrining of the first amendment. with respect to iraq, it's very clear, that they were absolutely committed to overthrowing saddam

hussein and any piece of spaghetti they could get to stick up against the wall they were going to use to justify it. and the easy case to make that everybody was going to put the fear of god into everybody was this whole idea that we could not afford to wait for a mushroom cloud or smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud. that is the whole nuclear case, all of which was built out of whole cloth. i think you see that in the movie in both the yellow cake story and aluminum tube story, which valerie was involved in. the weapons he described, chemical, biological, hasn't fallen into the hands of saddam hussein yet. i mean, this is the outrageous part of this. sure, we have to worry about weapons all over the world. i am worried about former members of the soviet union, those engineers over there that actually have weapons. they exist. about one of those guys selling one.

i'm worried about people in al-qaeda who have money and educations that are floating all around the world that could do this kind of thing. >> saddam did have a chemical program years earlier and it was discontinued in the early to mid-1990s and never resumed. the concern and talk about evidence that was fabricated, the idea that saddam was transferring weapons or sharing chemical and biological weapons with al-qaeda terrorists, that ranks up there with the nuclear program something that was based on the flimsiest intelligence report. >> let's take another look at the movie and we're going to quit this. this is an attempt by president bush now in this new book to try to play the game that he really

cared about weapons of mass destruction, that that was really the reason we went to war in iraq and that he was so flabbergasted there were no weapons. it wasn't the weapons of mass destruction, the reason we went to war. he read during the time anybody followed this story, that was the sales pitch to europe to try to get them on our side. that's why we ended up with the coalition of the willing because europe thought we were nuts. let's watch this great scene. naomi watts playing valerie blame thisis after she left the cia. >> i went to the agency and i requested security to protect my family. i was declined because quote, my circumstances fall outside budget protocols. if this is a knife fight, sir, right now, we're fighting it alone.

>> joe wilson versus the white house, huh? i feel as a friend i should tell you that those men, those few men in that building over there, are the most powerful men in the history of the world. how much of a stretch do you think it would be for them to take on joe wilson? joe is out there on his own, valerie. >> ambassador wilson, i watched that movie, i was so stirred by it last night with my wife and my son. i have to tell you that i did think going back over the minor part i had in covering this, trying to figure out exactly what it was like to be on your side of this thing, to know that you had the white house, the

smartest people in the political caravan of the president, spending day and night trying to figure out how to screw you. what did that feel like? >> it was about survival. i don't know how one should respond. i suppose you'd go under ground, but it was very clear as you hear from the movie, one of the quotes we're moving earth movers over joe wilson. it was fight or flee, i suppose. and at the end of the day, if you don't have your reputation, you have nothing. so you might as well fight for it. but i really think that if i were to sort of offer a lesson out of this movie, it really is that if joe wilson can stand up to power then anybody can. and it doesn't have to be at the federal level. but it's what makes our republic

strong, it's the willingness of its citizens, to stand up and be counted and hold their government to account. you know, i've been saying that now for several years. the one group that seems to have taken notice and done that of course is the tea party movement. >> you know what, i have to say, after watching the movie, i'm not inspired to join the tea party, but my daughter, son, want to join the cia, there's a way to fight for your country under frightening conditions. the heroic portrayal of your wife in that film and they build it up a bit beyond her role, i don't know. but the role she played in that film was so stirring and so patriotic and so gutsy, i can't imagine any young woman walking out of that theatre who has american blood in her veins not wanting to be one of the people like her. (jennifer garner) there's a lot of beautiful makeup out there

to cover up flaws and make skin look pretty but there's one that's so clever, it makes your skin look better even after you take it off. neutrogena healthy skin liquid makeup. 98% of women saw improvement in their skin's natural texture, tone, or clarity. does your makeup do that? neutrogena® cosmetics recommended most by dermatologists.

issues, but his spokesman says the popular governor is a lifelong democrat and he's not switching. "hardball" back after this.

i am comfortable knowing that i gave it my all, that i love america and that i know it's an honor to serve. >> welcome back to "hardball." that's former president george w. bush, kicked off his campaign to sell his presidential legacy with his new memoir. he's done a series of tv interviews to explain the elements that hang over his presidency, including the realization that there were no weapons of mass destructions in iraq. here's what he told matt lauer on that issue. >> no one was more sickened or

angry than i was when we didn't find weapons of mass destruction. you still have a sickening feeling when you think about it? >> i do. >> was there ever any consideration of apologizing to the american people? >> apologizing would basically say the decision was the wrong decision and i don't believe it was the wrong decision. >> if you knew what you know now -- >> that's right. >> -- you would still go to iraq. >> i, first of all, didn't have that luxury. i will say definitely the world is better off without saddam hussein, as are 25 million people who have a chance to live in freedom. >> despite all the smile, crinkling across his face, that's not true because the congress would never have approved the war if he said i'm going to go there and knock off a dictator i don't like. he needed a weapons of mass destruction argument, he needed a mushroom cloud. tom and david corn, most importantly in this regard, author of the book, "hubris,"

about the effort to build up a war for wmd. he's rebuilding his image, building the case that the war of iraq made sense and proof is that he was sickened in his stomach when he found out there wasn't any. we have the evidence from people in the room that he showed no signs of disappointment. >> even on background, when you talk to white house officials at the time, nobody ever suggested to reporters that the president was remorseful or angry. there are lots of times when ari fleischer and others would talk about it, he was angry about this, but on this one, there was nothing that suggested what the president said. >> is that square with your reporting that the president never even made a pretense that he had an emotional upset or breakdown, as i said earlier, so much as a burp when he found out

the weapons weren't there? they were always the sales piece. once we got into war it didn't matter. we were there. >> there's no public evidence on the reporting that mike isakoff and i did or any other great books of the time period in which bush got angry, said anything pubically, privately about this. while he's rewriting this, he's engaging in another spin-off. he say he has said that while he we had to take out saddam hussein out because he had a capacity to build wmds. his own inspectors, charles dofer led the iraq survey group that produced a report in 2004 saying there was nothing, no capacity, that saddam hussein and iraq had shut everything down, you know, years earlier. so, saddam was in no position to pursue, develop, create, produce

any weapons of mass destruction. so, he's still trying to make the case there was a wmd argument for the war because saddam could have developed these. >> let's take a look on oprah, talking about how he was still right, we should have gone to war. he's still making a case. check out this exchange. it's with oprah. let's listen. >> everybody thought hussein happen weapons of mass destruction and when we didn't find weapons, i felt terrible about it and sick about it and still do because a lot of the case in removing saddam hussein

was based upon weapons of mass destruction. >> right. we wouldn't have gone to war had there not been a case for weapons of mass destruction. >> he was a threat. the interesting thing that happened after he was removed, we had a team of inspectors go in, who reported he was equally dangerous. we may not have found the vials, but he had the capacity to make weapons. >> but yet you would not have made the decision? >> that's a question i cannot answer, because i didn't have that luxury. the decision was based upon solid intelligence. >> this is screwy, david. let's get back to reality. oprah winfrey asks a very smart

question. then he switch to vials, then never answers her. she said it just right, if you didn't have the case, you couldn't have the war, but had a case that seemed real and that's how you sold the war. turns out i wasn't real. no real moral case to go to war. in fact, which is the key to this whole war argument. it wasn't fact, it was fiction. it didn't bother him because he knew it was fiction because he had another reason to go to war. this is what gets people like me so passionate because it's murky as hell why we did go to war. my question to you. >> chris, this is false with a capital "f." he said the inspectors went in and found he was equally threatening. no, they didn't. i mean, does he not know? did he not read the report? did he not read the "washington post," "new york times" stories at the time? i wrote about this yesterday and i'm happy to put up a link on my twitter feed so people can see the evidence. what he's saying is 100% wrong. he's getting away with it, at least to the degree he is creating this spin story that saddam still posed something of a threat, even if we didn't find the wmds. he posed no threat and at the time, there was a debate. there were a lot of analysts who say there wasn't a wmd threat. the thing he leaves out in all of this is at the time, there

were inspectors in iraq. they were coming up with answers that there were no wmds and the process was ongoing, so if he really cared at the time, he could have kept the process going and we would have found the answer now that there was nothing, no capacity. it was kaput. he was making something up. >> the enormous amount of manpower and supplies and cost that went into trying to find a wmd that could have been put towards other things. wing the hearts and minds and building the government. we deployed enormous resources so he could prove he was right only to find out he was wrong and then says, well, nice try or whatever. he didn't say anything. >> this is bush trying to take his best shot with history. as his father might say, this dog won't hunt. >> owe -- oprah's not buying it. it's not just about him. it's about our history and we broke with our history of not being the aggressor in this case. we used to say the aggressors were the bad guys. the ones who invaded were the bad guys. nobody's going to say saddam was

not a bad guy. they might some day be a problem, that is not a reason for war. here's another quote -- now, not to go after dick cheney here again, but the question is the presidency has been offering up dick cheney as the super hawk, the one out front and it was just him following along in this case. why is he doing this? >> well, because, i don't know. it diminishes president bush to make that argument, but it also -- the dirty little secret of the last couple of years of the bush administration was that there was distance between bush and cheney. >> he downgraded him, didn't he? >> he did, indeed. not publicly, but privately. >> why did he downgrade him? he thought he had been given a bum steer?

>> he felt that cheney and secretary rumsfeld had given him bad advice on iraq and he also felt like while their agenda may have coincided with his for the most part -- >> george bush senior picked dan quyale, and wrote in his diary, i made a terrible mistake, but can't admit it. maybe bush should say, i can't admit it. >> it seems really clear right now that what he's trying to do is portray himself as the guy who dealt with a hard problem, thought about it long and hard and finally erred on the side of being more call your attention than not. in the book "hubris" i did with mike isakoff, bush is telling ari fleischer i am going to kick hussein's backside all over iraq. >> he is in over his head, that's the problem. surrounded by people who didn't understand all the various motives. he didn't have a motive himself, except maybe the old man would try to kill him. i wish somebody would do --

maybe you ought to put this guy in a lie detector. i don't think you'd find sodium pentothal, why he wasn't to war. thank you, tom defrank, thank you, david cornyn. thank you. i'm serious. up next, the lighter side. i don't know why i'm being sarcastic. wait until you see hillary clinton with these funny comedians. this hillary clinton is one you get to see once in a while. i say if you see more of this, history might have been different. you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc.

back to "hardball." now to "sideshow." tonight, we've got something

really different. this interview was conducted by a pair of australian comedians. their guest, the american secretary of state, our own hillary clinton. for those of you who haven't seen this side of her, this will be a real eye opener, maybe a wow. >> we start with a gift. it's potato chips, or crisps. it's a flavor the people of australia invented, it's the gravy chip. >> i am thrilled. cannot tell you how much this means to me. i'm an eater of chips. >> we recommend not. if you try to eat them, technically, that's an assassination attempt by us. >> should i wait until i'm out of australian air space?

>> your role requires great negotiation skill, your husband also possesses those qualities. when you can't agree on what to get for takeaway dinner, who wins out? >> you know, we practice different models of negotiation around important issues like that. if i were to say to him, what should we have for dinner tonight, and he were to say, oh, i don't care, you choose, that's a really bad answer. if i come back and say, how do you feel about chinese or mexican or italian? if he says a second time, you

know, i really don't care, then i will go choose. >> you want to make sure people don't overhear half the conversation because you've got a former president talking to

congressman at meyer, do you think nancy pelosi would make a great leader for the democrat notice next congress? >> i don't. i represent middle america. you know pennsylvania well, chris. if you look at the results in new york, pennsylvania, ohio, indiana, illinois, wisconsin that's middle america, that's the industrial midwest, we didn't fare so well last tuesday.

and i do think it is time for a change in direction. if you gauge effectiveness by willingness to push forward legislation not popular with the american people and have literally multiple dozens of members cast politically sigh -- suicidal votes, yeah, speaker pelosi was effective, but i don't think that was the direction we want to keep going. >> that was jason altmire yesterday. looks like speaker pelosi will stay on without a formal challenge so far. the fight is for the number two spot between steny hoyer and james clyburn, but no matter who wins, is it good for democrats to move forward with the same team? that's my question to congressman anthony weiner of new york. is it smart to stay with the same team after you've been battered? >> it is the same team that took us from the wilderness of the minority in 2006 and built a winning coalition. >> she lost all the seats you won in 2006.

>> but you can make a list as long as your arm. it isn't because our speaker did the bidding of the caucus and helps bail out the economy. democrats said we want to try to solve these problems. i mean, of all the people that deserve blame here, i think nancy is the last of them. the president didn't. do a good job. the health care took too long. the senate jacked us more times than i can imagine. certainly wasn't nancy pelosi. >> why do republicans jump on her everywhere? even in philly, when i went home a couple weeks ago, all it was ads attacking. it was was republican ads attacks pelosi, even against candidates who aren't incumbents. they're blaming them for her. what do you make of this target practice on her? >> speakers get caricatures. your former boss, tip o'neill, newt gingrich. it goes with the territory. the thing we don't want to have happen, we don't want the let the republicans choose our leadership. yeah, they may say that they're going to target her. we're going to go after john boehner.

he's going to be the face of an unpopular republican majority for the next couple of years. if you want to think about you and i would be sitting here a year ago saying she was the most powerful speaker since sam raburn, i think that's still true today. >> i think she's been the strongest speaker i can think of in terms of internal discipline, but i've never seen this kind of discipline by a democratic party in my lifetime. let's take a look at this comment by michael capuano with this quote -- michael capuano, he is a progressive, a liberal. got tip o'neill's old seat. he's not one of these southern guys. what do you think he's speaking out? >> he is one of the smartest guys in the house and would make a great speaker at some point as well.

there is this sense that nancy does have the opportunity, that she should have an opportunity to decide what the terms are that she leaves on. i want to make sure it is very clear and i don't think mike capuano would say this either. to say that litany of losses was because of nancy pelosi, you could put anyone in that speaker's chair. if they had to deal with the tough hand she had to deal with these past two years, they'd get roughed up, too. she did the will of not only the congress, but a lot of members of the american people. >> one last question, yes or no. is she stays primarily to keep steny hoyer out of that leadership? >> i don't believe that is her motivation. >> she has somebody she likes work she get out of the way? >> she's trying to box out weiner. it's pretty clear. >> you're -- this is -- >> i'm sorry. i don't want to done your question. >> you know the inside. is it primarily she doesn't think steny hoyer hoyer should be the democratic leader of the house? >> no, i don't believe that.

i believe she thinks she can do it and i think she can, too. >> thank you, sir. congressman anthony wiener of new york. let's go to congressman zack wamp of tennessee. you've got a colleague down there, spencer bacchus of alabama, who said that sarah palin cost you guys the senate, quote -- is than a honest, solid charge by your lites? >> well, normally, house members don't comment on what the senate sends up like. >> he did. >> i know he did, but i don't really think it speaks for other house members and sarah palin picked like 70% winners and obviously i don't think that's the case anymore than you could say jim demint did. >> do you think she would be a great president? >> well, she is like newt gingrich. she's got an unbelievable base. she's electric, but i don't

think either one of them will ever be president. >> let me ask you about a woman, christie gnome. let's look at her ad. there is a lot of talk, she want it is, from south dakota out west. like to be, even just got elected, to be a member of your party's leadership. i want to know if you think someone of the tea party crowd should be a member of the leadership. let's listen. >> here on the ranch in south dakota, we don't take a lot of polls or hold many caucuses. we do what needs to be done. that's what i'll do in washington. unlike my opponent, i'll vote to lower the national debt, vote against wasteful spending, repeal government-mandated health care and work every day to create jobs. oh, and one more thing. my first vote won't be to make nancy pelosi speaker. i'm christie nome and i approve

this message. story, nancy. >> what do you think of christie nome, the new look of the republican party? >> this is an eclectic class. and i came in an eclectic class in 1994, but we need to remember, chris, 13 members of my class lost two years later. and just based on the sheer size, you can look for the same kind of thing. but i think some of these members may actually lose to republicans because of redistricting, because the communities really got involved in taking out incumbents this year. but these guys are going to have to get together. it's going to be an interesting thing. the tea party will pull our party to the right like the progressive pulled the democratic party to the left, but the country is still right of center. so really, the country has a way of bringing everyone back to where they are. >> is the country -- let me ask you about michael steele, speaking of the country. he's on a pretty good winning streak, starting with new jersey and virginia. give him credit as party chair for the most amazing streak starting since he took over.

a lot of pressure. he's almost like joe biden. he gets hit a lot for comments he makes, not his success, one way or the other. do you think he should get re-elected? >> he's been exciting, electric. that's going to be up to the republican national committee. there's a certain amount of fatigue that goes with that job. that is a hard job. i think people ought to do it once then maybe step aside. >> you're a smart guy. thank you, congressman. i see why you're a congressman. you know how to talk. next, more of michael steele. there's a movement afoot, i'm told, to find an alternative to michael steele. i like him. well, who's the next senate makeup is so expensive. simply ageless with olay regenerist serum costs less and it won't glob up in lines and wrinkles. you'll look amazing and happy too. simply ageless, from olay and easy breezy beautiful covergirl.

and she's going in with no protective gear? her hands could dry out. [ female announcer ] dawn hand renewal with olay beauty. it helps your hands seal in moisture while you do the dishes. dawn does more... [ spongecaster ] so it's not a chore. well, who's the next senate republican the tea party people are hoping to take down?

how about orrin hatch. he'll be going for his seventh term in 2012 and a new poll shows the likely voters in utah say they'd vote him out of office. 48% say they'd vote for somebody other than hatch. just 40 want him back. tea party activists say hatch is too entrenched in the washington establishment. robert bennett lost his bid for renomination this year to a tea party candidate and hatch could be next.

we're back. one of the stars of last week's midterm blowout is rnc chairman michael steele. so after an impressive record of wins, why is the gop looking for a candidate to run against him? joining me now, chris cillizza managing editor of post politics.com and bob cable, republican party chairman here in the district of columbia. first, i want to you go to you, mr. chairman. first congratulations on being a true minority in washington washington. you are a minority in the republican party in this town. why are you folks or anybody talking about dumping a guy. look at the record of success. chris christie of new jersey, bob mcdonnell of virginia, scott brown in massachusetts. then picking up six senate seats, more than 60 house. i hope michael runs. i know he's thinking about it still. >> who's out to get him? >> from day one there's been a group of people who didn't think michael steele should be chairman of the rnc.

some are still members of the rnc and some are off the committee. i think the facts speak for themselves. i think with michael's election victories and starting in last year and then this year, he has a very -- an excellent chance of being re-elected. >> is there a move to dump him if he tries again? >> yes, there is. now, how coordinated that is, you can leave it up a little bit. most people i talked to, there are 168 members of the rnc. these are the committee people who vote. i think michael steele is between 50 and 60 solid votes. he needs a simple majority to win. i don't know that he's going to get there. he may and he starts out ahead of anyone else. i think there is a desire among the professional political class, consultants, strategists, people advising 2012 presidential -- >> where is karl rove? >> let me say this. i haven't talked to karl rove. i think he's behind steele.

>> isn't he trying to create a separate party? isn't he trying to create a network of people he can call the republican party as opposed to the rnc? >> well, chris, he certainly -- look, he was involved in the founding of american crossroads as was ed gillespie, but i'm not sure karl rove necessarily helps a candidate running against michael steele. i think the committee people are a little resistant to the idea of having the white house types tell them who it should be. i don't know if being rove's candidate helps. i think there is a concern that michael steele for the fact that you ran through his resumé. he had wins. some people would say republicans won in spite of him, not because of him. >> right. >> i think there is a desire to have someone else there as they prepare to run against barack obama. >> mr. chair? >> i totally disagree. look where we were when he was elected. we'd lost the presidency, the office. didn't have a president in the

white house to tell us who the rnc chairman would be. it's the way it works. the chairmanship is up for grabs. there were several people interested in it. michael was competitive in fr the beginning and won. he's done a superb job and the rnc has raised $175 million this cycle. they have spent $175 million. that's what party committees do. they raise money and spend money. he's won election after election after election. >> i think -- >> the bus trip he organized and scheduled was one of the best things that happened in bringing the 60-plus republican house members in. also, i think, it endeared michael steele to a lot of the rnc members who maybe he had not gotten to know because he spent time and did tremendous things for the party. >> do you think nailing the target nancy pelosi worked? >> yes.

she was a major target to begin with. >> chris, i think she was well known. >> chris, i think over the last four years, on the pelosi subject between 2006 when she became speaker, all the attention toe got in 2010 polling suggests 90% plus of people who knew who she was. in a lot of districts, these are swing, moderate to conservative districts. she was deeply unpopular just as a sidebar. i think people knew her. >> okay. thank you for that. i'm amazed that in local elections she become it is key issue. thank you both. when we return, let me finish with some thoughts about joe and valerie wilson and the fantastic new movie "fair game." you're watching "hardball" on msnbc.

let me finish tonight with a stirring movie i saw last night. i heard of the first rate script and masterful performances by naomi watts and sean penn. the movie opens with a gutsy cia agent in the world trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons from getting into dangerous hands. i was overwhelmed by the guts of watts' character. anybody would be, especially an american who has children like

we do, young adults and thinking how inspiring it must be to go out and risk it all for your country like this woman did. the real life valerie wilson, her discipline in keeping it secret, her reainess to honor her loving marriage in the face of it all and the betrayal, the decision by war hawks holed up in the white house who wanted to protect the case then billed for the iraq war, the p.r. campaign in the white house and the op ed pages that ran roughshod over good journalism and everything we need if truth is to survive propaganda, especially the war-whooping kind embraced by this country after 9/11. this is one fine movie. although it will never be "casablanca" fair game is great for our time. two people daughter up in a campaign that justify a war most