>> new york city council member, former baltimore police officer, and eric dyson, msnbc political analyst. that's "a in ". "the rachel maddow show" starts now. >> did you say you were being a durpy night? >> it's been durptastic all night. >> thank you very much and thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next, hopefully, durp-free hour. you never know. after serving 12 years in the united states senate, senator ben nelson of nebraska left the senate last year and founded a lobbying firm. left the senate, now in a lobbying firm. kay bailey hutchison put in nearly 20 years in the united states senate before she, too, left and joined a lobbying firm. senator kate bond, 24 years in the united states senate, he cashed out and is now a lobbyist. senator jon kyl, 26 years on capitol hill.

he left the senate in january to join a lobbying firm. whatever happened to old senator evan bayh, my old friend? lobbyist. what about byron dorgan? oh, lobbyist. chris dodd, he used to be a senator, now lobbyist. blavrch lincoln, remember when we made a life-sized blanch lincoln? gone from the senate, now is a lobbyist. john gregg was a senator, now a lobbyist. scott brown of massachusetts, what has become of him? actually, this one is really interesting. actually, just kidding. this one's not interesting at all. scott brown did what they all did and went to go work for a lobbying firm, as well. that's how it works. he's just like all the rest of them. but the loss of that particular senate seat, which enabled scott

brown to fulfill his ex-senator destiny, which they all have, right? that job at a high-end d.c. lobbying firm doing the bidding of the financial industry, even though on a personal level, the loss of that u.s. senate seat ended up the way these guys all end up, which is, you know, basically naked and shameless covered in honey and rolling around in a pile of goldman sachs' $100 bills, even though brown is doing great, he's doing just fine, thank you. still, the loss of his particular senate seat, it stinks. republicans were so excited to win that seat in the first place. they were so excited to win it that losing it was always going to be terrible for them. but with his seat, it was all the more terrible, because the other campaign that the scott brown guys were working on on the night they lost scott brown,

that senate seat in massachusetts, the other campaign his political team was working on that same night that he lost, was this guy's campaign. they were the mitt romney team, as well, which also lost that same night. eric fernstrum and all those massachusetts republican guys, they had been heros for getting scott brown elected in 2010, but then in 2012, their presidential candidate, mitt romney, lost his home state of massachusetts by 23 points. he lost the whole presidency, not by quite a landslide, but a resoundingly large margin, and scott brown, running as a supposedly popular incumbent senator also lost his senate seat that same night by a mile, by seven points, and he was the incumbent. it still stings. that was just a terrible, terrible night. kind of night that maybe is a career ender for some folks. that whole massachusetts class of republican national political operatives, it was a terrible night. so scott brown personally is, obviously, going to do just fine.

but eric fernstrum and those political guys will probably never recover. probably. because now those same guys who lost that senate seat and who lost the presidency all on that same night back in november, now they have found another square-jawed, handsome massachusetts republican to try to claw their way back up to the top. elizabeth warren took scott brown's seat in the senate, but in the special election to fill massachusetts other u.s. senate seat, the romney and scott brown folks are trying to find themselves a new meal ticket in the republican candidate in that case, staffer from romney iowa 2012 and romney new hampshire twef who's heading up the campaign. it's the romney communications director, who also had the job for scott brown, it's the romney digital rapid response director, it's the romney campaign treasurer.

eric fernstrum himself is in the real power position in the massachusetts senate campaign, which is not at the campaign itself at all, he is at the pac working from the theoretical outside with unlimited money to try to elect the republican candidate to that massachusetts senate seat. the national republican party has also sent senate campaign staffers into massachusetts to work on the campaign. just yesterday they worked another $400,000 ad buy in the race. that comes on top of their previous $400,000 ad buy, which in massachusetts in an off-year election is a whole heck of a lot of money. mitch mcconnell is sending out solicitations to, please, try to win the republicans this senate seat in massachusetts. the republicans are just pulling out all the stops, and you know what, special elections are unpredictable. you never really know what's

going to happen. that's how we got scott brown in the first place in blue state massachusetts. but in this special election, the republican candidate so far has not done all that great a job making his case for himself. his name is gabriel gomez, he's an ex-navy s.e.a.l., he's a private equity guy. the democrat in the race, markey, long-time congressman. he's attacked markey for being in congress too long and once called ed markey pond scum, but it was not all that clear way why. because mr. gomez is not all that clear of a talker, they've ran ads that are uninterrupted clips of gabriel gomez trying to explain himself, like this one. >> did you release warrior clients so the public knows who you worked with and what kind of investments you made and dealt with? >> ad international is a private organization. i have to discuss it with them and leave it up to them. >> did you ask them to release the name of the clients? >> i resigned two weeks ago. >> i asked last time if you disclosed your client list from the private equity days, you said you didn't know if they'd allow you to ask them.

have you asked them? >> they haven't come back to me yet. >> i asked if you'd released your client list, you were there for nine years, you said i'd be happy to discuss it with them. you were back two weeks later, april 5th, you said they haven't got back to me with. have you got back with them yet? >> no. you have to ask them about it, they are a private firm. it's really up to them. >> would you state now you would like them to release it? you think the public has the right to know, right? >> i have no qualms with that, but i also respect they are a private firm and it's really up to them. >> that's the way it's been going so far in this massachusetts senate race. tonight in massachusetts, it was the first debate between the guy who you just saw talking his way through the attack ad against him between the republican candidate gabriel gomez and the democratic senate candidate congressman ed markey. this is the first of what will be three debates before the election in massachusetts, which

takes place three weeks from now. >> you're going to see two different styles tonight. you're going to see somebody who's going to try to scare you. i'm going to speak from the heart. i'm going to tell you the truth. i think the people of massachusetts are smart enough to realize that they are going to want to have somebody they want to work for, as opposed to against. >> you're going to hear a lot in mr. gomez about how he's a new kind of republican, but you're going to hear the same old stale republican ideas. and that's going to be a big part of what this debate is all about. i've had a job down in washington. it's been to battle tea party republicans to bring out interests that are contrary to massachusetts. i've been down there fighting the newt gingrich republicans, and both newt gingrich and mitch mcconnell, the republican leader, they are both endorsed and send contributions up to mr. gomez.

they want mr. gomez down there to help them get the majority that will ultimately further this gridlock. >> this is the massachusetts senate debate that just wrapped up tonight, just about an hour ago. this is the first of three of them that there's going to be. the reason this senate race is happening in the first place, the reason there is an open senate seat in massachusetts, is because john kerry, who was the senior senator from massachusetts, he, of course, gave up this senate seat in february to become secretary of state, but senator kerry was not the person everybody initially expected president obama to nominate for the secretary of state job. everybody expected the secretary of state nominee was instead going to be this person, susan rice. susan rice was going to be the president's nominee for secretary of state, until republicans in congress decided they were going to go after her for benghazi, which she had nothing to do with, but they decided they would go after her for the talking points that were drafted by the cia after the benghazi attacks. susan rice used those talking points in september 2012 on the sunday shows. nobody in congress made all that big of a deal at her appearance at the time until months later when it seemed like she was going to be nominated to be the next secretary of state, then suddenly it made it impossible,

unfathomable that she would hold the secretary of state job because she used the talking points the cia gave her, and it was around that time senate republicans just started calling her names. >> susan rice appears to be the front-runner now for secretary of state. you told cbs last night that you'll do everything to stop her confirmation. why? >> she's not qualified. this isn't a select committee. if appointed clears her of any wrong doing, besides not being very bright -- >> i'm not going to promote somebody who has misled the

country or is incompetent. that's my idea of susan rice. >> incompetent, not very bright. those rather over the top attacks against susan rice led to one of the angrier moments from president obama that we have seen in his entire presidency. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to smirk her reputation is outrageous. when they go after the u.n. ambassador apparently because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me. and should i choose, if i think that she would be the best person to serve america in the capacity of the state department, then i will nominate her. >> president obama did not nominate her to the state department. ambassador rice withdrew her name from consideration, saying

the confirmation process would be too lengthy, disruptive, and costly. so instead of susan rice, john kerry got the secretary of state gig and susan rice stayed on as the u.n. ambassador, until today. president obama gave susan rice a new job, very powerful new job, which doesn't have a confirmation process. president obama announcing today that susan rice will be his new national security adviser. also naming samantha power as his nominee to replace ambassador rice at the united nations. today's announcement comes on the heels of the three nominees the president announced in the rose garden yesterday to the powerful d.c. circuit court of appeals, nominees who, themselves, are pretty noncontroversial but republicans have reacted to with outrage. those three nominees yesterday, susan rice and samantha power named today, president obama clearly not shying away from a fight these days, but how hard a fight are any of these moves

expected to be and were they unexpected? joining me now, andrea mitchell, host of "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc, andrea, thank you so much for being with us tonight. >> thank you. my pleasure. >> you and i talked on this show the night that susan rice had withdrawn her name from consideration for secretary of state. what do you think is the overall political significance of her being tapped now for national security adviser instead? >> i think that the clip that you showed of the president at that post-election news conference where he said, if you want to attack the benghazi policy, come after me. it was right out of the american president movie, and he said, you know, but don't go after her. that is outrageous.

that told you so much. this president really likes susan rice, wanted her at his side. she will be a very different kind of national security adviser. she will be very tough, very forceful, very energized. some say she is less political, interestingly, than tom donlin, who came across as a statesman, but had a political background, that she isn't political enough, and that's why she got herself in trouble with the republicans, they found her a lightning rod. the fact is, as you know, the final release of all of those e-mails that went into the writing of those benghazi talking points completely vindicated susan rice. she had nothing to do with the creation of the talking points. she was, basically, the spokesperson for the administration that sunday and that was the extent of her involvement. she was not responsible for benghazi security. the substantiative failures there, that have been well exposed. so this is really a vindication and a validation of her relationship with the president, her role, and she is in the captain's seat and let's face it, she's going to be the gate keeper for all the national security or foreign policy team, and that means that john kerry has to really go through susan rice for access to the president of the united states.

>> in some ways, national security adviser, at least in terms of its proximity to the president, is a more powerful job. >> absolutely. >> given her background, what we've seen both at her time in the clinton administration, her time at the u.n., the way that she handled the whole benghazi controversy, deserved or not, do you think that substantively we should expect a shift in national security strategy and approach with having susan rice there as opposed to having donlan there? >> the interesting thing, she has been in the past more interventionist in sort of her dna and the way she approaches policies, such as libya, but she has not been so far on syria. i think she fully appreciates the complexity of the bad choices, all of the choices, being bad on syria. so i don't see a real impulse on either her part or samantha power to change policy on syria

from what it has been. in general, she's less cautious than tom donlan, certainly, closer@president. has a deeper relationship with him. john kerry, by the way, made a statement in guatemala, had a news conference in guatemala where he's at the organization of american states tonight, was not here for these announcements and described her as brilliant, top diplomat, someone who he is quick to point out has worked for him and supported him in his 2004 presidential race, so he is applauding these new colleagues. >> in terms of the samantha power nomination, u.n. ambassador is a high-profile job, not as high profile as something like secretary of state, but she will have to be senate confirmed. she has been a blistering critic of previous united states decisions to intervene or not intervene on the basis of humanitarian concerns in other conflicts abroad.

that's really sort of where she made her bones, won her pulitzer prize, do you think it's going to be a difficult confirmation for her? are you seeing how those lines are shaping up around her nomination? >> it could be, and not because, necessarily, because what she has done, but as a proxy fight over susan rice, over whom they have no control. so they could go after samantha power. we've seen similar things happen in the past. the senate foreign relations committee in general is more respectful, and the fact there is democratic leadership in the senate. this won't be like the house oversight committees, but she could have some difficulty. she did get herself in some difficulty back in the '08 campaign by -- she thought it was off the record session, referring to hillary clinton, the rival of barack obama, as a monster and had to quit the campaign. then she came back and left the white house on maternity leave and then came back to the nfc and left again in february.

so she's -- this is very interesting to see these two powerful women, both mothers, both working actively, you know, very close to the president and having very strong points of view. it's going to be fun. >> beyond just the administration, seeing condoleezza rice in the previous administration, seeing hillary clinton as this very, very consequential secretary of state, to see samantha power, michelle floernoy, susan rice, i feel like this is sort of somebody's going to write about this some day. probably going to be you. >> it is a good subject, because, boy, they are powerful, they are smart, they are tough. flournoy left for awhile, they are finding their own pace. it's very interesting. >> andrea mitchell, nbc's chief political correspondent. andrea, thanks so, so much. lots to come, including richard engel. richard has a genuine scoop tonight about a very controversial u.s. policy.

we're going to let him spell that out for you tonight. you will not have seen that anywhere else. that's coming up. stay with us. ur,

since discovering zumba fitness, my body has completely chang [ female announcer ] now you can apply sunblock

to your kids' wet skin. neutrogena® wet skin kids. ordinary sunblock drips and whitens. neutrogena® wet skin cuts through water. forms a broad spectrum barrier for full strength sun protection. wet skin. neutrogena®.

the senate race in massachusetts this year is an off-year election. the special election for the senate seat in new jersey that there's some news on today that we're going to talk about later on this hour, that's going to be another off-year election.

off-year elections get off-sized attention and seen as having more importance than they would at any other time because they stand alone. the whole house of representatives isn't turning over, the white house isn't turning over. what happens with special elections, but in the state of virginia, it always happens. virginia always has off-year elections. this year, this odd-numbered year, is the big election year in the big purple state of virginia, and the election this year in virginia has been getting weirder and weirder and weirder all year long, not just because of who the republicans have picked to run this year, but also now because of what else is going on in republican politics outside the election itself. for context in terms of who the republicans picked to run this year for governor, you may recall they chose the guy that is defending virginia's ban on gay people having sex. for lieutenant governor, they chose the guy that says yoga makes an empathy vacuum of your soul, which satan is, quote,

happy to invade. for attorney general, republicans chose the guy who wanted you to report any possible miscarriages to your local sheriff within 24 hours. not kidding. those are the people hand picked by virginia republicans at their big virginia republican statewide conference this year to run in this year's big statewide election. then, today, "washington post" blew open the slow, simmering story that's sort of been cooking all year long about the republican who currently is governor in virginia, governor ultrasound, bob mcdonnell, and his unexpected scandal involving a chicken dinner and over the counter anti-inflammatory pill. mcdonnell aides concern for event in star scientific. star scientific is the company that's in this saga. they make a non-fda regulated tobacco derived supplement wonder pill that virginia governor bob mcdonnell appears to be holding in this photo that he now says he never authorized. boss of star scientific and the company itself have both been major donors to governor mcdonnell's campaign and also governor mcdonnell the guy, over

$100,000 in contributions and in gifts. in march, the washington post reported the head of this company paid for a $15,000 chicken dinner that was served at the wedding of the governor's daughter and was never disclosed by the governor as a gift. that same campaign and chicken dinner donor, that same tobacco supplement mogul also loaned the governor his lake house for a nice vacation, and then when the vacation was over, he loaned the governor his ferrari for the drove home. that was all in 2011. "the washington post" also reported that three days before the daughter's wedding, the first lady of virginia, maureen mcdonnell, she flew down to florida. nothing much else going on, my daughter is getting married in three days, what can i do, florida? she flew to florida for a seminar where she toted the wonders of this tobacco-based supplement thing made by the guy paying for her daughter's wedding reception three days later. that was all in 2011. "the washington post" also

reported that three days before the daughter's wedding, the first lady of virginia, maureen mcdonnell, she flew down to florida. nothing much else going on, my daughter is getting married in three days, what can i do, florida? she flew to florida for a seminar where she toted the wonders of this tobacco-based supplement thing made by the guy paying for her daughter's wedding reception three days later. when it came time to launch the supplement, they hosted the launch at the governor's mansion. we have learned all of that about virginia's first family in just the last few months, and already it would be bizarre and scandalous enough, even before you got to the ferrari, but wait, there's more. as of today, we now know how the governor's top staff have been feeling about this mess as it has unfolded in real time. "the washington post" today publishing a series of bomb shell e-mails from the

governor's staff, specifically about the launch party for the campaign donor's wonder product. the launch party for the pill that inexplicably held at the governor's residence. e-mail from the governor's scheduler on august 15th, quote, i hope i am not losing my mind completely. do you know something about a lunch with virginia researchers scheduled at the mansion for august 30th? reply from the mansion director, quote, that's the lunch that m.m., first lady maureen mcdonnell, is hosting for johnny williams. johnny williams the campaign runner guy who runs the company who is launching the supplement. this time to the first lady's chief of staff, quote, the governor will be in d.c. in the morning and will not be able to attend this. the first lady's office replying, quote, the first lady is not going to be happy about that. that's how some of the governor's staff gets the news that they are hosting this party for the company that belongs to the friend of the governor who paid for the chicken dinner. and never mind what else the governor was dealing with that

mind as governor, there was a big wildfire in virginia that month, followed by hurricane irene, followed by an inexplicable earthquake. never mind any of it. the governor was going to the launch party for the wonder pill held at the governor's house. his wife wanted him to. a big part we know the party happened, is because the donor's company put out the press release of it, but this is not the version the company wanted to send. it includes the back and forth on the press release and what was supposed to be the final draft of that press relief with lines about the governor and first lady joining with doctors to learn more about the state of the research into this product, quote, johnny williams, star scientific ceo, expresses his appreciation for the interest in the company's work. all of us are very grateful for the governor and mrs. mcdonnell for their interest in product and research development. staff members saw that draft press release on the eve of the big event, the staff members, in technical terms, flipped out. quoting directly, all caps, no way this can go as written, says the first lady's chief of staff. governor spokesperson, quote, are we sure we can do something like this?

minutes later, the lawyer who serves as deputy chief of the governor's staff says, you are exactly right to be suspicious. are we sure we can do something like this? no, we are not sure. we are not sure at all, and the party starts in about 18 hours. reading through these e-mails released by "the washington post" today, you can just feel the dread as the governor's staff realized what they are working for and what they are in for. 5:59 p.m., quote, i do not understand this, we are doing an event with them? seriously, we are hurricane centric here, i don't have time to focus on this. hold on.

too late. they did manage to get the press release changed so the mcdonnell's names didn't appear directly, not explicitly, but they hosted that party at the governor's mansion and now the fbi is looking into whether there was any quid pro quo between this company and governor mcdonnell, and the guy running for the next governor of virginia is looking for a probe. while mr. mcdonnell has been fundraising and campaigning and who also got a bunch of gifts from that same donor that he didn't report until a long time after he was supposed to report it. wow. election in virginia is just five months away. watch this space.

overmany discounts to thine customers! [old english accent] safe driver, multi-car, paid in full -- a most fulsome bounty indeed, lord jamie. thou cometh and we thy saveth! what are you doing? we doth offer so many discounts, we have some to spare. oh, you have any of those homeowners discounts? here we go. thank you.

he took my shield, my lady. these are troubling times in the kingdom. more discounts than we knoweth what to do with. now that's progressive.

arguments and disagreements about vice president joe biden abound. is he an effective adviser to president obama? is hez his occasional verbal gaffery a good thing, or maybe a bad thing, did he smile too aggressively at last year's presidential debate? he's the favorite topic of the internet machine, but one thing that comes with the job of the vice presidency that joe biden is unquestionably great at, no debate about, that no one at all doubts that he does better than anyone happened again today, and we've got the tape. and it's great. and it is coming up at the end of the show tonight. if you have not seen it, you will want to see it here. hold on, stay with us.

nbc's chief foreign correspondent, richard engel, has a bit of a scoop on his hands, and it comes in two parts, an interview, a remarkable interview, and also some documents, some documents

that not only have never been disclosed before, they are documents of which nothing of the kind has ever been disclosed before. but let's start with the interview. with the u.s. air force drone pilot speaking with richard engel. this is remarkable tape. watch this. >> you were from a tiny little town in montana, you sign up for the air force. what did you think you were going to be doing? >> i was told that i would be working behind the lines. i passed all the tests, i got a -- scored really high on the az-vab and my recruiter made a james bond reference. you know the guys that sit in the back and give james bond the information he needs to execute the missions? i said, yeah, he said you'll be one of those guys. that's really cool. i didn't think i'd have to pull the trigger.

i knew people would be dying, but i believed i wouldn't be a direct result of someone's death. you know how people say that drone strikes are like mortar attacks, artillery, well, artillery doesn't see it, the killer doesn't see the results of their actions. it's really more intimate for us, we see everything, we see the before, action, then after. i watched this guy -- i watched him bleed out. i watched the result of, i guess, collectively it was our action, but i'm the responsible one that guides the missile in. >> you put the laser on him and now he's dead. >> correct. >> do you think that he was a combatant? >> i have my serious doubts now, but i didn't really question the voices in my head. >> nbc's chief foreign correspondent, richard engel, speaking to a man in the united states air force, helped kill people using drones. there's a lot we do not known about our drone programs, either

in the military or the even more secret cia-run drone program, but tonight, beyond that interview, richard has a real scoop. he has examined the united states government's own accounting of who and where u.s. forces killed people with remotely controlled unmanned drones, and it turns out the accounting is not what you would expect. >> nbc news has examined classified documents detailing 114 drone strikes in pakistan in 2010 and '11, locations, death tolls, alleged terrorists affiliations, but they also reveal what u.s. officials don't know, like how many killed. between seven and ten in one strike, 20 to 22 in another. u.s. officials do seem certain they almost never kill civilians. in those 114 strikes, only one acknowledged civilian causality. >> they want to maintain the myth that civilians are not harmed with drone strikes, which is simply implausible. >> what's more, about a quarter of those killed are described

generically as, quote, other militants. it suggests u.s. officials don't always know exactly how many or who they are killing. sometimes targeting suspects based on what's called a signature terrorist profile, where they live, who they meet, who they talk to. >> joining us now is nbc news chief foreign correspondent, richard engel. richard, thank you for being with us tonight. >> absolutely. >> what exactly is being counted in the document that you saw? >> they are counting causalities. they are counting victims, and they are quite accurate about certain things. there's a column listing sometimes even the name of the compound or who owned the compound and the region where the strike took place, and then there's the category estimated number of combatants killed. and that is a range. sometimes they say they killed seven or they killed maybe seven or seven to ten. they are not exactly sure, because these drones are fired from the sky, there's an

explosion, and they estimate how many people were inside. then there is a category listing who these people were. they are terrorist affiliations, and as you saw in that graphic, sometimes they are al qaeda, sometimes they are from other militant groups, and about a quarter of the time, they are listed as "other militants," generic. so when you combine these two, you don't know exactly how many people you're killing and you don't really know who you're killing exactly, because they are just generic militants. they are other bad guys. then you have a picture where for a fairly substantial amount of time, the u.s. doesn't know who it's killing or how many. and that does raise questions about the claims by the white house that this is almost an infallible program. and this wasn't really looking -- this report wasn't looking at the use of drones as an ethical

weapon or are they efficient, it was looking at the claims that these weapons are always right, that they are somehow terrorist magnets that are dropped from the sky and only find their targets. how can you claim infallibility and claim that in these 114 strikes, there was just one mistake, one person killed, that was a civilian. and at the same time say, well, we don't really know how many people were killed or who they were, but we know they weren't civilians. i don't know how you can do that. >> do we know when these -- when this accounting is from and do we know that the targeting and the accounting is done in the same way now? >> there is a -- there's two types of drone strikes. this was done in 2010, 2011, and, yes, the same targeting principles apply. there's two types of attacks. one is a signature strike, and the other is a personality strike. start with personality strike. personality strike means you know who the person is, and they

are a known militant, you follow them around, you are looking for them, and then you find an opportunity and you kill them. signature strike is more secretive, more controversial, more problematic. this means you don't know specifically who the person is, but they have the profile, the signature profile, of a terrorist. >> which you can tell from the sky? >> because you are watching the same area over and over again, so you know the kind of places where they hang out, the kind of vehicles that they are driving, who they are talking to on the phones. so if there's a established terrorist compound and al qaeda militants are known to frequent this place and you see people coming in and out carrying things on a regular basis and you know from intelligence who they are talking to on the cell phones and their cell phones they are talking to are other people who are known militants, then you're extrapolating and saying, well, this person who's frequent in this area in talking

to these people, probably a terrorist we should kill. >> and that person would get listed as other militants killed? >> or foreign fighter, or they might, in this case, list them as al qaeda if they think they have enough evidence to link them to al qaeda, but it's subjective. >> yeah. >> the weapons are very precise, but at the end of the day, it's a human determination of who gets attacked and who gets droned. and you have people who are looking at lots of intelligence, but they are trying to read the intentions of somebody in waziristan before they've taken -- >> this is more detailed information, this is a more detailed list than anybody outside the government has ever seen about how those -- what those things are that we have done, where we did them, and why we think we did them at the time. nbc chief foreign correspondent, richard engel. thank you for joining us tonight. you can catch more of richard's interview with the drone operator on the "today" show tomorrow morning. all right. we'll be right back.

-yeah! go, angie! -whoo-hoo!

[ sound fades ] at a moment like this, i'm glad i use tampax pearl. [ female announcer ] tampax pearl protects better. only tampax has a leakguard braid to help stop leaks before they happen. tampax pearl protects better.

a couple years back, there was a great documentary about the mayor's race and the town of bogota, new jersey. they had a mayor's race in which two of three candidates were legally blind. two of the three, it included the campaign manager for jessie

the body venture a, there was mayoral drama about the football team. the documentary was called "any town usa" and it was just great. >> i think it is necessary to run election like you're behind all the time. >> steve lonigan is an outright liar. >> i hate lonigan. >> i have no intention of losing this election. >> i'm in it. i'm in it and we're going to win it. >> fred's a good guy, i think he is an honest person. >> i know fred, i happen to like fred. fred's not a smart guy. >> you're probably the only politician running against two legally blind candidates. >> they can do the job just as well, no, they can't. i can do a better job but they can do a good job, too. >> i am running for mayor of bogota. >> independents don't usually win.

>> he is splitting the anti-lonegan vote. we need to be anti-. >> protesters marched city hall calling for the mayor's head. >> lonegan must go. >> i have a voter in estonia, no secret way of sending an e-mail? can he fax in the ballot application? >> that was anytown usa. great documentary. the guy at the end, the main character in the documentary, steve lonegan won that election in 2003, mayor of bogota, new jersey for two terms. then became state director for the koch brothers thing, americans for press perfect tee. as of today, the first candidate to announce he is running as a

republican to try to replace frank lautenberg in the united states senate. the anytown usa guy is in, first one in. that's just the start of what chris christie has brought in his state. if you get to be one of the 100 united states senators that we have in this country, you

if you get to be one of the 100 united states senators that we have in this country, you will earn the tidy salary of $174,000 a year for your term of six years. for the privilege of earning that salary as of last year's election, you will likely have to raise and spend about $10.5 million in order to get the seat in the first place. $10.476 million was the average cost of winning or holding a u.s. senate seat in 2012.

it is expensive for john q or jane q public to become or remain a united states senator. but there's a certain group of americans for whom running for senate is even costlier than the rest of us. that group among the group it costs the most to run for senate is the house of representatives. if you run for the senate, you can't hold onto your house seat while you run for the senate. it is kind of a weird thing. lots of people in the house want to move to the senate. this is one factor that holds a lot of people from actually running. sure, you want to be in the senate, but do you want to give up your house seat enough to try? that problem, that conundrum for ambitious members of congress doesn't apply if the senate race is held off the normal calendar, then you're not running for both at the same time, you can then run for the senate without giving up your seat in the house. the only time it applies, when

senate races are held at weird times. it becomes a free play. when chris christie declares special election for this october to fill the seat left vacant by the passing of frank lawsuiterburg, that got "last one is a rotten egg" especially for members of the house because it will be held at a weird time, in an off year election on a wednesday in october. these guys don't have to put their house seats at risk to run for the senate. what do they have to lose? multiple sources say new jersey congressman rush holt, resident rocket scientist of the house, apparently wants into the senate race. same for congressman frank pallown. he could still be congressman pallone if it fails. cory booker made clear he wants to succeed senator lautenberg, plans to make official announcement any day. who they will ek to succeed, frank lautenberg. his funeral was today in new york city. at the funeral he received what we should all hope to receive when our time is done. a eulogy that was among the best in the business, delivered by a man who has delivered 16 of them

since he has been vice president, and he is very good at them in times like this. vice president joe biden. >> i have as a lot of my colleagues have, i've spoken at more eulogies than i like to remember. i advise you all, you have already broken the rule i advise people to observe. never make a good eulogy. you'll be asked again and again and again. i knew strom thurmond so well, i was asked to do his eulogy. this is a lot easier. i realize it is beyond my capacity to find the words to do justice to frank lautenberg.

obviously i can't do justice to what he meant to all of you. or even what he meant to me and my country. i took the train every day. i would bloe blow out of the senate to make the train, sometimes missed the train. one day i'm breaking my neck to get to the train. i am sprinting. if you ever take amtrak, now ask anybody when you hit washington station do you know joe biden, they'll tell you a story about my trying to make the train. i am like those old commercials, running for the airplane, jumping over chairs. i am carrying my bag, which seemed like my staff deliberately weighted down to slow me down. swear to god, true story, i get