tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC October 8, 2015 12:00am-1:01am PDT
good evening. >> good evening, i'm jealous, alex, that you are in san francisco, excellent show. first thing with us this hour, a moment of personal privilege here. my mom emigrated to this country from canada. nothing against canada, per se. but she found work here that she couldn't find at home. a lot more opportunity that she had here where she grew up. she also met my dad here and he turned out to be a pretty good catch. but my mom was a canadian citizen. and at the time the way policy worked on that issue she had no real option of becoming a dual citizen of both countries. if she wanted to become an american she was also going to have to make a decision about being a canadian in order to become an american.
she would have to give up her canadian citizenship. and she really didn't want to do that. right? no beef with canada. giving up your citizenship of birth, that is a hard thing to do for anyone, no matter where you're from. but my mom made the decision to do it. she decided to become a u.s. citizen. it was a hard call but she did it. there was one thing she really wanted to be able to do which she could not do without becoming an american citizen. and that is she wanted to vote. she wanted to vote specifically for this guy. she wanted to vote for gene mccarthy. the anti-vietnam war candidate who ran for president in 1968. and gene mccarthy did not win the office, not even the nomination that year despite my mom's best efforts. but his campaign at times was like a lightning bolt in u.s. politics, particularly for young people who were really opposed to the war at the time.
there were times it felt like he had a shot, and that he was going to win. that was never more true than this one day in late july, 1968, when he filled up fenway park in boston. that day at fenway, gene mccarthy broke every candidate expectation for either party. 40,000 people came there to see him. that hot july day, 1968. >> we have been talking about freedom for nearly 200 years. every now and then the people will manifest it. and this is the year of manifestations. gene mccarthy, like i said he did not win. but 45,000 people turning out to see him on a summer night when he was still trying to get the
nomination that year, that tells you something about the enthusiasm for him and for his campaign. in my family, personally, it was life-changing enthusiasm. 45,000 people turning up to see him in boston tells you something about where the country was at that year no matter how it turned out. it tells you something about where the country was at and how people were filling as all the candidates vied that year for the presidential nomination. couple of nights ago i said that vermont senator bernie sanders had set a new crowd-size record in massachusetts when he turned out 24,000 people at the boston convention center to hear him give his populous stump speech this past saturday night. it turns out that bernie sander's turnout, it was a record for recent history. that was a turnout record for my lifetime but it was not a turnout record for my mom's lifetime. senator sanders this week did eclipse the people who barack obama turned out in the 2008
campaign. you take a wider lens, gene mccarthy beat them both. gene mccarthy back in the day with 45,000 people he beat them both. he set the all-time record. and gene mccarthy went on to win massachusetts in his fight for the nomination but he didn't win the nomination himself. the nomination went to hubert humphrey, he lost to richard nixon and we got five more years of the vietnam war and we got watergate and all the rest. my poor mom. but now this year with the best chance anyone has ever had of becoming the first woman major party nominee. and the first woman president of the united states. it was that candidate facing a surprisingly robust challenge from this ramble-rousing independent social list who is beating her in the polls in new hampshire with still this
amazingly unknown prospect of a very popular sitting vice president jumping late in the race himself this year. and this year in the race, my mom's daughter today just got word, i just got word that i will moderate the democratic presidential candidates this year in a presidential candidate forum that will take place in south carolina on friday november 6th. very exciting. this has been in the works for a while but it is now confirmed today that former secretary of state hillary clinton, vermont senator bernie sanders, former governor martin o'malley, all of them have said yes. south carolina holds the first in the south primary for both the republican and democratic nominating contest. so this event is interesting. it's being sponsored by the south carolina democratic party but being co-sponsored by all the other southern state parties.
by the democratic parties of alabama, florida, kentucky, mississippi, north carolina, tennessee, texas, mississippi, virginia. so it's a big event, especially for democrats trying to figure out how they're going to compete in the south. it will take place at the winthrop coliseum, at the university in south carolina. now, there has been controversy in the democratic party this year that the party has officially sanctioned only six debates for the democratic candidates this year. looks like the republicans will probably have twice that number. but this newly announced forum in south carolina i have to tell you it does not affect that fight over the number of debates. this thing that i will moderate is a forum, which means the candidates will take the stage one at a time one after the other to take questions from me. excited? yes. terrified? no comment.
but this did formally get out on the schedule today. it will happen between the first two democratic debates. it's going to air live here on msnbc friday november 6th. but while we are on the subject of the democratic contest, today hillary clinton made very big news in that contest when she announced that she is now opposed to the big trade deal that has been so controversial in democratic politics for the past year or more. it's a trade deal that was strongly supported by president obama, strongly opposed by many democrats including liberal firebrands like senator elizabeth warren and secretary clinton's primary opponent senator bernie sanders. this announcement from hillary clinton today this does represent a shift for her on this subject. she had previously voiced qualified but pretty clear support for this deal. she said in her book, hard choices in 2014 that is makes sense to reserve final judgment until we can agree on the proposed judgment.
but in 2012, she gave it the idea as a gold standard. today that qualified but evidenced support for it in the past, now today she says she is opposed. >> so are you saying that as of today this is not something you could support? >> what i know about it today, i am not in favor of what i have learned about it. what i know and again, i don't have the -- we don't yet have all the details. i don't believe it's going to meet the high bar i have set. >> now, in practical terms, this is what this does. the white house has -- congress already gave the white house fast-track authority to get this trade deal done. and this big political shift on it is not likely to change on that. on keystone and a few other issues like this what we have here right now politically is an emerging consensus on the democratic candidates that they all basically agree on most of
all the issues. i mean, hillary clinton may still want a no-fly zone in syria and the other candidates don't, but on the keystone pipeline and on the gun reform, on obamacare, on the basics of big money in politics, a lot of this stuff democratic candidates agree on policy. at least they do now. and the fight therefore, among the democrats is not going to be over which policy is best. they have settled that. they all agree on what policies are best. they all have the same basic policy prescription. the fight among them will be who got to those beliefs first and when they changed their minds if they did have to change their minds and why they did if they did. this is bernie sanders tonight at an hispanic chamber of commerce event in washington, d.c. >> whether it's the keystone pipeline or whether it is ttp, these are issues to i have had a very strong opinion on from day
one. and i simply can say i am delighted to secretary clinton is on board, the opposition to the ttp, to be frank with you, it would have been more helpful to have her on board months ago with the fight on the votes. >> and the latest people on the ttp votes nationwide senator clinton is ahead of senator sanders nationwide by a margin of 20 points. if vice president biden gets in the race in this ttp poll, hillary clinton is beating joe biden ahead by 30 points. ttp gets cheeky and polls hillary clinton ahead of the last nominee for the presidential nominee, barack obama, they poll her against john kerry and against the democratic nominee before that guy, as well. as secretary clinton in a head to head matchup beats al gore by
44 points, i never would have thought to ask. in a head to head matchup she beats john kerry by two points and for good measure, beats elizabeth warren, if she had jumped into the race she beats her pretty handily as well by 30 points. the democratic race for president is not a big policy fight. at least not yet. it is interesting to note and liberals take heed. liberals take heed that even in this strange democratic primary, the results of the democratic primary so far has been really to drag all the candidates towards basically the same major policies on most of the same major issues. politically, though, the democratic primary is still running mostly as a referendum on whether secretary clinton should be the democratic nominee. if you look at the polls she is mostly winning that referendum, at least so far. we'll see if the debate schedule finally settles up on the democratic side and our forum schedule there after will see if
that process changes the dynamics on the democratic side. on the republican side, though, their debate schedule on that process has already started and already taken a big bite out of the list of candidates who are running. the republican side, it's a very different race. they're already driving some of their candidates out of the race. and today at least that can draw some of the top tier candidates to distraction. and that story is still to come tonight. we have lots ahead, it's a big show. stay with us.
richard nixon's 1972 presidential campaign when he was running for re-election. that ad, with all that singing, it was two minutes long. it was a two-minute long tv ad. campaign ads of that length are expensive. because of that they were a rare thing then, they are definitely a rare thing now. but over-long campaign ads can be really effective when they're done well. then 2008 senator barack obama bowled everybody over during his contain with a two-minute ad. no sipping, him talking straight to the camera for two minutes. then in his re-election effort for 2012, mr. obama did it again in the ad. this one was about the osama bin laden raid. tv ads as a species are 30 seconds long, maybe a minute long.
anything longer than that, and even if it is still an ad honestly it feels like something else. when something becomes longer than 30 seconds or a minute it gets our attention. at least feels like a big deal. and this political campaign this year just got our first one of those. it's an ad called run, joe. which was put out today by the group "draft biden" which the vice president himself is not affiliated. it is an emotional minute and a half ad basically begging joe biden to get into the race. they say the ad will run on national cable networks that they viewed today. nobody knows whether or not vice president biden is going to run. anybody speculating really is just speculating, nobody knows but him. but this minute and a half ad is designed to get noticed. and honestly, it is designed for an audience of one.
ooh! we have a winner. all: what? [chuckles] he's supposed to pick one of us. this is a joke, right? that was the whole point of us being here. everythieven the pizza.the nfl, get the new monster toppings pizza, just $12. and don't forget the pepsi. add knots for $5 more. better ingredients. better pizza. better football. papa john's. bernie sanders. >> the magazine, rolling stone, the economist. that state he had been losing to governor john kasich there. qv at home with the trumps maybe? they are making sure he
definitely gets on state ballots which can be a tricky prospect. we are told to expect political ads. mr. trump is pre-bragging about his future ads which he has not the economist. news max, the new yorker, time magazine, news week, there has to be some kind of a record. >> but this is over a short period of time. >> do you have a favorite? >> well, i thought some of the stories were good. i thought the time magazine, the cover of time was a good story. the cover of people was very good. that is not here. >> i'm lucky i got one. i hear it's very good. notice of all the copies he has of all the magazines he is in? but seriously. despite mr. trump's face on the cover of all of these magazining over the past few weeks, despite all the attention in the press, the competing narrative right now lately that mr. trump must be on his way down.
he must not be the presidential frontrunner on the republican side for much longer. that if you listen to the beltway press and headlines right now you would think that it was all over for donald trump. somebody should probably ask the republican voters before they write those headlines. wait, we do have the free republican voters in national polls and swing state polls, a new quinnipiac poll shows mr. trump as a very clear right in florida despite the fact that two native florida sons are running against him. mr. trump has two polls that show him up in that poll by seven points. also the quinnipiac polls in ohio, in the previous poll in that state he had been losing to governor john kasich there. now mr. trump is number one, in pennsylvania he is leading out totally ahead of the pack at 23%.
by way of comparison the establishment choice for who will win if donald trump doesn't, jeb bush, at 4% in pennsylvania right now. not for lack of trying. just this week, the jeb bush, one of the jeb bush supporting super pacs made a $9.9 million ad spending that much just this week. that is roughly the same amount that mr. trump has spent so far on his entire campaign total in terms of his staff spending and everything else. $2 million which includes zero spending by mr. trump on the ads. now, i don't know if that accounts for the big gaffe in his plane, but he is not spending more. now, we got that tour of mr. trump's office this week. they report today that mr. trump is looking at evolution towards a march traditional campaign.
his wife and family are going to start doing more campaign events. we should expect to see more of them. qv at home with the trumps maybe? they are making sure he definitely gets on state ballots which can be a tricky prospect. we are told to expect political ads. mr. trump is pre-bragging about his future ads which he has not yet run today, saying i have such a great concept. in fact, so good. but then of course as he is wont to do, mr. trump declined to reveal his idea. kind of like his plan against isis. today, we may have gotten a taste of what may be trump 2.0, trunk traditional candidacy. and today, trump slogans, and the trump campaign in iowa, they actually wanted people to go to
the caucuses and work for him. they walked voters through the caucus process telling them what is actually needed to help donald trump win or at least compete on iowa caucus night this year. joining us, national reporter for "the washington post." it's nice to see you. >> good to be here. >> i have been of the belief about mr. trump that he has been doing so well because he does nothing that we expect from a regular candidate. does he recognize the threat in becoming a traditional candidate to the extent that it makes him seem more like the regular candidates? >> we went over this with him for an hour, but if he wants to compete, he has to counter the negative ads which are surely coming. that is why he hired an ad firm. >> i think it is hilarious that
he has an amazing idea for an ad but wouldn't tell you what it is. the campaign for growth is running a very highly focused group ads against him. do you get the sense he is taking inspiration from anybody other than himself? learning strategy, or should we expect his ads to be, sprung from the mind of trump? >> i think sprung from the mind of trump. the ads are a little edgy. he says it will be almost like a marketing ad for a company. it will be out there, but the way it works, it's this kind of year. >> here you say this, i feel like -- over the past everybody has tried to come up with wacky ways to break out with ads, carly fiorina has done that to try to break through. i guess what i'm asking from your perspective -- >> i think he will do attack ads, as well. if you look at what his campaign says when it comes to carly
fiorina and carson he is willing to take them on. he sees a real competition for that outsider vote come january or february i am not sure when he goes on the air waves. there are no bio spots, he was clear about that. we'll see negative ads, not really an introduction. >> no bio ads on the life of trump? i'll do that. let me ask you, in terms of the nuts and bolts that he is planning on, we did see the caucus ideas, a concrete idea where he will try to win. when you look at what he is trying to do to get on the ballot, the other things he is doing in terms of organizing. do they seem skilled or organized? >> i think one of the most under-reported parts of the campaign, it comes out of the koch brother's idea, the campaign manager came directly from being a grass roots guy from the koch brothers.
he comes to work for trump, if you look at trump's network it's full of the grass-roots volunteer type campaign. >> meaning the implication, those people have come from politically planned training. >> very true for example, in the iowa campaign, rick santorum's former campaigner, a non-conventional campaign but backed up by a koch campaign. >> thanks, rachel. all right, still ahead. brand-new baffling word gumbo, from the man who is probably about to become the speaker of the house. >> why wouldn't the president treat america the same as he has treated iran? >> the same as he has treated iran, right? same as he treated. stay with us.
>> in the world and at play. something like that happened today in the very serious end of the news when russia launched 26 missiles of a type they have never used before from 900 miles away into the middle of the syrian war. in choosing to use that new missile, russia may have been mostly showing off. maybe they were just wishing president putin a happy birthday today. but maybe what they're trying to do is prove they can until upset the balance of geopolitical power by surprising everybody with a move that nobody expected and nobody knows how to react to. hold that thought. life of now
to make that harm benghazi -- i do not want to make that harm -- >> this has been a bit of a setback. because i do not want to make that harm benghazi committee in any way. >> i do not want to make that harm benghazi committee in any way. kevin mccarthy is not getting better. when he gave his foreign policy speech the first business day after john boehner stepped down as speaker, the kind-hearted of us wondered if he spoke that way in that speech because it was the first day nerves or jitters, maybe. >> this white house is managing the decline. and putting us in tough decisions for the future. petraeus had an effectively politically strategy to match the military strategy. a simple promise to all of our
heroes who need when they need it most. the president would allow the ban on iranian oil exports to be lifted. ands stand while russia blackmails an entire continent. in the past few years alone, i have visited poland -- >> that was -- we're not editting that stuff. that was the first day back at work after john boehner resigned. john boehner resigning put kevin mccarthy in line to be the next speaker of the house. but turns out we now know that was not first day jitters, that is how he tries to talk. because after that first gobbly-gook translate back into english, in the days after the disaster he kept on keeping on.
and it was days after he said that that republicans had created the benghazi committee to bring down hillary clinton's poll numbers. which obviously is something republicans did, but they're not supposed to admit it. after defending that for a few days, today mr. mccarthy finally admitted that he messed that up. you know, but even when he was still defending it he still really truly even when help is not trying to read from notes he is still truly having a hard time talking in a way that makes sense. >> i do not want to make that harm benghazi committee in any way. >> despite this verbal incapability, can i think is going to become an object of fascination if they really do go through with making him speaker. despite his verbal trouble, house republicans do seem set to go ahead tomorrow with nominating kevin mccarthy to be the new speaker of the house
which will put him third in line to the presidency after vice president joe biden. and even today, on the precipice of that achievement as he is more and more frequently being asked about the big issues of the day and america's role in the world, still today the man cannot speak in a way that consistently makes sense. honestly, this is just today. this is not getting better. this is -- okay, kevin mccarthy asking today why wouldn't the president treat america the same as he has treat iran. >> but as we recently discussed, this president put forward an iran agreement. why wouldn't the president treat america the same way as he treat ran? >> the same as he treat -- speaker to be kevin mccarthy, what about world leaders? mr. mccarthy, world leaders, what do they use energy to put influence?
do you have any thoughts about that. >> when you think about what is going on in the world and you look at world leaders they use energy to put influence almost like a military resource. >> they use energy to put influence almost like a military resource, okay? okay. another question, is this speaking problem going to be a problem? if this man really does become third in line to the presidency as speaker of the house, will this communication be a problem? no problem, no way, there are a lot of people who lead a very good job. so he is fine. >> we got a lot of members inside this conference that lead a very good job getting the message out and will continue to do it. >> thank you. >> well, all right. lots of members lead a very good job of getting the message out. we're going to have a little
more on the show tonight about what might happen, whether the republicans are really going to put this republican in such a high visible role. they might pick him. and honestly, maybe he will do great. maybe he will. but on days like this, it's still funny, still amazing. but it's also daunting to see something like that. when news like today's news happens i don't envy anybody who is in the upper echelon in the decision-making role. when news like today happens it sort of seems more crucial than ever that the people at the top freaking know what they're doing. today, russian war ships in the caspian sea, started launching these missiles. with no warning, russia launched 26 of these missiles today that went more than 900 miles through
the air space. the russian defense ministry said that the missiles were so precise they hit within ins of their targets. russia decided to use missiles they never used in the world before, using lots of them. went 900 miles and landed in the syrian war. days ago, russian jets violated the air space of turkey at least twice, and turkey jets scrambled to escort the russian planes back out of their air space. and it's one thing to think of a fight between turkey and russia, oh, that is an interesting thing. but turkey is part of nato, so
when it comes down to it that is a russian/nato fight in the air. and of course we are part of nato. today we got news from the pentagon that the russian jets bombing the targets in syria had to cage course. the u.s. had to change course to avoid the russian planes who are also there to fight the war, which is a very different war than our war. russia started their war against syria a week ago, russia fired missiles it never fired in combat, and spined out propaganda bragging about it. russia violating turkish air space, now coming into close contact with each other in the air. in a movie, the way this ends is that there is a war between the united states and russia. i do not believe that this is that movie. but it is awful hard for me to understand how syria feels.
>> we are not prepared to cooperate in a strategy which is -- as we've explained, is flawed. tragically flawed on the russians' part. we continue to have a fundamental strategic disagreement and believe that their strategy is fundamentally flawed. >> secretary of defense ash carter saying firmly and repeatedly that russia is doing their own thing in syria. that they're doing their own thing and that the u.s. is not cooperating with them. russia flew missiles 900 miles away. with russian jets having issues as they occupy space for very different reasons. how serious is this? everybody is saying we don't want a proxy war with russia over syria.
how serious is this, and what realistically are our options? joining us now, an army combat veteran, congresswoman, thank you for joining us. >> thanks, rachel. >> how -- i guess, how serious, it's a very general, wide-ranging question, but how serious do you think the issue is? how concerning are these issues? >> i'm deeply concerned, rachel, for issues in syria. but it's reasons that go deeper than even the reports that we're hearing. the real concern i see is that our leaders continue to lose sight of what our mission is. what the united states mission is. this is something we saw started after 9/11 with president bush when he went into rather than focusing on defeating al qaeda, these other islamic extremest groups.
instead he was distracted by removing dictators like hussein. we saw this with the removal of moammar gadhafi in libya. we have seen situations where they're over-run with chaos and islamist extremists. and this lack of focus on who our enemy really is in syria, here is the irony in all of this and the thing that is deeply concerning to me is that the united states is actually partnering with these islamic extremists on the ground, al qaeda and al nusra, in supporting assad. rather than defeating isis. what happens is the united states and others focusing on saying assad must go, if assad is overthrown tomorrow, the islamist extremist groups who are united by one purpose, and that is to take over syria,
overrun the country and present a greater threat not only to the middle east but to the world. >> the white house would say, the administration would say that there is a way to be opposed to assad but be unwilling to fight that war. and instead to prioritize fighting isis. they would say they're trying to thread that needle. i think they concede it is difficult but that is what they would say their focus is. my question is whether or not that focus is being realized on the ground. now that russia is in there fighting a full-blown war with cruise missiles and basically totally unconstrained targeting of people, even those who are aligned with the united states, what does that scramble to, to what is already a very difficult mission? >> first of all i can tell you as a soldier i know very basic concepts. you don't defeat your enemy by also simultaneously helping them at the same time. isis, al nusra, all of these different groups are focused on
removing assad, because they know if he goes they will be the first one in the door. and what we've seen on the ground, the chaos, the human suffering, what we've seen so far will only grow by many multiples. but we'll also see now these groups will have all of these capabilities that assad currently has. so you know russia sees the outcome if assad falls. so they're attacking these islamic extremist groups who are trying to take over this country and syria, for us in the united states what is in our best national interest is to focus on who exactly our enemy is and not continue to fall into these same mistakes of the past and get into this mission of toppling secular dictators that we know will end very badly not only for the people in the region but for the american people, as well. >> congresswoman gabbard, always a pleasure to talk to you about these issues.
will only grow by in multiples, but we'll also see, now these groups will have all these capabilities that assad currently has. >> congresswoman, it's always a pleasure to talk with you. >> thanks, ray yell. >> one thing you should know tonight, you don't even have to get up and change the channel, it's the documentary "blood lions." everybody who has thing this thing says it is absolutely fascinating and terrifying. you will not see lawrence o'donnell tonight, you will see "blood lions" coming up after the show. it's supposed to be amazing.
will only grow by in multiples, issues and how republicans talk. but every once in a while, the republican party throws out a curveball. >> lyndon johnson is probably rotting in hell right now because of the vietnam war. needs to know dick cheney. >> what he did today is rather stupefying. that story is next.
but that's how he signs his name. walter. he had a legitimate, dramatic uncynical change of heart on a really important issue. he initially voted for the iraq war. almost a zealot on the issue. he was one of two members of congress who insisted the congressional cafeteria change the name french fries to freedom fries as a protest against france not joining that war. but within a couple of years, walter jones was openly and earnestly regretful about that vote in support of the war. he ended up sponsoring numerous pieces of legislation to try to end the iraq war. he's a far right conservative on a lot of issue, but he's an iconoclastic, interesting guy. he's nothing if not predictable. but even if you start with that understanding of walter jones. what he did is a surprise, even for him. it's raising eyebrows all over washington today because nobody knows exactly what he means.
but he's written this letter to the chairman of the house republican congress today. dear chairman, i have had the pleasure of serving the third district of north carolina for the past 20 years in congress. some of the most difficult times have been been when republican leaders or potential republican leaders must step down because of skeletons in their closet we saw it with newt gingrich and bob livingston. with all the voter distrust felt in washington around the country, i'm asking that any candidate for the speaker of the house, majority leader or majority whip withdraw himself from the leadership election if there are any misdeeds he has committed since joining the congress. that will embarrass himself, the republican conference and the house if they become public. thank you, walter. and then he handwrites at the bottom, i believe this question is important to the integrity of the house. congressman jones, is there something you would like to tell us about the candidates for republican leadership? who is this directed to?
and what kind of misdeeds? we did not hear back from congressman jones when we put that question to his office today. but he did tell politico.com, quote, in this world we live in today with you young guys and the internet and everything, all the blogs and the papers, i just felt when i leave at 5:00, nobody knows what i do. if anybody running for leadership has, after 5:00 had an issue, drinking and driving or playing cards or anything, then i think the conference needs to know it. house speaker candidates, are you doing any card playing after work? it's time to fess up and get out of the way. and quick! because house speakers are going to make their choice tomorrow. kevin mccarthy is expected to win that vote unless house conservatives can get forg behind some alternative. as of tonight, it doesn't look like that's happening. the house freedom caucus said they would vote as a block to support daniel webster. even if they support him as a bloc, that still doesn't get him enough votes to end up being
speaker. it midget just make them have enough votes to keep kevin mccarthy from becoming speaker. so then what happens? kevin mccarthy's conservative critics are unlikely to be able to keep him from getting the job, if only because they cannot agree amongst themselves on any one candidate, any one strategy to defeat him. but anything is possible. we're going to find out tomorrow if house republicans come up with some viable idea to keep kevin mccarthy from becoming speaker. once he's nominated we need to find out if he gets the votes to ascend to the speakership without having to turn to democrats for help. amidst all of that drama, we now know we have something else to wait for. who exactly is walter jones so wereried about in terms of his or her post 5:00 p.m. activities and/or card playing.
it's all going to go down tomorrow in congress. it's one of the most interesting fights in congress for a long time. watch this space. hillary versus trump. could we be looking at the battle of the century? let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. the time for great politics may be upon us. if the trends continue the idea of a 2016 general election that pits hillary clinton against republican donald trump may switch from plausible to probable. we may see a trump election as greatest choice for president in decades. battle between political maverick on the right as the dramatic test of the young 21st century.