tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC November 12, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am PST
you are well were presented. please come back and let us know how this turns out. >> we will. >> thank you very much. >> that is tonight's last word. big man on campus. let's play "hardball." ♪ ♪ good evening, i'm chris matthews from manchester, new hampshire, where we look at the growing political issues. let's look at university of missouri as well as other campuses. the monday, the resignation was prompted of university president tim wolf, coming amid charges that wolf had not addressed what many considered undercurrents of racism on campus.
among the details this week, the student body press was called the n word in september, a class president was interrupted with racial slurs. and a swastika was drawn with feces. now the candidates are weighing in. i'm joined by msnbc political analyst, global director of "the washington post." and a cable writer for "the washington post." let me start with you, howard, i thought it was inevitable. but here they come led by donald trump. this morning, donald trump blasted the school, the university of missouri for the president's resignation and took a hard line on the protesters. >> what is your take on this whole missouri story? the protesters -- >> i think it's disgusting. i think the two people who resigned are weak, ineffective people. i think that when they resign they set something in motion
that will be a disaster for the next long period of time. they were weak, ineffective people, how we hire people like this. trump should have been the chancellor of that university, believe me, there would have been no resignation. >> well, tensions remain high at the university of missouri where campus police this week have asked university students to report incidents of hate speech. but last night, dr. ben carson says that sends the wrong message. >> what they're telling these students right now on the university of campus is if you hear speech that you find insulting call the cops. you are now supposed to call the campus cops if you hear something offensive. what are we doing to tomorrow's generation? >> well, we're being a little bit too tolerant, i guess you might say, accepting infantile behavior. and i don't care which side it comes from.
you know, to say that i have the right to violate your civil rights because you are offending me is unamerican. >> well, now the news is starting a national debate over free speech and how to balance it. and within the interest of a community like the school student body. what began at the university of missouri also spread to other campuses and states including yale, where the students were advised not to wear offensive, that is the word, halloween costumes. carson, who is a yale alumni, says it is all part of a dangerous trend. >> we need to recognize this is a very dangerous trend. when we get to a point where a majority can say i don't like what you're doing. that is offensive and therefore i have a right to be violent towards you. or to deprive you of rights because i don't like what you're doing. you know, that really goes against the grain of our
constitutional rights. >> let's go to you, howard, first on this one, you and i went through the '60s, this is an issue of campus unrest. and where does it stand with you right now? >> well, i think the points about free speech are important but i don't think that is really what is on the minds of the republican candidates who tried to make political hay out of this. i think they're going back to the '60s republican playbook. first to attack the universities, bastions of secular elites, that goes back to bill buckley, george wallace, it's about a permissible society. we lived through it during the student turmoil in the '60s, the cry from the right and the richard nixons of the world was law and order. because the administrators, the parents had become permissisive, it is a result of our progress
in the sense that when ben carson was at yale in the early '70s, i dare say he didn't expect to be clasped to the bosom of yale university. students expect to feel at home where they go to school. and they're not feeling at home where they go to school. i know that from reports all over the country. and mizzou, give the demographics of missouri ended up being an extreme example of that. >> well, let me look at this, when the president of to school and the chancellor both dropped their positions and just gave up, basically, what seemed to be missing was any body or umpire, if you will in sports terms, to say who was right and who was wrong. it looked like just a question of students joined by faculty putting pressure on the guy to jump. it was not like who was right and who was wrong, it was like who had the most power in the
moment. >> not just the students and faculty, but don't forget the football team and my contention has always been, you know, student protesters always call for the resignation of the president of the college or the dean of the college but it never happens. and in this case it happened. and there is a story out, i can't remember where it is, but there was discussion on a battle over cuts to student benefits, but that being said it is clear that the students who were protesting what was going on, on the campus at the university of missouri, had legitimate complaints and concerns, where they felt like their own physical safety was at risk. when you have someone on a hunger strike because they feel the administration is not listening. when you have people who i dare say feel terrorized because somebody puts up a swastika in
human excrement, there is a culture on that campus that people were pushing back against and the administration was not doing enough to address it. >> well, marco rubio also jumped in and questioned the protesters. here is what he said on the campaign trail today down in south carolina. >> freedom of speech under campus seems to be under assault in supposedly some of the finest institutions in this country. in the case of missouri i'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is that got the president fired. what exactly did he do or say, that was the reason he should have resigned. >> and in the campaign stop this morning, chris christie blamed president obama. boy, that is an interesting thing. i think part of this is a product, he said, of the president's own unwillingness and ability to bring people together, when people think justice is not applied evenly and fairly they take matters into their own hands. the lawlessness in this country that is allowed to exist, just causes hope -- i don't know how
you tie the president into this or the rainy weather or anything else. my question to you is, i think what trump is after here, i know you all have your views on this. it seems like trump always goes after weakness. he is the macho man, i'm the guy that is going stand up to putin. these guys didn't think they were wrong, to president chancellor, they thought they were right. so if they thought they were right why did they buckle and quit? >> just to tie the chris christie piece together and donald trump piece together, remember when donald trump was a gaslight businessman in new york and not a candidate for office took out all the full page ads in new york city calling for the five central park, five young black and brown men accused of raping a young jogger in central park for them to be put to death. they were wrong about those five guys, they were all innocent, he said they were also weak. i think the comments made is
playing out the tenets on the right that have been out a long time, that have been exacerbated by barack obama, that their speech and liberty is taken away from them by barack obama, whether they are racial or sexual minorities are forcing the culture in their direction and not allowing the expression of white working class americans of conservative americans and christians, and whether that is on gay marriage in which they feel their speech is being curtailed in which they have to make a cake, or on racial matters where they feel like black lives matter is essentially bullying americans on race, this is a constant theme. and has been that way since the comments on the police officer.
the arrival of that '70s era, nixon era of politics on the right which says the left is bullying us and white america in terms of our speech, and christian america in terms of our speech. they're able to get a multi-racial pantheon on their side in terms of ben carson and rubio and cruz. and i would think when trump is not attacking -- he may be attacking the voices of change and protest. i think he is really attacking the weak leadership as he sees it of our institutions starting at the top. weak people. >> yes, i think that is right, chris. i agree, i think he is going for -- i think he encompasses things we have been talking about and gains power on the traditions of things we have been talking about, political attack from conservatives and republicans on issues like this. but you're right. i think at the time when people
so distrust their leaders, weak leaders in congress, leaders you can't trust in the white house, corporate executives who make three times what the guy on the shop floor makes. i think donald trump, his whole calling card is this notion of almost super human strength. don't forget in that sound bite where you just played he referred to himself in the third person. if trump is president. >> like caesar. >> like caesar. >> if trump is president. yes, i think that is his appeal. and his danger. >> okay, i just agreed on another angle. you know, whenever you go to a campus to give a speech, there will be others who protest. make sure you show up and accept the invitation of the institution and be proud of what you have to say when you get there and be glad you got the
invitation. and don't let somebody cow you into thinking i don't want to cause any trouble. that is not the way to proceed in a free society. the idea is to exploit. it sounds a little too holy. i did enjoy hearing joy reid -- coming up, hillary clinton meets bernie sanders and martin o'malley. clinton is pulling away in the polls. can bernie sanders regain his momentum and make it a real race? he has to win new hampshire for that to happen, i think he agrees with that too. and the talk of deporting 11 million illegal immigrants. such talk works on the right but could it be deadly to the party come next november. and former speech writer peggy noonan is here to talk about her new book.
and live free or die state of new hampshire. this is "hardball." the place for politicings. for our players' choice pizzas, we made the nfl players' favorite pizzas. now you can eat like an nfl player. if i can eat like a football player... i can talk like one... i can workout like one. i can even dress like one. look: you can eat the pizza, you just can't steal my shorts. up your game with our players' choice pizzas: the new spicy sriracha meats, the bbq chicken and bacon, or the loaded works for $12 each. better ingredients. better pizza. better football. at the new papa johns.com.
and some revealing new numbers on what americans think matters when it comes to presidential candidate traits. 44% of registered voters say they definitely would not vote for a candidate with no government experience. 19% said they would, while 36% said they could vote for that person but with reservations. meanwhile, half of the voters say they definitely wouldn't vote for a socialist. 29% say they would with reservations. 18%, say they definitely would not vote for them. and we'll be right back.
behind. a new national poll today from cbs and "the new york times" has hillary clinton in the lead nationally. the poll shows you everything you need to know about how that happened, about the state of the race. eight weeks ago, senator sanders held a double digit lead for the pollings, it was sanders, 45, clinton just 32. bernie's numbers haven't fallen, but his lead has been clinton is surging in iowa, too, sanders was neck and neck with clinton back in september. now she has a 24-point lead and the polling average is there. so has bernie burned out? can he resurge? how does he win here in new hampshire where he has to win? the president of emily's list has endorsed hillary clinton and john nicoles the national correspondent with "the nation."
i'm trying to think "the nation" is a pretty liberal magazine and i'm trying to figure out if there is still hope. your thoughts, john. >> well, i do think there is still hope that it will be a two-person race. the fact of the matter is bernie sanders and martin o'malley got into a very tough race at the start. they got in the race with a real frontrunner who had strong organization and great name recognition. hillary clinton had a rough late summer and early fall and then she hit her mark. there is no question about that. to my view, about what sanders has to think about, and martin o'malley, is how did they distinguish themselves in this race? if it is just attacking clinton that is not in my sense going to get them very far. clinton has attacked from the right. there is a national sense that that doesn't work and shouldn't work.
for both of them it really is an issue-based drive. they have to distinguish themselves on a final issue. one final thing, we do have to understand that despite the fact that things have sped up so much it is still relatively early in this process. remember, eugene mccarthy didn't announce his run until november 30th. >> yeah, and he still got about 30%. he said that he disagrees with hillary clinton on perhaps everything. perhaps it's wishful thinking because hillary clinton has orchestrated a full force against his rank. on the big issue of trade she recently came out against the trade deal. on the environment, against keystone pipeline. and the economy she now favors a tougher crackdown on wall street, hedge funds and big banks. she says she will be no more aggressive overseas than president obama.
let's listen. >> is it fair for people to expect that you would be a more aggressive commander-in-chief than president obama has been? >> no, and here is why. i want us to use diplomacy which is why i spent 18 months putting together the sanctions against iran so that we could force them to the negotiating table to try to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon and end the talk of bombing them and going to war against them but instead using diplomacy. so that is how i will approach these issues. however, i will not. i think it's irresponsible to rule out force. i just will not do that. but it should always be the last resort, not the first choice. >> stephanie, it seems like hillary clinton has said fairly recently that she is a political moderate. a moderate democrat. at the same time, bernie sanders keeps trying to draw distinctions from her, and she is not letting him draw those distinctions. explain to the voter out there watching right now what is the
differential in terms of policy between hillary clinton, a self-described moderate, and bernie sanders, a self-described democratic socialist? >> well, i think hillary clinton said it the best during the debate that she completely excelled add that she is a progressive and can get things done. she has laid out a whole series of policies that the voters as they tune in, as we get a little bit closer really recognize are the right direction to go for this country and why we're seeing great momentum going into this next debate and heading into the weeks and the months to come. >> do you think that bernie sanders made a mistake, stephanie when he basically threw in the towel in the issue of the e-mails? now, we don't know how the investigation will go with the partisan committee that is looking at it. but for the rival of the nomination, just throw that away and say i don't want to hear anymore about the damned e-mails, do you think that helped bernie sanders or helped hillary? >> well, i think nobody wants to
hear about the e-mails anymore. what we see are thousands and thousands of pages looked through. we saw hillary clinton sit and deal with the committee for 11 hours. and the momentum shift because what we saw is a true leader who has done nothing wrong. and we are done just debating this. i think the mistake bernie sanders has made is going negative at all. when you're an insurgent candidate who is supposed to be different than all the politicians before and then you make a political move like this you start to see some faltering. and i think that actually may be the problem. it will be interesting to see what happens on saturday night. >> it will be, but let me ask john about that. because stephanie said that bernie has been negative. he has been lately in a kind after glancing way. but to throw away the issue used by hillary clinton by others, certainly not by to people to her left but by others struck me as an odd sort of jumping over the tennis net saying i'm going to make sure you win this game.
it didn't seem like the action of a competitor, but a protester who would rather win on the issues. >> i don't think that bernie sanders thinks of himself as a protest candidate. but i do think what he did there was very different from what we see a lot of in politics. and bernie sanders has said again and again he doesn't like that. he doesn't like the personal back and forth and it has been a signal from the start of his campaign that he was not going to do it. my sense is there was a certain wisdom in it. because the fact of the matter is had he gone on a major attack and made it central to his campaign -- >> yeah, but don't -- john, i'm smarter than you on that one. don't try to set up a straw man here. nobody is saying he should have gone on the attack. he said -- it's not like i'm not going to slam you. nobody thought he would.
why do you think he just took it off the table? just took it off. because he has been sliding in the polls ever since. thank you, john nicoles from "the nation." up next, do republicans want to widen the net or shrink it? could it hurt gop chances next year? this is "hardball," the place for politics.
welcome back to "hardball." when it comes to immigration, is donald trump leading his party with his talk of rounding up and deporting millions of immigrants who are here illegally? let's watch. >> can you just send five million people back with no effect on the economy? >> you're going to have to send people back. look, we're a country of laws. we either have a country or we don't have a country. >> you are saying your
deportation plan would be humane? >> totally humane. >> that is 11 million -- >> but katie, it will be humane. >> will you have a massive deportation force? >> you will have a massive deportation force. >> a deportation force, well, last night, fox news bill o'reilly compared his actions to eisenhower, who deported millions. >> believe me what i tell you, mr. trump, that was brutal when they kicked them back. the stuff was really brutal. it couldn't happen today. >> i heard it both ways. >> no, no. >> we would do it in a very humane way. >> well, trump's rhetoric has sparked a debate in their own party. meanwhile, today, ted cruz and rand paul slammed marco rubio
who once backed immigration efforts in the senate that included a path to citizenship. rubio hit back on cruz's own record on immigration. he fought back regarding the undocumented workers in the country. all this hard-line talk, an electability time bomb could be at work here with the republican party. i'm joined by susan page, the senior politics writer for u.s. news and war report. and fredericka, in order as i have introduced you -- susan, let's go at this. is trump basically setting up what the republicans are going to look like next year? are his words going to be the words that the democrats use to say this is the republican position? we're sending you back to mexico? >> you know, we heard jeb bush say that they were high-fiving themselves in the clinton campaign during the debate that they just had when they talked about immigration.
i think that is right. this is going to create huge problems for whoever the republican nominee is, because we know that hispanic voters are the fastest rising voters in america. it's such a message to the voters saying you're going to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. and you know it's true that you see other candidates in the past who have taken more moderate positions like ted cruz now piling on to go to the right on immigration and take a very hard line. that will work perhaps in a republican primary. it will be a tougher sell in a general election. >> but tuesday's debate in that sense was very useful because it crystallized this debate. you have trump and cruz taking the hard line position on this. the governors bush, john kasich on the other side. and frankly if you go back and look at the tape rubio didn't intervene in that tape, meaning he wants to straddle it and having it in the middle. and now he is feeling it today giving what cruz is doing.
i think it was a very helpful debate. the party is divided on this. you have multiple candidates on each side of it. >> today, cruz threw a not so subtle jab at rubio on immigration. >> when chuck schumer and barack obama joined with established republicans and pushing the massive amnesty plan the gang of 8 bill i joined side by side with senator jeff sessions, we led the fight to defeat amnesty. if the republican party nominates a candidate who supports amnesty along with hillary clinton we will lose the general election. >> well, later in the day, laura ingraham questioned cruz about rubio's past immigration support. >> refresh our memory about the enforcement amendments that were offered and summarily defeated. one, i think jeff sessions proposed, did rubio support any of those amendments?
>> he opposed every single one of them. >> he basically says now he has heard the concerns and the people are not where their thinking was, i guess that is what he is saying. >> you know, look, it's not like people were quiet in sharing their concerns. >> well, rand paul discussed rubio today. >> what i objected to with marco is that he has blocked all conservative ideas. there was basically a secret deal between marco and chuck schumer to exclude all conservative amendments on the immigration deal. when he got together with chuck schumer on the immigration deal, i knew this fix was in, he was not going to allow conservative immigration. >> fredericka, impressive voices are coming from the right on this and not those who talk practicality in terms of the
elections next year. >> certainly, that is the case. i mean, you have jeb bush and john kasich, saying please we need to be more compassionate. trying to offer this conservative compassionate message. and they're just being drowned out. it is a race between rand paul and marco rubio to see who is more conservative. part of the rhetoric with donald trump, being conservative, talked about a military-like deportation like eisenhower during the debate and he is pushing that message and people seem to be trying to chase behind them and be even firmer on the question of illegal immigration and trying to appeal to this very conservative republican -- electorate. at least you know what he is saying, i have no idea where bush or john kasich stands.
they don't have a position, i don't think the republican party has the cajones right now to use a spanish term to come out and say you know what we're for? we're for stopping illegal hiring but not for sending everybody home. we're going to stop the person from coming across the border tomorrow night and just going to have regulation like any other country but they don't say it. i think that is why trump is heard and they are not. your thoughts? >> trump is being very clear and touching the chord that resonates with a lot of americans. to talk about people who don't have plans, jeb bush doesn't have a specific plan but donald trump doesn't have an articulate plan on how he would go about deporting 11 million people. he says he would be compassionate and humane, and
welcome back to "hardball," back with the round table, susan, david and fredericka, in that order, susan, tell me something i don't know. >> well, you know there has been a debate within the ranks of the bernie sanders campaign about whether he needs to do the kind of speech about being a socialist, that barack obama had to do about his race, or john kennedy had to do about being a catholic. here is something that came out in the last 24 hours that increases the odds he feels he will have to give that speech. it is a poll that shows that 54% of americans say they definitely wouldn't vote for a socialist. only 75% of liberal democrats say they would be willing to vote for a socialist. this is an issue that it looks like bernie sanders will need to address quickly. >> finally, i thought that would have come earlier. david? >> don't expect the campaign to go after somebody like ben carson.
i spoke to representatives of rubio and cruz' campaigns this week and they see themselves as a primary rival and are fighting for the number three spot. they know carson has the highest favorability ratings in the republican party. they say that is a risk and they will worry about taking him on later. >> fredericka? >> and chris -- this week there will be a bunch of latinos, i mean, several hundred going to a test prep class in las vegas in spanish to pass a driver's license exam. some of them are undocumented. now, the folks who are sponsoring this are not some union or some liberal group. it is libre initiative, one of the organizations that is part of the large koch network, funded by charles koch and his brother, david, and they're trying to reach out to latinos, giving out turkeys in los angeles. it's all part of spreading the
free market message and getting latinos to look at republicans. so this is very relevant to this debate that we're having about immigration and the efforts of some conservatives to try to make inroads with this audience. >> thank you, my round table tonight, up next, top columnist and former reagan speech writer peggy noonan will be here. this is "hardball," the place for politics. handshake. ay,no! don't do that! try head & shoulders instant relief. it cools on contact, and also keeps you 100% flake free. try head & shoulders instant relief. for cooling relief in a snap.
senator ted cruz tied with donald trump in a new poll. cruz and trump are topped with 27 apiece. ben carson, 13, and hillary clinton on top with 61% of democrats backing her in texas. bernie sanders gets a surprising 30% down there. texas holds its primary on super tuesday march 1st. and we'll be right back.
>> we're back, that was ronald reagan, of course delivering one of his most famous speeches, the challenger speech, it was written by one of his speech writers, and a brilliant wordssmith herself, who has just written a book, time of her our lives. the trove of writings. peggy noonan joins us, peggy, i read your newspaper first so that i get to the back of the section to you. and together with the review section of "the wall street journal," i think it's the best paper of the week. now, how did you go wrong? just kidding. you are a great conservative writer and most of the time i do agree with your sentiment about
our country. i think we share a very strong sentiment. i think i disagree with you where you're partisan. how do you as a journalist, and you are a journalist, deal with the fact of fact as opposed to opinion? i think columnists, not bloggers, but columnists are also journalists. how do you put it together, fact and your personal beliefs and opinions? >> my thought is never hide your philosophy. never hide where you're coming from. throw the ball straight as you can. marshal your facts as well as you can to make the case you want to make. it's sort of that simple. i learned it from guys like bill sapphire, who was a great friend of yours, i think. and also of robert bartley. >> how do you separate opinion columning from propaganda? from just say -- something dished out by one of the two
party committees, the dnc or the rnc. how do you separate that from slackery? >> i never even think about that to tell you the truth. my way of operating is to consider myself a conservative. that doesn't mean i represent, speak for, defend, or have a benign attitude towards the republican party. it doesn't even mean i'm always in disagreement with the democratic party. to write an opinion column is to simply share your thoughts ought your views, but not somebody else's, not some institution's. i don't write as the voice of "the wall street journal." i don't write as the voice of any party or faction. you know, it's just coming from me, you used to write a column. didn't you feel that way ? >> yeah, and i think you're right on that point. somebody once told me that when somebody from the republican party complains about what you
write, you say i am not working for you or against you, i happen to agree with you this time. get it? they don't always understand. >> and it is always surprising to people when you're not on the team. your own side, the receives, who are largely republican, mostly republican expect you to be a loyalist. on the other side, on the democratic side, they just assume you are a loyalist. >> that is right in your book here, there are liberal columnists who see no enemies on the left. and conservative columnists with no enemies to the right. what do you think of those columnists? >> look, you can wind up in the business i am in and the business you were in when you were a columnist as somebody who feels they're writing for a group or an institution or maybe even the voice of a newspaper. i never feel that way. i am writing as myself.
marshal your facts as well as you can to make the case you want to make. it's sort of that simple. i learned it from guys like bill sapphire, who was a great friend of yours, i think. and also from robert bartley. >> how do you separate opinion columning it from propaganda, from just, say, something dished out by one of the two-party committees. the dnc or the rnc. how do you separate that from flackery? >> i never even think about that, to tell you the truth. my way of operating is to consider myself a conservative. that doesn't mean i represent speak for, defend, or have a benign attitude toward the republican party. it doesn't always mean i'm in disagreement with the democratic party. to write an opinion column is to simply share your thoughts and your views, but not somebody else's. not some institution's. i don't write as the voice of the "wall street journal." i don't write as the voice of
any party or faction. people who have been born here, they get this sense of, i don't think they get it. being an american is the greatest thing in the world and i was born with it. i once worked with a capitol hill cop who said, you know why little men loves this country, because he's always got it. i think he talks about it as crassly as he does, and about trade as crassly as he does, i think he's on to something, but maybe lucky for the country, he doesn't know it. what do you think? >> i thought, from the moment he announced, i watched his announcement speech, from the moment he announced and said, i'm gonna build a wall, i thought, whoa, this is going to be big. he hit a throbbing nerve and in large part about this sense that america is a sovereign nation,
it is our country, does it have a right to control its borders? does it have a right to decide what its new citizens will be? well, some will say, yeah, we have borders for a reason, and yeah, we have a right to decide. so they don't like this stuff. among conservatives and with some folks on the left, there's this large, abstract sense of globalism and open borders. and the inevitability of migrations and et cetera. but regular people living regular lives, they are seeing it much more fundamentally and basically. does america have rights? then let's protect them. >> yeah, as he put it, again, i don't know how he leaps upon this, because he's crass in so many ways. he says, either we have a country or we don't. i think all politicians should say that, left, right, and center. i think it's vital. peggy noonan, again, your book -- i love the whole notion,
the time of our lives. we do live in our time and our time connects with us. peggy noonan good luck with the book. margaret noonan, that's her real name. "the time of our lives." when we return, let me finish with this great state of new hampshire, where i am right now. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.
let me finish tonight with the power of new hampshire. this great, gritty, flinty live free or die state up here in new england. this state where i'm speaking tonight has been calling the shots politically from the time most of you were born and certainly since you began paying attention. back in 1952, new hampshire republican voters basically kicked out the old republican establishment and made general dwight eisenhower president. they voted for the man who lead the normandy invasion and chased hitler. in 1964, forced to choose between conservative barry goldwater and liberal nelson rockefeller, new hampshire was warning the country. and the republican party what was to come that year, a colossal defeat at the hands of president lyndon johnson. four years later, new hampshire democrats dumped lyndon johnson by giving eugene mccarthy 47% of the vote, they cast a decisive vote against the vietnam war.
in 1980, they made ronald reagan president, telling george herbert walker bush that he would have to wait his turn. in the year 2000, they chose john mccain over george w. bush, a decision the country should have made. another early warning in a state that takes its first in the role seriously and to hurt. w. did not have the right stuff to be president. he lacked the one thing a president needs, discernment, the ability to separate the truth from the arguments, the right course from the pressure of the ideologues, special pleaders, and a national problem case known as dick cheney. in 2008, new hampshire gave a helpful warning to barack obama, in choosing hillary clinton, they said, they didn't like obama calling her "likable enough." they decided she was more than that, he a little less so. at least in those days of their decision, a little less likable than they had thought, and hubris hurts. new hampshire voters wants to make sure it did and obama knew it. one of the things to look for when so many of us get up here
in february is how the media can ship the meaning of what voters decide here. we can say as many did in 1968 that g. mccarthy had won, even though johnson got the most votes. we can say as most did, that bill clinton won here in '92, although he ran eight points behind. but is this what we want from the press? do we want the interpretation or the simple facts? do we want it explained or simply told? do we want the arithmetic or the context or both? to the readers of newspapers and to the viewers of television news, to the watcher of "hardball," here's my recommendation. read it all, listen to it all, but to quote ronald reagan, don't be afraid to see what you see. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> believe me when i tell you, that was brutal what they did to those people.
>> reporter: donald trump defending the program formerly known as operation wetback, as republicans go to war with themselves over immigration. >> people have to be deported. there is no doubt about it. >> talk is cheap. that you know where someone is based on their actions. plus, the latest turn from ben carson's presidential run. why hillary clinton's ride is beginning to tilt the republican field. what republican candidates don't get about campus politics. >> i think it's disgusting. >> and fact checking myself on "the daily show" last night. >> that's a strange thing to think about. >> when "all in" starts right now. >> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. it is the republican political class' worst nightmare. immigration, the one issue that could both tear the party apart and doom it in a general election has exploded back into the center of the republican political conversation, with donald trump holding down the most extreme position and everyone else scrambling to try