tv Decision 2020 MSNBC July 31, 2019 6:00pm-7:30pm PDT
going out -- >> used a loop holing. >> exactly. >> thank you for what you're doing. >> thank you for having me. >> that is all in for this evening. msnbc's special coverage of decision 2020 continues now with ari melber. good evening, ari. >> chris, how do you cover a debate whie debate while it's on? this is a paradox. >> we're supposed to lock our viewers in a hermetically sealed -- >> you deal with the debate as it comes. you don't have to watch the whole thing. but i think political junkies are aware something is going on. always good to see you, sir. >> good to see you, too. >> i am ari melber. i thank you for joining our extended he coverage of the presidential debate. all jokes aside, i'll tell you how we're doing it. the highlights are streemging in. we have lined up a s.w.a.t. twa.
i have to tell you brian williams, our colleague, will be in to anchor our live post game analysis tonight as well. that's coming up. now, this is what's happening politically. tonight both debates are already clearly helping further focus the issues as well as divisions in this large democratic field. health care a big issue, i can tell you, on both nights where the fundamental debate, what is the best policy, what is possible, and what is radical. >> i don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the united states just to talk when what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for. [ cheers and applause ] >> i don't get it. >> congressman delaney just referred to it as bad policy, and previously he has called the idea political suicide that will just get president trump reelected. what do you say to congressman delaney? >> you're wrong. >> i think if we're going to force americans to make these radical changes, they're not going to go along -- throw your hands up.
>> debates are widely watched. we are seeing many watching the fireworks. bernie sanders raked in $1.1 million since the first debate this week. fast balls you saw there, former congressman john delaney, he may have started from a pretty low floor to be honest, but he is now touting a 2000% increase in online donations. marian williamson's campaign said she logged the largest day of donations since the campaign launched. they didn't give dollar amounts, but donations exceeded all our expectations. i should tell you we have an interview with her airing later this hour. while the moderators can push the topics here, the candidates can say anything pretty much during their time, which makes some of the omissions right now pretty noticeable. consider absent from last night's debate any mention of bob mueller or of impeachment. a sign that while the house democratic caucus and congress
republican talking points in order to talk with each other about how to best provide that health care. >> so you see there democrats did have donald trump and republican talking points on the brain last night. tonight before these debates got underway, we got some breaking news, but this was about america but from the kremlin which has informed us that donald trump and vladimir putin held talks today by phone. the named topic was wildfires in siberia. trump offering to help putin fight those fires. this is reeling news, everybody. i'm just telling you what we're told. the kremlin is the source of this. keep that in mind. you should know what the kremlin is saying the white house has not backed us much on. the u.s. and government have agreed to continued talks by telephone and in person according to the russian press service. good to know. as we said, the announcement is coming from the kremlin. the white house, not yet issuing a statement at this time about this call, about an in-person
meeting or whatever else the russians want to communicate about these contacts. that is another backdrop, trump and putin catching up about in-person meetings as the democrats seek to unseat donald trump on foreign policy and how he runs the country as it continues. john elder, a columnist for the daily beast. two folks who know their way around these kind of dee bates. what's jumping out to you tonight? >> tonight with this debate that we're currently looking at or -- >> take the point wherever you want. >> let me start with the debate last night, what we just watched here, the wonderful clips that you showed. look, last night was debates about ideology. >> i've heard of it. >> and policy, and i think that's a good thing. i think that's really important. that's kind of what the democratic party is all about. and what i did not see enough -- i know you talked about it, but i thought they would do more on
contrast with donald trump. and i think that was missing to me a lot more than usual. but, you know, elizabeth warren said something that's reeling i true. it's like they basically are all on the same page. there'sness a lot of differences on the ten people that are on the stage there. they all want -- when it comes to medicare for all, health care, whatever you want to call it, they want to expand it and they want to lower costs. i think that's what really matters. at the end of the day, this is the process, debates is part of the process, primary is part of the process. this is what's happening. we are so far away from the actual election. and we will be united once the convention happens. and so, but it's good to hear what they have to say and share their vision. >> i was reelingally struck by fact you didn't hear anything about send her back, nothing mentioned. >> in michigan, yeah. >> nothing mentioned about impeachment, you know. this primary process is about
who can best prosecute the case against donald trump. that's what they're auditioning for. they're not auditioning for who is going to be the secretary of health and human services and how they might design, you know, a medicare for all plan. they're off on a tangent, and they're giving trump ammunition. and i think it's reeling i unfortunate for democrats that they're letting the sort of intramural squabbles about immigration and health care distract them from the basic question of who can best beat trump. >> it's interesting to hear you say that, jonathan, especially because some of it got quite parsings. you can imagine a lot of voters watching, is that going to make a big difference? if not, what's the credibility and the interest factor in someone overdoing it? bernie sanders may have come closest. he did a little bit of a flex where he tried to say, look, i've got more proof, he argues, that he can beat trump. take a look.
>> the truth is that every credible poll that i have seen has me beating donald trump. [ applause ] including, including the battle ground states of michigan where i won the democratic primary, wisconsin where i won the democratic primary, and pennsylvania. and the reason we are going to defeat trump and beat him badly is that he is a fraud and a phony and we're going to expose him for what he is. >> so, i mean, if you want to go with polls, beto o'rourke has a poll where he's thrashing donald trump in texas. these polls don't mean anything. >> i guess with bernie, he also, though, unlike most people can point to the last primaries. hillary struggled in places where he won the primary. >> that doesn't have anything to do with the general election, okay. we know that the republicans as buttigieg says, whether you're a conservative democrat or a progressive democrat, the republicans are going to call you a socialist. in all of the cases except
bernie, it's a slur, it's a lie, it's not true. bernie describes himself as a socialist. talk about leading with your chin, you're basically confirming the republican argument. this country won't elect a socialist president, full stop, not going to happen. >> that's what a lot of people said about donald trump. i don't know either way. >> we're not a socialist country, ari, we never have been, we never will be. >> you recall the certainty of these statements in the -- >> i understand -- i understand i'm taking a risk. i don't think it's a big risk because i don't think he's getting the nomination. elizabeth warren, on the other hand, i think is the front runner arguably for the nomination. although biden is ahead of her in the polls. she's very well positioned. she had a very good night last night, and she seems to be consolidating progressive support. >> jonathan, we're taking the risk. we're going to save the tape. may never be relevant.
how about that and this larger point for all the viewership, 20 # 20 democrats, people may walk away with less than a clear idea with what the message against trump is? >> right. let me just speak to what bernie sanders was just saying. i think what he was saying, that he was tested, right? he was in 2016. he went through the primary process. he actually really excited a long of young people. he just announced he raised $ 1 $1.1 million in 24 hours. there is something about the political revolution, the message that he puts out about going after big banks. it really does resonate with people. i think the problem that bernie has, i think the problem that bernie has, can he expand his base? can he go outside of the white working class and the millennials? i think that's really the problem that he has. there are a vought of talented people he's running against. that's really the answer there. to your point, i think we are
still trying to figure out how do we beat donald trump. that's not just this group of people, that's a group of people that are on tonight. that's just a democratic party. how do you beat donald trump? we just don't know yet. 2018 was a good sampling of how to rebuke donald trump and a lot of it was talking about health care, talking about the issues, and just kind of ignoring him, but understanding that we have to be a check on this president, which is why we got the democratic house. and so there are some lessons to learn there. but everyone is still trying to figure out what's the best way to do it. >> correen john pierre, jonathan, thank you, we're capping track. we'll speak to a candidate hoping to make a splash, montana governor steve bullock. we have more and that's live stay with us. s live stay with us let's go!
impression. montana governor steve bullock got that opportunity. this was his first debate appearance because he didn't make the cut in miami. rolling stone reporting bullock's draw fill debut stole the thunder from more moderates. joining us is steve bullock, governor of montana, democratic candidate for president. thanks for joining us. >> ari, i could think of no place i'd rather be than with you tonight. >> how can i put this, i'm not sure you had another place to be. you finished your debate. we see the beautiful foxx behind you, foxx theater, shout out there. i went to university of michigan and had fond memories there. what did you think you got across last night? >> no, i thought it was great. had the chance to introduce myself as a pro choice, pro union, populist democrats that's won three times in a state donald trump won, not by compromising our values, but by getting stuff done. and i think that that's what -- folks hear the challenges,
people are facing every day of our lives. not only can we beat donald trump, but we can get good things done. i was real pleased with how it turned out. >> what do you say to the democratic party as someone who looks at you that not only won in a red state, but a trump state, some are arguing left, humanitarian, whatever you want to calling it particularly on the immigration issues you and warren have disagreed with the level of benefits the undocumented should be eligible for if they make it into the united states? >> well, no, i've made clear first i believe in border security, keeping families safe, growing our economy, but not ripping families apart. i mean, i think this is another one of those areas where, if we're honest, the biggest challenge our immigration system right now is donald trump. he's not only ripping families apart, he's ripping our country apart. i do disagree with the democrats who turn around and say how we solve this is no longer make it lelg to cross borders or provide health care for everyone undocumented. you know, we have 100,000 folks
showing up at the border now. if we did that, we would have multiples of that. not just my word, obama's former homeland security secretary said. so we can get to a point of comprehensive immigration reform, we can protect dreamers, find a path to citizenship, deal with the challenges at the border, but everybody's, you know, saying here are all the problems as -- the real problem is the person in the white house. >> you know, you mentioned the person in the white house. a lot of different democrats, both running right now or in office, have found various ways to try to take on donald trump through measures, whether they're in the courts or in the legislature. we were speaking to one last night about trying to force out his tax returns to kick him off the state ballot. you were pushing for transparency against the trump administration's irs rules and i understand you had something of a breakthrough on that. explain. >> yeah, in really fighting dark money and corrupting influence of money in our elections has been the fight of my life. look, the same day that trump
was with putin in helsinki, his treasury secretary announced -- said, we're going to change the rulings. so 501 c4, these dark money groups, no longer have to report their donations to the irs. make it so literally a russian corporation could give to the nra and no one would even know. when they repealed that rule, it's been around since richard nixon. he wasn't exactly the model of transparency. so i took him to court. and right before the debate last night, we heard we won. >> and so that means what? >> so, what that means is that the irs is going to have to collect the names of all of these dark money groups so at least there will be a record unless they can actually go through and do a rule, you know, you don't just repeal rules that have been around since the '70s by having the treasury secretary standbu it really points to -- mean, one of the big problems with a lot of the discussions we
were having on that debate last night, when we talked about climate, when we talk about income inequality, when we talk about prescription drug prices, when we talk about gun safety, we've got to recognize that the corrupting influence of outside dollars -- a billion dollars being spent since citizens united, where decisions are being made because this is what the donors want, not what the people want -- if we don't address that, it's going to be that much harder to get any of this stuff done and that has been the fight of my career. >> yeah, and what is your sort of environmental view and view of protecting lands and wildlife and also balancing hunting, again, thinking about your background in montana? >> well, it's one of these -- look, we're outdoors folks. i wrote an op-ed quite a while ago when president trump was getting rid of these national monuments. i said, if you really want to see what makes america great, spend a night outdoors. look at our public camps, our public lands because so many of
the republicans have been trying to privatize those lands and sell them -- those off. it's also another area like right now in my home state, right before i came out here, i got a briefing. our fire seasons are 78 days longer than they were about 3 1/2 decades ago. and we've got to address climate. and we can take immediate and durable steps, but we've got to have both the will to do it and we've got to take on the koch brothers and the oil companies and everybody else that's made it so republicans won't even acknowledge climate change is real. >> governor steve bullock, fresh off your first debate, thanks for joining us tonight. >> thanks for having me. i'll probably go out and have a beer now. >> all right, there you go. an honest answer at the end of a political interview. enjoy the beer in michigan. of next, well, there is a new line of attack that is getting under mitch mcconnell's skin when we come back. you need in. but it's not really something you want to buy. it's not sexy... oh delicious. or delicious...
from a nickname to a meme to a senate floor rebuttal. moscow mitch merch, targeting mitch mcconnell, say niet to mitch. on offer, we don't think it's real fur. we don't have an answer from the kentucky demes. this was a turn around time. it started last week after mcconnell blocked plans to try to protect american elections
from russian interference. he called them the biggest ally in the quest to infiltrate america's elections against. washington columnist went further, mitch mcconnell is a russian asset. claiming the kentucky republican is arguably more than any other american doing vladimir putin's bidding. mcconnell's home state, demtz are bielg on with the moscow mitch meme and that phrase got a boost on television and social media. mitch mcconnell is not a russian asset. he's even backed a foreign policy critical of putin, at least back in the day until trump came along. and that is the issue. mcconnell is enraged over these attacks taking it to the senate floor to blast it as modern day mccarthyism and some senate reporters who cover this closely say it was fiery by mcconnell standards. but any serious suggestion of foreign loyalty is obviously provocative and that's the part of this which goes to speculating on motives. but top democrats along with a lot of national security officials say this is really
about what mcconnell's doing, not why and what he keeps doing is blocking votes on bills to protect u.s. elections. that's what bob mueller recently warned is an issue because he says we're under attack by russia, but it's not just him. take trump's hand picked fbi director chris wray who recently said flatly, more must be done to stop the russian meddling for 2020. or if you want another source, consider the senate intelligence committee led by mitch mcconnell's leadership team which released a bipartisan report that says russian activities demand renewed attention to vulnerabilities in u.s. voting infrastructure. many experts are concerned about all that real stuff, outraged even. apparently not mitch mcconnell. what outrages him is the nickname. with "the new york times" reporting he's unusually incensed, seething over this nickname. a few people are really looking for more personal attacks or name calling in our politics,
but it does seem like this particular battle with its attendant name calling could be accruing political traction for a policy push that might otherwise be on the back burner in, yes, mr. mcconnell's senate. so given what we know about 2016 and what we are being warned about this coming 2020 election, should the u.s. take any further action to protect its democracy? we turn now to u.s. senator ron of oregon, member of the u.s. senate intelligence committee. thanks for joining me tonight. >> thank you, ari. >> what is important about these bills and what they'd accomplish and why is mitch mcconnell blocking them? >> well, first of all, mitch mcconnell can put all of this to rest by bringing this key legislation to the floor. what i will tell you having served on the intelligence committee for sometime now, as of right now, i believe foreign hostile actors are going to make
what happened in 2016 look like small potatoes in 2020. i think when you look at their capacity, for example, to interfere with voter registration databases, to hack social media, we have very serious threats. and i want to make sure that american voters, not foreign hackers, decide our elections. >> when you say that it's concerning, what does that look like, particularly on the registration front? your committee says they went after the voting systems in 50 states, but we've been appraised repeatedly of the idea that, well, they didn't change any tallies. so should people say -- >> nobody can really say that, ari, because they didn't do what are called forensic analyses. let me give you a very recent example. recently the entire united states senate went to a classified briefing. it was a classified briefing. all of the experts in the trump administration came. i can't get into details, but
the whole message from those key officials was, nothing to look at here, no big deal. we just don't have to worry. we're taking care of everything. just a few days later there was an exhaustive analysis indicating that thousands and thousands of outdated voting systems that were using windows 7 were being used all over the country. and the characterization from experts were those systems were ripe for hacking. >> you have now called the new intelligence pick by donald trump, congressman ratcliff, the least qualified ever. what are your concerns about him and where does that go? >> ari, let me make a modification of that statement. he is very qualified to do great damage to the credibility of the intelligence system. if you look at all his conspiracy theories, he's got ideas for secret societies, for
example, in the fbi he thought there was nothing to the mueller report. he said, in fact, that the russians were trying to harm donald trump when that clearly wasn't the case. i mean, what the dni, the head of national intelligence is responsible for is collective intelligence analysis. he works with all of the agencies, and somebody with mr. ratcliffe's views can do a lot of damage to the credibility of the american intelligence at a time when the world is a pretty dangerous place. >> i want to get your views on something we touched on the top of the hour. we are learning about these contacts between vladimir putin and donald trump, but we are learning about it from the kremlin, not from the white house. here is a kremlin press service. i mentioned this earlier, russian president assessed a move about fighting wildfires on the part of the u.s. president, a guarantee of future restoration of bilateral
relakes, the russian u.s. president agreed to continue these contacts. how striking is it as a country we're getting this only from the kremlin? and does it concern you? >> certainly i can't get into any details about these kinds of classified matters, but again, let's talk about what we know on the record. i mean, the trump campaign was not straight with the american people during the campaign of 2016 with respect to the moscow tower project where clearly there was an interest in trying to secure opportunities for the trump family because they didn't think they were going to win the election. so i can't get into this breaking story. can't get into classified matters. but just look at what's on the record. >> very interesting, and sometimes in washington the people who know a bit more have to say a little less, but i have to put the questions to you. senator, thank you so much.
>> thanks for having me, ari, let's do it again. >> appreciate it. the senate is wrapping up its work this week and taking august off. it is very busy doing something that could be part of donald trump's longest-lasting legacies. what it is, what it means when we come back. beep goes off ] now that you have new dr. scholl's massaging gel advanced insoles with softer, bouncier gel waves, you'll move over 10% more than before. dr. scholl's. born to move.
that's the beauty of your smile. crest's three dimensional whitening... ...removes stains,... ...whitens in-between teeth... ...and protects from future stains. crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life. it's summer vacation for the house since members left capitol hill last week and ahead of their own vacation, members of the senate have been hanging around washington a few more days taking care of unfinished business. senate republican leader mitch mcconnell making a mission of getting trump nominees for judge ships confirmed. this is of course mcconnell who stone walled obama's judicial nominees. he has been running these picks through the senate as fast as possible. he paved the way for 19 more with lifetime seats on the federal bench. the deal is pending approval by the republican senate. at this point in his presidency, obama had named 91 judges to the bench. ahead of today's senate session, trump has put in 135 judges. that includes the two supreme
court picks. one of the reasons he was able to fill these vacancies is because mcconnell had slow walked obama's nominations which means they weren't confirmed which left extra vacancies. now, this very taitable army -- is not expected how they will rule in any case, but trump appointed judges are making their mark. look at federal courts ruling on a new rule from the president that makes it more difficult to get asylum. rights groups immediately went to court and tried to reverse the policy. their lawsuits landed in two different courts. one judge said it was illegal for the president to crackdown this way. the other on the same day said no, the trump administration has a fine interpretation of the law. the second judge, with this potentially more conservative ruling depending on how you look at it was, of course, put on that court by trump himself. there's no one to one between a
single case or single ruling in the president who puts someone on the bench, but there is an accumulation here. legal scholars really across the spectrum noting that the politics of the republican majority in the senate, including some of its obstruction, are doing more to reshape this court system than we might have seen in the past back and forth. mitch mcconnell has the approval process for trump judicial nominees in high gear right now. in fact, as of this evening, the senate approving nine new federal judges. another slate of the president's picks slated for confirmation tomorrow. there's a lot going on, but this is major news with lifetime consequence and we have some experts to break it down. constitutional law professor from the new york university school of law and christine lucius, former staff director for the senate judiciary committee, now executive vice-president at the leadership conference on civil and human rights. nice to see both of you. >> great to be here. >> thanks for having me.
>> christine, how does this work and is it different than the normal push and pull between parties when they control the senate? >> this is absolutely different. what mitch mcconnell is trying to do this week is confirm more judges in a week than he allowed president obama to have confirmed in his final two years in office. mitch mcconnell has been trying for the past two years to rush and jamb as many trump nominees through as possible because it's advancing the agenda that mitch mcconnell wants to see in the courts, which is to protect the wealthy and the powerful over the rights of the rest of us. your opening lays out, you know, a tale of two judges. and it is absolutely true. you can't guarantee with certainty how different judges will rule necessarily based on who appointed them. but what we saw in the senate judiciary committee earlier this month was ted cruz's line of questioning of a trump nominee that really revealed what they are looking for in judges. they are looking for activists
to bring an agenda to the court. it was a revealing moment when they were no longer talking about balls and strikes. they were talking about what had this judge done to advance the cause -- had he volunteered for republican causes, had he done different things. and the nominee responded, well, i've been a judge, and that wasn't good enough. so it region i revealed in plain sight for the first time what we've known for the past two years, that trump is trying to remake the courts in order to protect the wealthy and powerful. not to be neutral. >> kenji, there is a counter argument to all this. it's not a defense in any way of the judges and the nominees, but rather the observation that when it comes to the senate, we're not really talking much about law. we're talking about politics. and mitch mcconnell has been good at hardball politics. at what point do the esteemed folks like yourself who are, you
know, floeftiating above politit least in your scholarship, this kicks back to the democratic party and the kind of hardball they want to play, not necessarily anything that is uniquely judicial? >> well, i guess i would say there are laws that cover these procedures as well and many of those rules in the senate have themselves been relaxed by mitch mcconnell in a form of games man ship where he's denied the capacity of senators to say, you know, these are the judges whom we would recommend for our own jurs dirk jurisdiction. i would dplofloat that. >> like blue slips? >> yes. >> it was made up for the senate. there's no credible allegation mitch mcconnell's committed a crime here. it's not like that. it's more that you've got a guy who plays hardball. during the obama era, you had some democrats saying, well, reach across and try to work it out and all this. and now we're talking about this in the backdrop of the democratic party where there's a lot more folks who are saying, yeah, you have to be just as
tough as mitch mcconnell. look at what he's getting away with. >> i think that what everyone is trying to say is not mitch mcconnell is engaging anything that was legally improper, but if you take the spirit of what a federal judge is, that is an idea that we as a nation hold very dear. the founders under article 3 gave federal judges tenure during good behavior, which is life. article 3, you're free. they wanted them to have -- >> everyone loves that one. >> they wanted to have judges to have judicial independence. why would you give somebody life tenure if you didn't want them to be objective, if you didn't want them to be a creature of a particular political -- >> how do you fix this if you see it as a problem to fix? >> i do see it as a problem to fix. i think it's really troubling. i think the first thing that we can do, you know, so there are two ways to respond to this. one is to say, okay, we're going to focus on elections. we're going to focus on the senate. we're going to focus on the next president. and progressives are going to
have a kind of empire strikes back kind of moment and that will devolve to a race to the bottom. it may be a polarized political system the best we can hope for right now. >> your buddy jack paul kin, professor, he talks about constitutional hardball, that the reason why the mitch mcconnells of the world and arguably donald trump, although he may be less informed about the tactics, is so dangerous, you call a race to the bottom, you either turn the other proverbial cheek or you get into constitutional hardball where you're straining what the constitutional thought what these parts of government would do by some comity or tradition. what do do? >> right. can i ask us to take a step back, though? before we even talk about the decision tree and whether we're going to play hardball or turn the other cheek. >> sure. >> we have to be aware of what is going on. so i feel like the american people at the very basic level have not been sufficiently sort of informed about the quiet revolution that is occurring. >> i think it is a great point.
you can argue, i alluded to earlier, with everything going on, people might be surprised to see, christine, the statistic we referred to earlier, there are far more trump judges incoming than there were at this point in the obama era. and that might even cut against people's general perception that somehow he's bad at government or he serncertainly doesn't hav ton of permanent cabinet members or other vague kiz. this is an area with mcconnell's bidding they're highly effective. >> they are highly effective. but what i hope and to add to kenji's point, is that more people grow to understand -- i think the health care case, the current case threatening the affordable care act's coverage, millions of people rely on the health care coverage that they receive from obamacare. that case pending right now in the 5th circuit is a real education moment for voters to understand the impact of the courts and what trump is trying to do through the courts that he was not able to do through
legislation. and so whether you care about health care or justice reform or voting rights or any other civil rights issue, you need to care about the courts and you need to understand the role that the senate plays as well as the president, because the senate is supposed to be acting as a backstop to protect our independent and fair judiciary. >> two experts with a lot of deep knowledge on this. kenji from nyu and christine lucius from the leadership conference, thanks to both of you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> when we come back, one of the biggest headlines out of this debate, next. they tell you that, but when you book at hilton.com, you get the price match guarantee. so if you find your room at a lower rate, hilton is like... we're gonna match that rate and give you an extra 25% off. what would travel sites do if you found a better price? that's not my problem, it's your problem. get outta here! whoa, i really felt that performance. it's just acting, i'm really good at it. book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay.
we've got more politics coming up, but the u.s. women's soccer team's dominant display at this year's world cup put a spotlight not only on the sport but on the issue of equal pay. u.s. women's team sued the soccer federation about how they consistently say they are paid less than men despite performing at a higher caliber. the federation was mostly silent on this matter until now. they released a statement, despite public belief, the women's team has been paid more than the men. women responded saying it is utterly false and a ruse designed to change the discussion to settle what is now gender discrimination suit. the u.s. men's team also hitting back slamming the federation's false accounting. obviously megan rapinoe has been at the forefront of all of this. of the battle over equal pay. and tonight we thought it might be fitting for a moment to revisit rachel maddow's recent
interview with rapinoe following her world cup win. rachel is used too big interviews. she's had her fair share of big gets. but this interview we can tell you has actually turned out to be one of her most popular. >> popular. >> joining us now for the interview is u.s. team captain meagan gan rapinoe. congratulations. >> hello. >> great to see you. >> thank you for having me on again. >> this is what you do, you win the world cup and come to "the rachel maddow show." >> this is what happens. >> how have the last few days been for you, how have you slept? >> i slept a little bit. not much. got about an hour on the plane ride home. i think i'm just on such a high, i can't sleep. the adrenaline, the nerves, the just all of it, it's such an exciting moment for us right now. >> i mean, you're obviously team captain, veteran, you just turned 34. people are talking about you not only for your impact on the game but for the longevity of your impact on the game. where do you feel like you are in terms of your career? >> definitely at the later stage
as opposed to at the beginning stage. i just turned 34 a couple days before the final, actually, so, i mean, i'm pretty realistic about that. i want to keep playing. i don't have any plans to retire right now, but i'm still hurting from the game, so i feel like my age is catching me a little bit more than it used to. >> one of the reasons that i feel like your career is of national interest, not just for you as an athlete but for you as an american is because over the years, i feel like watching you just as a fan, i feel like you have become more and more comfortable and more and more articulate in terms of using the platform that you've got to say what you think ought to be happening in the world. you seem more calm, more capable, more eloquent than ever and seems tli s like that gets over time. obviously, i want you to do this forever as a fan. i also feel like you, you're really good at talki ining when
need to talk and saying things that need to be said. i wonder how deliberately you approach that or if it's a process of maturing? >> a thinki ina little bit as b. i try to be as educated as i can. you're in the moment, what the hell should i say? keep up with things. watch "the rachel maddow show," of course. keep myself woke. a lot of it comes just from my gut and from my heart. i'm quite off the cuff but i'm also very thoughtful and understand and take a lot of pride and take very seriously the platform that we have in understanding where my voice goes when i say things and trying to use those things for good and trying to challenge people and constantly bring the conversation and make people think and, you know, constantly re-evaluate where we are in the world. are we doing enough, are we good enough? can we be better? and i think the answer to those questions is always, yes, so i feel like for me, it's -- i feel
a responsibility to do this. like, i'm privileged to be a famous person and to be on this team and to be who i am and if i just stay silent seems awfully selfish. >> one of the things that i felt, again, just as a fan, when the president started criticizing you and attacking you is that i was mad at him because i felt like he was going to rattle you when you needed to be very focused on soccer for the country. you did not seem rattled by that. i had -- i can't imagine that it's not distracting, though, that it doesn't take up some of your focus, some of your worry time, some of what you might otherwise be devoting to your craft. >> uh-huh. i don't get into my mentions a lot. i'm not huge on twitter. i'm more of an instagram person. i feel like i'm not in that flow a lot. obviously, i hear about it. i, of course, heard about the president's tweets. it did, it took a minute. it took some focus for sure. it happened kind of at a good
time. we had just played a game then had a little time before the next game. obviously, it was before the france game. a very big one. we have an incredible media team that travels with us everywhere. family and friends and my agents and everyone i think just really mobilized and rallied around me, what do you need, how can we address this? the way that we did it, we addressed it immediately in the press conference, just said it right out, i'm not sorry for what i said, i stand by everything. that was kind of it then i sort of made everyone go back to what we were actually doing which was trying to win the world cup. >> when you were here four years ago after winning the world cup the last time, we talked about the equal pay issue and about the gender disparity in terms of how u.s. soccer treats men and women. tell me how that fight has changed? >> well, i think it's changed dramatically now. i mean, i think, to be honest, all over the world, i even had a brief conversation with infantino, fifa president, after the game. i think everyone realizes now it's, like, okay, it's time for the next step. it's time to work together to
get this to a better place, be collaborative. the conversation is not about equal pay anymore. it's everybody, it's, like, if you're not down with equal pay at this point or equality, whatever it is, like, you're so far out of reality in the conversation that we can't even go there, i think it's time to move to the next phase and i think everybody wants that. nobody wants this contentious fight all of the time. i don't want to fight with my bosses all the time. we don't want to constantly be doing this. we don't want to file lawsuits. we don't want to, you know, constantly have that sort of animosity and, you know, exchanging blows in one way or another. we'd much prefer to just move forward because we know that the path forward and where we go from here makes it better for everyone. >> as i mentioned, i think you've shown incredible poise in terms of handling the attention that you've gotten and making sure that things are still on your own terms. i wonder if you have any thoughts about what comes next for you in terms of the kind of
impact that you want to have both on the sport and in the country. >> i don't know, to be honest. i think things have changed dramatically just in these couple of days. >> yeah. >> i'm excited to kind of dig in and see really where i can take this. think that i've been kind of wanting that for a number of years and how do we -- how do we bring it out of just sports and out of soccer and out of the things that we've been doing, and that i've been doing, into something way bigger. i think it's sort of the same as the equal pay argument. i kind of want to stop just talking about things and, like, how do we put things in action, dhou how do we help, what do we do? what's the best way to get people mobilized whether that's in voting or getting people more educated and more plugged in to what's happening, you know, in our politics and in our lives, and i think i'm ready for that, like, next thing. i want to be more impactful, i feel like the money where the mouth is is the best way to go and trying to, yeah, just i
guess leverage this moment but also understand that there's something so much more. >> i think the country is ready for you. >> yes. >> megan rapinoe. it's an incredible honor to you here. we should mention that this -- >> yes. >> -- this is not a replica. >> no. >> this is the actual world cup trophy. >> this is her. >> wow. >> all her glory. >> great to have you here. congratulations. come back soon. megan rapinoe, co-captain of the u.s. women's soccer team, as if you needed me to say that. we'll be right back. here's otez. here's otez. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines,
and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. ♪ dprevagen is the number onemild memopharmacist-recommendedng? memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. so that early retirement we planned. it's going ok? great. now i'm spending more time with the kids. i'm introducing them to crab.
crab!? they love it. so, you mentioned that that money we set aside. yeah. the kids and i want to build our own crab shack. ♪ ♪ ahhh, you're finally building that outdoor kitchen. yup - with room for the whole gang. ♪ ♪ see how investing with a j.p. morgan advisor can help you. visit your local chase branch. the nra has us in a choke
hold, but so does the pharmaceutical companies, so do the health insurance companies, so do the fossil fuel companies and so do the defense contractors. and none of this will change until we either pass a constitutional amendment or pass legislation that establishes public funding for federal campaigns. but for politicians, including my fellow candidates, who, themselves, have taken tens of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars from these same corporate donors to think that they know have the moral authority to say we're going to take them on, i don't think the democratic party should be surprised that so many americans believe yadi, yada, yada. it is time for us to start over with people who have not taken donations from any of these corporations and can say with real moral authority that is over. >> many politicos say marianne williamson had a big night at the democratic debate. put those analysts aside, what do viewers actually think? here's a metric that may show more than some polling. doesn't mean people will vote for her but does show how madly
interested people are in learning more about her because williamson just became the most googled candidate nationwide after her performance in last night's showdown. in fact? a k in a country polarized by geography and talk of red and blue states, look at this sweep. 49 out of 50 states. i just spoke with marianne williamson in a new interview about her controversial statements about science and what she had to say about race at the debate. we turn to that interview airing right tow. what do you think you got across last night? >> i hope i got across a more meaningful discussion of race. i mean, you have such a short period of time. i hope with the answers i gave about race, about flint, about health, the environment, and politics in general, that i think was a larger theme which is we have go deeper than just talking about external fixes. we have to have a politics that speaks to more than just watering the leaves. we have to water the roots. i think that theme came through. >> you mentioned rothe roots.
you're clearly tapping into something. we mentioned folks searching. they're watching then they're looking for more. would that suggest depth, as you say, longer than the short answers that these ten-person debates require and with that in mind, i want to play one of your other answers right now where you talked beyond what many democrats see as the crisis of trumpism and about what's really going on. take a look. >> racism, the bigotry and the entire conversation we're having here tonight, if you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark, psychic force of the collectiveized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country, then i'm afraid that the democrats are going to see some very dark days. we need to say it like it is. it's bigger than flint. it's all over this country. it's particularly people of color. it's particularly people who do not have the money to fight back, and if the democrats don't start saying it, then why would those people feel that they're there for us and if those people don't feel it, they won't vote for us, and donald trump will win. >> how do you define that
collectivized hatred, as you put it? >> well, we have a very serious problem on our hands. you take racism and bigotry and anti-semitism and homophobia, xenophobia, islamophobia, all those worst aspects of human character, you put them all together in a collective field, you put them all over the social media, and then you have a president of the united states who is not above harnessing all those things for political purposes, you have a problem on your hands. and that problem cannot be defined in strictly political terms. this man, our president, is not just a politician. he's a phenomenon. and an insider politics game will not be able to defeat that. we theneed to create a politics which is a phenomenon of equal strength and power. and that will only come from a deeper conversation, a deeper level of truth telling, a willingness for america to get real about itself in a way the current political establishment is not used to doing. >> you say all that and there is that depth. you're what many would call an untraditional candidate but you
want to be president so there's questions about what you believe in your policies. let me play for viewers something you've said that's gotten some real krcriticism abt depression. take a listen. >> i've lived two periods of time that by any -- by any means today would be called clinical depression, but even that's such a scam. all that means is somebody in a clinic said it. >> should people take from that that you don't believe there is real clinical depression, and how would you approach what doctors and scientists say is depression as part of mental health treatment, if you were president? >> yes, that clip that you just showed was a podcast i did with russell brand. i think -- maybe i was trying to impress russell brand. i was speaking glibly. i was not a candidate yet. when i said that of itself is such a scam, that was wrong of me to say, and i'm sorry that i said it. there is such a thing as serious, serious depression for which i'm sure that psychotherapeutic drugs are very, very helpful, even life-saving. i certainly believe that about
things like bipolar and schizophrenia, things i would never weigh in. however, what i have talked about, written about, and stand behind, is the idea that there's been medicalization of what's traditionally been considered a normalized spectrum of normal human despair, and about that, i feel there's a very legitimate conversation in this country when you see, you know, just the idea, as i've said it before, a divorce, a heartbreak, because somebody that you know left or died or you went through a financial hardship or breakup, or you're in your 20s, these things are difficult, but they're not mental illness. and the idea of turning everything that is a sad day into a reason for such a quick jump and a knee-jerk jump that is often made today to the question of pharmaceuticals, i th think that that is a very legitimate questioning. we're living in a time when attorney generals all over this country are indicting big pharmaceutical exec futives for
their role in the opioid crisis. predatory pharma is a serious, serious issue. it's a legitimate thing to talk about in our country. i don't understand why anyone would think given what we know about big pharmaceutical executives and the opioid crisis, why should we say they're the paragon, for the common good? add to that the lack of regulatory oversight most americans assume on the part of the fda, for instance, 75% of the review process for drugs in our country is done by big pharma. i think the average american is coming to realize that the role of our regulatory agencies, in many areas, not only having to do with big pharma, having to do with the environment, when you look at something like the epa overturning the ban on the sale of pesticides that we know harm a child's brain simply because our current head of the epa, the
one before that, the chemical executive, met in a houston hotel room with dow chemical executives, i would think americans would want a president who asks these questions and looks into these things deeply. >> you laid out a detailed answer and you also mentioned you apologized for the wording there. i interview candidates, i can tell you it's a little different than some of what we hear from certain candidates. i guess to press you in the follow-up, and to have this conversation in the depth that it warrants, one of the questions is one that's often posed sometimes about republicans who are knocking, for example, climate science, which is these are your views, where do you come down on who you get your cues from on medicine or science? because as you know in a related issue, there was this question on vaccinations. you just mentioned the wellbeing of children and pesticides. you had cast skepticism on vaccinations. i wonder if you could better explain to us where you come down on that given the science and the concern that vaccinations do work and people need them to keep these communities safe.
>> well, once again, i think it's an overstatement to say that i cast skepticism on vaccinati vaccinations. on the issue of vaccinations, i'm pro-vaccination, i'm pro-medicine, i'm pro-science. on all of these issues, what i'm bringing up that i think is very legitimate and should not be derided and should not be marginalized, particularly in a free society, is questions about the role of predatory big pharma. >> let me -- i'm going to jump in and let you respond. obviously. but just so my viewers are keeping up with us, i'll read a little bit of what you said. then i'll hand it back to you. >> okay. >> the quote was here, "it's no different than the abortion abate. the u.s. government doesn't tell a citizen in my book what they have to do with their body or their child. vaccine mandates were in your view at the time, "draconian and orwellian." i hand it back to you. >> well, the issue of draconian and orwellian, this is the issue. when i was a child, we took far fewer vaccines and there was
much lets bundling and much less chronic illness. i don't know why -- this is not a topic that i have consciously chosen, this is not some big topic to me. i have to tell you -- >> you think vaccinations are contributing to things being worse now, is that what you're suggesting? >> no, no, no. what i was saying in 1986, there was this vaccine for example law. there have been $4 billion in vaccination compensation made. there was 12% chronic illness among our children previous to that law and there's 54% now. i don't see why in a free society, you know, what is going on here? when you look at the fact that big pharmaceutical companies lobbied congress to the tune of $284 million last year, alone, as opposed to oil and gas which has lobbied congress to the tune of $125 million last year, when you look at all the money that is spent by pharmaceutical companies, even on our news channels, when you look at the fact that there are two
pharmaceutical lobbyists for every member of congress, and even when you look at the tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been paid into the coffers of even presidential candidates, why, why are we -- why are we so okay with the complete shutdown of any conversation about this topic? >> well, i wouldn't -- i would argue -- >> that the american people -- >> i would argue, ms. williamson, it's not that we're shutting down the topic but we're engaging it as we do. >> i hear that. >> is the science -- >> i wasn't saying that you were shutting it down. >> no, i appreciate you on that. is the science and medicine in a potential administration of yours going to be guided by the surgeon general, by doctors, et cetera? or is it what -- >> oh, i'll tell you -- >> go ahead. >> no, i'm pro -- i want more scientific -- more scientific research. i want more scientific research that's not paid for by big pharma in. in a williamson administration, there will be more scientific review, more science. what has been happening, you can see this with this president,
it's about cutting money to the fda just like he wants to cut money to the centers of disease control. he wants to cut money from most things, the national institute of health, the things that most people care about. . what i want is more scientific review. i want less scientific review that's paid for by big pharma. >> my last question, just so we're clear, your view, though, of federal or state government vaccination requirements is they are valid or you may oppose them? >> there are -- there are with any medical intervention, there are benefits and there are risks. the government always has to come down on the side of the public good. absolutely. i was vaccinated. my daughter was vaccinated. of course. of course, i am. i just want to know that when it comes to the review of our drugs and when it comes to all issues related to drugs, just as we have to learn from what is happening in the opioid crisis, i want independent regulation that is conducted by the government that is not paid for by big pharma. that's what i want. >> excellent.
well, marianne williamson, i appreciate you coming back on the beat. taked to you before. many people thought you had a big night last night. we said it's high time to get into it. i appreciate your time. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. and our live debate coverage continues. much more when we come back. what is happening? what is all of this? move! everybody get out of here! why'd they kidnap bunch of normal folk like us? there's no escape. you have no idea what you're up against. [ screaming ] i felt i couldn't be at my best for my family. in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured and left those doubts behind. i faced reminders of my hep c every day. but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. even hanging with friends i worried about my hep c.
but in only 8 weeks with mavyret, i was cured. mavyret is the only 8-week cure for all common types of hep c. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take including herbal supplements. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. common side effects include headache and tiredness. with hep c behind me, i feel free... ...fearless... ...and there's no looking back, because i am cured. talk to your doctor about mavyret. and this is me now! i got liberty mutual. they customized my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. then i won the lottery, got hair plugs, and started working out. and so can you!
only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ there was no hesitation, i went straight to ctca. after my mastectomy, it was maddening because i felt part of my identity was being taken away. when you're able to restore what cancer's taken away, you see that transformation firsthand knowing that she had options that she could choose, helped restore hope. my team made me feel like a whole person again. cancer treatment centers of america. appointments available now.
cancer treatment centers of america. here, hello! starts with -hi!mple... how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today.
we're nearing the end of de in detroit. the second night of the second debate. if the first debate was all about harris takes on biden, this time, tonight, it's been v everyone taking him on. >> if you want to compare records, frankly, i'm shocked that you do, i am happy to do that because all the problems that he is talking about that he created, i actually led the bill that got passed into law that reverses the damage that your bills that you were, frankly, to correct you, mr. vice president, you were bragging calling it the biden crime bill up until 2015. >> thank you, senator. >> so a big moment on criminal justice from tonight. and it's going to wrap up soon.
that debate in michigan. so far, ten candidates have squared off on issuesimmigratio this criminal justice debate. joining us now to talk about all of it, zerlina maxwell. now director of progressive programming for sirius xm. and donna edwards, former democratic congresswoman from maryland. good evening to both of you. >> good evening. >> good evening. >> congresswoman, what do you see so far? >> well, i mean, you know, the contrast between last night and tonight has really been quite fascinating, where last night was focused on a whole bunch of process and detail and tonight was really focused on, you know, a lot of issues. you know, i do think that it's really difficult for democrats to attack each other, but they seem to have been doing that a little bit tonight. i'm wondering how much fodder that they give to donald trump under those circumstances, but, you know, i think we're going to work through these candidates and, you know, now you can really begin to see some of the nuances, you know, if you're talking about health care, i thought it was a fascinating
debate tonight around health care because you could really begin to see the differences among the candidates. >> and, zerlina, as i mentioned earlier in our special coverage, you don't have to go anywhere now at this point, we got all the highlights. here was some of the biggest exchanges between biden and harris tonight. >> senator's had several plans so far, and any time someone tells you you're going to get something good in ten years, you should wonder why it takes ten years. this is the single most important issue facing the public, and to be very blunt and to be very straightforward, you can't beat president trump with double talk on this plan. >> vice president biden, you're just simply inaccurate in what you're describing. the reality is that our plan will bring health care to all americans under a medicare for all system. your plan, by contrast, leaves out almost 10 million americans. so i think that you should really think about what you're saying but be reflective and understand that the people of america want access to health
care. >> i found the first sort of 15 minutes of the debate where everyone was sort of attacking kamala harris' health care plan to be a really instructive moment because it actually allowed the viewer to learn more about kamala harris' health care plan and the details in it and i don't know that that was the intention of the attacks, but that's actually the consequence. that exchange -- >> positions her as a bidenesque figure that other people have to measure up. >> right. a more pragmatic figure, someone who isn't going so far to the left as, say, a bernie sanders or elizabeth warren and not that there's not merit to that position, but she's putting herself in a little further to the right but to the left of biden. and i think that that's an interesting positioning because obamacare is not perfect, and so for biden to stand on the satag and say, you know, i'm the person who's doing it trite on heal right on health care, you're not acknowledging there are flaws that need to be improved upon, that doesn't jive with the american people. i think people sitting at home
thinking about their health insurance premiums and thinking about the quality of their coverage or listening to someone like kamala harris talking and authentic terms about the current system. >> congresswoman, i think tonight we saw in the second biden appearance here a bit of a template for the way multiple democrats can go at him regardless of their ideology, which is to kind of pull up something from his very long record and throw it back at him in a way that he has to defend for an evolving democratic electorate that may not remember the, shall we say, potential reas reas reasonability within the politics o tpolitic politics of the time they're reporting. cory booker really taking biden on. >> there's a saying in my community, you're dipping into the kool-aid and don't even know the flavor. you need to come to the city of newark and see the reforms we put in place. the new jersey head of the aclu has said i embraced reforms not just in action, but in deed.
sir, you're trying to shift the view from what you created. there are people right now in prison for life for drug offenses because you stood up and used that tough on crime phony rhetoric that got a lot of people elected but zee dooe stroi destroyedt go communities like . this isn't about the past, sir, this is about the present right now. >> congresswoman, that was an exchange that grew out of biden hitting booker for his term as mayor. it was mainstream democratic party position. i mean, it was clinton and others and a bipartisan bill that was part of that crackdown on crime. but biden was right there with it. how do you think that played tonight? >> well, you know, it's interesting because i remember that well. in fact, i was a principal advocate for the violence against women act, win was incorporated into the crime bill. we were none of us very happy with that. i think it's really, you know, it's going to become increasingly difficult for all
democrats to keep reaching back over 25, 30, 40, years when we need to be having a debate today about how we remove donald trump from the white house and present a vision to the nation that democrats, republicans, and independents can really embrace. and so i'm looking forward to that part of the conversation. i understand why they have to do this. i mean, i think for, you know, for cory booker, i think he had a much better night tonight in making him, positioning himself, than he had in the previous debate. and that's really good. maybe that will help get him to the next debate stage. i think, you know, senator harris was able to really defend herself and her record. she had not really been attacked before, and tonight, she was, and she had the ability to sort of stand through that and so i look for candidates who can, as i've said before, you know, take a punch and give a punch, and i think we saw some of that
tonight. >> yeah. zerlina, i come to you not only as a new jersey -- >> shout-out to jersejersey. >> shout-out to jersey. say it with some pride. >> new jersey politico. you worked for hillary clinton who also at times struggled to try to explain this crime bill history in a climate where a lot of the democratic party was concerned about crackdown, police shootings, a whole other version of law and order concerns. >> it's a generational divide when you're talking about this issue because, you know, mayors that were in power at the time will say we were begging the clinton white house to pass this crime bill because people were getting murdered in our communities. at the same time, cory booker is correct on this issue. the clinton campaign didn't sufficiently explain what they were going to do to rectify some of the negative consequences of the crime bill. there are people in prison because of the crime bill right now, and so joe biden does need to, i think, have some contrition in this moment and i think that on this issue, millennials of color never
trusted hillary clinton. and i think that's in large part why they didn't turn out to vote for her. >> which is interesting -- >> biden can't make the same mistake. >> right. it's interesting hearing you acknowledge that. it also goes to the policy part where booker said, which is true. >> yeah. >> this wasn't just, oh, here are new ideas. >> right. >> like he's got his baby bonds bill. >> right. >> part of what they did in dealing with the crack cocaine despairpy, dealing with less punpun punitive measures. part of that is about undoing bills. >> direct. >> take a look at julian castro going after biden on a different issue tonight. immigration. >> first of all, mr. vice president, it like looks like us has learned the lessons of the past and one of us hasn't. let me begin by telling you -- let me start out by answering that question. my immigration plan would also fix the broken legal immigration system because we do have with . secondly, the only way that we're going to guarantee that these kinds of family separations don't happen in the future is that we need to repeal
this law. >> thank you. >> we need -- >> your time is up. >> -- a politician to actually have some guts on this issue. >> congresswoman? >> well, i think secretary castro had a really strong moment there. i think for vice president biden, at some point or other he's going to have to separate himself on occasion with the obama administration. the deportation policies under the obama administration did really great damage. and i think it would be appropriate for the president to acknowledge -- for the vice president to acknowledge that and then describe what he's going to do to fix a very broken immigration system. >> zerlina, i also want to play something that i don't think you would have seen in a recent democratic party debate. and that's a governor many people may have not thought a lot about, washington state's jay inslee, going right at donald trump as a white nationalist. take a look. >> we can no longer allow a white nationalist to be in the white house, number one. and number two --
[ applause ] number two, we have to make america what it's always been. a place of refuge. >> what does that tell you not only about the political center of where the democratic party is headed but also about the rhetoric? this is a party that used to debate itself over whether they could say george bush lied about iraq. >> right. >> it's not those days anymore. >> no, it's not those days because this is not normal times, ari. this is not something that we can normalize and can say is just like any other republican president whose policies we didn't agree with. this is an existential threat. i think trump's racism is actually a threat to people of color that he's going to get worse on these issues and potentially make it worse for people of color in this country and be harsher to those immigrants on the border and that's terrible, right? it's not just the rhetoric in a vacuum. he's implementing policies that are hurting people in those communities and it is a powerful moment to see not just a democrat but a white man who is a democrat stand on the stage and call out the white nationalism for what it is.
hillary clinton did the same thing when steve madden joined the campaign and there were a lot of conversations back and forth as to whether or not that was too strong. in retrospect, it seems like we were probably not strong enough. on the fact that donald trump has clear associations with white nationalists and saying things that's very close to what some of them are saying. they hear the message. i think that that's the key. it's not that you and i in a studio can look at the words and say, okay, this is white nationalist rhetoric. if the white nationalists, themselves, are saying i hear what donald trump is saying and he's speaking my language, we should pay attention to that, too. >> zerlina maxwell and donna edwards, you both know your way around these campaigns and big debate night. really appreciate you being part of our coverage. >> thank you. >> absolutely. now, we have a lot of analysis and more reporting fresh from tonight's debate. msnbc has live coverage going all the way until 2:00 a.m. eastern. settle in. up next, big deadline. stay with us. stay with us
and you should be mad at simple things that are unnecessarily complicated. but you're not mad, because you're trading with e*trade, which isn't complicated. their app makes trading quick and simple so you can strike when the time is right. don't get mad, get e*trade and start trading today. [ text notification now that you have] new dr. scholl's massaging gel advanced insoles with softer, bouncier gel waves, you'll move over 10% more than before. dr. scholl's. born to move. [fa♪mers bell] (burke) a "rock and wreck." seen it. covered it. at farmers insurance, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪
when you start with a better that's no way to treat a dog... ...you can do no wrong. where did you learn that? the internet... yeah? mmm! with no artificial preservatives or added nitrates or nitrites, it's all for the love of hot dogs. ♪ how do you like it, ♪ how do you like it ♪ ♪ more, more, more ♪ how do you like it, how do you like it ♪ all you can eat is back. how do you like that? applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. ♪ corey is living with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of her body. she's also taking ibrance
with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+ / her2- metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. corey calls it her new normal because a lot has changed, but a lot hasn't. ask your doctor about ibrance. the #1 prescribed fda-approved oral combination treatment for hr+/her2- mbc.