tv The Ed Show MSNBC February 7, 2013 3:00am-4:00am EST
here she is again. as usual, you were a good sport about it. and god bless you for your concern for the poor, the weak, and the elderly. well, that's my aunt agnes, who has gone to heaven. good evening, americans, and welcome to "the ed show" from new york. well, once again, it's our friends the republicans. they are one step closer to destroying an american institution. tonight i'm going to tell you the real story behind the post office and how we can save it. this is "the ed show." let's get to work. >> mail delivery will occur monday through friday. we will not deliver nor collect mail on saturday. >> saturday mail service is over. the united states post office is on life support, and no one is telling the full story. tonight inside the republican plan to crush an american institution. the republican point man on
immigration reform will give the response to the president's state of the union address. los angeles mayor antonio villaraigosa joins me on marco rubio's big shot. the controversy over the targeted killing of american citizens is heating up in congress. democrats are stepping up to challenge the president and we'll join the debate. plus, karl rove launches an assault on ashley judd to protect his pal mitch mcconnell. >> her own grandmother says she is a hollywood liberal. >> we'll tell you why old turd blossom is so desperate. fox news will always have a steve doocy. >> face-lift perhaps? >> good to have you with us, folks. thanks for watching. this opening story tonight, i'm telling you, i'm going to try to maintain my poise here. this should be a day of celebration for conservatives as they continue to chip away at the backbone of america. >> we're announcing that we are
moving forward with a change to our national delivery schedule. the postal service delivery schedule will consist of six days of package delivery and five days of mail delivery. >> this story is everything i don't like about republicans. the slow death of the united states post office. folks, its under way. and americans just seem to sit back and well, let's accept it. that's the way it is. this once proud american institution will no longer deliver first class mail on saturday starting this summer. aren't we proud? moving forward now. and i hate to be the one to tell you, folks, but this is only the beginning. and i told you that this was going to happen. you see, the republicans have this real tricky strategy. the laws they passed don't hurt you right away, but they hit you hard down the road. and this is a classic example. most americans don't seem to notice what is going on here.
democratic amendment that was designed to try to address the issues you correctly raised. >> sure. >> in the 2006 legislation. what is so monstrous about this, ed, and you got it is they created this crisis in that lame duck legislation of the republican congress in 2006, and now they say, well, there is a crisis we created, and there is no choice but these horrible decisions that will further kill a viable and vibrant postal service. >> and audrey, if congress doesn't reverse this, there could be a day when it could be two or three days a week delivery, and then no delivery. i mean that's where this is going. the republicans are trying to starve the united states postal service. or is that a bridge too far? what do you think? >> oh, no, most certainly i agree with you. you know, this should be the
time when the postal service should be expanding their business to reach out to the middle class and to small businesses to make their business succeed. you know, this standard of service is an american tradition that so many american families especially our rural communities rely on. >> it is in the constitution. there is no doubt about that. >> and also it is in the constitution, correct. correct. >> congressman gerald connolly and audrey humes, i appreciate you're time tonight. we're going to hear more on this. i'll be down in washington on the state of the union address. i'll talk to some folks about it. who knows where it's going to go. they need to change this law. share your thoughts with us on twitter and facebook. we always want to though what you think. marco rubio, senator from florida, has been tapped to give the state of the union's response as conservatives are desperately trying to create a permanent underclass of 11 million potential new americans. the mayor of los angeles joins us tonight. stay with us.
coming up, liberals have serious questions about the obama administration's legal justification for targeting killing of americans. the white house has responded tonight. our big panel tackles the issue, and we'll have the latest. karl rove is running cover for mitch mcconnell by going after ashley judd in a new commercial? tonight we have ashley judd's response to turd blossom. and a brand-new to tack on to hillary clinton from our friends across the street. it will make your jaw drop, friend. you can listen to my radio on sirius xm radio monday through friday from noon to 3:00 p.m. slayer your thoughts on facebook and on twitter. we are coming right back. toured.
welcome back to "the ed show." thanks for staying with us tonight. marco rubio has been picked by republicans to deliver the republican response to the president's state of the union address next tuesday. for rubio, being selected to give the speech is the only endorsement he has gotten from the republican friends lately. you can say senator rubio is the unofficial immigration czar for the republican party. as we've told you, rubio joined some of the nation's most powerful senators last week to outline an immigration reform plan. senator rubio is making the media rounds. he even did this interview at a bar in washington, d.c. last night. he sipped water instead of beer, and lowered expectations for reform. >> i know there is a lot of optimism about the announcement last week of some principles. but i think reality has begun to set in as to how difficult it's going to be to accomplish, not just in the house, but potentially in the senate. >> rubio could be wrong about the senate. his fellow republicans in the
house could make reform a lot more difficult. remember, rubio helped present the reform plan last week. it's not even a bill. it's just an outline. but house majority leader eric cantor and john boehner refused to endorse the plan, even when they were asked directly about it. >> i want to do everything i can to foster this continuing conversation in a bipartisan fashion to deal with what is a very difficult issue in our country. but, you know, it's certainly worthy of conversation. >> really? it's nice to hear john boehner call immigration reform worthy of consideration. maybe boehner and cantor don't want to pick sides in the debate over citizenship. but exit polling showed it was a key issue for voters. the latino vote helped president obama win reelection. and today a poll shows 55% of americans support legislation that creates some kind of path to citizenship. americans are ready for reform. it looks like republicans led by marco rubio are still playing
games. joining me tonight los angeles mayor antonio villaraigosa. he is with us this evening on "the ed show." mayor, great to have you with us. i appreciate your time. >> great to be with you, ed. >> is marco rubio is a good leader for the republicans on immigration reform, in your opinion? >> well, let me say that i'm heartened that over time he's said that he agrees that we need a comprehensive approach to immigration reform and not just a piecemeal approach. i'm also heartened that they haven't -- that speaker boehner and mr. cantor haven't rejected it out of hand. i'm not surprised by that i do believe there is momentum in the senate, and i think there will be support in the house to move comprehensive immigration reform ahead. i have said, and many of us believe that it has to include a pathway for citizenship for the 11 million undocumented, not just for the dreamers, that it
has to be earned, of course. you have to get at the end of the line and have a criminal background check, learn english, pay back your tax. but it can't be unattainable. it can't be so long that it's unattainable. >> well, mayor, senator rubio is proposing a path that i actually think creates a new class system of workers in this country. rubio's plan would let businesses hire lower skilled undocumented workers if americans can't fill the job openings. that's very conditional in my opinion. it's a loophole in the immigration law. it means lower skilled immigrants get a different kind of status. do you agree this plan? is this the correct path to take? >> well, as i said, i believe that there needs to be a path to earn legalization, to earn citizenship for the 11 million people who are here. >> regardless of their skills, correct? >> right. we don't want to divide the
parents from the kids. we don't want to deport the parents and leave the kids here. remember, those 11 million undocumented have 5 million citizen children and a couple million dreamers. so i think that there is momentum in the senate and increasingly in the house. we've got a lot of work to do. it's going to be an arduous path ahead. but this piecemeal approach, i agree with you, it's unacceptable. second class citizenship is not acceptable in the united states of america. less than status will not be acceptable. there will probably be an ag jobs component to it. this has to be a compromise in the end. we have to have smart, not just tough border enforcement. let me say something about that. because i've heard a lot of talk that we got to toughen the border. according to the migration policy institute, we have a net
minus and flow backwards, not to the united states. so the idea that we have to increase the budget for border enforcement when we already spend 20% more than the entire budget for the fbi, the dea, and the atf really kind of misses the point here. we got a net migration flow the other way. >> mayor, great to have you with us tonight. you're a great resource on this story, no question about it. and i appreciate your time here on "the ed show." thank you so much. the chattering class thinks this guy is a serious player when it comes to the budget. tonight i'll go to the big wall and show you a progressive budget which puts paul ryan's to shame. americans are being killed by unmanned aerial weapons. president obama's drone program goes under the spotlight on capitol hill tomorrow, and there is breaking news out of the white house tonight. the big panel responds. stay with us. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up
in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal.
intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪ and return to sleep again. you know, from our 4,000 television commercials.
yep, there i am with flo. hoo-hoo! watch it! [chuckles] anyhoo, 3 million people switched to me last year, saving an average of $475. [sigh] it feels good to help people save... with great discounts like safe driver, multicar, and multipolicy. so call me today. you'll be glad you did. cannonbox! [splash!]
at some point, washington has to deal with its spending problem. i've watched them kick this can down the road for 22 years that i've been here. i've had enough of it. >> welcome back to "the ed show." with the sequester deadline looming, speaker john boehner is refusing to accept new revenue to avoid spending cuts. well, republicans, you see, they just want to trade cuts for cuts. here is a chart of the spending
cuts the democrats and republicans agreed to during the 2011 debt ceiling disaster, and it is $1.7 trillion in cuts. there is not a dime of new revenue there. here is the chart when you add the $737 billion in new revenue agreed to during the fiscal cliff deal. republicans are winning the battle, wouldn't you say, when it comes to balancing? over two-thirds of deficit reduction has come from cuts to domestic programs, and it's not exactly fair. but now the house progressive caucus has come out with what they call the balancing act. it's a common-sense plan to reduce the deficit by closing tax loopholes and cutting wasteful defense spending. here is the chart of the plan. there is $1.7 trillion in new revenue. the $1.7 trillion in spending cuts is still there. this looks like a much fairer chart than the current system,
don't you think? and it's estimated to reduce the deficit by $3.3 trillion. remember, we're trying to hit $4 trillion. so we're getting closer. the plan ends tax loopholes for yachts and for jets. it reduces the corporate meal and entertainment deduction to 25%. you can't write off the whole dinner anymore. it ends fossil fuel subsidies for oil companies that are raking in massive profits. exxonmobil, you know what their profit was? $44 billion in 2012. the last thing they need right now is your tax dollars as subsidy. the balancing act also closes other pointless loopholes the rich take advantage of. we should point out mitt romney ran on a similar tax plan. his former running mate paul ryan should love the balancing act because it reduces the deficit. everyone inside the beltway considers mr. ryan just a very serious person. but here is how paul ryan wants
to reduce the deficit, with nothing but cuts. and here is the balanced approach from the progressive caucus. you know, when we need budget advice in the future, i think we should kind of push paul ryan off to the side, like we did in the election. and for now, we should turn to the house progressive caucus for advice because they are very serious people. it is hard to imagine a tool that can better minimize the risk to civilians. >> senate democrats are demanding answers about the targeted killing of american citizens. colonel jack jacobs, sam stein of "the huffington post," and the daily beast's michelle goldberg on today's big drone developments. karl rove launches a sneak attack on democrats in kentucky. >> ashley judd, an obama-following hollywood radical liberal. >> i'll tell you how actress ashley judd is responding to karl rove and mitch mcconnell tonight. and fox news is scrambling to explain their latest cheap
good to have you back with us tonight. the fallout continues over department of justice memo obtained by nbc news. the memo outlines the obama administration's justification for the targeted killing of american citizens overseas by drone strikes if those citizens are considered to be high-level al qaeda operatives plotting against the united states. progressives want answers. tonight an administration official tells nbc news that president obama has directed the justice department to provide congressional intelligence committees access to classified information providing the legal rationale for these drone strikes. this comes after the white house faced a second day of questioning on the subject. spokesman jay carney says president obama is not troubled by the memo being made public.
>> he thinks that it is legitimate to ask questions about how we prosecute the war against al qaeda. >> senator ron wyden, a member of the senate intelligence committee, has been a critic of the drone program for years. every american has the right to know when their government believes it is allowed to kill them. he tells nbc news, "the memo doesn't answer the central questions. when does the government have the legal right to kill an american"? wyden will get the institution to question about it tomorrow at the senate confirmation hearings for john brennan. john brennan's champion of the drone program, has served as president obama's terrorism expert. wyden says it makes a mockery of the oversight process. he says he was kept in the loop about the strike that killed an
american-born al qaeda leader. >> we do have oversight into it. i knew about those operations, the targeting sets, all of that leading up to it, including very shortly thereafter. and i review all of is the air strikes that we use under this title of the law. >> let's turn to our panel tonight. msnbc military analyst and medal of honor recipient, colonel jack jacobs. michelle goldberg of "newsweek" and daily beast. and sam stein of the "huffington post." great to have all of you with us tonight. >> thank you. >> michelle, you first. what do you make of the white house's response tonight that they are providing the memos that those on the intel committee wanted? >> they obviously should have provided them a long time ago. it was always ludicrous, not only that these weren't made public, but that they weren't even allowed to the people who are charged with overseeing our intelligence agencies. and what they're asking for is basically the rationale that the government uses to decide when it can kill an american citizen. i mean, nothing can kind of be more fundamental to the
government's ability -- or to the senate's ability to rein in cia and -- to rein in cia access. >> colonel, this is warfare that americans aren't used to. and they ask questions about what are our constitutional -- what is our leeway here? what is fair game and what is not? and how are these decisions being made? is this just the new wave of warfare that we have to get used to? >> it is, because we have the technology now to do things we haven't done before. but the argument that congress ought to be involved in supervising this is an important one, and we should not ignore it. the congress has a responsibility, not just the authority, but the responsibility to supervise the activities of the executive branch, and in particular, the intelligence committee which takes a look at all the black programs and is kept in the loop on everything certainly has the
capability of making an evaluation of what is the right thing to do and is the wrong thing to do, and needs to weigh in. to the extent it doesn't do that, then it's abrogated its responsibilities. >> sam, what is your take on what the hearings are going to be like tomorrow for mr. brennan. this should be questions right out of the chute, shouldn't it? >> yes. this is a major component of the president's war on terror. it's a major component of his foreign policy. and listen, there is a difference between operational oversight, which is what congressman rogers was stressing in the interview with andrea mitchell, and legal oversight. and up until this point we really haven't seen any legal justification that the administration has presented for why it can target american civilians abroad if it has determined an imminent threat to the homeland. >> well, it was written today in the "new yorker" that the justification that they're using is a comparison to military troops going into cambodia in vietnam. that's how the nixon aw incredie changes. ri
and i think there is a role for congress to play. and i would add even for the american public to play to a certain extent in judging what kind of legal justifications the administration is using. i understand the administration doesn't want to set a bad precedent here, but these are weighty matters. >> colonel, what kind of intel are we getting on the ground? i mean we have to be sure that we're not killing innocent people here. >> well, i'm going to say having spent a lot of time in combat, i can tell you any time that we have any combat operation, you're going to have innocent people killed. there is always going to be collateral damage. and indeed in the second world war, we went out of our way to kill civilians. that's how we won the war.
i'm not suggesting that we ought to do this now. but to think that even with these technological capabilities we have now as being as precise as we can be, that we're going to avoid killing civilians, that's not going to happen. this is always going to be collateral damage. >> michelle? >> this isn't actually even about the drone program per se. this is about when the government can decide that an american citizen is part of a terrorist organization and have them essentially assassinated. and if you read the memo, it goes kind of much further than any of the public statements by holder that they've basically said has kind of outlined their legal justification. so there is no need to release all this other information. it's so incredibly broad, and it really redefines words like imminent, when they talk about an imminent threat. it redefines words like infeasible when they say it would be infeasible to capture someone. >> colonel, in military terms, the broadness of it? >> i don't mind there being a
broad application of the use of this technology to destroy the enemies of mine who would kill me. but i do believe very strongly that the congress, particularly the intelligence committees have to do a better job of oversight. >> lindsey graham says he agrees with president obama. >> i think the president's on solid legal ground. i think he is doing the right thing. i applaud his administration. when jay carney said it was legal, ethical, and wise, he was right in my opinion. >> on the hill, are there more people with the president on this, sam? >> maybe. i think i want to see how the brennan hearings play out before we make a judgment on that. but, you know, listen. the use of drones is popular in the sense that it makes war more abstract. we don't have to see our soldiers actually carry out some of the messy applications of war. and for that reason, there is people, including chuck hagel, who are supportive of drone technology, because it minimizes u.s. risk. but that -- that is a separate conversation. the operation conversation is separate from the legal one. and i think there is more
information that is needed to figure out just exactly how we determine who is an imminent threat, who is an al qaeda operative. how do we make those determinations? who is involved in making the determinations before we launch the drone strike. i think those are very weighty questions that deserve more of a public hearing. >> well, the number of strikes versus the bush administration, colonel, very different. obviously, this is how the obama team wants to execute the war on terror. and the broad range, you're okay with it. but what do you tell innocent folks that get killed or an american that might be hit by a strike inadvertently? >> well, there is nothing you can say about that. war is a messy business. even technologically precise war like this. you raise an interesting point about this president. the first month he was in office, he authorized more strikes of this type than president bush had done during his entire term in office. and of course we've increased those for precisely the reasons that were suggested here. it's a good way to keep
americans out of harm's way and so that we can launch -- we can fight war at a great distance and leave it completely immune. >> michelle, can we keep the moral high ground throughout all of this? >> of course not. again, this is separate from whether or not you think the use of drones is justified. the question is whether you think the government can put people on a kill list and without revealing the rationale for why they're there in the first place. colonel jack jacobs, michelle goldberg and sam stein. thanks very much very being with us. steve doocy lies for a shot he takes at hillary clinton. that's next.
and of course we would love to hear from our viewers on facebook and on twitter. and many of you are talking about the end of saturday mail delivery service because the postal service is now required to prefund its pension plan for 75 years. on facebook, patricia beck says "it's horrible that republicans force the pension funding
disaster on the united states postal service so that it would fail." vivi arney writes "keep the postal service, fire congress." i'm for that. and kevin woolridge says "conservatives want to privatize everything. let's privatize republicans and get them out of the government asap." i agree. go to our facebook page right now, and you can join the conversation. and don't forget to like "the ed show" when you're there. fox news launchings a sex it attack on hillary clinton, and karl rove goes after ashley judd. both stories straight ahead. stay with us. low testosterone, you should know that axiron is here. the only underarm treatment for low t. that's right, the one you apply to the underarm. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18. axiron can transfer to others through direct contact. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant, and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur.
report these signs and symptoms to your doctor if they occur. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. do not use if you have prostate or breast cancer. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet, or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. see your doctor, and for a 30-day free trial, go to axiron.com.
>> days after retiring secretary of state hillary clinton, somebody has launched a new website for her, showing off this glamorous new face. face-lift perhaps? well, that's fueling rumors about a run for president in 2016. but her aides say it's simply a way for fans and the media to reach her. >> what? it's very clear what he said and what he meant. when he was called out for a sexist comment, doocy took to twitter to do damage control. "saw some lefty blogs thought i said hillary had a face-lift. nope. i was saying the hillary website had a new pic and a face-lift for site." really? see, the folks over at fox news, they can't even get their facts straight when they're pretending to apologize. if he was really talking about the website, what's the point of the side by side photographs? it's shameful. well, what do you expect, it's fox. the bar has been set pretty low, don't you think?
>> women like also to have their little space, whether it's big or small, to kind of get their house in order or their work in order or their kids in order or whatever their job happens to be. >> but didn't men give you the kitchen? 13 million vehicles were registered in this truecar.com. and they figured out that babes, chicks, what do you call them, steve, skirts? >> when you give birth, and you may some day know this, you can't go out and work the next day. and you should be watching the kid anyway. so there's got to be somebody else giving you money. >> i agree. >> besides the government. >> who is running the white house now? you get sebelius, valerie jarrett, michele. the oval office is becoming "the view." what is next? they'll have lamaze classes next. i asked you will republicans succeed in killing the post office. 53% of you say yes. 47% of you say no. coming up, ashley judd responds to karl rove's latest slimy attack. that's next. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up
in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion.
alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪ and in the big finish tonight, the so-called mastermind of the republican party karl rove is alarmed by the possibility of ashley judd running for the senate against republican leader mitch mcconnell. rove's superpac america crossroads is running this ad. >> you know what this country really needs? an independent voice for obama. >> i am committed to president obama and vice president biden. i think he is a brilliant man.
he is now able to flower more as the president i knew he could be. >> a leader who knows how to follow. >> i will go wherever the president wants me to go. >> someone who will never forget where she came from. >> and it just clicked. tennessee is home. and it just clicked. tennessee is home. >> kentucky. >> someone who knows what is good for us. >> obama care has done so much for us right here in tennessee. >> ashley judd has responded. ashley thanks senator mcconnell, karl rove and their negative allies for all the attention as she considers her future political plans, although a decision hasn't been made yet. the kentucky senate race is obviously high profile with republican leader up for reelection. rove's ad is meant to be a preemptive strike. if democrats are able to topple senator mcconnell, they would be taking a page out of a republican playbook. history tells us. 2004 republicans targeted then tom daschle and they won. 2010, republicans, well, they
couldn't wake to take out senate majority leader harry reid. but of course reid survived the challenge from tea partier sharron angle. let's remember, senator mcconnell said his number one priority was to make president obama a one-term president. let's turn to adam green tonight, co-founder of the pccc whose organization has taken out an ad against mitch mcconnell. this ad, adam -- good to have you with us tonight. this slick ad from american crossroads, doesn't it show how seriously republicans are taking judd as a possible candidate? your thoughts. >> it definitely shows that. and after karl rove's 1% win record in 2012, if i were ashley judd, i would be feeling pretty good right now. the law of average says if karl rove spends money attacking you in ads, you're probably good to win. >> how significant would a mcconnell loss to be? your organization has taken out an ad. and if you look at the poll numbers of mitch mcconnell in kentucky done right now done by one of the local newspapers, only 17% say they're going to vote for mcconnell.
34% say they plan to vote against him. and 44 say they want to see the opponent. what do you make of these numbers, and is he vulnerable? >> he is absolutely vulnerable. you mention that we took out an ad. it features an actual gunowner from his state, and folks can watch it at gunownersforreform.com. he squealed. he reacted to it, because he doesn't like the face of accountability. the reason that mitch mcconnell's numbers are so low is that on pretty much every single issue of the day, including guns, he consistently sides with his big corporate campaign donors as opposed to everyday kentucky families. and the only thing missing from the the debate up until now, the only reason that mitch mcconnell and other republicans have been able to get away with these absurd positions is a lack of real accountability back home. so that's why we took out this ad, and we're going to be airing it all week long in his home state. >> what do we know about ashley judd? can she win? >> thing is a lot of candidates who can win. she is from kentucky.
she obviously has broad national appeal, which would be nice to help her infuse kentucky with a lot of resources. but honestly, i think that there are many good candidates who can win. there is also a progressive attorney general named jack conway and some others. so we'll be watching. but i think it's very important for all progressives and democrats to take this very seriously right now and to make sure that we're constantly holding mitch mcconnell accountable back home. do. >> you think kentuckians get his obstruction? >> more and more they're finding out about it. and, again, we can't wait until the final eight weeks of the election to make sure that there is accountability back home. we need to make sure on every single issue, kentuckians are figuring out that mitch mcconnell is not advocating for their interest. and one other thing, as progressives in this gunfight, we need to make sure we have president obama's back. he has given us everything we asked for, a really bold plan. he has taken his message to the public. progressives will show him we will get his back on this fight and creates an incentive system where he is bold on every single fight.