'Up with Steve Kornacki' for Saturday, September 13th, 2014

UP with STEVE KORNACKI
September 13, 2014

Guest: Eleanor Clift, Jonathan Alter, Mike Pesca, Frank Thorp, Mike
Freeman, Peter Alexander, Stephen Hadley, Sandy Berger, Jim McDermott,
Zephyr Teachout


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC HOST: Another NFL player, another abuse allegation.

And thanks for getting up with us this morning. The nation is waking up
this Saturday to a new account of alleged abuse by another NFL player.
This one involving Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson and a
four-year-old child. We`ll have all the details in just a little bit.

And also all the latest on the Ray Rice saga including a look at Roger
Goodell`s status as NFL commissioner. What would it really take for him to
go? All that is coming up just a few minutes from now.

But first, the biggest global story of the week in a prime time address to
the American people on Wednesday night, President Obama announced a major
escalation of the military campaign to defeat the terrorist ISIS, that is
advancing across Iraq from Syria. The President authorized airstrikes
within Syria for the first time adding U.S. fire power to the country`s
bloody three-year-old civil war. He also called on Congress to expand
effort to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels which are being carried out
by the CIA on a much smaller scale.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: America will lead a broad
coalition to roll back this terrorist threat. Our objective is clear. We
will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL through a comprehensive and
sustain counterterrorism strategy. We will conduct a systematic campaign
of air strikes against these terrorists. We will increase our support to
forces fighting these terrorists on the ground.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: President Obama also ordered 475 more troops to Iraq, bringing
the total number of boots on the ground to about 1600. But Obama
emphasized the sustained military campaign against ISIS would be different
in the recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan which put tens of thousands
of U.S. troops on the battlefield and killed nearly 7,000 American
servicemen and women.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign
soil. This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady,
relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist using our air power
and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking
out terrorists who threaten us while supporting partners on the front lines
is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: The sustained military campaign that Obama is expanding already
has eclipsed the secretive air strikes carried out for years in Somalia in
Yemen according to the long war journal. In the last month alone, there
have been a little more than 150 air strikes in Iraq, far exceeding up to
nine strikes in Somalia and roughly 100 suspected drone, missile or other
air strikes in Yemen since Obama took office, even amid a war wary public,
40 percent say they support the President`s plan of limited air strikes
while an additional 34 percent support air strikes and combat troops.

That`s three out of four Americans who agree with Obama or who want him to
do even more militarily against ISIS. Only 15 percent say that military
action should not be taken. But how sure can we be this time our foray
into the Middle East will be different, that this time we will defeat our
enemies without creating new ones or creating more chaos in the region.

Joining me now, today`s panel, we have Eleanor Clift from "The Daily
Beast," MSNBC political analyst and "Daily Beast" columnist Jonathan Alter,
and Mike Pesca, host of the Slate podcast "The Gist," not a Daily Beast
affiliated person. We have one non-Daily Beast personnel.

So, I want to start with I guess sort of the freshest piece of news that
kind of came yesterday and I think frames how we all think about this is,
do you call this a war or not? And that is, you know, the President had
been avoiding using that terminology. Secretary of State John Kerry on
Thursday saying, quote, "war is the wrong terminology," but then at the
White House yesterday, Josh Earnest the spokesman had this to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The United States is at war
with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with al Qaeda and its al Qaeda
affiliates all around the globe. So, in the same way that the United
States is at war with al Qaeda and affiliate and its affiliates around the
globe, the United States is at war with ISIL. OK? And so in the same way
that we are at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates around the globe we are
at war with ISIL.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: So yet, he`s using the word war Eleanor but of course he`s
qualifying it and trying to say, this is the same way it`s al Qaeda, the
same way, you know, it`s not necessarily a conventional war that you might
think of. They`re trying to create a distinction there. But just in terms
of why the White House suddenly did embrace the term war, granted with the
qualifiers like that, why did the White House sort of change its tune on
that yesterday?

ELEANOR CLIFT, THE DAILY BEAST: In the President`s speech he talked about
it as a counterterrorism operation and, you know, I do think they`re
responding to a yearning from the American public, which is reflected in
that poll you cited where three out of four want war action, they don`t
counter terrorist operation does not have the same ring as war with. But
it`s still, I mean, I think it`s going to be very difficult for him to
explain these differences. Conventional war, you think of hundreds of
thousands of troops. That`s not what this is. But as you pointed out, a
handful of drone strikes and a handful of strikes in Yemen and Somalia are
in a much smaller scale of what he envisioned. So, I think they`re going
to get into dangerous territory if they start, you know, using war as a
ubiquitous term.

KORNACKI: And Jonathan, in terms of -- is there any -- does this have
anything to do with the response from the speech Wednesday night, about 48
hours, a little more to digest it in terms of coming out and saying war two
days later. I`m just curious what happened between Wednesday and Friday?

JONATHAN ALTER, COLUMNIST: Well, I don`t know, but I think that the
thinking that the President has expressed over many years is that we need
to be very careful that the world doesn`t see this as a war on Islam. And
so he was very careful in the 2008 campaign and moving forward to talk
about this as not, you know, a war on terror. He hated that term from the
Bush years. But a war against al Qaeda. And he was willing to say that.

KORNACKI: Right. And he drew a distinction in the speech on Wednesday
saying ISIS is not Islamic.

ALTER: Right. So, that is why he didn`t want to go with a lot of war
language in the speech, but now I think they`re just going to call a spade
a spade. It`s a war. It`s going to go on for many years in a relative low
intensity way. This, you know, is the world as it really is, not as Barack
Obama wanted. He tried to -- and he wanted his legacy, Steve, to be ending
two wars. When he went into politics, that`s what he thought was going to
be his historical calling.

CLIFT: This is --

ALTER: He ended two wars. Instead, history dealt him a different hand and
he`s going to leave office presiding over what has to be called a war.

KORNACKI: He becomes the fourth president to authorize -- fourth
consecutive president to authorize military action. Iraq. That
distinction might say, so calling it a war, but then also this is a low-
intensity war, does that matter to the American people that you do that?

MIKE PESCA, SLATE`S "THE GIST": I think it matters a little to the
American people. I think that sometimes in politics we engage in
quantitative lexicography. It`s like, did you use the word Islamic? How
many times did he use the word Islamic? Because, you know, to distinguish
yourself conservatives now are generally in favor of what he`s doing. But
you still have to puff up your chest and show that actually I`m stronger
against terrorism, I own this issue more than the president. Hey, he
didn`t say war. He doesn`t understand the fight. It`s not true.

Whether you call it a war, whether you call it counterterrorism will not
divert one bomb, will not retrain one fighter. But the difference is, I
think, that exactly what Jonathan said. This is a guy whose ambitions for
whatever, his proactive ambitions for the world, have been entirely hemmed
in by circumstances. And he used the grandeur of his office, spoke from
the White House with the flag positioned to show arrows on the Eagle`s
crest and not the olive branches, I mean which is, of course, entirely
done, and he did this -- he is the guy who came in saying I`m not against
all wars, I`m against stupid wars and he wouldn`t define this as a stupid
war but there`s nothing that he could do proactively because al Qaeda keeps
popping up.

And at a time when the economy 98 percent of economists` survey by the Wall
Street Journal said, the economy is going to be better in the next quarter
than it was in the last quarter, so it seems like he`s solving that. Here
comes al Qaeda, here comes this Middle East drama and what can he do except
respond instead of act.

KORNACKI: I wonder, we put the polling numbers out there. And it`s
shocking to me in a way when you think of this country and how much Iraq
fatigue, how much Afghanistan fatigue there was in this country for ten
years of war and then you put that up there and 40 percent support what
Obama laid out the other night, 34 percent though are saying, let`s do more
than that. But I wonder again, we get into these experiences so many
times, there have been instances where intervention has worked, there are
successful intervention stories, there are instances where intervention
has turned into something of a nightmare for us. I wonder how long you
think that support lasts when we`re talking about as Jonathan says,
something that`s going to be happening for years now. How long do you
think that support holds up, Eleanor?

CLIFT: Well, that`s the thing. If you`re going to call this a war this is
a war without end. But I don`t see terrorism which is a tactic and which
is also exacerbated by the media age, there`s a romanticism about people
fighting for jihad, and so you have this clamor for how long is this going
to last. Is this going to last beyond President Obama`s term? This is
going to last into the future, forever. And to call it a war, it`s a war
that is then unwinnable. I think people are going to go up and down in
their response, depending on whether we`re seen as successful. If Jonathan
is right, that this is kind of low intensity, it will fade from the front
pages, that would probably be the best to expect. But those two beheadings
galvanized the American public. The people trapped on the mountaintop when
the President first started this intervention did not really move people`s
opinion. People still thought we should stay out.

KORNACKI: It was the Americans --

CLIFT: The beheadings of two American journalists really changed.

KORNACKI: Well, that`s right. I mean, you think about a year ago, a
little more than a year ago, it was the gassings in Syria and the President
initially saying, he wanted to do air strikes and we never got the
Congressional vote on that but if there had been a Congressional vote it
looked like it was going to go down because the American people didn`t want
that. But now, and I guess it does raise one of the questions here, one of
the, you know, potential downsides to this is, does more U.S. intervention,
does heavier U.S. involvement end up leading to more beheadings?

ALTER: Well, it clearly will lead to, you know, radicalizing those who
have been hit by errant U.S. bombs, which is inevitable in any kind of
bombing campaigns. It`s a balancing test. And you know, on the one hand,
you could be causing recruitment of new terrorists. On the other hand, you
cannot allow a 13th, 12th, 11th century caliphate to be established in the
Middle East. It`s just not permissible in the world. In some ways this is
kind of a phony debate because, you know, if you have any sense of
responsibility about the world, you have to intervene against pure evil.
This is worse than al Qaeda. This is not al Qaeda. This is al Qaeda --

KORNACKI: This is the group that al Qaeda didn`t want anything to do with.

ALTER: Yes. Al Qaeda believes that these guys are too extreme. That`s
what al Qaeda is saying. So I think that what`s happened in the last few
weeks is that the American people have, you know, in a very responsible
way, have taken a look at pure evil, which is what ISIL is, and said in the
same way we couldn`t allow the spreading of pure evil when it was the
Nazis, we have to step in here, many I think prudently say, with air
strikes, ground troops would be very counterproductive.

KORNACKI: That becomes the question.

ALTER: Air strikes -- it will become whack a mol. It`s basically the case
for whack a mole which when, you know, when Clinton was president, Clinton
did a lot of this. They were enforcing no-fly zones, they were bombing
terrorist training camps, in some ways it`s back to that. We`re back to
what happened 100 years ago when we intervened repeatedly in Central
American. Most of the American people didn`t notice.

KORNACKI: Right. And the issue though is when the idea behind air strikes
in this situation is, we don`t want ground troops, we don`t want -- we keep
saying U.S. boots on the ground. We want to give room for instance the
free Syrian army to take back territory. What if the air strikes don`t
give them that room, what if they`re unable to go and take back territory
from ISIS and Syria? That`s the next question I think that hopefully
doesn`t come -- that`s the question we might have to deal with.

ALTER: But Obama is very focused on what they call mission creep. So,
this is not going to happen by accident.

KORNACKI: No, no. But that presents a dilemma right now because that idea
of we want to do something and we don`t want ground troops if those things,
you know, are forced into more tension that`s the question I think -- one
of the big questions going forward. We`ll get to that a little bit later.

But up next, new allegations of abuse by -- about -- from a current NFL
player. This time, the alleged victim is his own four-year-old son. Stay
with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: There are troubling new allegations this morning of abuse by an
NFL player. Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson was indicted
last night on a charge of injury to a child. Peterson turned himself into
the Montgomery county jail near Houston, Texas, overnight. The local CBS
station in Houston reports that law enforcement sources have told them that
Peterson beat his four-year-old son with a tree branch as a form of
punishment this summer. And that beating allegedly resulted in multiple
injuries to the child, cuts and bruises on his back, ankles, legs and other
parts of the body. The child`s hands were also wounded when he tried to
defend himself.

NBC News has not verified the station`s report. Peterson`s lawyer says the
charge involves Peterson using a switch to spank his son and that Peterson
is cooperating with authorities. Quote, "Adrian is a loving father who
used his judgment as a parent to discipline his son. He used the same kind
of discipline with his child that he experienced as a child growing up in
East Texas. Adrian has never hidden from what happened. He has cooperated
fully with authorities, voluntarily testified before the grand jury for
several hours. It is important to remember that Adrian never intended to
harm his son. He deeply regrets the unintentional injury."

Last night, the Vikings announced that Peterson will not be playing in
Sunday`s game against the New England Patriots. Peterson was in the news
two years ago when another of his sons died, the victim of alleged abuse by
his mother`s boyfriend. Peterson indictment comes amid a national
conversation about domestic violence by NFL players and how the league
investigates those allegations. The NFL suspended Baltimore Ravens running
back Ray Rice indefinitely this week after video surfaced of Rice punching
the woman who`s now his wife in an elevator in an Atlantic City Hotel. He
knocked her unconscious and Rice was initially suspended for two games as a
result.

But this week, the NFL made it official, Rice is now suspended
indefinitely. The question of why the NFL didn`t pursue a tougher
punishment against Ray Rice the first time is at the heart of why this
story has become a national conversation. Sources close to Rice tell NBC
News that Rice told them, he informed Roger Goodell back in June that he
had, in fact, punched his future wife. But on Tuesday, Roger Goodell had
said in an interview with CBS News that until the videos emerged there was
ambiguity about what actually happened. In effect, he couldn`t act on what
he didn`t know. That`s what he was saying then.

And about those videos, the AP reports that an unidentified law enforcement
official says he sent the tape taken inside that elevator that actually
shows Rice punching his fiancee to an NFL executive back in April, he did
so in an unofficial capacity. And he played a voicemail recording for the
AP, from an NFL phone number in which the female voice confirms the tape
arrive. But the NFL has issued a statement saying, it is unaware of any
tape being delivered. Commissioner Goodell said, he didn`t see the punch
on the tape until this week. So, we don`t know if Goodell saw it. It`s
plausible that he didn`t. But the potential shelving of the tape by
someone in the league`s office does raise questions about how seriously the
NFL was treating the investigation.

Yesterday, "The Wall Street Journal" reported that one unnamed NFL owner
told them that Roger Goodell didn`t pursue the investigation all that
vigorously because he thought it would be insensitive to question Ray
Rice`s wife. Investigation into the investigation is now in the hands of a
professional, the league has hired former FBI Director Robert Mueller to
more on what happened, how it happened, maybe what should have happened,
and what happens next, as well as the Peterson indictment.

Still at the table with us, we have Eleanor Clift of "The Daily Beast,"
MSNBC political analyst Jonathan Alter and Mike Pesca, host of the Slate
podcast "The Gist."

So, Mike, I`ll start with you. We`ll start on this Peterson thing. I
think this is -- people are still sort of figuring out the details here.
This is a four-year-old child, apparently he was playing with others and
knocked a kid off a bike and Adrian Peterson took him out in the yard I
guess and grabbed a branch from a tree, he calls it a switch, had the kid
pull his pants down and inflicted quite a few wounds on him and he thinks
it`s in the name of good parenting. The mother of the child apparently
thinks otherwise. That`s how this became a legal story. The thing on top
of this as we say is, there`s this incident with a child I guess he didn`t
know he had, who was killed by child abuse a year or two ago.

PESCA: Right.

KORNACKI: Same guy.

PESCA: A couple -- so the abuser in that case is facing charges. And, you
know, last year they asked Adrian Peterson how could he play knowing this
about your child, and so he was seen as a sympathetic figure but didn`t
know about his child who died until a few months I think before he died.
OK, so, in this situation, Adrian Peterson, prosecutors will not charge if
-- I talked to a prosecutor yesterday they will not charge based on a
spanking, they will not charge based on a switch. But as soon as you start
breaking skin and if you read that report the wounds on the genitals,
stuffed leaves in his mouth, these are no-brainers, you always get a
charge.

And Rusty Hardin who`s the lawyer who got Roger Clemens off trying to I
think pre-appeal to a possible East Texas jury or at least lay the
groundwork framing it as, he had this happen to him and this is what we do
in Texas. But you know, a prosecutor would say, if you have those kinds of
wounds that is a no-brainer you must be charged. And they talked to the
kid, he said daddy has a lot of belt buckles and he likes to use them.
It`s horrible, it`s tragic, and what it means for the NFL is that Roger
Goodell again has to decide about his role of judge, jury and executioner.
He has said I am the law in the NFL. And he got so many played its for it
because he always came down hard and then the one time he didn`t come down
hard on Ray Rice was a horrible miscarriage of justice.

So, I don`t know. Maybe he thinks that the answer is, I have to come down
hard on Adrian Peterson, let the legal process play out. I think the
answer is, he should get out of that business and he should have actual
process when it comes to how you punish. And laying a lot out there, but
the side issue of, did he see the tape, didn`t he see the tape, if he`s
lying about that, that could be a firing offense. But even if not, I mean
especially if not, it`s like a false narrative. He didn`t have to see that
tape to have read through decent justice in the Ray Rice case.

KORNACKI: Well, wait, I mean, he had already -- before this tape ever came
to light, there was initially the two-game suspension and he has said
before this tape even came to life he made a mistake, he shouldn`t -- he
revised the policy I guess. So now again even before all this happened,
it`s an automatic six-game suspension instead of a two-game suspension and
there could be a lifetime ban. But at the same time, I think we`ve put
this up, I saw a number of headlines like this this week, this is from "The
Daily Beast," this week and said the NFL is full of Ray Rices.

And basically making the argument, you know, here`s an example, Greg Hardy,
he is a defensive lineman in the Carolina Panthers, he was found guilty
this summer of assaulting and threatening to kill an ex-girlfriend. He was
found guilty in May. It happened in May. He was found guilty this summer.
That`s what happened. He played last week.

PESCA: Yes.

KORNACKI: There`s no suspension of him at all.

PESCA: Right. So, he`s appealing and they`re saying, we`re waiting for
the appeal. I think people are making a mistake if they think that that
NFL tried to do what they could as best. No. The NFL interviewed Janay
Palmer in a room with her abuser. So, the information he got from her
saying oh, it was my fault, anyone who knows anything about domestic abuse
would say you can`t do that. Roger Goodell talked about well, I think if I
punish Ray Rice too harshly, I would be insulting Janay Palmer.

So backwards on issue of abuse and they got women`s groups and the women`s
groups kind of educated him. And he said, you know, now from this point on
I`m going to be better about this. Last year, Jovan Belcher of the Chiefs
killed his girlfriend. So, why are we having this discussion this year?
Why are we excusing the ignorance up to the Ray Rice point? Why don`t we
say how can you guys be so backwards, you Roger Goodell, with your $44.2
million salary, don`t you have the resources to do this before it becomes a
crisis?

KORNACKI: Eleanor, I`m curious how you watching this unfold this week, I
know we`ve seen a number of lawmakers in Washington, we have a number of
female senators coming out this week, looking for a zero tolerance policy.
You know, looking at sort of the prominent role the NFL plays obviously in
our culture, it looms large over it, such a powerful organization, and to
have what seems to be a blind spot when it comes -- again we talk about Ray
Rice, but it`s not just Ray Rice. Seems there`s a broader cultural problem
in the league here.

CLIFT: Americans love football. I must admit I pay casual attention to
football. I think it`s a violent sport and it appears that people don`t
always turn off that violence when they leave the football field. To me,
the shocking thing was understanding how much money is involved in the NFL
football. It`s billions upon billions, it`s like another government in our
midst and the salary that Roger Goodell makes --

KORNACKI: That`s shocking. $44 million.

CLIFT: Right. Exactly, what does he do for that? What he does is he
protects the owners and he tries to produce winners and it`s all about
winning. And they`re willing to overlook anything in order to keep these
guys on the field. I mean I have some sympathy for Ray Rice`s wife because
I, you know, I don`t know what goes on in their marriage, but she feels
like this is something in the past and she feels like this band-aid has
been pulled off and she`s been wounded in the eyes of the public.

So I do -- I do think this is far more complicated than just, you know, how
do we punish these guys. There are layers upon layers of complexity. Why
people stay in abusive relations, why they leave. So, I`m not eager to
judge, but I do think that there needs to be greater responsibility on the
part of the league, not to ignore what is happening under their eyes and
condoning this kind of behavior, because that in effect is what they`re
doing.

KORNACKI: Like I said -- that`s the thing --

CLIFT: The 20th anniversary of the Women Against Violence Act, this is
kind of a nice parallel there.

KORNACKI: Well, yes, and that`s the thing, again reading this week that
jumped out at me was, I mean, there`s the Ray Rice issue itself in saying,
well, two games wasn`t enough and what happens with him now but there`s a
much broader issue. Because these things apparently happen with an
alarming amount of frequency and they don`t get any attention at all, maybe
that will change. But still ahead, we will talk more about the fate of NFL
Commissioner Roger Goodell. I`ll be joined by -- in a minute. But first,
will Congress support President Obama`s plan to combat ISIS? Does it even
matter? Will there be a vote. That`s the big question and that`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL, but I believe
we are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together.
So I welcome Congressional support for this effort in order to show the
world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: So, President Obama has made it clear he does not believe that
he needs Congressional approval to pursue his plans to combat ISIS, but
should he pursue it? Would Congress give it to him anyway? Before the
President`s speech there were members forcefully calling for a vote like
democrat Brad Sherman of California.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BRAD SHERMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: We ask our pilots to do their job, we
in Congress should do ours, let`s consider a war powers act resolution,
let`s take the tough vote.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: Then on Wednesday, the President made his address, request help
from Congress, but not their permission. So, how did Congress react to
that? The next day we saw a rare agreement between Congressional leaders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I do believe that what the
president has asked for, as the commander-in-chief, is this authority to
train these Syrian rebels and frankly we ought to give the President what
he`s asking for.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: Yes, I do believe Congress has
a role. What I did say, though, was what the President is doing now, I
think he has the legal authority to do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: So will Congress actually vote on this and if they do, what will
happen and will it make any difference?

Joining me now to discuss is NBC News Capitol Hill Producer Frank Thorp.
Frank, thanks for joining us this morning. So I -- I`m curious, we heard a
number of members of Congress, we played Brad Sherman there, making the
case for Congress voting on this, every time I`ve seen a member of Congress
sort of cornered by somebody in the media this week and asked about this,
the response seems to come back, oh sure, yes, I think we should vote. How
sincere is that sentiment versus how much is it -- member of Congress says
they want to vote and the leadership doesn`t make them vote and everybody
kind of wins?

FRANK THORP, NBC NEWS CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: Well, there are two different
issues here because I think that President Obama actually asks for the
Congress to vote on an authorization to allow him to train moderate Syrian
opposition --

KORNACKI: Yes. We should make the distinction. The training and the
support for the free Syrian army is one thing, but on this issue of
basically saying anywhere in Iraq you can go after ISIS now, you can go,
you know, the war extends to anywhere in Iraq and potentially into Syria.
On the issue of some sort of authorization for that, he`s saying I don`t
need it.

THORP: Right. And then he reiterated that in briefings. You know,
administration officials were on The Hill this week briefing all of the
members of the House, all the senators, and they explained that they think
that they have the authorization to do this. But, you know, there`s a --
calls on both sides of the aisle in both chambers of Congress saying that
they should weigh in on this at some point in time and so -- but I don`t
anticipate that vote being before they leave for November elections.

You know, there are some in the progressive caucus who say that they should
vote on this before they leave, the ACLU has also encouraged members do
that as well. But I think that what you`re going to see is next week,
you`re going to see this vote on this authorization to train these
moderate Syrian opposition but you`re not going to see a vote to authorize
military force. That would probably, likely come in -- after the November
elections.

KORNACKI: What is the -- because there`s a certain argument on timing here
when you get into the war powers act and the 60-day window and then it was
back in August that the president first announced, you know, the air
strikes against ISIS back when it was the incident going on at the
mountain, it was to protect the city of Erbil. The clock on that if you
started the clock ticking there, would only get you to about October 7th,
October 8th, somewhere in there, and then that 60-day window would go up,
would expire. So you`re saying until not after the election, would there
be any kind of vote on this. Would a vote even matter at that point?

THORP: Well, I mean, this kind of goes into a much broader debate about
whether or not the authorization for using military force from 2001 and
2002 applies to this military campaign. And I think that that`s a longer
debate. They need more time for that. They want to have more briefings,
they want to have more Congressional hearings, and so I think that they`re
kind of up against the wall here. Granted, they could stay in town for
longer. They`re going to be out of town for almost two months until
November 12th if they are to pass a cr this next week and leave town at the
end of the week until the November elections, but I mean, I think that a
lot of members want to get on record about whether or not they support
these military actions, but they also don`t want to necessarily right
before the November elections on a broader campaign. They feel like they
can vote on this authorization to train the moderate Syrian opposition and
that`s kind of getting at least a little bit on the record before they
leave for the elections.

KORNACKI: All right. My thanks to NBC News Capitol Hill Producer Frank
Thorp. I appreciate you taking a few minutes this morning.

And up next, a look inside the NFL`s hierarchy and what it means for the
future of those in charge of the league. That`s when we return.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: Calls for Roger Goodell to resign as NFL commissioner amid
questions about how he`s handled the Ray Rice investigation have been
growing. But so, too, it seems Goodell`s insistence that he`ll ignore
those calls for him to go. Resignation is not a consideration a source
close to Roger Goodell tells "The Washington Post." Another source says
there is, quote, "No chance that Goodell will resign." And the people who
gave him the job in the first place appear to agree. The owners of the 32
teams in the NFL. They elected Goodell and unless Goodell decides to leave
the NFL front office by choice, the decision on whether he stays or goes is
theirs. And for now, they say they are sticking with Goodell until former
FBI Director Robert Mueller completes his investigation of the
investigation.

According to the "Washington Post," several executives with NFL teams
expressed the view Thursday that the media and others are focusing wrongly
on the potential missteps by Goodell rather than on the misconduct of Rice.
And quoting one of the NFL`s executives who spoke with the paper for that
article, he`s been a very good commissioner and he`s done great things for
the league. The presumption is that he`s telling the truth and the
investigation will demonstrate that. We`ll go by their report generated by
Mueller`s investigation. If the report says something different we`ll take
appropriate action.

Joining me now are NBC News national correspondent Peter Alexander and Mike
Freeman who is an NFL columnist for Bleacher Report.

So, Peter, let me start with you. I was watching the Ravens/Steelers game
on Thursday night, he had an interview with Steve Bisciotti, the owner of
the Baltimore Ravens before the game, the question of Goodell resigning or
going with rage and he couldn`t shoot it down fast enough, I believe Roger
when he says he never saw it. If the allegations is true that it got to
the league`s office and somebody was negligent in not getting that to
Roger. I`ve known Roger 14 years. He`s dedicated his life to an NFL. And
as a man I can`t believe that he saw that video and gave it a two-game
suspension. That`s what makes it hard for me to believe. So, is that
still the consensus view of owners? Is there any signs of any crack when
it comes to those owners?

PETER ALEXANDER, NBC NEWS NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, so let`s put this
big picture in front of folks here. Right. So, obviously Goodell`s
credibility has been called into question and it`s likely that in most
places where you and I work if someone had overseen some situation like
this, that there would be heads that roll, right. But this is not a
publicly traded company. Basically 32 billionaire owners are going to
decide the fate of Roger Goodell. OK? And one thing to keep an eye on is
that we didn`t really focus on over the course of that -- this past week is
the fact that one of the sort of low-grade franchises in the league, the
Buffalo Bills, sold for $1.4 billion. Consider that right now.

I bet a lot of the other owners in the league were paying close attention
to that as well. So, there is obviously a bottom line at stake here.
Goodell has helped these owners make a lot of money over the course of I
guess since 2006 and most of them, he has earned a lot of goodwill in the
words of one individual I spoke to who has close ties to the league, the
two individuals who are going to be overseeing it, the two owners, Art
Rooney and John Mayer are viewed as the paragons of virtue, they think
they`re doing this in the most above board way they can, but it doesn`t
seem in the eyes of most of them that getting rid of Roger Goodell is what
they view as the best way to go.

KORNACKI: Yes. So, Rooney with the Steelers, Mike Mara (ph) with the
Giants, supposedly two owners who are particularly close to Roger Goodell.

MIKE FREEMAN, BLEACHER REPORT: Very close.

KORNACKI: The idea of having them there was sort of this investigation is
not reporting to Goodell themselves, it was reporting to somebody else in
the league.

FREEMAN: Right.

KORNACKI: But it does raise questions, you know, about the objectivity
here. But in terms of what it would take to get these owners to move
against Roger Goodell. We talk about all the money they make from it.

FREEMAN: Right.

KORNACKI: The NFL is taking a hit right here in terms of its image with
the Ray Rice thing, with Adrian Peterson this morning, it`s taking a hit
right here. At what point do owners start to say, you know, what? It
would help our bottom-line, and it would help images of league, if we make
a statement here --

FREEMAN: Sponsorships. That`s a great question and I think the answer
right now is, when you start to see the league take a hit to its brand,
that hasn`t happened yet, the NFL is like a big cruise ship and when things
happen to it, it takes a while for it to sort of change course and knows
where it`s going. So, we`re still very early, but the owners that I`ve
talked to, one in particular said, there`s no way right now they`re going
to get rid of him but they`re going to wait and see. And I think they`re
in a wait and see mode. And Peter hit on something really big. The owners
love Roger Goodell. It`s almost to an owner. There are very few owners
who do not like him. They really love him.

KORNACKI: It`s a personal relationship.

FREEMAN: Personal relationships. But the bigger issue is the money. This
league has undergone a transformation in terms of making money. I`ve been
covering it for 25 years. I`ve never seen before. Haven`t seen in the
history of sports before. They`re making so much money right now that
right now they`re going to be hesitant to get rid of him at all in any
point.

KORNACKI: Go ahead, Peter.

ALEXANDER: I was just going to say, you know, Mike makes really good
points there. The gist is, the bottom-line matters here. We haven`t heard
any of the blue chips sponsors, these massive sponsors of the league, say
I`m out. You know, in the Paula Deen case, for example, that was a much
smaller brand than the NFL of course, sponsors ditched her after her
insensitive to say the least remarks that she had in that racially charged
case a while backup. Here the sponsors are standing by the league. They
have said that they will not accept domestic violence, that it must be
responded to appropriately.

But they say they are sort of basically taking a wait and see mode and that
they trust that league will handle this appropriately. You know, one other
thing to consider, some people saying, Goodell, he should resign. He
should just resign. Roger Goodell makes $44 million a year. That`s what
he made last year. That is twice what the highest paid NFL player makes
this year. That`s Aaron Rodgers at $22 million. Your commissioner makes
double the biggest marquee player in the game.

KORNACKI: As I said, that number shocked me. Well, in terms of this
investigation, Mike, do we have any sense how long it`s going to take?

FREEMAN: From what I`m hearing, maybe a couple months. Though I don`t
know why it would take that long. It seems to be pretty straight cut and
dry about what you`re looking for. They`re going to take their time with
this. They`re going to be as thorough as possible. They want to make sure
that -- because there`s going to be accusations of a cover-up, there`s
going to be accusations that it wasn`t true that the two owners overseeing
it are two of his best friends, that the FBI -- former FBI director is in
charge of it, has ties to the NFL, so they`re going to make sure that
appearance of this is straight, as perfect as possible. Because they don`t
want that.

KORNACKI: Do you think it`s -- I mean, do you have -- because there`s two
ways of looking at this. Right? We say that this sort of conspiratorial
sinister angle with the -- these are buddies overseeing it, they`re not
going to let anything that`s going to -- that`s going to, you know, knock
him off his perch here. The other way is, Robert Mueller has a reputation
here and he has to protect and look out for that reputation. If he`s part
of any cover-up here, he destroys his reputation. What`s your level of
confidence in terms of this investigation?

FREEMAN: I`m actually one of the few people that thinks this investigation
can be actually pretty straight up, can be pretty honest because of what
you said. His credibility. And actually the NFL with these special
prosecutors and these special investigators, the last two, actually have
been pretty good. The bounty gate case, where the saints were accused of
coaches paying players that injure other players, they appointed a former
commissioner Paul Tagliabue to look into that and he pretty much hammered
Goodell in his final report. And in the case of the Miami Dolphins, they
hired another special investigator and he hammered the Dolphins. They`ve
actually been pretty solid with this and I don`t see an FBI director,
former FBI director just soiling his reputation for -- to be pals with
owners. I just don`t see that. So I`m actually one of the few people that
thinks that this can work.

KORNACKI: Yes. Well, it sounds like -- I mean, in terms of Goodell and
there are so many other issues here but in terms of Goodell`s ultimate
fate, it seems like that`s the ball game right now. Where is this
investigation goes, how that turns out?

My thanks to Mike Freeman from Bleacher Report, NBC News` Peter Alexander,
I appreciate you getting up this morning. And tomorrow morning here on UP,
we will be joined by the woman that the NFL commissioner phoned for advice
just a few days after he announced that he was suspending Ray Rice for two
games early this year. She is Kim Gandy, president of the National Network
to end domestic violence. And former president, National Organization for
Women, Goodell and Gandy spoke for an hour, he asked questions like what is
domestic violence, good work place policy for an NFL employee look like, we
will ask her all about her conversation with Roger Goodell, that is on
tomorrow morning`s UP and we`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: We`re going to change gears a little bit here at the end of the
hour because we did want to share a lighter -- I don`t know if lighter is
the right word -- but a different kind of news story here within the hour.
Because former South Carolina governor turned current Congressman Mark
Sanford has unloaded a kind of Facebook Post you might find annoying if a
friend posted it on your own feed. But there is some news buried in his
epic, 2,346 word post that went live yesterday. It`s near the bottom. He
announced that his engagement to his Argentinean fiancee is now over. The
rest of the post is devoted to his difficult relationship with his
estranged wife.

You see it`s scrolling and scrolling and scrolling on your screen there.
Imagine, it`s quite a thing to read if you haven`t. But anyway, last week
Jenny Sanford, his ex-wife, demanded that Congressman Sanford undergo a
psychiatric evaluation and complete anger management and parenting classes.
Not long before Congressman Sanford posted his message in the internet, he
filed a motion requesting a gag order against his ex-wife. The judge will
hear that motion on Monday. And if it seems weird to have Sanford be
disclosing so much and too much on Facebook, more personal information than
you might be comfortable with, you can always think back to that 2009 press
conference which he revealed his relationship with the mistress he had
snuck off to Argentina to see.

And of course, you remember him trying to explain that as he was actually -
- his claim he had been on a hike on the Appalachian trail, by discussing
his love of taking adventure trips to unwind. So, Sanford appears to have
a history of running off on a tangent like this.

Well, joining us now back at the panel, Mike Pesca, Eleanor Clift, Jonathan
Alter. You know, when you think Mark Sanford is done surprising him back
to just being sort of a congressman and politician again, you turn on your
computer and you see something like this. You know, I don`t want to make
fun of the guy or anything --

ALTER: Why not?

KORNACKI: It`s unusual to see, you know, somebody, you know, I feel little
bad. I mean, he shares so much, so obviously --

ALTER: Why do you feel bad? This is TMI. This is over share territory.

KORNACKI: It`s like but he`s also like, he can`t of can`t help himself.
He`s sort of just like talking with his heart here and he`s in love.

ALTER: John, I don`t know --

PESCA: Jonathan rejected his friend request on Facebook.

KORNACKI: You can block people from your feed without un-friending them.
So, you take the mute button on twitter.

CLINT: Like a heart-sick teenager.

KORNACKI: That`s what I mean.

CLINT: He does have four sons and you wonder the impact on them and so you
wonder why he would choose this particular forum. It looks like a legal
fight with his wife.

KORNACKI: Right.

CLINT: I don`t know who he`s going to gain sympathy from. And now I want
to hear from the ex-fiancee.

ALTER: You do? I don`t.

CLINT: Did she just learn about this?

(LAUGHTER)

Was this his way of telling her? I don`t know.

KORNACKI: The post does not make clear. Because there had been a big
profile, I think it was "The New York Times" magazine, not long ago, you
know, Mark Sanford had come back and won election to the House last year
and the profile talked about how this fiancee was starting to make
appearances with him in public and, of course, when you`re in the south,
when you`re in the very republican parts of the south, these are
particularly sensitive issues when it comes to leaving your wife and sort
of taking up with somebody else. It doesn`t make clear in this post if the
engagement is off, are they still together and this is postponed or
anything like that.

PESCA: Well, there`s a lot of things that`s not clear in the post. He
kind of got lost on an Appalachian trail of verbiage, written like a
Anthony Trollope novel. I mean, very odd phrasing. And that`s kind of
refreshing thing. It`s so clearly a part from being handled and being
managed, message management, this is just this guy letting it out there. I
mean, you know, invalidating his career I`m sure in the process.

KORNACKI: Well, you would have thought that happened in 2009, right? And
then he`s back.

CLINT: Right. You know, Southern -- the Southern values that you just
remarked upon and how they feel about family and marriage and all of that,
being a democrat I suppose is worse than violating all --

KORNACKI: Apparently.

CLINT: Supported him.

ALTER: Those Southern values if you actually look at divorce rates and
that kind of thing, they are actually much higher in many of these areas.
I don`t know about his district in particular, but a tremendous amount of
hypocrisy in people`s reactions to these things, although even the voters
of South Carolina no longer seem to care much about any of this. It didn`t
hurt him. I mean, he had a spirited opponent in the last election, Stephen
Colbert`s sister.

KORNACKI: Right.

ALTER: And she ran a good campaign.

KORNACKI: No. As the owners says, to me it comes back to me, we see so
many politicians who get caught in, you know, extramarital affairs or
something, but he was very straightforward, been very straightforward about
the feelings that are sort of pushing through. I don`t know. I`ve said
too much on the internet sometimes about my feelings before. Maybe I have
I`m not a soft --

I want to thank "The Daily Beast`s" Eleanor Clift, MSNBC political analyst
Jonathan Alter, Slate`s Mike Pesca, I appreciate you guys joining us this
morning. And up next, what President Obama is saying this morning about
his plans to defeat ISIS, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: As I said this week, our intelligence community has not yet
detected specific ISIL plots against our homeland but its leaders have
repeatedly threatened the United States and if left unchecked, these
terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond the Middle East, including to
the United States. So we`re staying vigilant and we`re moving ahead with
our strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist organization.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: That`s President Obama this morning in his weekly address
reinforcing his strategy to, as he puts it, degrade and ultimately destroy
ISIS. As he calls the terrorist group ISIL. The ambitious plan. Straight
ahead we`re going to examine the question of whether it will work, whether
it can work. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: Is it possible to defeat ISIS?

And thanks for staying with us, part of the President`s plan to degrade and
destroy ISIS depends on getting other nations on board.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: This is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive
difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves.
Nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: Saudi Arabia has offered to provide a base to train Syrian
rebels battling ISIS. Ten Arab states join the U.S. in issuing a
communique on Thursday pledging to work together to curtail ISIS with the
agreement provided few specifics. The support of Arab nations described as
only tepid. In a bitter twist, the Arab government most eager to combat
ISIS is Syria. Led by the dictator Bashar al Assad who`s terrorized the
Syrian people. Assad is eager for assistance in toppling what is his
regime`s biggest threat ISIS.

Wednesday`s address to the nation was the President`s second serious speech
in a row on September 10th, one year to the day after outlining to Congress
his plans to help fight against the government of Syria`s Bashar al Assad.
So, that`s part of the complicated power struggle that the U.S. faces in
securing regional allies to combat ISIS. Another plank of Obama`s plan is
to provide more training and arms for moderate Syrian rebels that also
presents a difficult balancing act.

"The New York Times" points out that the U.S. is depending on, quote,
"diverse group driven by infighting with no shared leadership and with
hard-line Islamists as its most effective fighters. Even the more secular
forces have turned to Islamists for support and weapons over the years in
the remaining moderate rebels often fight alongside extremists like the
Nusra Front, al Qaeda`s affiliate in Syria. There`s also the risk that
U.S. weapons meant for allied rebel groups could end up in the hands of
ISIS. A new field investigation by an arm`s research group found that ISIS
now has anti-tank weapons that were likely owned by moderate Syrian rebels.
So, with all these complications, can Obama`s plan to defeat ISIS work.

Joining me now to discuss, President Obama`s security plan is Stephen
Hadley, former national security adviser to President George W. Bush and
Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton. Thank you
both for joining us.

And Sandy, let me start with you, just that basic question to degrade and
destroy ISIS, the idea of destroying, just defeating ISIS, so it doesn`t
exist anymore. Realistically, is that possible?

SANDY BERGER, FORMER CLINTON NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: It`s not possible
in the sense that you`re going to eliminate every member of ISIS and
obviously it`s a dynamic organization. I think defeating means eliminating
their ability to really be a threat to the region and to ourselves.
Shrinking the area in which they have control, diminishing their
leadership, and in my view, strengthening the indigenous local forces
sufficiently that we would have much less of a role.

KORNACKI: Steven, let me ask you, because obviously, you know, the Bush
administration alum and people think of the Middle East and the Bush
administration, and obviously it`s the Iraq war. In one of the stories of
the Iraq war, and I know you have a strong feeling on how it turned out
ultimately that might be different from other people, but one of the
lessons from the Iraq war I think we can all agree on is that a lot of
things happened after the invasion that maybe we didn`t necessarily expect
to happen before the invasion and I wonder when you look at what -- what`s
being outlined here, the new strategy of the United States, what are some
of the risks that you see that maybe we don`t fully appreciate right now?

STEPHEN HADLEY, FORMER BUSH NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Well, I think one
of the risks is to think this is all going to be done in a day. This has
been a long time building. It`s going to take a long time to unravel it.
It`s going to take a long time for us to degrade and defeat ISIS and we`ve
got to sort of do it in an incremental steps. First step is in Iraq and it
is in Iraq because in order to defeat ISIS you need people on the ground
willing to fight them and those at this point are largely in Iraq, Iraqi
security forces, the Peshmerga and the Sunni tribes. So, that`s where this
is going to start in Iraq and we`re going to work to sort of set them back.
At the same time, through air power, the President made clear we`ll degrade
them in Syria, we will train forces that are willing to engage them in
Syria, but that`s going to take a long time and that`s going to phase in
gradually.

So we`re going to be at this for a long period of time and we`re going to
have to adapt as we go. And one of the things I think is already clear is
that we`re going to need to put in Special Forces, begin in Iraq if this is
going to be effective. So we`re going to be at it for a while. We have to
recognize it`s going to be at it for a while and we`re going to have to
make adjustments as we go.

KORNACKI: And we say, well, I`m curious, there`s two pieces here as you
say. So, let`s look at Iraq, for instance. Because, you know, one of the
stories of Iraq, obviously is this age old Sunni versus Shia conflict. And
the idea that the Maliki government that came into place was basically seen
by the Sunni population of doing the bidding, violently doing the bidding
of the Shia population. Is really the challenge here that we`re talking
about, when you talk about the Iraqi army, talking about sort of uniting
these forces, we`re really talking about uniting the Sunnis and Shias which
is something history tells us is awfully hard to do.

HADLEY: Well, but we did it in 2007 and 2008. That`s what the surge was
all about. Iraq was teetering on sectarian war, change of strategy,
additional forces by the end of the time, 2008/2009, violence was as Sandy
suggested degraded to the point where al Qaeda in Iraq could be managed at
a low level of violence. So, we`ve done this before. The problem is, that
the good work that was done in with 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 was undone
by the violence in Syria that was allowed to get out of control and the bad
policies of Maliki. So, we`ve done this once before in Iraq and the
President was right to insist on a unity government which Sunni, Shia and
Kurds would work together for their future and we`ve got to try to help
them again now get back to where they were in 2007, 2008, against an enemy
that is actually much more formidable and challenging than was al Qaeda in
Iraq in the 2007/2008 period.

KORNACKI: And Sandy, let me ask you about the other piece of that, in
Syria, and that sort of what I think is one of the big what ifs here. The
idea of the strategy as it relates to Syria is, you have air strikes that
sort of provide some cover. You have training and support for the free
Syrian army and the idea is that ideally the free throw Syrian army is able
to go in and take back this territory from ISIS and get a real sort of
foothold in Syria again. But it does raise the question to me, what if
that support, what if the training is not enough, and what if the air
strikes are not enough. What if the free Syrian army tries to reclaim its
territory and fails? What then does the United States do? Are we sucked
into something much bigger and more expansive?

BERGER: Well, I answer two ways. First of all I think Steve is right.
This is a long-term strategy. It will take a while to congeal the moderate
Syrian opposition to train them, to build them into some sort of a fighting
force that could take over territory that we drive ISIL out of.

In the meantime we are -- we will have air strikes. We will go after fixed
target, we`ll go after things that are moving, we`ll go after leadership
targets in Syria, and so we`ll be degrading them during this period. So I
think you have to look at the Syria part of this as a long-term strategy.
I would say one other thing, though, Steve, to the what if. I mean you can
what if this at every stage. What if the Baghdad government doesn`t come
together? What if the Arab coalition doesn`t come together? I think you
have to look at this strategy in terms of the risks of action here versus
the risk of inaction.

For three years, the risks of inaction, for example, in Syria, have
prevailed over the risks of action. The president now has a strategy of
action. It is a risky strategy. It`s a challenging strategy. But we`re
moving forward. We`re moving forward to try to push back ISIS, bring
Sunnis and Shia together in a effort to drive them out and I think it`s a
far better position to be in than being on our back feet here.

KORNACKI: All right. I want to thank former national security adviser
under President Bush Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser under
President Clinton Sandy Berger. I appreciate you both taking a few minutes
and joining us this morning.

And I want to turn now to Congressman Jim McDermott, the democratic
representative from Washington State. Congressman McDermott, thanks for
joining us. So, I want to pick up on that discussion we were just having
and you were just listening to there with what Sandy Berger was saying,
basically saying we have seen the consequences of inaction for the last few
years and that puts us in the position where the imperative now is to take
action militarily along the lines of where the President outlined this
week. Do you their share that basic consensus over the last two years that
we`ve just heard there?

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: No I don`t. I think one of the
problems you have here is that people are still not analyzing this
situation very carefully. Where are the boots going to come from on the
ground? Mr. Hadley says, you`re going to have more special ops people,
green berets and what not. That means we`re going to have casualties,
we`re going to have all the things that we`ve had in the past. The second
thing that`s wrong here is, the Turks aren`t in it, the Saudis aren`t in
it, and you`re having oil smuggling into Turkey that is making money
available to ISIS.

You -- many of these issues are people are playing both sides and you
really have a situation where the President is going in essentially alone.
You can have a few Estonians and a few Bulgarians perhaps in this but you
have not got the people on the ground because they have mixed loyalties and
that`s going to make this show that you`re doing today, you can play this
again in two years, you`ll be playing the same show because we tried this
idea, we tried it in Vietnam, let`s strengthen up the local people. We
tried it when we did it early on with the awakening. That worked for a
while, but ultimately, it doesn`t because there are tensions here which
we`re not paying attention to.

Most of the leadership of this group are the military leaders that we threw
out of the Baathist army when we went in there, the first order that was
given was, to disband the army. Well, those people were very tough army
and they`re out there and they`ve now joined up with ISIS, not because they
like ISIS, they know it`s a terrible, awful organization, but, you know,
they`re working for -- against a common enemy and they`re going to use
them. And we still haven`t figured out -- we have to do this
diplomatically.

KORNACKI: So, if there were -- we had this discussion last hour. If there
were a vote in Congress right now on what the President laid out the other
night, would you be a no vote on that?

MCDERMOTT: I remain unconvinced at this point. I think that what I`m
afraid of is that people are being sold the idea that you can win a war
from 30,000 feet with drones and you cannot. And once you start putting
feet on the ground, they`re going to be American feet because the -- this
is what happened to John Kennedy, for heaven sakes in Vietnam. You put in
50 and then 500 and then you put in 5,000 and pretty soon, you`re back to
where we were six months or two years ago when we were about to withdraw.
We had 100,000. We had to come down from. We -- we`re going to get back
dragged into this thing because we do not understand who is financing it,
why they`re financing it, where`s the money coming from for all this?

Ask yourself that. This didn`t happen because a bunch of guys were sitting
out in the desert and said let`s start something called ISIS. There was
some money involved that made it possible for them to pay soldiers and to
buy weapons and feed families and do all kinds of things and that`s --
those are the issue that are not being dealt within this plan.

KORNACKI: And just quickly, your sense of your colleagues on Capitol Hill,
again, there`s two pieces here, there`s the vote potentially looks like
that`s going to happen on training the free Syrian army, there`s also the
separatists you have -- the rest of the strategy that the President
outlined. Let`s talk about the rest of the strategy the President
outlined. You gave us your opinion. Is your sense, though, that your
colleagues if the vote were put to them, would approve it or oppose it at
this point?

MCDERMOTT: I think it`s very hard to tell. You have to say, Chris, that
this whole push to war is very much like the one we went through leading
into Iraq. And the events that really turned the tide in my view were the
beheading of two journalists. Those images are so powerful that people are
very frightened of not responding to that kind of thing because the
American people were frightened by it, they were terrified by looking at
that and realizing that these are people who do something like that, you
have to do something about it.

Well, you got to be very careful how you jump in to say you`re going to do
something about it if you don`t have the places in which to corner them.
And they`re out in the desert, they`re going to go everywhere. They got
their weapons when the Iraqi army, which we have trained, threw down their
arms and ran away. So they picked up their guns and said gee, these are
nice guns and away they went. And that`s going to happen with the Syrian
side.

KORNACKI: All right. I want to thank Congressman Jim McDermott from
Washington State. I appreciate you getting up this morning.

And up next, how can you claim victory even after losing an election?
Well, New York democrat Zephyr Teachout has an idea about that, she joins
us. Might have heard her in the news this week. Straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: So, this is a map of New York City. It`s a map of New York
State`s broken up by county and there a total of 62 counties in the state.
In this past Tuesday`s democratic primary in New York, here`s how many of
those counties New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, that`s a governor with a
very famous last name and with clear national ambitions, here`s how many of
those counties he won. And here are the counties that were won by his
challenger, law professor named Zephyr Teachout. Her county as you can see
there are in green. So that`s green for Teachout and blue for Cuomo. That
is the sitting governor of the fourth largest state in America, a man who
has millions of dollars in campaign cash, in universal name recognition in
New York, running against a Fordham professor who had almost no money, who
almost no one had heard of and yet that Professor Zephyr Teachout actually
won 30 counties, that`s according to count from the New York Times.

You can it on there. Those green counties are Zephyr Teachout`s counties.
Now, some of those counties have a lot of land area and not as many people.
So, when you look at the actual vote totals from last Tuesday, Cuomo`s
advantages are little clear. He did win 62 percent of the vote while
Teachout got 34 percent. But that is still the worst that a sitting New
York governor has ever done in a primary. Nearly four in ten voters in
Cuomo`s own party decided to vote for someone else.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZEPHYR TEACHOUT (D), CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR: The democrats of this great
state have spoken and I will not be your next governor. But the democrats
of this state have been heard.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: And the democrats who supported Teachout made their voices heard
with incredibly few resources. "The Washington Post" ran the numbers and
figured out that Cuomo spent more than $60 for every vote he received while
Teachout spent just $1.57. Teachout couldn`t afford expensive television
ads, there were no debates, Cuomo actually refused to participate in those.
In fact, Cuomo even refused to acknowledge that anyone was running against
him. This is the scene that was at a parade a couple of days before the
primary. You can see Zephyr Teachout there trying to approach the governor
and the governor doing his best to pretend that he doesn`t notice her.
Just a couple feet away from her. Even when he even shake her hand at that
parade.

So the fact that so many democrats still refuse to vote for Cuomo, the
incumbent governor, is a big story. And it raises all sorts of questions
about Andrew Cuomo, his national aspirations. Liberals have been upset for
him in their view being too friendly to the interest of Wall Street, into
wealthy New Yorkers, too stingy with public unions and too cozy with
republicans in the state legislature. Their goal was to use this primary
to deliver a message to Cuomo and also a warning to any other democrat
anywhere in the country not to govern like he`s governed.

There`s also the issue of ethic, a bombshell report over the summer
detailed how Cuomo and his team shut down an anti-corruption commission
when it was starting to ask too many questions about allies of the
governor. Now Cuomo for his part told "The New York Times" on Wednesday
that he`s, quote, "happy, happy, happy with the result of the primary."
And he said that the democrats who voted against him represented interest
groups that he refused to cut deals with as governor. Don`t call them
democrats or liberals, he said. This is not about an ideology. It`s about
a transaction. Needless to say, the liberals who back Teachout are crowing
about the result and touting its potential national implications.

The New Yorkers John Cassidy wrote, quote, "by thoroughly embarrassing
Cuomo New York democrats didn`t nearly deliver a blow to whatever national
aspirations he may have. They signaled to other democrats Hillary Clinton
included that the political center of gravity has shifted and that a
significant segment of democratic voters won`t suffer gladly or return to
the timid, pro-corporate policies of the Clinton years, which Cuomo
represents." So what now? Where does Andrew Cuomo go from here, where
does this leave the left and what about Zephyr Teachout, the woman who just
beat the sitting governor in New York in nearly half of its counties?

Well, she`s here right now in our studio and she will be at this desk when
we come back from the break and ask her all about it. So stick around,
she`s coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TEACHOUT: You created a courageous and marvelous campaign, waged against
all odds, with very little resources, against this massive and corrupt New
York political issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KORNACKI: So that was Zephyr Teachout, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo`s
democratic primary challenger in her concession speech on Tuesday night.
Where she came away with 34 percent of the vote. And she won, again, 30
counties, the counties in green on that map.

Joining me now to talk about her campaign, we have former candidate for
governor, author and law Professor Zephyr Teachout.

So, welcome back. Congratulations. A week ago we had you in the same seat
and you were predicting big things for Tuesday night. I will say, I mean,
I was surprised at the margin you got 34 percent surprise me, but to win
such big chunks of the state, geographically, I think was -- I think
surprised a lot of people. So, let me ask you this, I read there was a
thing on twitter on election night you were having trouble connecting with
the governor but apparently you guys did eventually talk.

TEACHOUT: Yes, we did. I don`t think he was trying to keep the phone
number away at that point. We had a nice, short conversation. And we
talked about something that I think, you know, I care a lot about and he
said we could work together on which is winning back the democratic Senate.

KORNACKI: That is the state Senate here in New York.

TEACHOUT: Yes, right. You know, I really would have loved to win, but I
care about the same things now I did five days ago and in New York state I
think what we showed is there`s a lot of democratic passion in this state
and we can win back the Senate and if we can win back the Senate we can get
a lot of those things done.

KORNACKI: So, are you now supporting Andrew Cuomo for re-election this
November?

TEACHOUT: You know, I haven`t made any formal decision or announcements.
You know, I still have concerns about Andrew Cuomo. I think actually in
terms of real power, though, the focus has to be elsewhere because it`s
unlikely Aster Reno (ph) is going to win or anybody else. So, I think the
focus, you know, my focus is always on power and practical results, like
how do we get more school funding? How do we get a fracking ban? How do
we get public financing in elections? And the way we get that is a strong
strong democratic Senate.

KORNACKI: But see, on the issue of whether you`re going to vote for Andrew
Cuomo in the fall you don`t know yet?

TEACHOUT: That`s right.

KORNACKI: OK. So you were saying, we were talking a little bit before the
break and we played the video there. So, this actually happened right
after you were here last Saturday and you were at a parade on Fifth Avenue,
which is right outside the studio here and there`s the clip of it again.
You`re just trying to say hello to the governor. This got a little viral
attention. Because, you know, obviously he knows you`re there. And he`s
pretending you`re not there. And you think this helped you?

TEACHOUT: I do. You know, I think we had like 65,000 views on that video.
But I think it sort of expressed something that people already felt which
is here`s somebody who`s not paying attention to the democratic process and
he thinks he can get away with it without any cost just by looking through
me, treating me like the invisible woman. But there`s a cost. You know,
voters don`t like that. I met a lot of voters including upstate where I
won who said, wait, he wouldn`t debate you, he wouldn`t engage you. You
have to debate, you have to engage and I hope this sort of portends the end
of candidates thinking they can just do the Rose Garden strategy.

KORNACKI: Well, and that raises another question for me too, because we --
in the Senate there, we had John Cassidy from "The New Yorker" talking
about, you know, this is a clear message from the left about, you know, the
role of corporate America and the Democratic Party, that sort of thing.
But I do wonder, in terms of the message this result sends, how much of it
do you think is a literal endorsement of your platform and how much of it
is people looking at Andrew Cuomo and saying, I`ve got problems with the
ethics issues here or, yes, he wouldn`t debate her, wouldn`t shake her
hand. I want to send that kind of a governor a message. Can you --

TEACHOUT: I know that people came out because they were enthused about my
message. Actually, the PCCC, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee
helped enormously. And people don`t go out to vote on a Tuesday with no
other elections unless they`re actually voting for something. Also there
was another person in the race who got four percent, so there was more
options if you just wanted to do a protest vote. You got 34 percent and
got 60 percent in counties, 70 percent, and what they were responding to
was, you know, I am a traditional democrat. I`m going to stick with that.
You know, I`m a progressive, I`m a populace, but let`s own our roots and
they were responding to, you know, real crisis in terms of jobs. How
Andrew Cuomo has been really hurting schools.

They`re responding to also we got a lot of energy around the anti-big
cable, big bank message. There`s a lot of anger about concentration of
power in the economic sector. But there`s genuine excitement. That`s what
I want people to see is that you can get people not just voting against
this corporate turn and there`s accountability here. I think we know now.
But also for like let`s return to our FDR roots and invest in ourselves.

KORNACKI: Yes. So, you`re saying there`s accountability here. So, Andrew
Cuomo says, he`s happy, happy, happy with 60 percent. I think no incumbent
politician anywhere is going to be happy with a result like that in a party
primary. But in terms of going forward --

TEACHOUT: Right.

KORNACKI: I mean, do you think he looks at this now, though, and says look
I got through the primary, maybe it wasn`t what I wanted but I got through
it, I`m not running against a republican who the polls say I`m going to
beat, you know, pretty convincingly, democrats may not all be thrilled
about me but they`re certainly not going to vote for the republican so I`m
through, I`m fine. Do you think this changes the way he governs anyway or
do you think he looks and says yes, I didn`t like the way that turned out
but I`m past it?

TEACHOUT: It absolutely changes New York politics. And this is an
important lesson for people everywhere. That there`s this hunger for, you
know, traditional democratic, unafraid politics. And if you do that, it
changes the power dynamics. For one, you have to call on Bill de Blasio
many times throughout this campaign and now Bill de Blasio.

KORNACKI: The Mayor of New York City was very helpful there.

TEACHOUT: Yes. Very helpful. He had to call on him at the end to come
out.

KORNACKI: So, you`re saying he owes de Blasio now.

TEACHOUT: Yes. So, we`ve changed the power dynamic.

KORNACKI: De Blasio says, OK, you know, you owe me, what does de Blasio
get for that?

TEACHOUT: Well, I hope he gets, you know, even more pre-k everywhere in
the state, not just in the city. I hope we get, you know, a lot more
commitment to actually the state paying its fair share on a funding for
what cities need right now cities are really taxed. You know, it`s
basically a progressive democratic message and Andrew Cuomo can`t ignore
it. He had to call in so many favors.

KORNACKI: So, what`s interesting, we had it here last week, I was asking
about Bill de Blasio, as you said you were disappointed in him and you
weren`t quite sure why he did what he did, now it sounds like you`re
saying, maybe you see a bit of a strategy to what he was doing.

TEACHOUT: Well, there`s a strategy. I still think that if, you know, de
Blasio had endorsed me and we were much more similar politically we could
have gotten 45 percent. Because I think the de Blasio name carried an
enormous amount of weight downstate. If you look at where we won and where
we didn`t, we won --

KORNACKI: Around New York City you actually did better, again you saw the
map, that`s what`s surprised people.

TEACHOUT: Here`s what`s exciting to democrat in New York and elsewhere, if
you combine my map with de Blasio`s map we got the state. So basically the
state is progressive populace democrat. The state wants a return to, you
know, getting away from trickle down democrats and, you know, I would have
loved the whole map but together we got the state.

KORNACKI: All right. And you were -- I saw this too, I got to say, the
last time I worked on a political campaign I was in college and I remember
it was a professor at my school, he lost the primary and the next day was
back in the classroom and I saw a picture of you back in the classroom the
next day. There`s something democratic small "d" that I like about that,
you know, turning around and going back to the classroom after you defeat -
-

Thanks to Zephyr Teachout for joining us this morning. I really appreciate
that. And still ahead, she can tell us if it will rain today but can today
show meteorologist Dylan Dreyer tell us what happened in the world of news
and politics this week. That`s right. You hear the music. That means
it`s a special, battle of the network stars edition of "Up Against the
Clock," that`s coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: All right. Every so often we`re fortunate enough to have the
stars of NBC News and MSNBC join us for a special battle of the network
stars edition of our current events quiz show "Up Against the Clock" which
is why standing by, getting ready to ring in, we have the host of "EARLY
TODAY" and "FIRST LOOK," the incomparable Betty Nguyen, the one and only
Alex Witt, the pioneer of weekend mornings here on MSNBC for which we are
always grateful and unflappable "Today" show meteorologist Dylan Dreyer.
Can`t wait to see what happens when these three network stars the isolation
booth and go head to head in a game show battle for the ages. It`s "Up
Against the Clock," it`s an all star edition and it is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIM CUTLER, ANNOUNCER: Live from Studio 3A in Rockefeller Center, USA,
it`s time for a special battle of the network`s stars edition, "Up Against
the Clock." Today`s contestants, her biggest fan is her dog Bosco named
after George`s ATM password on Seinfeld, please welcome Dylan Dreyer.

She prepared for this competition doing planks with her show`s team during
commercial breaks, it`s Alex Witt. She was once a number off from winning
a mega millions jackpot. She`ll make up for it by competing for a $50
jackpot today. Say hello to Betty Nguyen. Now, the host of "Up Against
the Clock" Steve Kornacki.

KORNACKI: Thank you, Jim Cutler. Thank you contestants. Thank you to
everyone at home for tuning in and welcome to a special all-star battle of
the network stars edition of "Up Against the Clock." Very excited to have
these television all stars with us. MSNBC`s -- the best of MSNBC and NBC
here with us this morning. And let me remind you all how it works. Some
first-time players here. Alex Witt played with us last season.

ALEX WITT, MSNBC HOST, "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT": Oh, yes.

KORNACKI: But Dylan and Betty, it is your first time, so let me take you
through this. It`s a fast paced political news and current events quiz.
We will play three rounds. Each of those rounds will be 100 seconds long.
We have 100 points on the first round, 200 in the second, 300 in the third.
It will get a little bit harder as we go along. And you can ring in at any
time but you will be penalized for wrong answers. So make sure to take
that into account.

DYLAN DREYER, NBC NEWS METEOROLOGIST: They`re all weather related. Right?

KORNACKI: There may be one or two this week. There are also though I can
tell you, there are some special bonus questions that are scattered from
here.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: All right.

KORNACKI: We will explain them when they come up and our contestants of
course will be playing not just for victory today but also for a chance to
play in our tournament of champions at the end of the season.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Oh, good.

KORNACKI: So contestants, I will ask you --

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The pressure is on.

KORNACKI: Are you ready?

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Yes, I`m ready.

KORNACKI: They look ready to me. Hands on buzzers please. I have the 100
point questions here. We`ll put 100 seconds on the clock. We will begin
the 100-point round with this. Newt Gingrich is encouraging republican
Ohio Governor John Kasich to run for president again. When Kasich last ran
for president in the year 2000, who did he lose the nomination to?

WITT: A republican? You`re kidding me, seriously. You want to ask this
question.

KORNACKI: Dylan.

DREYER: Cold front.

(LAUGHTER)

KORNACKI: Incorrect. We cannot accept that. We`ll call time. It was
George W. Bush.

DREYER: Of course.

WITT: Wait. Can I answer. Someone wrong.

KORNACKI: Yes. Yes. You know that going forward. Hundred point
question. Chicago Sun Times reported on Thursday that Illinois Senator
Mark Kirk is raising money by suggesting to republicans that he might be
challenged in 2016 by this current White House occupant.

WITT: Barack Obama?

KORNACKI: Betty.

BETTY NGUYEN, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: Michele Obama.

KORNACKI: Correct.

NGUYEN: Yes.

KORNACKI: Hundred points question.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: What are you talking about?

KORNACKI: Retiring Iowa Senator Tom Harkins annual fund-raising steak fry
will be held tomorrow and headlined by this likely 2016 presidential
candidate. Alex.

WITT: Hillary.

KORNACKI: Hillary Clinton is correct. Alex might have had a story or two
about that. Hundred point question here on Tuesday, Apple announced the
launch of this wearable device. Dylan.

DREYER: Watch.

KORNACKI: The Apple watch is correct. Stop the clock. Good news for you,
Dylan, that is the video bonus trigger question because you answered it
right you will have a chance to add an extra 100 points to your score.
It`s very simple. We`ve asked a celebrity to read a famous political
quote. All you have to do is correctly identify who said the quote. This
is a risk-free proposition, by the way. Extra 100 points, no penalty for
guessing it wrong. So if you direct your attention to the video monitor
here is this week`s celebrity question asker.

JUDITH LIGHT, ACTRESS: Hi. I`m Judith Light with this week`s "Up Against
the Clock" quote of note. Which trail blazing 1972 presidential candidate
and Brooklyn congresswoman said, the emotional sexual and psychological
stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says it`s a girl? Good
luck.

DREYER: 1972? I was born in 1972.

KORNACKI: You don`t want to disappoint Judith Light now.

DREYER: Can I just go watch her show instead?

KORNACKI: Well, that`s half credit, the correct answer is Shirley
Chisholm. She was the candidate who said that.

DREYER: But of course.

KORNACKI: No penalty. No penalty. That was a bonus. The clock starts
moving again. Hundred points. This coming Wednesday three days after
Hillary Clinton`s Iowa appearance, this 2016 potential 2016 democratic
rival will headline an Iowa event with the group nuns on the bus.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Crickets, yes.

KORNACKI: We`ll call time. Joe Biden. It`s Joe Biden. Hundred point
toss-up, new polls this week show Greg Orman the independent candidate
running one point ahead of this incumbent Kansas republican senator. Last
question on the round. Any guesses?

WITT: Don`t want to lose points.

DREYER: I thought you were going to give me some answers.

KORNACKI: We`re going to call time, it` Pat Roberts. Pat Roberts. And
that`s the end of the 100-point round. We have a tie with Alex and Betty,
100 points. Dylan -- got back to zero there.

WITT: Cold front.

DREYER: Right. Cold front.

KORNACKI: With the cold front answer cost you. But you got it back. We
will move now to the 200 point round. Questions get a little harder but
they are twice as valuable. Can score a lot of points very quickly here.
We`ll put the 100 seconds on the clock and we will go with this. When the
Trump Plaza Hotel closes this coming Tuesday, it will become the fourth
casino to close this year in this east coast -- Dylan.

DREYER: Atlantic City.

KORNACKI: Atlantic City, New Jersey, 200 points for Dylan. Two hundred-
point bonus if you can tell us what the weather is there today. Two
hundred point toss-up -- it`s going to be raining. This European country
will vote next week on whether to declare independence -- Alex.

WITT: Scotland.

KORNACKI: Scotland is correct.

NGUYEN: Is my buzzer working?

WITT: No.

KORNACKI: Little quicker there. Two hundred-point toss-up. This week,
the NCAA reduced sanctions and declared this college`s football -- Betty.

NGUYEN: Penn State.

KORNACKI: Penn State is immediately eligible. Stop the clock. Excellent
news to you, Betty, because that is our use it or lose it bonus question.
It means you are going to have a chance to double what you just won. Two
hundred extra points if you get this right. But here is the twist.

NGUYEN: All right.

KORNACKI: It is -- if you are in incorrect you will lose the 200 points.
This is a follow-up question that is somehow related to the one you just
answered. Do you want to use it or lose it?

NGUYEN: I want to -- do I have to use all my points?

KORNACKI: Yes. It`s an all or nothing proposition.

NGUYEN: Like 100.

KORNACKI: Atlantic City style.

NGUYEN: OK. All or nothing. Let`s do this.

KORNACKI: She`s going to do it. For 200 extra points, Betty.

NGUYEN: Make it easy.

KORNACKI: The recommendation to allow Penn State to become immediately
eligible to play in bowl games was made this week by this former democratic
Senate majority leader from Maine who has been overseeing Penn State`s
compliance.

NGUYEN: Really?

KORNACKI: Any guess?

NGUYEN: Alex, you`re supposed to help me here.

WITT: Use it or lose it.

KORNACKI: I`m sorry. The correct answer, George Mitchell. George
Mitchell. We`ll take the 200 points. That`s the chance you take on the
use it or lose it bonus. And we`ll pick up the clock with this 200 points.
Sotheby`s is set to auction off the art collection of Bunny Mellon the
socialite and philanthropist who became famous late in life for her
financial support of this disgraced presidential candidate.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Bunny Mellon.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: What year?

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Yes, what year.

KORNACKI: 2004 and 2008. Alex.

WITT: Bush --

NGUYEN: You already said it.

WITT: I already said it.

KORNACKI: Incorrect.

NGUYEN: Clinton.

KORNACKI: Incorrect. Dylan. It`s a penalty if you get it wrong.

The correct answer is John Edwards. It was John Edwards, 200 point toss-
up. For the first time since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started
collecting the data in 1976, more American adults are now not what? Alex.

WITT: Working?

KORNACKI: Incorrect. Betty.

NGUYEN: Married.

KORNACKI: Married is correct. There are more married than unmarried.

NGUYEN: Finally back on the board.

KORNACKI: Two hundred point question. An actor who played the character
Mr. Cannibal in an obscure 2013 horror movie was featured in an ad that was
pulled this week by Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Tom Wolf who is
challenging this republican governor.

DREYER: What state?

KORNACKI: Pennsylvania. Time. And it`s Tom Corbett. That`s the
governor, that`s the end of the round. And we have let me see here, Dylan
is in the lead 200 point round with 200 points.

And now we raise the stakes because we go to the 300 point round. These
are the hardest questions we have but the most valuable.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: They get harder. We`re in trouble.

KORNACKI: And this is where we decide the champion. We will crown a
champion. Dimming the lights for dramatic effect.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Serious now.

KORNACKI: Hundred seconds on the clock. It`s very serious. Here we go.
Three hundred point question. Leading Roll Call`s ranking of the top 50
richest members of Congress for the second year in row -- Alex?

WITT: Issa.

KORNACKI: It`s Darrell Issa. Three points. She`s in the lead. Three
hundred points. Highlighting her support for gay marriage was released
this week by republican Monica Wehby who is challenging democratic Senator
Jeff Merkley in this West Coast state. Dylan.

DREYER: California?

KORNACKI: Incorrect.

WITT: Arizona? Sorry.

KORNACKI: Alex?

WITT: Arizona.

KORNACKI: Incorrect.

NGUYEN: I`m going to keep my money.

KORNACKI: Oregon. Oregon. Three hundred-point question. According to
court documents unsealed this week, the U.S. government threatened this web
giant with a fine of $250,000. Betty.

NGUYEN: Yahoo!

KORNACKI: Correct. Two hundred fifty dollar a day in 2008. Three hundred
point question. A new reality show from the Discovery Channel this fall
entitled "Rival Survival" will pit New Mexico democratic Senator Martin
Heinrich against republican Jeff Flake, who represents this state. Alex?

WITT: Arizona.

KORNACKI: It is Arizona. Three hundred points for Alex Witt. Three
hundred-point tossup. As part of the form on economic security, Hillary
Clinton will speak this week at the Think Tank that was founded by John
Pedestin. Name the Think Tank. This is definitely a 300-point question.
It was the Center for American Progress. That should have been a 500-
point. Three hundred-point question, on Monday, First Lady Michelle Obama
stumped for democratic Senate hopeful Michelle Nun, who is running in this
southern state. Alex?

WITT: Georgia.

KORNACKI: Georgia is correct. Three hundred points for Alex. Three
hundred-point question here. More than 13,000 passengers were affected
this week as pilot strikes continued for this German airline, the largest
in Europe. Dylan.

DREYER: Lufthansa?

KORNACKI: Lufthansa is correct. Three hundred points for Dylan. End of
the round. End of the game. Alex Witt, congratulations! Five hundred
points. You are today`s champion. And Bill Wolff is going to tell you
what you`ve won. Here we go.

BILL WOLFF, STAFF ANNOUNCER: As our champion, your name will be engraved
using the finest sharpie ink on the all-new stain-resistant "Up Against the
Clock" gold cup. You`ll also receive a DVD copy of the classic 1988 film
"Cocoon 2: The Return," personally autographed by Wilford Brimley. And
you`ll get to play in our jackpot round for today`s grand prize, a $50 gift
certificate to quick meal food cart, Big Town Manhattan, the only street
meat vendor in the greater 45th St. area operated by a former chef of the
Russian tearoom. I had it for lunch today. Delicious. Enjoy the meal and
congratulations. Back to you, Steve

WITT: I`m going to share this with the girls.

KORNACKI: All right. Now, you`re going to sign that. Add your name to
the cup of honor there.

WITT: So, let`s get going.

KORNACKI: Well, here`s your chance to win even a better prize. This is
your jackpot bonus question.

WITT: Oh, wait. Will I loss points if I --

KORNACKI: No risk here. No risk. You keep the cup no matter what. And
for a week. Then you have to give it back.

WITT: OK.

KORNACKI: Embattled NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is the son of former
United State Senator Charles Goodell who was appointed to that office in
1968 and who lost the primary in 1970 in what state?

WITT: New York.

KORNACKI: New York is correct. Alex Witt, you have won the jackpot bonus!

WITT: What do I get?

KORNACKI: Congratulations. $50 at the street meat vendors. All yours,
you can use it wherever you want --

(CROSSTALK)

WITT: You can have lunch with me. I`m sharing.

KORNACKI: Dylan and Betty, we want to thank you for playing. We actually
had a weather question. We didn`t get to it. Thank you for playing. And
the good news is you get the home edition. So, thank you for playing.
Congratulations. Alex Witt a jackpot bonus winner. "Up Against the Clock"
for this week. We`ll be back with more right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KORNACKI: All right. Time to find out what our guests know now, they
don`t know when the week begin. We`ll begin with you, Betty.

NGUYEN: Well, just because it`s morning still. And I am starving. I
heard this week about the thing called the all black burger in Japan. I
don`t know if you`ve seen it. Look at this thing. It has a black bun. It
has black cheese, and it`s actually selling. Well, here`s what is making
it black. They`re using -- it`s not just charcoal. They`re using bamboo.
Bamboo charcoal and black squid ink. But to me, it doesn`t look so
appetizing --

KORNACKI: Was that in the suggestion box? More squid ink in the burgers.

NGUYEN: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

DREYER: I learned this week that the earthquake out in Napa Valley that
caused $400 million worth of damage, it actually opened up some fissures
and cracks in the ground allowing that`s ground water to come up. And now
all the sudden all these dry creek beds and dry streams are full of about
20 times more water than they had before the earthquake. So, kind of
upside to --

WITT: Yes. Like a silver lining, right?

DREYER: Yes.

KORNACKI: And Alex, the champion.

WITT: Yes. I learned that HBO has announced the return of the season
three of "The Newsroom" and it`s going to premier on November 3rd. And I
was a consultant on it, so I love that show. I love, you know, the
characters and stuff. It`s my second favorite to you. You`re number one.

KORNACKI: And I learned that Alex Witt is a consultant on "The Newsroom,"
the anchor, the champion of "Up Against the Clock."

DREYER: She`s everything.

WITT: I need coffee --

KORNACKI: Thanks a lot, guys. I appreciate that. Betty Nguyen, Dylan
Dreyer, Alex Witt, thank you for getting up. Thank you for joining us
today on UP. Tomorrow morning at 8:00, I`ll speak with Kim Gandy from the
National Network and Domestic Violence about what she said to Roger Goodell
when he called her. That will do it for today on UP. Thanks for joining
us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)



THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

Copyright 2014 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>