updated 10/14/2014 12:40:50 PM ET 2014-10-14T16:40:50

Show: HARDBALL
Date: October 13, 2014

Guest: Dr. Anthony Fauci, Judge Clay Jenkins, Sen. Kay Hagan, Darrell
West, Michelle Bernard


CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Think Ebola.

Let`s play HARDBALL.

Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington.

The nurse`s name is Nina Pham. She took care of America`s first Ebola
case, and now she`s the second.

And the man-made virus called voter suppression. This weekend in
North Carolina, I asked Kay Hagan whether Republicans are out to cut the
Democratic vote or simply screw the black vote. Here`s her answer.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEWS: So is this based on racial -- racism or on partisanship?
Why are they trying to screw the black voter, to put it bluntly? Is it
because they don`t like blacks or because they don`t like Democrats?

SEN. KAY HAGAN (D), NORTH CAROLINA: You know, I think they are trying
to suppress Democratic turnout.

MATTHEWS: So it`s partisan.

HAGAN: It`s quite simple.

MATTHEWS: African-Americans think that they`re being targeted because
they`re African-Americans, not because they`re Democrats.

HAGAN: Well, you know, I tend to agree with them.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEWS: So it`s both.

Anyway, meanwhile, every newspaper in the country has the Ebola scare
as front-page news. "The Los Angeles Times," quote, "Latest Ebola case
raises U.S. anxiety." "The Washington Post" -- "Dallas nurse tests
positive for Ebola." "The New York Times" -- "Dallas nurse contracts Ebola
virus, elevating response and anxiety." Wall Street" -- "Ebola case puts
focus on safeguards." And "USA Today," "Texas nurse contracts Ebola."

Well, tonight, we`re going to give you the latest, including the 911
call that alerted the Dallas hospital to what was coming.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

911 OPERATOR: (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hello?

911 OPERATOR: Yes, this is the fire department.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m calling for ambulance, please. My daddy is
throwing up and he`s (INAUDIBLE)

911 OPERATOR: What`s the address?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m trying to get (INAUDIBLE)

911 OPERATOR: What`s the address? All right, and you`re hurting all
over?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Huh?

911 OPERATOR: You`re hurting all over?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I said my daddy is throwing up and
(INAUDIBLE)

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Here with me right now is Anthony Fauci. He`s director of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. And
Judge Clay Jenkins, who`s in charged of Dallas County down in Texas.

Judge, thank you for joining us. Give us an update. We now know who
the nurse is. Tell us about what we know -- these protocols were either
failed to be utilized, people were failed to be trained? How do you
explain this to an average layperson right now? What went wrong? How did
this person contract Ebola?

JUDGE CLAY JENKINS, DALLAS COUNTY: Well, there was a breach in the
protocol, but we don`t know the precise breach. We continue to investigate
by interviewing every health care worker who had anything to do with the
care of Eric Duncan. And we`ve brought in two infectious disease
specialists from the CDC and a host more epidemiologists so we can try to
get to where that breach was.

We have improved over the last 24 hours some of the infection control
protocols there. But there was a breach. We don`t know whether it was
isolated or whether it was something that affected more people. And that`s
what our focus is on now.

MATTHEWS: Thank you, Judge.

Less than a month ago, President Obama said it was unlikely that Ebola
would reach our shores, but it has, of course. And when the first case of
Ebola landed in Dallas two weeks ago, Center for Disease Control director
Thomas Frieden pronounced that they were stopping it in its tracks. Well,
today the tone of the conversation is dramatically different. We now have
the first Ebola infection in the United States, and the CDC assumes more
cases are on the way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. THOMAS FRIEDEN, CDC DIRECTOR: We`re concerned and would,
unfortunately, not be surprised if we did see additional cases in the
health care workers who also provided care to the index patient. We`re
concerned that there could be other infections in the coming days.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Would not be surprised if there are more cases, especially
of those who cared for the first victim here. CDC Director Frieden called
for an elevated level of readiness at hospitals around the country. Here`s
more of what he said today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRIEDEN: We`ll work with hospitals throughout the country to think
Ebola, in someone with a fever or other symptoms who has had travel to any
of the three affected countries in the previous 21 days.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: So Anthony, thank you very much, my friend, Tony. Thank
you. You`re very used to this, but most people are not, infectious
diseases.

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGIES AND INFECTIOUS
DISEASES DIR.: Right.

MATTHEWS: What do you think we know and what we don`t know? What`s
the known unknown here about whether it could be -- this person apparently
did follow the rules, they thought, the nurse...

FAUCI: Right.

MATTHEWS: ... Nina Pham, and caught it.

FAUCI: Right. So first of all, when we say a "breach," we better be
careful that we don`t give the impression that it`s her fault or she did
something wrong because people sometimes interpreted that. A "breach" is
public health terminology that it could possibly be that she may not have
been actually trained or practiced in what she was doing. So she tried her
best, and then you have to look at more proactive training, making sure
there`s good supervision there. So a breach can be a lot of things. It`s
that catch word for "something went wrong."

I think the important thing is that you just mentioned, Chris, is that
there are things that did go right, despite the tragic event. One, this
person was being monitored because she was self-monitoring. And she -- as
soon as she got a fever on Friday night, she reported it the next morning,
went into isolation, and that`s what Tom Frieden was talking about, when he
said there won`t be an outbreak because when you do contact tracing and do
the isolation, you`re not going to have an outbreak.

So Americans should not be concerned about an outbreak, but that`s
different than a significant, serious situation, about making sure we
protect our health care workers. We`ve got to make sure they get the best
of equipment and the best of training so that we don`t have another
unfortunate incident.

MATTHEWS: But Dr. Frieden also said that he would not be surprised if
there were more cases popping out of -- coming out of people who were in
contact with the first victim.

FAUCI: Right. Health care workers, because if, in fact, what was
going on in that intensive care setting allowed a single health care worker
to get infected, none of us would be surprised. We hope it doesn`t happen,
Chris, but we wouldn`t be surprised if, in fact, we saw another one or
maybe even more health care workers. Again, that`s why they`re being
monitored extremely closely every day in a proactive monitor.

MATTHEWS: Well, what`s the atmosphere like down there in Texas,
Judge? Are people concerned about this word today that there would not be
surprise from the official, in this case the CDC director, saying he would
not be surprised if there were more cases of people contacting --
contracting Ebola? What`s that doing to the thinking of people down there,
the emotions?

JENKINS: The vast majority of our people are calmly concerned for
these health care workers and are praying and thinking about Nina and her
family.

And let me say this, I consider her to be a hero. She is a person who
knew when she went into this field that there`s always a risk of getting
the very disease you`re treating. It`s happened to her. And she`s dealing
with that with grace and with dignity. And she has a brave and heroic
family, and they`re giving her great support. And I`m pleased that as soon
as...

MATTHEWS: But the president said it was unlikely that there would be
cases in this country. And now we are told that there were -- you know,
the implications seem to be in the first couple of days here that we would
be unlikely to see any more cases develop because of contact with this
patient, the first contact -- first patient, Mr. Duncan. And then here we
are.

Is there any way to spread the news that it`s possible, it`s unlikely,
but it`s possible, and throw in that word "possible" so people retain their
authority to speak on the matter? Judge?

JENKINS: Well, yes. Here`s the situation. If you didn`t come into
contact with the bodily fluids of Eric Duncan, you don`t have Ebola and
you`re not going to get Ebola. But in this situation, we have a new area
of concern for health care workers who we believed were following protocols
sufficient to keep them safe while caring for Mr. Duncan.

There was a breach, which is a term of art, but there was a breach
that allowed her to get sick. And it means that we are focused on those
other health care workers. Of the 48 people outside of those health care
workers that are contacts, they`re asymptomatic and have no fever, and
we`re now well past the most likely time for them to get sick. They`ll be
fully in the clear on October the 20th. But now we`ve got a new concern,
and that`s the protocols and the health care workers.

MATTHEWS: Well, the United States has been without a surgeon general
now for more than a year. In July of last year, Surgeon General Regina
Benjamin resigned. In November, President Obama nominated a replacement as
surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy. Around that same time, Democrats in the
Senate passed a measure to make it easier to confirm presidential
appointments. You only need a simple majority. And then -- but in
February, the National Rifle Association moved to block Murthy`s
confirmation because of his support for government, including past comments
where Murthy said that guns are a health care issue themselves. In March
of this year, a group of red state Democrats up for reelection began to
join with the Republicans in opposition to the nomination. The
confirmation vote was called off that same month.

Tony, what do you think of this? We had -- where is this -- I`m
looking at a pack of cigarettes right now. I don`t smoke, haven`t in 25
years. But for an authority figure, we look to this, and it says, "Surgeon
general warning. Smoking by pregnant women may result in fetal injury,
premature birth and low birth rate." And it also talks about cancer on
other packs of cigarettes.

So the surgeon general is the sort of the big daddy of the country who
tells us what we should be afraid of. We don`t have one.

FAUCI: Right.

MATTHEWS: We have you. We have Dr. Frieden. Do we need a surgeon
general to come on television to do PSAs and say, Here`s what you shouldn`t
be worried about, this is what you should do?

FAUCI: Yes. Well, it`d be nice to have a surgeon general, but the
problem right now, Chris, is not not having a surgeon general.

MATTHEWS: I think it`s a problem with the American government.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I`m in a different field than you. Politically, we can`t
even do the basics, like approve a surgeon general!

FAUCI: Right. So that`s a different story. I think there`s a little
bit of a non sequitur. We`re not in the situation we are right now because
we don`t have a surgeon general. That would be really making some majestic
leaps. I think...

MATTHEWS: But we do need somebody to talk to the American people.

FAUCI: Sure. And that`s what we`re trying to do. That`s what health
officials -- I mean, I, as you know, have been on the air almost
continually, as has Tom Frieden, as has Secretary Burwell. There`s a lot
that needs to be done. You got to keep hammering it in. We`re in an
epidemic of fear, and we`ve got to break that epidemic...

MATTHEWS: So we don`t need a czar.

FAUCI: I don`t think so. I think that we have good coordination from
the White House, from the National Security Council. We have the divisions
of labor. In country, it`s USAID. Here it`s Health and Human Services.
The military are doing a great job helping with logistics. It`s working
smoothly.

We need to get more resources. Right now, the thing that people
forget when they see the headlines that you just showed about a single
case, which is tragic -- that should not have happened -- but the way we
can stop this from ever happening is to get rid of the epidemic in West
Africa. If we do that, we wouldn`t be talking about this right now.

MATTHEWS: Well, we`re going to send 3,000 guys over there.

FAUCI: Right. Exactly.

MATTHEWS: The question is, will they get it?

FAUCI: That`s the thing we need to do is stop the epidemic in West
Africa.

MATTHEWS: OK. My concern is this reminds me of the rollout for
health care, the lack of a clear-cut personage that the president to say,
This person, many or woman, is in charge. And when he was asked who was in
charge of the rollout for health care, you know what happened? He said,
Well, it`s the person who`s the COO of the CAA (ph) of the HHS, somebody he
apparently never even met. I mean, that`s a problem.

FAUCI: Right.

MATTHEWS: But he knows you.

FAUCI: Right.

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you, Tony Fauci, and thank you, Judge Clay
Jenkins down in Dallas, Texas.

Coming up, my interview with Senator Kay Hagan down in North Carolina
this weekend. She`s holding strong in North Carolina, where Republicans
have tried to take away the vote of minorities and young people. And guess
what? It`s driving those groups to get out their vote in reaction. There
might be a bounce on this one. It might be in the right direction. They
might vote more in greater numbers because of this effort to keep them out
of voting.

Anyway, this is HARDBALL, the place for politics.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Coming up next, will the Republican effort to screw the
minority voter in North Carolina and elsewhere work, or it will backfire?
Looks like it might backfire in North Carolina, where Kay Hagan could be
one of the big stand-out victories for the Democrats this year against what
could be a sweep this year.

And we`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Just three weeks from now, in
fact tomorrow, a handful of crucial states will determine whether Democrats
keep a majority in the United States Senate, or whether Republicans get
control. Among those battleground states, North Carolina, where the race
to finish line is intensifying even as we speak. We were there this
weekend and here`s what we found.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEWS (voice-over): With control of the U.S. Senate in the
balance, HARDBALL took to the road this weekend to check out the race in
North Carolina. It`s where Democrat Kay Hagan is in a tough fight with
Thom Tillis, her testy Republican opponent.

THOMAS MILLS, POLITICSNC.COM Usually, races like this that are this
close kind of bounce back and forth, but she`s kind of maintained a
stubborn 2 to 5-point lead non-stop for the last six weeks or so.

MATTHEWS: The latest polling has Hagan up by 2 points, 47 to 45. I
asked Senator Hagan what she thinks will decide it in November.

HAGAN: I think voter turn-out is the key. It`s certainly the key in
my election. In an off-presidential election year, we know that voter
turn-out goes down. And I have put together one of the biggest voter turn-
out operations we`ve ever seen in North Carolina.

MATTHEWS: But new voting restrictions passed by the conservative
North Carolina legislature might affect turn-out on election day.

HAGAN: Their intent was to suppress Democratic turn-out. And it`s
wrong. People have fought and died for this constitutional right to vote.
And if you look at what they did -- they took away a number of early voting
days. They took away same-day registration. We actually allowed, in
civics classes as a senior in high school, that students could register to
vote. They took that away. You want to ask yourself why.

MATTHEWS: Hagan`s Republican opponent, Thom Tillis, is the speaker of
the House in the North Carolina legislature. He was the one who pushed for
these new voting restrictions, which he must have known would weigh
heaviest on his Democratic rival.

(on camera): Did he lead the fight, as you see it, to suppress the
vote?

HAGAN: Yes. I mean, when you look at the voter intimidation, these
barriers to the ballot box. I contacted Eric Holder. Two states in the
nation that he brought suit in, North Carolina and Texas, because of the
egregious violation of the constitutional right to vote. It is 2014. Why
would Speaker Thom Tillis put barriers up to the ballot box today? It`s
wrong. And that`s exactly what they`ve done.

MATTHEWS (voice-over): The restrictions are expected to hurt African-
American voters the most. The NAACP has been leading the fight to inform
black voters of their rights.

(on camera): What do you think this voter suppression`s all about?
Was it partisan or racist? What is it? Or both?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it`s both. The numbers showed it that the
population of people that`s going to be affected most is African-Americans.

REP. KEITH ELLISON (D), MINNESOTA: What happened is that there are
some people who don`t want to see progress and -- but you know, the real
question is these folks here in the NAACP in North Carolina do want to see
it, and so they`re leading the nation. This is where the action is. This
is where the leadership is, right here.

MATTHEWS: Among those leaders is the Reverend William Barber, a Civil
Rights advocate in the Tarheel State.

(on camera): When you talk to Republicans, and I think you do, about
why they push for these new voter laws, do they admit it`s suppression?

REV. WILLIAM BARBER, MORAL MONDAYS LEADER: Well, you know, Thom
Tillis admitted it on MSNBC. There`s a tape where he said it wasn`t about
fraud. He admitted that.

MATTHEWS (voice-over): Not only that, but Speaker Tillis said the
true intent of the new laws is to prevent fraud that might occur in the
future.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why is this a legislative priority?

REP. THOM TILLIS (R-NC), SENATE CANDIDATE: Well, we call this
restoring confidence in elections. There is some voter fraud, but that`s
not the primary reason for doing this. There`s a lot of people who are
just concerned with the potential risk of fraud. And in our state, it
could be significant.

MATTHEWS: Reverend Barber gained wide recognition for leading Moral
Mondays in North Carolina, a weekly protest movement with civil rights and
voting fairness at the top of its agenda.

BARBER: We talk about what`s constitutionally inconsistent. We`ve
had Republicans and Democrats stand on the Moral Monday stage and say any
politicians, Chris, that will get elected and then use their power to keep
people from voting is wrong.

MATTHEWS: Senator Hagan has, for her part, made voting rights a key
component of her reelection fight.

SEN. KAY HAGAN (D), NORTH CAROLINA: We need to have a huge turnout on
November the 4th. With your help and support, we are going to get out the
voters. We are going to inform them, tell them what the rules of the road
are. This election is that critical.

MATTHEWS: So is this based on a racial -- racism or on partisanship?
Why are they trying to screw the black voter, to put it bluntly? Is it
because they don`t like blacks or because they don`t like Democrats?

HAGAN: I think they are trying to suppress Democratic turnout.

MATTHEWS: So it`s partisan?

(CROSSTALK)

HAGAN: ... simple.

I mean, Sundays to the polls done away. The whole early voting
concept -- people have early and -- I mean, busy, busy lives. They want to
go and vote early. And to think you took another week of that away, that`s
wrong. That is really wrong.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

But African-Americans think that they`re being targeted because
they`re African-Americans, not because they`re Democrats.

HAGAN: Well, you know, I tend to agree with them.

MATTHEWS: Some say Tillis might trigger a voter backlash for his push
to enact these new voter restrictions. It could cause African-Americans to
show up in even greater numbers out of protest.

THOMAS MILLS, POLITICSNC.COM: From what I can tell, the state`s voter
I.D. laws are motivating the base like nothing I have ever seen. I think
that the Republican Party overreached to such an extent that they are going
to have a hard time for the next couple of cycles, because they`re going to
have to own what they have done.

MATTHEWS: The consequences of these new laws are far-reaching and
could determine which party wins control of the U.S. Senate. Every vote in
a battleground state like North Carolina counts. Every vote that gets
suppressed does too.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEWS: Joining me now is MSNBC political analyst Eugene Robinson
of "The Washington Post," Pulitzer Prize winner as well.

Gene, you grew up with this stuff, and they`re back at it.

EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, yes. Right.

MATTHEWS: Much worse, what you grew up with.

ROBINSON: I thought we had established the right to vote back in 1964
and 1965.

MATTHEWS: And that was in South Carolina state. And now we`re seeing
it.

I thought this was interesting. And I brought back a little bit of
advice for voters. This is a -- this is a placard I got from the NAACP, a
nonpartisan placard, saying -- see, a lot of people are spreading the word
you need an I.D. card now, even though that has been pushed off for two
more years.

So that intimidation factor also worked in Pennsylvania in the
presidential election. People get scared. Older say, oh, I can`t really
make it. Well, it`s not -- don`t even bother, because you don`t have an
I.D.

ROBINSON: Yes. Yes.

MATTHEWS: What do you think of this, the fact that nonpartisan groups
like the NAACP, they may mostly be Democrats, but it`s a nonpartisan issue,
I think.

ROBINSON: And it`s a group that doesn`t get involved in politics in a
partisan way, generally speaking.

No, I think that`s highly significant. I think what we heard about
motivating the Democratic base, frankly, in North Carolina could well be
true.

MATTHEWS: You mean it might a counterattack, a -- the back --
backlash?

ROBINSON: Yes, there are some indications that, in 2012, in some
states, you know, attempts to suppress the African-American vote resulted
in a higher-than-normal African-American vote, especially in Ohio.

MATTHEWS: Yes. Well, let me ask you the crucial question, which I
don`t think there`s an answer, but I`m going to throw it at you.

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: I asked her the question, Kay Hagan, who is white. I said,
African-Americans down here think it`s at them. It`s not just at them
because they`re Democrats. It`s at them as a group.

ROBINSON: Well, how could you not feel that way if you see something
that clearly has a disproportionate impact on African-American voters?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: And the Sunday -- the souls to the polls, these traditions
of...

ROBINSON: Yes, right, exactly.

So, that in particular, that is something they went way out of their
way to get rid of, and that`s something that...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: So, they targeted the black vote.

ROBINSON: It`s a phenomenon of the African-American church.

Now, if African-Americans were loyal Republican voters, would the
Republican Party be doing this? I`m not sure that they would.

MATTHEWS: It`s like Nixon. Was he anti-Semitic or just anti people
who are Jewish who are Democrats?

ROBINSON: Well, see, there you go.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I think a measure of both is also considered.

(CROSSTALK)

ROBINSON: It`s kind of a piece.

MATTHEWS: Of a piece.

Anyway, Eugene, stay with us.

And look at this new poll on the state race, Senate race in Iowa.
Boy, that`s close. "Des Moines Register" has it 47 for Republican Joni
Ernst, the hog castrator, and 46, one point behind her, Bruce Braley, who
isn`t the greatest candidate-style campaigner, but, look, he`s holding his
fight there. And that`s a five-point move towards Braley since last month,
towards Braley.

And there was plenty of heat when Braley and Ernst actually debated
last night. Let`s watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRUCE BRALEY (D), IOWA SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Senator Ernst is fond of
saying things that sound good, but when you look at what they mean to
Iowans, they don`t make Iowans better off.

JONI ERNST (R), IOWA SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: I think it`s very
important to have farmers in the United States Senate. When you talked
about your words, behind closed doors at a fund-raiser in Texas, you poked
fun at Senator Grassley for being just a farmer without a law degree.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

BRALEY: There`s been a direct attack. There`s been applause. I
think That I should have an opportunity to respond.

Senator Ernst, you know that I apologized to Senator Grassley right
away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAGAN: I am on the ballot in North Carolina to be reelected to my
U.S. Senate seat. The president`s welcome to come to North Carolina at any
time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well, that`s Senator Kay Hagan over the weekend responding
to reporters` questions about being associated with President Obama.

Last week, another Democratic candidate for Senate, Kentucky`s Alison
Lundergan Grimes, was asked if she voted for President Obama. Here was her
response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you vote for President Obama in 2008 and
2012?

ALISON LUNDERGAN GRIMES (D), KENTUCKY SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: This
election isn`t about the president. It`s about making sure we put
Kentuckians back to work. And...

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you vote for him?

LUNDERGAN GRIMES: I was actually in `08 a delegate for Hillary
Clinton. And I think that Kentuckians know I`m a Clinton Democrat through
and through. I respect the sanctity of the ballot box, and I know that the
members of this editorial board do as well.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, you`re not going to answer?

LUNDERGAN GRIMES: Again, I don`t think that the president is on the
ballot, as much as Mitch McConnell might want him too be. It`s my name.


And it`s going to be me who is holding him accountable for the failed
decision and votes that he`s made against the people of Kentucky.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Something one would she might say later tonight in the
debate.

Anyway, during my visit to North Carolina, I asked Senator Hagan the
same question. And, admittedly, she was probably prepared for it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Who did you vote for, for president in 2008 and 2012?

HAGAN: President Barack Obama.

MATTHEWS: That`s not a hard question?

HAGAN: That`s not a hard question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: I`m back with Eugene Robinson.

I have a number of theories about why Alison Lundergan Grimes, who
grew up in politics, is very smart out there on the trail, didn`t want to
answer that question. What`s your theory?

ROBINSON: I have -- I don`t have a theory. I -- it looked like that
was kind of prepared.

And if that was prepared, it was really weird. Answer the question.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Do you think she voted for Obama?

ROBINSON: Just answer the question. Say yes or no.

MATTHEWS: Did you think she voted for President Obama? How could
that hurt her?

ROBINSON: I think she did. But you think she didn`t. Right?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No, I don`t know. I`m beginning to be suspicious that she
wanted to be honest and she had an answer that she didn`t want to provide,
but what could it be?

How could it be bad to say you voted for the obvious guy you would
have obviously voted for?

ROBINSON: Exactly. You`re running for the Democratic Party.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Unless she`s an outrageous PUMA, who just refused to switch
to Obama after Hillary lost. I don`t think that is true. I think she`s a
regular Democrat.

ROBINSON: No, no, no, regular Democrats voted for Barack Obama, and
obviously, because he won twice. Right? So they did.

And to not say that, that seems like you`re going way out of your way
to try to not offend Kentuckians...

MATTHEWS: Right. Well, it`s going to haunt her tonight.

ROBINSON: ... who don`t like the president, yadda, yadda. Answer the
question. People will understand.

MATTHEWS: You got to believe that Mitch McConnell, the old pro, is
going to nail her on this and force her to answer it and say, it took you
X-many days to answer the question.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: It`s going to be a trick thing, because he will say -- even
if she does answer it tonight, he will say, well, how long did that take
you to do it? He can be a nasty sort of character, to say the least. And
he will use this.

Anyway, Eugene Robinson, thanks for having fun here.

And I do think Kay Hagan looks like a winner down there. I think
she`s really running a campaign about her against this guy Thom Tillis, who
isn`t all that likable. And I think she`s focusing on North Carolina
issues effectively. And I`m not saying that because I`m for her. I`m
saying that because it`s what we saw down there.

Up next, the roundtable on who`s in charge of stopping Ebola here in
the United States, plus, race and politics. Could the voter suppression
effort actually trigger voters going in the other way? People who weren`t
supposed to vote, according to them, are going to go out there in droves.

Anyway, you`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RICHARD LUI, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Hi. I`m Richard Lui. Here`s
what`s happening this hour.

North Korea`s leader, Kim Jong-un, reportedly attended a residential
planning briefing. It was the first time he has been seen in public for
weeks.

Protesters were in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, again today,
hundreds of people marching from an area -- an area church there to the
police station, expressing outrage over the August killing of unarmed teen
Michael Brown.

And one person is dead after a powerful tornado tore through rural
Kansas. This is -- Arkansas rather -- it`s part of what`s expected to be a
multiday stretch of severe weather in the Southern U.S. -- now back to
HARDBALL.

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

And time now for the roundtable. And tonight`s hot topics, they will
dive into who`s in charge on Ebola and why is there no unified national
response to the virus, no czar? And could voter suppression efforts in
North Carolina actually voter -- motivate voters to go the other way,
especially African-American voters, to actually turn out in bigger numbers?
Plus, firewall North Carolina, why the state could withstand even a big
sweep.

Well, joining me right now is MSNBC political analyst Howard Fineman
and Michelle Bernard, president of the Bernard Center for Women, and of
course Darrell West, a great professor formerly of Brown University, now
with the Brookings Institution, whose new book is right on the number here,
Billionaires: Reflections on the Upper Crust." We will get to that in the
next block, the whole idea of the big shots are going to throw tons of
money in the last two weeks, we hear.

Anyway, I want to talk about Ebola. It reminds me of one of those
movies, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Who`s going to start -- who is
the next?

MICHELLE BERNARD, FOUNDER, BERNARD CENTER FOR WOMEN, POLITICS AND
POLICY: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Even though it`s in small numbers, it`s against the promise
we were given in the beginning it would be unlikely that it even got here,
Michelle.

BERNARD: And what`s frightening is, we really can`t point to one
person who is in charge. And then we`re hearing, for example, that there
was a breach in protocol with this hospital in Texas where the nurse now
has Ebola.

But what if there wasn`t a breach in the protocol and the protocol is
just wrong? This is anecdotal, but I have a friend who is a physician in
New York. Her hospital treats a lot of African patients. So, she was
sharing with me some details of the protocol in her hospital.

And, quite frankly, as just a citizen, it`s frightening. The protocol
literally begins with put up a map of Africa in your emergency room. Train
your staff on the names of the countries in Africa. And train your staff
on the names of the cities in the countries where you find the Ebola virus.

MATTHEWS: Or the Donald Trump protocol is no more airline traffic
with that part of the world, yes.

(CROSSTALK)

HOWARD FINEMAN, NBC CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Chris, it`s very
ironic, because we have spent a lot of time over recent years hearing from
conservatives about the need for smaller government, less centralized
government, the more local, the better.

In this case, the exact opposite is true. We need the best global,
national information, carefully administered and carefully supervised by a
central figure. I`m afraid, at least for political purposes and maybe for
administrative ones as well, I don`t know that Dr. Frieden at the CDC, as
competent as he is, is a big enough figure to match what`s going on in the
public sphere today.

(CROSSTALK)

FINEMAN: And, after all, every infectious disease is also a matter of
publicity and public affairs.

MATTHEWS: Yes. I agree with that.

FINEMAN: So you need -- you need that strong person.

If President Obama doesn`t have the time to do it, and he`s a little
busy with things like ISIS and so forth...

MATTHEWS: Yes, this is sort of the...

(CROSSTALK)

FINEMAN: They need somebody -- they need somebody of unimpeachable
global stature...

MATTHEWS: Right.

FINEMAN: ... to reassure and instruct not only the American people,
but every hospital in the United States, every hospital.

MATTHEWS: Do you think we need a chain of command, Darrell, like
Eisenhower used to have, very clear, chief of staff, right down the line,
like general of the Army? Or else people are going to be confused, they
will stay confused?

DARRELL WEST, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF GOVERNANCE STUDIES,
BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: We do.

The problem now is that no one is in control. And so the message that
the average voter is getting is that the world is filled with chaos, no one
is in charge, there`s a lot of disorder out there. And so the problem for
the administration is, if this election gets framed around the themes of
chaos and disorder, that is going to be very damaging.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: But he has -- the president has sort of a policy of -- when
he was asked about the rollout of Obamacare, which I think I supported, I
think really believed in, but it was, well, who is really in charge? Do
you have a person in charge of it?

Well, actually, it`s the chief operating officer of the Medicare-
Medicaid group down there in HHS. And that`s part of, of course, HHS. And
he said, well, who are you talking to? It was the president didn`t seem to
be talking to anybody. There was no chain of command.

(CROSSTALK)

BERNARD: On certain issues, he is brilliant in the way that he is
measured is in his response. This is not one of those areas.

We don`t want to cause or create large amounts of panic, but somebody
needs to be in charge and admit to us...

(CROSSTALK)

BERNARD: Excuse me, Howard.

FINEMAN: Yes, sure.

BERNARD: But I think somebody needs to admit to the American public
that we don`t have all the answers, and that we need to be stealth on this.
Why are we not looking at this the same way we would look at an act of
bioterrorism? We need to be very serious about this.

(CROSSTALK)

FINEMAN: President Obama`s leadership style has always been one of,
let`s be calm now, let`s be cool.

And I think that`s a very useful and has been a very effective
leadership style for him in many ways. In this case, you still need some -
- you need calm, but you need the calm of utter scientific and
administrative authority, which is not him.

He`s president of the United States. Who is that person? Is it Dr.
Frieden? Until a week ago, nobody knew who that guy was. Nobody knew who
he was.

(CROSSTALK)

BERNARD: And we don`t have a surgeon general.

(CROSSTALK)

FINEMAN: And he`s not fully in charge. And he`s not fully in charge.

MATTHEWS: Darrell?

BERNARD: Yes.

WEST: And, Chris, right now, we have panic with two cases in the
United States. What happens when we start moving up to three, four, five,
six, or get up to 10?

MATTHEWS: In the past, we have the surgeon general plays a critical
role when it comes to public health scares. The most famous, of course,
was C. Everett Koop who took on the tobacco industry in the 1980s. This is
Koop testifying in front of Congress about the dangers of tobacco
advertising back in `86.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

C. EVERETT KOOP, THEN-U.S. SURGEON-GENERAL: Tobacco advertising
maintains and encourages the social acceptability of tobacco use. It just
doesn`t make sense to me to have unbridled advertising and promotion in
view of the overwhelming scientific evidence that we have of disease and
those 350,000 deaths a year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: You know, authority is an interesting thing. It`s not
power. It`s true authority based upon either election or expertise, you
know?

BERNARD: Yes.

MATTHEWS: He came off with that. He was appointed by the president,
and he came out -- well, he`s the guy you check with about cigarettes. You
may want to risk cancer if you want to, but it`s there.

BERNARD: And there`s something about his leadership style at that
point in time that instilled confidence. We need that, whether the person
in charge is a man or a woman, we deeply need that right now. We don`t
have all the answers.

FINEMAN: Well, don`t forget also, I think either the World Health
Organization or the United Nations or both, just said within the last few
hours, that Ebola is going to be the biggest health threat to human beings
in history. They made that statement just a few hours ago.

MATTHEWS: OK, Howard, we`re talking about the deployment of U.S.
troops being a mistake occasionally and sometimes they`re necessary --
3,000 American G.I.s, to use an old phrase, Government Issue, guys going
over there, are they going to be trained in what not to touch, what not to
be near?

I mean, it is tricky.

FINEMAN: There`s the question of the extent to which they have been
properly trained. I think they`ve been trained to the limits of both what
the army and the government knows. But again, as Darrel said, one gets the
sense that the CDC is here, the NIH is here, the surgeon general doesn`t
even have a surgeon general now because -- and permanently because the
Republicans blocked that person.

MATTHEWS: The NRA won`t let him.

FINEMAN: And while the president and there`s HHS. So, the president
has called people in for photo-ops over the weekend on Sunday and Monday,
saying, look, I`m on top of the situation, but who is really running it?

MATTHEWS: This is a great question. There`s no clear chain of
command, no czar. So, is he like a president like John F. Kennedy who
would call a major somewhere during the Cuban missile crisis and get into
the bowels of the government? Is he that kind of president? I don`t think
so.

WEST: He`s not. And the problem is, in this political era, no one
trusts authorities. We already have a situation where the hospital said
one thing and it turned out to be wrong. We had Obama who said there`s not
going to be a problem and we already have cases.

And so, the believability is really at risk here. And it`s not like
this is the only crisis. We`re facing challenges on the foreign policy
front, or various domestic policy issues. So, when you add Ebola on top of
all those other things, that has the potential --

(CROSSTALK)

BERNARD: Exactly, exactly.

FINEMAN: At this point he needs two Situation Rooms. He needs a
Situation Room for the Middle East and the terrorism issue and he needs a
Situation Room for this.

BERNARD: He needs to look at this --

FINEMAN: We`re going to get to ISIS in a minute, and we`re also going
to get to this whole question of the fat cats, what we used to called the
pigs back in the `60s, who are going to spend millions of millions of
dollars to weed out liberals they don`t like.

Anyway, roundtable is coming up. This is HARDBALL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: We got a couple new polls on key governors` races. Let`s
check the HARDBALL scoreboard.

First to Florida, where a poll for the University of North Florida has
Democrat Charlie Crist leading incumbent Republican Governor Rick Scott by
five. It`s Crist, 47, Scott, 42. This may be a roll for Charlie.

In Georgia, incumbent Republican Nathan Deal and Democratic challenger
Jason Carter tied all up at 45. What a close one. By the way, he is, of
course, the grandson of former President Carter and a Peace Corps
volunteer, which is just as important. And in Massachusetts, Democrat
Martha Coakley leads Republican Charlie Baker by just five in a new "Boston
Globe" poll. Coakley, 39, Baker, 34. That race is really close.

And we`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Back to the round table.

Howard, Michelle, and Darrell West is going to talk in a minute about
big money.

Anyway, the U.S. military and our allies have dropped more than 400
bombs in ISIS in Iraq and Syria just recently. And yet, as NBC`s Richard
Engel reports, the extremist group doesn`t seem to be degraded at all. In
Syria, the group now controls more than a third of the key town of Kobani,
right on the border with Turkey. In Iraq, ISIS forces seem to have
refocused on Baghdad, launching a campaign of suicide bombings in the city.
Even more troubling for the U.S. military officials, only eight miles from
the city`s airport where some of our only military are stationed.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi army is withdrawing from more territory. Today,
the military made a tactical retreat from a base in Anbar province. There
were two very different takes on where things stand this weekend.

On "Meet the Press" national security advisor Susan Rice said the
campaign would take time but it was off to a good start.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SUSAN RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Our air campaign is off to a
strong start. We`ve seen important successes in places like Mosul dam,
Sinjar Mountain, where we were able to rescue many hundreds of -- tens of
thousands of civilians at risk. This is going to take time and the
American people need to understand that our aim here is long-term
degradation and building the capacity of our partners.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: On the other hand, Senator John McCain had this dire
assessment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: They`re winning and we`re not, and the
Iraqis are not winning. The Peshmerga, the Kurds are not winning. And
there`s a lot of aspects of this, but there has to be a fundamental
reevaluation of what we`re doing, because we are not degrading and
ultimately destroying ISIS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Of course, you have to agree with McCain. The trouble is,
he has no alternative either.

FINEMAN: No. And, bombs, McCain, is not necessarily the answer
either, even if he`s talking about putting boots on the ground. To me, the
key is Turkey. Turkish friends that I know told me yesterday when the
White House was saying, oh, the Turks have agreed to a new situation where
they`re going to help us more to do this. Well, the Turks came out today
and said, essentially, no, we`re not. And Turkey has much more at stake
here than anybody.

MATTHEWS: They`re there.

FINEMAN: They`re right there. But they don`t want to do anything
that they think will help the Kurds, which shows you one of the many wheels
within wheels complexities of that region that even 50,000 American troops
on the ground, I`m afraid, is not going to solve.

So, in that sense, the president is right. But the bombing campaign
isn`t working, either.

MATTHEWS: So, Michelle, who`s going to defeat ISIS?

BERNARD: Ultimately, I believe it`s going to have to be the United
States. I know that people are -- love to say that this is the Iraqis war,
that the Syrians have to take care of this, maybe Iran will work with the
United States.

MATTHEWS: Who`s going to decide that? The next president?

BERNARD: No, I think, look, this is a very serious --

MATTHEWS: Do you think Obama is going to put troops in?

BERNARD: President Obama is not going to have any choice but to put
troops in. This whole philosophy of degrading ISIS is not going to work.
ISIS has to be taken out, and you can`t wait until 2016 to do it.

MATTHEWS: I don`t think so.

BERNARD: I think that there are Democrats --

MATTHEWS: They couldn`t defeat the Saudis, but, OK, let them win.

(CROSSTALK)

BERNARD: And he was wrong. He was wrong to take troops out of Iraq.

(CROSSTALK)

FINEMAN: In this case, he was right, in the beginning, or a month or
so ago, when he said that countries have to do this. The problem with
Obama`s policies as I see it, is that he wasn`t acting that way a couple
years ago when carefully nurturing and helping to build those kind of
alliances and military capabilities of the people on the ground would have
been helpful. But to say that now -- to say that now is not going to help.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I don`t think we can all get in Leon Panetta and Hillary
Clinton`s way back machine. We can`t go way back --

(CROSSTALK)

FINEMAN: How do you get the Turks?

MATTHEWS: I mean, you got the Turks, you have the Iranians and you
have Assad`s military forces such they are.

FINEMAN: Our NATO allies are the Turks. Where are they?

BERNARD: And the bottom line, it`s in our national security interest
not to sit around and have other people take care of this.

MATTHEWS: I think we`re in trouble and I don`t think we have a
solution.

Darrell West, let`s talk about your book and the billionaires. Talk
about the role that you`re seeing in the reporting today. That they`re
waiting until the last couple of weeks, these right wing, wealthy
billionaires -- that`s redundant -- are going to drop a ton of money on
this election at the end, to change the direction of it.

WEST: 2014 is going to become the battle of the billionaires. I
mean, we`ve already seen a lot of spending.

But I think as you mentioned earlier, these are smart business guys.
They`re going to look at, you know, seven or eight key Senate races that
ultimately are going to decide -- control the Senate. They`re going to
focus on the three or four where putting a million in, five million or even
ten million is going to move the needle one or two percentage points.
That`s all it`s going to take.

MATTHEWS: Under their laws, is there any limit to have much they can
drop in under different --

WEST: There`s no limit what they can spend, if they`re working
through non-profit organizations, which a lot of the conservative
billionaires are doing. They don`t even have to report the expenditure.

So, from the voter standpoint, it`s problematic, because the messenger
matters as much the message. And we`re going to end up in a situation
where there are going to be messages coming out. We`re not going to know
who`s behind them.

FINEMAN: And, by the way, most of the TV time in most of these states
that`s allotted to political advertising has already been taken. So, more
and more of it is going to go on to the Internet. And even there, there`s
a limit to what can be spent.

MATTHEWS: So, what do you do if you have a lot of money, there`s no
way to spend it?

FINEMAN: Aside from distributing walking around money in the state,
you know, I don`t know.

MATTHEWS: You can`t --

(CROSSTALK)

FINEMAN: You have to put it into the turnout, you have to put it into
the ground game, which the Democrats have already been doing.

Give credit to Harry Reid here. He focused on the ground game and not
advertising a long time ago.

MATTHEWS: How about cable, this kind of place?

FINEMAN: Well, yes, but cable is going to be -- that`s all going to
be bought. Of course, the amusing thing is that millionaires are going to
have to pay a premium for last-minute purchases, but they can afford it.

MATTHEWS: Wouldn`t it be great the billionaires pay MSNBC a ton of
money --

FINEMAN: This is the place --

MATTHEWS: What an irony.

FINEMAN: This is the place to decide the election.

(CROSSTALK)

WEST: Eighty-four billion. So, if they`re spending another 10
million or 20 million, they`re finding out how to capitalize.

BERNARD: Look, even with all the advertising dollars for people who
live in under-served communities, if you can`t vote because they`ve taken
away your right to vote, it doesn`t matter. So, the advertising or not,
they are so successful in all of these states in taking away --

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Which is it?

BERNARD: It`s both.

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you. That`s what I think.

Anyway, thank you, Howard Fineman. I`m more sure it`s anti-Democrat.

Michelle Bernard, thank you, dear.

And thank you, dear.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I got to cover myself.

We`ll be right back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with the right to vote, the right to
vote. It`s not just about the power of the voter himself or herself, it`s
about whether the power of those who hold office is legitimate or not.

Let`s get to the basics of democracy. Somebody has to. True
authority as opposed to the simple, brute force of any government to
control the army, the police, passed laws, collect taxes, comes from being
elected by the people. True authority in a democracy is to be chosen by
the people. The essential basis of its powers being elected in the first
place.

So, when you deny the people the right to vote, guess what, you
destroy the legitimacy of those in office. If blacks are kept from voting,
if young people are kept from voting, who can say that they`ve been duly
and legitimately elected, who can say they hold true authority to make the
powerful, moral decisions of government.

I think I know why the Republicans in so many states are making it
harder for blacks and young people to vote. I think it`s their chances of
winning elections. They can deflate the numbers of minority and young
voters, they can balloon the electoral power of older, white people.
That`s a mathematical fact.

And we`ve heard a few Republicans, a couple leaders from my home state
of Pennsylvania dare recite that fact out loud.

All this explains why I care so much about this. It`s about
legitimacy. If we were to do to sports what we were doing to the
electorate, we could reduce the number of black athletes. Think what that
would do?

Would the NBA and NFL retain their status they do have now as
compromising the best players available? Would they? Or would they be in
the arenas that can no longer make that claim, can longer have the
legitimacy, the true authority they have today as being the best arena
arenas for the best players?

So, tell that to those out there, grimly and crudely limiting the
participation of African-Americans and our democracy. Tell them that
regardless of what happens in any particular election, that you are ready
to compete fairly and squarely on the political playing field, that you
would rather lose an election than cheat.

And that`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.

"ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now.

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

Copyright 2014 CQ-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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>