IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

All In With Chris Hayes, Monday, November 11th, 2013

Read the transcript from the Monday show

November 11, 2013
Guest: David Brock, Steve Reiner, Bradley Horton, Esperanza Garcia, Anne
Filipic, Chris Marvin, Rebekah Havrilla, Bob Herbert

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.

"60 Minutes" had all weekend to prepare for its big apology and
clarification, and most importantly, explanation of how it put a dodgy
eyewitness on the air with a now discredited story about the attacks on
Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

But when viewers tuned in last night, they did get an apology, but that was
about it.


HAYES (voice-over): The legendary CBS News show, "60 Minutes," is in
damage control mode in a way it hasn`t been in almost a decade.

LARA LOGAN, CBS NEWS: Tonight, you`ll hear for the first time from a
security officer who witnessed the attack.

HAYES: On October 27th, it broadcast a report on Benghazi, using a so-
called eyewitness, suggesting the U.S. government could have sent backup to
the besieged U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, during the attack that killed
four Americans last year.

DYLAN DAVIES: One guy saw me. He just shouted. I couldn`t believe that
he had seen me because it was so dark. He started walking towards me.

LOGAN: And as he was coming closer?

DAVIES: As I got closer, just hit him with the butt of the rifle in the

LOGAN: And no one saw you do it?


LOGAN: Or heard it?

DAVIES: No, there was too much noise.

HAYES: But the security contractor who was the star eyewitness had already
told the FBI he was not there on the night of the attack, and that
differing account for "60 Minutes" to finally admit its error.

LOGAN: Nobody likes to admit that they made a mistake, but if you do, you
have to stand up and take responsibility and you have to say that you were

HAYES: Of course, we all remember the last time CBS News made a blunder
this big, the Bush National Guard story broadcast by "60 Minutes II", and
Dan Rather, September 8th, 2004.

DAN RATHER: Did then-Lieutenant Bush fulfill all of his military
commitments? And just how did he land that coveted slot in the guard in
the first place? Tonight, we have new documents and new information in the
president`s military service and the first ever interview with the man who
says he pulled the strings to get young George W. Bush into the Texas Air
National Guard.

HAYES: The story revolved around documents which purported to discredit
George W. Bush`s performance while he was in the National Guard. But
certain documents could not be authenticated, and "60 Minutes II"
ultimately had to admit its mistake.

RATHER: I made a mistake, we made a mistake, and I`m sorry for it.

HAYES: That time around, CBS News then embarked on a mission to do
everything possible to prove to the public it was worthy of their trust.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Having acknowledged that its own standards were
violated, CBS News named an independent panel to investigate what went
wrong. Former Republican Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired
chief of the "Associated Press," Louis Boccardi.

HAYES: And on January 5th, 2005, the independent blue ribbon panel
commissioned by CBS released its findings, highly critical of the news

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A major shake-up at CBS.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS: The panel found the report on "60 Minutes II" to
be full of errors.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Taking the heat, Mary Mapes, Rather`s producer, whose
reputation was considered so solid, the panel found few questioned her
reporting. She was fired. Three superiors were asked to resign.

HAYES: As for Dan Rather, he stepped down as anchor of the "CBS Evening
News" in March of the same year, in a move widely believed to have been
hastened by the controversy.

RATHER: To my fellow journalists in places where reporting the truth means
risking all and to each of you, courage.

HAYES: Given the obvious similarities with this Benghazi story, many were
expecting a similar level of self-examination and explanation. Instead, we
got this.

LOGAN: We realize we had been misled and it was a mistake to include him
in our report. For that, we are very sorry.

The most important thing to every person at "60 Minutes" is the truth, and
the truth is, we made a mistake.

HAYES: Eighty-five seconds of the broadcast devoted to their mistake.
There are still a lot of questions about how this happened, most
importantly, how Lara Logan, in a year of working on the story, never
apparently discovered the discrepancy in the security contractor`s account,
and why CBS News doesn`t think we deserve an answer to how that happened.


HAYES: Joining me now is David Brock, the founder of Media Matters for
America. His newly released e-book is called "The Benghazi Hoax."

David, what was your reaction to the apology that they issued on "60
Minutes" on Sunday night?

DAVID BROCK, MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Well, you know, about ten days ago
now, I asked for a retraction of the story but also an independent review,
and I felt more strongly about that over the next week because of how they
reacted. They stonewalled. They covered up during that period when they
knew there was a problem. Lara Logan attacked her critics as partisans, as
if liberal organizations can`t have the facts, when we did and they didn`t.

So, last night, I mean, I thought the broadcast was called "60 Minutes,"
not "60 seconds," and these are folks who rightly demand accountability of
others. I think they should practice what they preach. And so, it was not
nearly satisfying.

Now, my own view on this is this is now "60 Minutes`" and CBS`s problem,
it`s a problem for their brand and they`re going to make the decision
they`re going to make. Mission accomplished as far as I`m concerned is
that the story is now shown to the public to be completely wrong, and I
think the longer-term effect is to reverse the dynamic under which the
mainstream media is sometimes a conduit of the lies that Republicans are
feeding them. More skepticism.

And you know, in my book, we talk a lot about FOX, but, you know, the truth
is, CBS`s coverage of Benghazi has been troubling, aside from this, for a

HAYES: So, what is the parallel here? I keep thinking about the Clintons
and Whitewater.

BROCK: Sure.

HAYES: I think about -- I think about something that is identified as a
scandal, and then the reasons for it being a scandal keep changing or keep
being reverse engineered around the conclusion it`s a scandal.


HAYES: And Benghazi, we`ve gone through seven or eight iterations of what
the scandal is. Obviously, it`s a horrible, horrible tragedy that
happened, an outrageous, awful thing that happened. Four Americans are

BROCK: Right.

HAYES: But as for what the malfeasance is or what the cover-up is, that
has changed now seven or eight times, about the intelligence, about whether
it was a protest.

BROCK: Right.

HAYES: Do you see -- I guess my question to you, as someone who`s close to
the world of the Clintons and has covered sort of attacks the Clintons for
years, do you see this as kind of a Whitewater 2.0?

BROCK: Sure. I think Benghazi is Whitewater. So, in writing this book,
one of the things that I felt was a sense of deja vu all over again. You
know, I was very involved in covering the Clinton scandals and then
uncovering them and exposing the right-wing conspiracy.

And here you had right-wing lawyers coaching so-called whistle-blowing

HAYES: Feeding them to media.

BROCK: That`s right. And then they testify and then they don`t testify to
what the lawyers are telling the press. So, there`s a lot of aspect to
this, just phony stuff, you know, the smoking gun Darrell Issa produced a
cable showing that Secretary Clinton lied under oath when she said she had
no knowledge of the request for security, and it ends up that "The
Washington Post" shows that the cable was auto-penned and she had no
knowledge of it, so sure.

HAYES: Right.

I want to bring Steven Reiner, former producer for "60 Minutes" and CBS,
now director of broadcast and digital journalism at Stony Brook University.

You were there during the Rather-gate phenomenon. Rathergate is such a
word. But the National Guard story that became such a huge story.

Were you expecting more on Sunday night?

the way of clarification and more in the way of transparency. I don`t see
a tremendous number of parallels between the Rather story several years ago
and this story.

This is in a way much more straightforward, in my estimation.

HAYES: Right.

REINER: And it is --

HAYES: The Rather story was really a mystery. It was like, who the heck
made these documents and how did they get out there?

REINER: But one of the things about the rather story that wasn`t a mystery
was who the guiding force was behind the Rather story, and that was the
producer, Mary Mapes, who brought the story to "60 Minutes II" and really
was the driving force.

In this particular case, we don`t know who the driving force behind the
story was, who really wanted to get this on the air. Was it the
correspondent? Was it the executive producer? Was it the booking
department? Was it Simon & Shuster particularly?

So that`s why accountability becomes a little bit murkier.

HAYES: So, here`s where the parallel I think is between the Rather story,
the National Guard story we talked about at the top of the program. It`s
that, were the shoe on the other foot, this would be a huge story, right?
If this were some liberal, you know, pet liberal issue that was then
debunked by a witness who had essentially lied or appears to have lied, or
at least told the FBI something else, I remember in the midst of that
storm, that was like the biggest story out there.

And the ability of the right-wing echo machine to turn it into the biggest
story in the world -- and again, it was in the midst of a campaign, you
know, you`re talking about the president`s service record. Obviously,
these are intense things, but I still think that what we`re seeing in some
ways in the fall of this is the asymmetry of the pressure on the right and
the left around issues like this.

BROCK: Yes, I think that`s absolutely right. So, not only -- so, "The
Times" speculated this morning that one of the issues here was the right
was much louder in the Rather case. He was kind of a pinata for the right.

The network was scared of the right. I think economically, they were
scared of a right-wing boycott of the show. So, what`s different here is,
you know, it`s little old Media Matters and journalism professors who are -

HAYES: OK, let`s not whip out the smallest violin in the world. It`s also
the White House and the State Department.

BROCK: Sure.

HAYES: And some of the most powerful people in the world, right?

BROCK: Sure, but the Republican Party was out there attacking Dan Rather.
I don`t see the Democratic Party doing that, right?

HAYES: I want to play this clip from Lara Logan that`s now getting a lot
of play. And let me just say, I have no opinions one way or the other
about Lara Logan`s body of work and don`t feel I`m here to go after Lara
Logan. I simply don`t know. I know this story and some of her other work.

This is a speech she gave to the Better Government Association in Chicago
last year. Take a listen.


LOGAN: There is a big song and dance about whether this was a terrorist
attack or a protest, and you just want to scream, for God`s sake, are you
kidding me? The last time we were attacked like this was the USS Cole,
which was a prelude to the 1998 embassy bombings, which was a prelude to
9/11. And you`re sending in FBI to investigate. I hope to God that you`re
sending in your best clandestine warriors who are going to exact revenge
and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its
own soil.


HAYES: Now, here`s my issue with this, and I`d love to get as a journalism
professor and former "60 Minutes" producer your response. I have no issue
with Lara Logan having strong feelings about what happened in Benghazi. I
have strong feelings about everything I cover every night, but everyone
knows what they are when they come here and look into this television set
and I talk to them. They know where I`m coming from.

And say whatever you want about the sentiment "I hope to God you`re sending
in your best clandestine warriors who will exact revenge and let the know
the United States will not be attacked on its own soil." Whatever you want
to say about that sentiment, that is not unbiased, right?

REINER: That is not --

HAYES: That is a strong point of view on what happened and what the
response should be, and what bothers me is the projection of neutrality
that is necessary for "60 Minutes" to exist when this is the background

REINER: Well, this is precisely the point that Bill Keller and Glenn
Greenwald were bouncing back and forth when they did their dialogue in "The

HAYES: Bill Keller, former editor of "The New York Times", and Glenn
Greenwald, of course, was here on this program.

REINER: Exactly.

But I think this statement of Lara`s -- obviously, this is going to become
more and pore apparent, is -- you know, raises the stakes even more for the
importance of CBS to be transparent about just how the vetting process was
done. I mean, this is ultimately a failure of good journalism. It`s an
abrogation of the verification process. It was not followed.

HAYES: You have one source, you`re resting the most explosive things on
that one source --

REINER: Exactly.

HAYES: You`ve got to make sure --

REINER: And we have a very, very high-stakes story that is red meat to the
right. Everybody knows it.

You are under more of an obligation, particularly in this day in age, to be
transparent and to really do a better job reporting the story. It was also
interesting t hear that, you know, sort of -- there`s a bit of an arrogance
at CBS by saying, well, it wasn`t until we found out that the FBI report
was different that we`re going to report it. "The New York Times" beat CBS
on the reporting.

HAYES: This is the key reporting. This is the key reporting mistake, that
in a year of reporting this story, you`re CBS News, you can call, you can
find out that he talked to the FBI and what they told him. You`re CBS
News, you can find that out.

REINER: One more point. I don`t think anybody venerates "60 Minutes" more
than Jeff Fager does.

HAYES: Right.

REINER: And notwithstanding his public --

HAYES: He`s the head of "60 Minutes" --

REINER: He`s the head of "60 Minutes" and the chairman of CBS News. And
notwithstanding how he is choosing to manage this in front of the public.
I have no doubt that he is going to take this very seriously internally.

HAYES: I don`t think this is the last we`ve heard of it.

David Brock from Media Matters, Steven Reiner from Stony Brook University -
- thank you, gentlemen, both.

Coming up --


REPORTER: This amateur video obtained by Filipino broadcaster ABS-CBN
shows the moments of impact. A wall of water 20 feet high by some accounts
crashing into Tacloban, leaving the city of 220,000 in ruins.


HAYES: The Philippines has been on the front lines confronting climate
change because they are literally on the front lines. More on the
devastation there and what it means for their efforts, ahead.


HAYES: Hi. I`m Chris Hayes from prime time`s ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES,
which airs weekdays at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on MSNBC.

My show is an hour long, but the day is much longer, so let me let you in
on a little secret. When you follow @allinwithchris on Twitter, you`ll
find out what we`re paying attention to early in the day, you`ll find out
who our guests are and what the show`s about.

And for those of you watching now, we`ll even toss in helpful articles to
read every night for the shows so you`re prepared and up to speed. And
you`ll get this all for the good price of free-99. For all this, it`s one
easy payment of five seconds of your time.

All you have to do is type in, and you`re set.
Lifetime guarantee of ALL IN news you won`t want to miss.

And don`t forget to check out our Facebook page at



REPORTER: Tacloban City, survivors call it ground zero. The old coast
road, a route through the rubble for mile after mile. Entire neighborhoods
washed away. Tens of thousands of families lived around busy marketplaces
and back streets.

Now, parents scavenge for food. There`s no power, no phone signal, no
Internet, no other way to send a message.


HAYES: That was a report from our British broadcasting partner, ITN News,
describing the dire situation in one city in the Philippines.

The world has just witnessed one of the most powerful storms in recorded
history. That is until the next one strikes. The people of the
Philippines are sifting through the wreckage that Typhoon Haiyan left in
its wake.

The devastation is staggering, and you have to be fully realized. U.N.
estimates over 600,000 people displaced, many without food, water or
medicine. The cost of this storm could top $14 billion.

And as for the human toll, more than 10,000 are feared dead.

Many of the dead are believed to be in Tacloban, the city we heard about
earlier. Tacloban was once a vibrant port of over 200,000 residents, now
completely leveled, its streets littered with bodies.

The U.S. military is assisting with relief efforts, but aid groups describe
being completely overwhelmed by the incredible need.

When Haiyan came ashore on Friday, it arrived with sustained winds of 195
miles per hour and a 20-foot storm surge. In hurricane rankings, this was
a category five. The size of the storm put into perspective by the Red
Cross places the typhoon over a map of the entire continental United

It`s a reminder of how vulnerable anyone living near water is, particularly
island nations like the Philippines, and no one knows that better than
those countries themselves, who are quickly becoming the most powerful,
proactive and progressive voices in confronting climate change.

In fact, just today, at the U.N. climate talks in Warsaw, Poland, the
delegate from the Philippines Yeb Sano offered up emotional testimony to
the world.


YEB SANO, UN CLIMATE DELEGATE: The devastation is staggering. I struggle
to find words even for the images that we see on the news coverage, and I
struggle to find words to describe how I feel about the losses.

Up this hour, I agonize, waiting for word of the fate of my very own


HAYES: Sano was met with a standing ovation from those gathered, and he
pledged to fast until a meaningful outcome is in sight an is hopeful that
something will get done.


SANO: We can fix this. We can stop this madness right now, right here in
the middle of this football field and stop moving the goal posts.


HAYES: Joining me now is Columbia University climate scientist Radley
Horton, consultant for the new Showtime docu series "Years of Living
Dangerously," which I am a correspondent for. It premieres next year.

And Esperanza Garcia, founder of the Philippine Youth Climate Movement and
former climate change consultant to the Philippines Senate Oversight
Climate Committee. She was born and raised in the Philippines.

Esperanza, what are you folks back in the Philippines?

having me here.

It`s a war zone, my uncle told me. He`s a congressman in the region. When
he had visited the northern part of Cebu, where I had grown up, parents
having their children being sucked away from their arms, dead bodies

And the survivors just don`t have enough food, water or medicine and have
been going without it for days on end.

Typhoon Haiyan, as you had mentioned, is the most powerful hurricane in
recorded history. The death toll is rising. The power lines are down.
Communications have been cut.

And the damage is yet unknown, but what we do know is that it has gotten
stronger, these typhoons that we have, due to these typhoons -- due to warm
m ocean weathers. We are excreting pollution that is equivalent to 40,000
Hiroshima bombs every 24 hours. That`s 19 million tons of global warming
pollution every day.

And this accumulated climate change pollution that is caused by
anthropogenic or human activities traps the heat, storing extra energy in
the atmosphere, and due to this, there`s been broad scientific consensus
that these typhoons now are increasing in strength because of this

Now, Philippines is the third most vulnerable country --


Esperanza, I just want to stop you right there and talk to Radley about
exactly what she said. I mean, when we have, obviously, the focus right
now is getting people the relief they need and the help they need and
dealing with the horrible aftermath of something like this.

The basic science of storms and their intensity, it`s very hard to know
what the cause of a given storm is, and the Philippines have been through
many storms, but the broader outlook of the peril that places like the
Philippines are in, in the future is very clear.

RADLEY HORTON, CLIMATE SCIENTIST: Absolutely, and that`s a vulnerability
that`s going to go up through time. It comes from a few components.
Increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, 40 percent more carbon
dioxide than we had at the start of the Industrial Revolution, adding heat
to the atmosphere, adding heat to the oceans. That causes the oceans to
expand, which gives us more coastal flooding due to sea level rise.

But there`s also this element, too, that as those upper oceans warm, that`s
more fuel for a hurricane. That`s your source of energy.

HAYES: That`s the heat that`s driving the thing.

HORTON: That`s exactly right.

Now, there are other things that influence typhoons as well. It`s not as
clear how some of the other components are going to change. But bottom
line, upper ocean temperatures, the initial fuel for storms -- as those
ocean temperatures rise, as we expect them to with climate change, that
gives you the potential for stronger storms.

And when we see these really large storms, just adding a little bit to
those winds dramatically increases the devastation.

HAYES: And for people watching and thinking to themselves, well, I don`t
live -- well, I don`t think anybody`s that unsentimental, I don`t live in
the islands, I don`t care.

The mass of human beings live near the ocean. This cannot be stressed

HORTON: And it`s rising. That`s the other element. So, there`s this
climate change piece of greater storms, sea level rise in the future.

We also see more people moving to some of these vulnerable areas. In the
Philippines, population growth rates of close to 2 percent. More people
moving to some of these mega cities like Manila and other coastal areas.

As you extract more groundwater with these large populations, you`re
actually seeing in a lot of these deltas the land sinking as well, so it`s
a double whammy. Not only sea level rise due to increasing greenhouse
gases, but development patterns that drop the surface.

HAYES: Esperanza, I`m curious. I know that island nations as a kind of
coalition have been very powerful, prophetic voices in the national,
international debate about how to address carbon pollution.

Is there a domestic political awareness in the Philippines of the threat it
poses to what is the 13th most populous country in the world?

GARCIA: We`re not only the 13th most populous country in the world, we`re
also the 3rd most vulnerable country by study of the U.N. to be impacted by
climate change. We`re impacted by these typhoons on an average of 20 a
year. This is the 24th one that has hit us. And so, this is a normal

When I was working in the Philippines Senate, I was lobbying for the
climate change law and the renewable energy law that was built in the
Philippines. The Philippines is a country with 40 percent renewable
energy, and yet, we`re only contributing very little to the greenhouse
gases. As you know, it`s only -- I think it`s around 2 percent.

And the U.S. and China are contributing around 50 percent of the global
warming, and yet, we`re really impacted the most, and we don`t have the
climate finance to adapt to all this catastrophe. We`re losing 5 percent
of our economy every year due to these storms. We just simply can`t afford

HAYES: To continue like this.

GARCIA: The lives that are lost. And we can`t afford losing our economy

These people who have lost their lives and their families and their homes
have not only lost everything, but they`ve lost a livelihood that are
providing them with the means to move on, and they don`t have it anymore.

HAYES: Climate scientist Bradley Horton and Esperanza Garcia from the
Philippine Youth Climate Movement, thank you both.

HORTON: Thank you.

HAYES: Republicans have to come up with yet another way to try to kill
Obamacare, which has inspired a new campaign called "Let Todd work!" Who
is Todd? Oh, I will explain and talk to someone who`s trying to fix
Obamacare, next.


HAYES: When it comes to the current fight over Obama Care, there are
basically just two camps; the people who want to fix it and the people who
want to see it broken permanently. There is just not a lot of middle
ground right now, and standing firm in the kill it camp is the chairman of
the house oversight committee, Republican Darrell Issa, who last week
called on White House chief technology officer to testify about that the rollout.

But, that official, a man by the name of Todd Park, is a little busy trying
to fix, so the White House asked that park`s testimony "Be
Scheduled At A Time that is less disruptive to his work," and suggested he
testify in the first week of December, after the target date for getting
the website running smoothly. Issa was not having it. In a letter on
Friday, he claimed he had no choice but to use a subpoena for Mr. Park to
force him to appear before the committee.

That move prompted a group of tech experts to launch the "Let Todd Work"
campaign pushing for Park to be allowed to keep trying to fix instead of spending his precious hours preparing for
congressional testimony. And, the top democrat on the oversight committee,
Elijah Cummings, called on Issa to withdraw the subpoena and issue a public
apology. Issa does not appear ready to do either of those things.

Another wing of the kill Obamacare movement was active over the weekend in
Florida. You might know Generation Opportunity from it`s infamously creepy
Uncle Sam ads designed to convince young people not to sign up for the
health care exchanges. The group took that message to the University of
Miami on Saturday where creepy Uncle Sam posed with students at a tailgate
party before the Miami/Virginia tech football game.

Generation Opportunity told "The Tampa Bay Times" that they, quote,
"Rolled in with a fleet of hummers, hired a popular student DJ, set up opt-
out corn sets, Beer-pong tables, bought 75 pizzas, and hired eight brand
ambassadors, a.k.a., models with bullhorns to help out." Brand
ambassadors, nice. What you are looking at now is the students at the
Generation Opportunity party, which looks like there is a lot of
opportunity going on there, but there is another side to the Obamacare
battle. There are people who are working day and night, seven days a week
to make Obamacare work.

And, probably the biggest among them is called Enroll America, the non-
profit that ties the Obama administration. It has raised more than $26
million, contacted more than 300,000 people this year, all is part of a
campaign-style push to get Americans signed up for health care through the
exchanges. An effort that is key to getting enough Americans on board to
make the entire operation work.

And, amid a report from the "Wall Street Journal" today that less than
50,000 people have successfully signed up for insurance through, it has a mission that has never seemed more vital.
Joining me now Anne Filipic, president of Enroll America. Anne, How are

having me here.

HAYES: All right. How are things going?

FILIPIC: Things are going great, actually.

HAYES: No. You have to say that. Tell me the truth. How are things

FILIPIC: Well, here is the thing. I think obviously, anyone working on
this issue is incredibly frustrated by the website, you know? No surprise
there. I think what often folks are not aware of is all the work that is
going on beyond that, and the enthusiasm and the interest were seen.

Enroll America was created recognizing that there is really an
unprecedented opportunity ahead of us, millions of people who can gain
access to quality, affordable health coverage for the first time, and there
needs to be an unprecedented effort to give them what they need, so we
launched the get covered America campaign, which is really about taking the
best practices --

HAYES: OK. I want to -- I am going to stop you right there. It is about
the campaign. But, I want to just make clear here what the stakes are, OK?
There is a human stake, which is, people need health insurance. They need
health care. They need access to health care, and it is crazy, we live in
a country in which people go bankrupts and I agree with you on all that.

But, in this narrow actuarial sense, what you need are young healthy people
in the pool. The risk pool does not work unless you get them in, and you,
Enroll America, using some of the campaign techniques that the Obama
campaign used to refine to find their potential voters, you guys are now
using that to go out and find those people.

FILIPIC: Yes. They get covered America campaign. It is really taking a
lot of the best practices from whether it is past enrollment efforts or
electoral campaigns or private sector marketing campaigns, really. And, it
is a combination of, really, that commitment to an on-the-ground presence,
being in communities, meeting people where they actually are, where they
are going for information, and also using some of those high-tech tools
that, for example, the Obama campaign used to identify who is likely to be
uninsured, what is the message that most likely to resonate with them, and
how do we track it as we go to make sure we get people the information they
need to enroll.

HAYES: OK. Are you hitting your metrics?

FILIPIC: We are. We are.

HAYES: How is that possible? How is it possible? No, seriously, how is
it possible that you are hitting your metrics when the website has not been
working, when all of the coverage essentially has been negative for six
weeks? How is it possible you are hitting your metrics?

FILIPIC: Well, because I think you have to understand that the process for
a consumer to enroll in coverage is much more than just going to a website,
and especially when you look at who these consumers are. They are
uninsured. They are often not the people actually that are going to and frustrated.

HAYES: Interesting.

FILIPIC: Many people are not even aware this opportunity is available to
them. So, our metrics thereabout, how many one-on-one conversations are we
having. How many volunteers have gotten involved? And, you know, I am a
field organizer. I worked on the Obama campaign. I have worked on a lot
of efforts like this.

And, for something like this, what you need to look at is the trajectory
that you are on. So, for example, in January, I joined the team, we had a
staff of eight people. We now have over 200 people, but what is more
important than the staffs are the number of volunteers.

So, over 260 organizations across the country have gotten involved, over
10,000 volunteers have joined the effort, over half of them since October
1st, since that, you know, the website issues began.

HAYES: Right. But like any campaign, right? You construct a funnel, and
the funnel is, you know, you capture data and you get volunteers and then
you go and find people and you get down to the voters, right? And, the
metric you are judged by at the end is the voters. In this case, it is
going to be the enrollees. And, so, the question going forward is, that
last metric cannot happen for Enroll America unless the thing is fixed,
which is the big outstanding question. Anne Filipic from Enroll America,
thank you so much for joining us.

FILIPIC: Thank you so much, Chris.

HAYES: Coming up, I will talk to a panel of veterans about what it is like
to be back home after being away. Stay with us.



SHANNON WATTS, GUN REFORM GROUP FOUNDER: Our mom is met for lunch, four
unarmed moms peacefully gathering and exercising their right to assemble.
And, they all of a sudden looked out of the window and 40 armed people
showed up, pulling long guns out of the backs of their trucks.


HAYES: That was Shannon Watts, the founder of gun reform group called,
Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America. Tomorrow night on "All In," a
special report on the incident Sharon Watts was just describing. What is
happening in this photo and what these armed demonstrators are saying about
the episode and what it means that four women are meeting to talk about gun
safety in Arlington, Texas in the first place. That is tomorrow night,
right here.


HAYES: Today marks the 13th Veterans Day, we have observed since entering
the longest war in American history, the war in Afghanistan. Roughly
50,000 U.S. Troops still in that country, which next year will be at a cost
of more than $2 million per soldier according to a report from the center
for strategic and budgetary assessments. And, 2.5 million vets have served
in Iraq or Afghanistan since 9/11.

But, unlike previous engagements like World War II or Vietnam during the
era of the draft, today we are talking about a very, very small percentage
of the population that serves in the military. During the World War II,
approximately 9% of Americans served in the forces. During Vietnam, that
number was around 2%. In 2011, it was less than 1%.

According to a report from the heritage foundation, the folks serving are
coming disproportionally from Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.
From a particular slice of American life, almost 80% of Active gay members
have less than a bachelors degree. Each Veteran`s Day, the media
rightfully focuses on outrageous and astonishing issues, everything from
the inexcusable backlog from the department of veterans affairs, some
like Majority Leader Harry Reid highlighted today, the ongoing problems and
trauma related to PTSD to the close to 1 million veterans who are going to
have food taken out of their mouth because of last month`s $5 billion cut
to the federal food stamps program.

But what tends to get lost in those stories is the kind of private
subjective psychological challenge of simply reintegrating into civilian
life after the experience of war, an experience that most of society does
not share. I have talked to veterans who are glad to be home from war
next to their wives and husbands, back to spending time with their kids,
but who nonetheless miss the war and have a difficult time trying to figure
out why.

Army Veteran Chris Marvin writes, quotes, "This Veterans Day On Behalf Of
My Fellow Afghanistan And Iraq Veterans, I say to the country, there is no
need to thank us. Take a minute to talk to us, ask us where we serve.
Learn about what we did in the military and find out what is next in our

Joining me now is Chris Marvin, retired U.S. army officer, Black Hawk
Helicopter pilot, now managing director at "Got Your 6." Chris, I really
like the piece you wrote in the "Washington Post." Why did you write it?

CHRIS MARVIN, MANAGING DIRECTOR AT "GOT YOUR 6": You know, for a long time
after I came back from Afghanistan, people would say, "Thank you for your
service." I didn`t know what to say. You say, "Thank you" back, which is
kind of weird, or you say, "Oh, it was no problem."

HAYES: Which is also weird.

MARVIN: Also strange. At some point, a mentor of mine said, "Just say
what your mother taught you to say, which is `you are welcome`." When
someone says thank you, you say, "You are welcome." When I started saying,
"You are welcome," it made me feel a little bit better about knowing what
to say; but, I got a strange reaction from people.

They were just a little bit surprised that I would be willing to say you
are welcome to their thank you for their service. I am not exactly sure
what they expected, but then I was worried about saying you are welcome,
right? So, I started to think about what maybe, "Thank you for your
service" means to Americans.

HAYES: And what does it mean?

MARVIN: I think there is a lot of Americans who genuinely mean thank you
for your service. They are patriotic. They are civically engaged. They
are part of an informed electorate and they understand what it means to
serve and sacrifice. I think there is a generation of veterans that want
nothing more than to hear, "Thank you for your service."

Maybe they were drafted or never thanked in the first place. The post-9/11
generation has been an all-volunteer force for the durations of these wars,
fought the longest war in the history of our country, and we have been
thanked over and over and over again, and we appreciate that; but, we want
someone to ask us more.

HAYES: Like what?

MARVIN: Ask us where we went. Ask us what we did. Ask us how the food
was. Ask us how the temperature was. I think most importantly for
veterans, ask us what`s next in our lives.

HAYES: Right.

MARVIN: So, our lives as civically engaged individuals, as those who are
predisposed for service, who volunteered for military service, those lives
do not end when we take off our uniforms. And, so, while we are grateful
for every thank you we get, we just need to hear something else after that
that says, "We still want you. We still need you and we think that what
you have here in your civilian clothes is just as important. If not more
important, than what you did in your uniform."

HAYES: And, also that you are a person -- I see you, the person, the
individual living, breathing person in front of me who is going to have to
get up and go to a job tomorrow and not some type that is in my head that I
apply this phrase to.

MARVIN: And, I think that is a larger problem. It is sort of -- it is the
civilian military divide, right? There is a lot of misunderstandings,
misconceptions. As you mentioned in the opening, we talk a lot about some
of the detriments, right? When those affects a proportionately small group
of post-9/11 veterans, and everybody got an issue. We need to deal with
those and work on them, but what about all of those leaders --

HAYES: Huge cohort.

MARVIN: -- the problem-solvers who are coming home, having been trained by
the taxpayer dollar --

HAYES: Right.

MARVIN: Let`s recoup that investment.

HAYES: I want to talk about that divide and the fact that we do have this.
And this is just an empirical fact of where folks are coming to that are
volunteering for service, in terms of parts of the country, and also the
change of what it is to be part of this cohort when you are coming back in
2002 or 2013. What has changed in that period of time? We will be right
back with two more veterans. Stay with us.


HAYES: We are back. I am here with retired U.S. Army Officer Chris
Marvin. Joining us now former army Sergeant Rebekah Havrilla and former
"New York Times" columnist Bob Herbert. Now a distinguished senior fellow
at the Liberal Think-Tank Demos. He served in the U.S. Army in Korea as a
sergeant. Rebekah, you, if I am not mistaken, you were actually working
on a service hotline for folks that had come back from serving.

REBEKAH HAVRILLA, FMR. U.S. ARMY SERGEANT: Correct. I moved up here in
2011 and worked to manage the help line for women veterans who dealt mostly
with issues around sexual violence in the military, but we covered kind of
the broad spectrum of issues that women veterans in general face when they

HAYES: And is there, do you think, a -- what is the trajectory in terms of
how the kind of institutional landscape has changed from, say, 2002 to now
for folks that are returning. We have now had almost an entire almost
generation, a cohort of people coming back. And, I think in 2002, there
was nothing there. Of course, there was the VFW and all these
organizations that had been forged in earlier times. There is now an
entire new kind of institutional landscape.

HAVRILLA: There is, but it really kind of still depends on where you are.
California, New York, some of your larger metropolitan areas have some
really great services available for women veterans, but some of the other
places, even places that are heavily populated by women veterans still are
lacking a lot of services.

For instance, I am from South Carolina originally, and housing for homeless
women veterans in the state is still really hard to find as opposed to here
in the city. It is still very challenging, especially if you are a woman
veteran with children. However, usually if you know the right people, you
can get those resources for those individuals. Sometimes, again, it can
still be tough to do, but it really depends on location a lot of times.

HAYES: Bob, as someone who came of age in the draft years, how do you sort
of understand the kind of, like, shift between that -- those years and the
culture we have now, which is the all-volunteer force, and the all-
volunteer force that has been employed in active combat for -- you know, 13

those years, which was part of the early post World War II decades, nearly
every family knew someone who had served in the military. Now, that is not
the case. Most of the time, if you travel the country, if you ask someone,
do you know someone who is in the armed forces, they will say no. So, what
we have done --

HAYES: Although that depends a lot regionally, right? There are certain
regions of the country --

HERBERT: No. No. But, I am talking about collectively --

HAYES: Right. Yes.

HERBERT: -- percentagewise in the American population. Most people do not
know someone who is served in the military. So, what happens is, we have
created essentially a warrior class, and it is, as you pointed out, a very
small percentage of population. So, even with these wars, they have been
serving, three, four, five tours in the combat zone.

This warrior class comes out of the service. The country is not prepared
to reintegrate them into society and not much interested in their problems,
to tell you the truth; so, we are turning the warrior class into another
underclass in this country and I think it is shameful.

HAYES: Do you think that is true?

MARVIN: I think the civilian-military divide absolutely exists, and I
think there is really two areas of thought on it right now. One is
veterans need our pity and they need our charity. And, the other is,
veterans who volunteer to serve and have, you know, borne the burdens of
war are better for it.

They are more experienced, they are stronger and they will respond to a
challenge, and we need to challenge them. And, I think today, if we focus
on ones who are, and we try to change this narrative so that all Americans
are starting to see that a veteran can come home to my neighborhood, my
workplace, my church and my school and make it a better place, then we will
start to erode that idea of a segregation of veterans.

HAYES: Can I suggest a third way of looking at it, right? Which is that
these are our fellow citizens, who we have a deep abiding, social
connection to as we are bound in the same social contract and have taken on
the specific duty in service of that social contract; but, they are coming
back, like we do not have full employment. We should have jobs for people,
not just veterans, other people, too; but, veterans are part of that
contract we have.

Food stamps and health care, all these things that what ends up happening
is on Veterans Day, we point these elements out, and I think you are right,
it ends up being this way of talking about this as a specific problem, as
opposed to a broader problem, which is we are bound to each other, right?
And, that is kind of thing that like voluntary for service exclaims louder
than almost anything, and we have a duty to each other that goes above and
beyond just our duty to veterans. We have a duty to citizens at a basic

MARVIN: Right. I mean, we do not house a homeless veteran or give him a
food -- you know, a meal -- a veteran -- or some food because he is a

HAYES: Right.

MARVIN: It is because he is homeless. Everybody deserves a home and they
are people, right? So, I think it`s about looking at the positives they
get from military service.

HAYES: And, yet, there are specific issues, right?

HAVRILLA: Absolutely. I mean --

HAYES: Specific kinds of isolation.

HAVRILLA: After, I got back and got out, I basically couch-hopped for two
years and was unemployed and did not get a job until I moved up here in
2011. So, and I --

HAYES: What was your feeling during that period of time?

HAVRILLA: It is very -- it is very -- your self-esteem takes a huge hit.
You kind of like, you know, I had a bachelors degree and I served in the
army and I was in the bomb squad, for crying out loud, you know? Like, I
have all of these skills --

HAYES: You know what your capabilities are.

HAVRILLA: Yes, I knew exactly what my capabilities are, and I could not
get a job at McDonald`s. You know? So, that is kind of -- it is very
challenging to kind of overcome that. And, honestly, things were really
looking up for me when I was OK. I have this job. I can start making
forward progress. I can start helping other people. I kind of have a
purpose for my life now.

HERBERT: Chris, we have an obligation to these veterans. We send them off
to fight our wars. When they come back, they need educational services,
they need housing and they need employment. And, we need to make a special
effort to meet their needs, and as a society, we are not doing that.

HAYES: Do you think that there is something we could be doing that we are
not that is not just, we will clear up the back log or things like that? I
mean obviously, we could have full employment, we could have a robust,
growing economy that was just hiring people willy-nilly, which to me is
like the thing that cures everything, but is there something?

MARVIN: Most of the things you talk about are either government-based or
maybe non-profit organization based, even private sector based, and what
you see especially on a day like veterans day is the individual American is
left with this, what do I do? What do I do? What do I say? And, they end
up saying thank you for your service, which is great.

I think sometimes it is as simple as having a conversation with a veteran,
right? We have this civilian-military divide, we have people that do not
understand what it is like to serve. Why not ask?

And, there is all sorts of ways, I think in which that divide plays out in
our policy, members of congress who have seen war and there is actually
fascinating historical on how that plays out in policy. That is our topic
for another time. Retired U.S. Army Officer Chris Marvin, former army
sergeant Rebecca Havrilla and Bob Herbert from Demos, thank you so much.
That is "All In" for this evening. "The Rachel Maddow Show" starts right
now. Good evening, Rachel.

That was a really stupendous discussion. Thanks.


Copyright 2013 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.>