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

The Ed Show for Tuesday, February 10th, 2015

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Date: February 10, 2015
Guest: Sherrod Brown, Larry Cohen, Jim McDermott, Bob Shrum, Bernadette
Del Chiaro



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Give us fast track for TPP. Well what`s TPP?

OBAMA: The burden of proof is on us.

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: And later, unhinging the Hillary 2016 machine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We now have campaign infighting without the campaign.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One, two, three.

SCHULTZ: Plus, farming sun shines in the Golden State.

It`s blessed with year-round sun.


SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching.

We start with big news on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Now, if President Obama throughout his time in the White House, he`s always
been a guy who`s not been short on detail. This is a guy who studies
issues, gives a lot of deep thought in what he wants to do before he makes
a decision.

But I don`t get the detail on this trade agreement. And the most excessive
interview he`s done on this has been done recently, and again, the
President is vague.

Now, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is probably the biggest economic trade
deal this country`s ever done and yet it`s being done in secrecy.

This story starting to reach critical mass, meaning other media folks are
starting to pay attention. More, more people in the Congress are talking
about it.

During President Obama`s interview with Vox, that would be V-O-X, not the
folks across the street. He made his first extended remarks on TPP. And
what`s amazing about this, it`s a lot in generic talk. The devil in the
detail is not in front of the American people.

The President admitted that there are problems with past trade deals. No
kidding. He knows why the American people are skeptical of the TPP.


OBAMA: This was part of the debate that we`re having right now in terms of
the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal that, you know, we`ve been
negotiating. There are a lot of people who looked at the last 20 years and
say, why would we want another trade deal that hasn`t been good for
American workers? That allowed outsourcing of American companies locating
jobs in low-wage China then selling it back to Walmart. And, yes, we got
cheaper sneakers but we also lost all of our jobs.


SCHULTZ: Now, respectfully Mr. President, you used the word debate.
That`s the issue here. There has been no debate about this and how
injurious this could be to American workers.

President Obama then laid out the case for the TPP after that sound bite.
The President said the United States has working hard to make this trade
deal fair.


OBAMA: My argument is two-fold. Number one, precisely because that horse
is out of the barn, the issue we`re trying to deal with right now is, can
we make for a higher bar on labor, on environmental standards, et cetera,
in that region and write a set of rules where it`s fairer, because right
now it`s not fair. And if you want to improve it that means we need a new
trading regime. We can`t just rely on the old one because the old one
isn`t working for us.

But the second reason that it`s important is because the countries we`re
negotiating with are the same countries that China is trying to negotiate
with. If we don`t write the rules out there, China`s going to write the
rules. And the geopolitical implications of China writing the rules for
trade or maritime law or any kind of commercial activity almost inevitably
means that we will be cut out.


SCHULTZ: Wait a second. If you`re the biggest customer in the world,
who`s going to want to cut you out? It seems like we`re not swinging a big
enough stick here.

We are the United States of America. We`re the biggest customer. We have
the best economy. We have the most innovative people on the globe and yet
we`re dancing to somebody else`s music. I don`t get.

And President says that this horse is out of the barn. He is talking about
the global economy. Gosh, we can`t have any level of protection as in
whatsoever because we`re in a global economy.

This deal does not deal with tariffs properly. This deal does not deal
with sovereignty. It`s going to be undercutting American law.

So finally, President Obama said something that I hope he lives up to.


OBAMA: Those experiences that arose over the last 20 years, those aren`t
easily forgotten, and the burden of proof is on us, then to be very
transparent and explicit in terms of what it is that we`re trying to


SCHULTZ: Mr. President, do you think that there`s been transparency with
the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Transparency, this deal has been done in
secret, just about every story that we`ve done on the TPP. Everybody
complains about -- nobody knows what the hell is going on.

There are members of Congress collectively who have said openly and
complained about, they don`t know what`s in this deal. They just keep
hearing leaks that come out here and there but nobody gets the hard copy to
read to it.

The President needs to explain to the American people, not in a seven-
minute interview. Why the TPP would be different from other past trade
deals and knock off the generic conversation.

So far, this trade deal has been conducted in secret. And according to
reports, hey we`re just weeks away. So far the American people have
absolutely no details and the American people I`m talking about are the
members of Congress, the people that you`ve elected.

The President needs to tell the American people two major things on this.
First of all, how will this trade deal protect American jobs? And, of
course, it won`t. And second, how will this trade deal affect America`s
already massive trade deficit? In other words, will it bring it down or
will it continue to explode?

Last week, the trade deficit jumps 17 percent to $46.6 billion. It`s the
biggest percentage increase since July of 2009. We`ve seen over 700,000
jobs lost because of NAFTA, 60,000 jobs lost and lots of -- to the South
Korean trade deal.

Now, China`s preferred nation trading status has skyrocketed our trade
deficit. How is that a good thing? We continually do bad deals. Things
are getting so heated.

Now, this is where it gets politically interesting. Things are getting so
heated that some Republicans -- they`re even starting to trash the TPP.
Here is North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones earlier today.


REP. WALTER JONES, (R) NORTH CAROLINA: If you want to sell out America
then get behind giving the President what I call the trade promotion
authority, better known as fast track. This is absolutely a threat on our
constitution, on our sovereignty. When you allow a President to have the
authority to bring before Congress the issue but now allow Congress to
debate, to amend or to change the agreement, then that in itself is not
what the constitution intended for this country.


SCHULTZ: Now, that is the best sound bite and a best description as to why
the Tea Partier and the hard conservatives in the Congress are against this
trade deal. But the Democrats are against it for different reasons.

Congressman Jones believes that the TTP is a sellout to the corporations.
It`s a Wall Street deal.

The Tea Party should be up in arms over this deal because of the
sovereignty issue. The TPP would undercut American sovereignty and give
power to international corporations and our Congress, our lawmakers would
not have to say in the disputes. In other words, nobody else would be
running us.

Meanwhile, a group of bipartisan senators are working to save American jobs
by addressing what we have talked about in the past, currency manipulation.
Now, this is where the playing field has never been level. And this is
what the President did not mention in his interview.

How can you talk TPP and not talk currency manipulation? You can`t.

Earlier today, Senator Sherrod Brown, Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer and
Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham -- oh, we got some very interesting new
fraternity members, don`t we? They all got together and introduce the
Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act.

Now, this act would use trade law to counter harm to U.S. manufacturers
caused by currency manipulation. It would also provide consequences for
countries who refuse to address currency manipulation.

This idea that China is going to be writing rules -- no, that`s not true.
China is not dictating to other countries in this deal. Everybody is
supposed to be an equal partner but you know who`s not in equal partner?
You, the American taxpayer, the American service industry, the American
manufacturers. There`s going to be differences on tariffs. That hasn`t
been explained to the American people.

And so what the President is doing to sell this, he is saying, well it`s us
against them. Hey, it`s China.

I mean, if we`re so worried about China, why in the hell did we give them
favored nation trading status back in the late, you know, 1999? Why do we
do that?

The strategy of this White House seems to be -- well, whatever big business
wants and if it undercuts our sovereignty, well, we could probably go along
with that too and I`ll go out to the American people and try to sell it and
say that other trade deals have been bad but this one is going to map
everything up. It isn`t. It simply isn`t. And again, there is very
limited detail on this.

Gets your cellphones out, I want to know what you think.

Tonight`s question, "Do you think President Obama is correct on the TPP?"
Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, leave a comment at our blog at We`ll bring you the results later on in this show.

For more, Senator Sherrod Brown joins us tonight from Ohio who has talked
about this quite a bit.

Senator, why will your new Currency Manipulation Act work? What does this
do? Good to have you with us.

SEN. SHERROD BROWN, (D) OHIO: Well, it works because it gives us a tool to
level the playing field in the sense that when China cheats on currency or
when Japan cheats on currency as Senator Stabenow pointed out in
(inaudible) on other things and countries cheat on currency that it gives
us a mechanism to fight back and win trade cases. And dissuade them in the
future from doing it and -- that`s primarily why this is so important.

We want this currency provision and yes as you pointed it out its good
bipartisan sponsorship, five Republican, five Democrats, who want to make
sure it`s that way. We passed -- the Senate passed it overwhelmingly two
or three years ago. The House passed it at different times, Speaker
Boehner hasn`t brought it up to a vote. But now is the time because of
fast track and because of Trans-Pacific Partnership that we have a place to
put this bill to demand that the President doesn`t get this power
agreement, doesn`t ever pass unless its got a currency provision to protect
the American workers.

SCHULTZ: Senator, where is the debate? The President said to that
interview that that what we`re debating right now. Did I miss that
coverage on the Senate floor?

BROWN: Yeah. When President said the horses are already out of the barn.
Unfortunately, there`s a new horse leaving this barn almost everyday when
we see the kind of job lost. The trade deficit with the China now over
upward of $300 billion. It was only -- as you mentioned PNTR with China
1999, I believe the trade deficit bilateral with us with the China was only
-- was around $10 billion or $15 billion...


BROWN: ... so we see what`s happened. It clearly hasn`t worked. But
currency is the best way to fight back on this, to make sure from now on
every single agreement has a currency provision, number one, and number two
that our Department Of Commerce is told they must look at currency when
they make a decision on unfair trade practices. So far they had the
options to look in currency and they never do. And it`s not something that
presidents of either party have done well. This President has been better
than his predecessors on trade enforcement...

SCHULTZ: Yeah, he has.

BROWN: ... but he`s not in the right place on this, and we`ve got to do
better on this.

SCHULTZ: Senator, let`s go to your backyard. How to explain the TPP to
steelworkers in Lorain, Ohio?

BROWN: Well, you explain -- the place you`ve been in Lorain had 12,000
workers once, now it`s about 2,000. It`s done a little better now with
more drilling on gas and oil. Although they just have temporary layoff of
a number workers probably for three months...


BROWN: ... for whole host of reasons. But once we start enforcing trade
rules, those workers are going to -- more of them are going to work and
more of them will have more job security. And so, it`s a question of we
don`t -- they didn`t like NAFTA, they never like NAFTA, they didn`t like
PNTR with China. Why would we possibly inflict another trade deal on


BROWN: ... in Lorain, in Youngstown, in Dayton, when the damage is so
evident and the future with this kind of trade agreement is so oblique?

SCHULTZ: And finally, Senator, what do you say to the President when he
says there has to be more transparency on the TPP?

BROWN: Well, there does have to be more transparency, there hasn`t been...

SCHULTZ: OK. But there hasn`t been any -- and why is that?

BROWN: Well, there`s supposed to be more consultation with Congress on
what the agreement is, what the -- negotiation are going. There supposed
to be directives on what do you do on the environment and labor standards,
what do you do on something called investor stay which gives the tobacco
companies even more power in the world commerce.

None of that has happening in this agreement except for a few informal
conversation, we try to have with U.S. trade rep. but none of it has been
open enough, the public not had nearly the input.


BROWN: ... the labor community hasn`t -- people that care about climate
change haven`t, people that care about public health haven`t had the input.
This is pretty disastrous in the way this is rolled out.

SCHULTZ: Senator Sherrod Brown, Ohio, good to have you with us.

BROWN: Thanks.

SCHULTZ: I appreciate your time.

Let me bring in Larry Cohen, President of Communication Workers of America.
It`s not just manufacturing, it`s going to hit the service industry as

Mr. Cohen, your response to the President saying that the TTP will make
things better for American workers and he knows that other trade deals are
bad and this one going to be better. I mean, that just simply isn`t true,
is it?

enforcement. And the problem is, is that when a multinational corporation
wants to enforce their version of the trade deal, they sue. And Sherrod
Brown just said it, in a secret tribunal called ISDS, where they can
reparations of billions of dollars. There are 500 of those lawsuits now.

And when we try to enforce a labor or environmental or consumer provision,
we have to go through our government to the other government and it
literally take years.

I`ve been involve in that enforcement with Mexico, Columbia and recently
Honduras. It takes years. And when we talk about China, the government of
Vietnam doesn`t want to see investor-state dispute settlement in these
deals, that`s the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

So, if our goal is to get Vietnam closer to us, let`s get rid of ISDS and
let`s put citizen rights on the same level as cooperate right.

SCHULTZ: So what is President Obama referring when he says China is going
to write the rules? What rules is he talking about? They`ve been the
biggest cheater on all these trade agreements.

COHEN: He`s talking about the fact that these are countries, that
geographical and geopolitically do have links to China. But again, what we
would say to him, what I have said to him is, then let`s get rid of
investors-state dispute settlement. Those governments -- the four or five
governments that we don`t already have deals with Malaysia, Singapore,
Brunei, Vietnam, they don`t want investor-state in these things and neither
do we. Because if a U.S. Company can guarantee their profits in Vietnam...


COHEN: ... why will they invest in the U.S. when Vietnam has $0.75 an hour
wages? And in the U.S. obviously the minimum wage is significantly higher,
but not high enough.

SCHULTZ: And how is...

COHEN: We don`t think this adds up anyway you add it.

SCHULTZ: How does the President expect American officials to enforce trade
laws in Vietnam? What`s the mechanism their, its never been done before,
how is it going to be down now?

COHEN: He expects the future U.S. trade representative and whatever agency
it is of the U.S. government that has jurisdiction, whether its labor or
environment to eventually write a report on complaints that we could make
or other. And then go to that government with the report saying, we want
you to live up to the agreement.

Again, the problem is even if that were true it takes years and years. And
the reason the U.S. Chamber is supporting this is because they get to sue
for reparations. We don`t get any reparations for what happens to


COHEN: ... all we get is a report.

SCHULTZ: All right. President Obama specifically responded to labor
leaders in his Vox interview. Here it is.


OBAMA: When I talk to labor organization I say, right now, we`ve been
hugely disadvantaged, why would we want to maintain the status quo? If we
can organize a new trade deal in which a country like Vietnam for the first
time recognizes labor rights and those are enforceable, that`s a big deal.


SCHULTZ: Mr. Cohen, your response to that.

COHEN: My response is, again having just been in Honduras before that
Columbia is years to enforce labor right when people are killed, when
there`s no right to organize, when the minimum wage is in enforce. We
can`t wait for years to enforce it. And I do think that Vietnam because
they want this deal may well make some changes.

Mexico is not going to make the changes. We want to see how we going to
enforce this deal in the same kind of time the corporate America is going
to enforce their side. So either say, get rid of investors-state dispute,
one way lawsuits from the corporate world or/and put us all in a level
playing field or give us investor-state, so that citizen-state dispute
settlement. So that we can sue...


COHEN: ... when workers are disadvantage.

SCHULTZ: All right, Larry Cohen, President of Communication Workers of
America, always a pleasure. Good to have with us.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen.
Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow and on Facebook, certainly
we want to know what you think. We read your comments. I appreciate it.

Coming up. Staples is trying to save money by cracking down on part-time
workers. Mitt Romney`s business model, it`s on full display.

Plus, infighting in Hillary Clinton`s political operation looks like 2008
all over again. We`ll bring you the detail, Bob Shrum, Jonathan Alter on
the way. We`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: Tonight, we are hearing from the family of murdered American
hostage Kayla Mueller.

Earlier today, the Pentagon confirmed the 26-year-old aid worker died at
the hands of ISIS. The terror group had claimed that Mueller have been
killed on a Jordanian airstrike. Muller`s family addressed the media a
short time ago.


LORI LYON, KAYLA MUELLER`S AUNTS: Even as a little girl, Kayla was a
bright, inquisitive kind little girl. At a very young age, Kayla knew her
passion. She knew her calling. A lot of people never have the opportunity
to say that.

Kayla`s calling was to help those who were suffering whether in our
hometown of Prescott or on the other side of the world. She has done more
in her incredible 26 years than many people could ever imagine doing in
their lifetime. My daughter sets me things that were important to Kayla or
finally getting the attention that they deserve.


SCHULTZ: Mueller was taken hostage outside a hospital in Syria in 2013.
We`ll be right back with more in the Ed Show.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

Office supply chain Staples has been looking for ways to save some paper.

The most recent earnings report showed a 6 percent drop in sales of the
previous year. The company closed over 100 stores in North America in
2014. They`re cutting down on competition by buying up rival Office Depot
for $6 billion. And when it comes to employees, they`re cracking down on
part-time workers.

BuzzFeed news reports the company is threatening to fire part-timers who
log more than 25 hours a week. A note posted in one of the Staples` stores
explained associates who clocked more than 25 hours a week could face
termination or multiple incidence. The note cites recent changes for the
tough stance.

Many are questioning whether the move is related to the implementation of
the Health Care Law Employer Mandate.

The Affordable Care Act requires employers to provide health insurance for
employees working more than 30 hours a week. If they don`t, they could
face a fine of $3,000 per person.

Staples denies Obamacare played a part in this cost cutting.

The Spokesman says their part-time policy predates the Affordable Care Act
or Obamacare. They say, managers may have reiterated the policy in an
effort to improve the efficiency and a competitiveness of the stores.

The company once supported by Mitt Romney`s Bain Capital is an example I
think of Mitt Romney`s economy, just going after the workers.

Joining me tonight, Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington.

Congressman, good to have you with us tonight.

Is this Obamacare? Is this being used to squeeze the bottom line on
workers? Your thoughts on this.

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT, (D) WASHINGTON: I think it`s not caused by Obamacare,
Ed, and they are saying it`s not. What`s happening here is that the whole
market is being squeezed and they`re buying up office, or Home Depot or
Office Depot and they are in trouble financially and they are trying to
keep their employees down at 25 hours.

Now, the real question we ought to be asking is, where do they stand on the
$15 an hour? Do they think there should be a minimum wage increase,
because at 25 hours a week you can`t possibly support a family. The people
who are working there, you read their stories, they`re also working some
place else another 25 hours. They`re working 50 hours a week in two
different places.

So, the economy is not working for a lot of families at this point.

SCHULTZ: You know, Republics have been trying to redefine full-time
employment under Obamacare to be 40 hours a week. Would this help or harm
workers as you see it?

MCDERMOTT: Well, I think if you`ve taken the big picture Ed, this is in a
long-term good for us because they`re driving us toward single payer.
Employers are trying to get out of participating in the employer mandate.
They don`t want to provide for their employees if they can get out of it.

So they`re all playing all kinds of games and ultimately this 40-hour week
thing means everybody whose -- people are working 38 hours or 35 hours,
they aren`t going to have to offer them health insurance either. They will
come into the subsidized exchanges and be a part of the federal system.

I think we`re moving to a system where business is trying to offload their
responsibility for the health of their workers.

SCHULTZ: Well, and their workers can go get in the exchange if the
exchange is setup in the state that they`re operating in. I mean, when you
take a company that is dealing in all 50 states, well, on one hand
Obamacare is helping them on the other hand they`re trying to shed off the

I mean, it`s a race to the bottom line. That`s what it comes down to.

MCDERMOTT: Well, you see that you`ve just pointed out the reason why there
has to be national plan. There has to be a national single plan because
you can`t have 50 different states a company like this that`s in 50
different states. Their workers would be going to 50 different exchanges
all getting different things. They won`t know what they`re -- they won`t
have anybody to turn to, to say is this good or is this bad because every
place will be different.

And I really think that the whole question here of whether we`re going to
have 40-hour a week, is whether the employers want to give -- health
insurance to their workers or not. And...

SCHULTZ: Well...

MCDERMOTT: ... in my view, they don`t.

SCHULTZ: And the bottom line here is, nothing is going to change
legislatively on this. Republicans are never going to jump in and tell
businesses they can`t operate this way. They`re going to say, well the
free market, they can limit it too as many hours as they possible want.

So this problem isn`t going away anytime soon nor is it going to be address
anytime soon, correct?

MCDERMOTT: Right. The President put the agenda up there. He said, you
know, minimum wage should be increased and so forth.

He`s talking about the middle class. We`re talking about middle class
people who are working 24 hours a week in two different jobs to hold on to
their house...


MCDERMOTT: ... and their family and their education. They are struggling
like mad and we`re not getting any of from the Republicans.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Jim Mcdermott, good to have you with us. I
appreciate your time.

Coming up. There maybe trouble in Hillary land, the Rapid Response Panel
rips to cover off this one.

Speaking of covers, college football gets -- college football gets, yes,
its first Top 25 poll of 2015. Big names revealed in tonight`s two-minute
drill. Stay with us.

Market Wrap.

All three major averages (ph) soared higher today. The Dow gained 139
points, the S&P almost 22, and the NASDAQ up almost 62 or 1.3 percent.

Notable gainers today include Apple rising more than two points to become
the first U.S. company to come close with a market cap of over $700

And Coca-Cola rose about 3 percent after beating earning estimates by $0.02
a share.

That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching us tonight.

Hillary Clinton`s 2008 presidential campaign was basically (inaudible)
rumors of dysfunction, infighting and political backstabbing. Not good.
636 days out from the 2016 election and we`re hearing kind of the same

On Monday, Political Operative David Brock resigned from the Board of super
PAC Priorities USA Action.

Brock is a reformed conservative and a close Clinton ally. Brock is also a
founder of the pro-Clinton Groups American Bridge and Media Matters.

In his resignation letter obtained by Politico, Brock accused Priorities
officials of planning an orchestrated political hit job against his own
groups. Brock wrote a serious breach of trust between organizations that
are supposed to work together has created an untenable situation that
leaves me no choice but to resign my position.

Brock accused Priorities USA Action of planting a damaging New York Times
story which questioned the fundraising practices of Media Matters, American
Bridge and Ready for Hillary.

It was looking like a grim Clinton rerun until last night when Brock and
Priorities USA Action both released statements signaling truce. Brock
said, after speaking to several leaders of Priorities USA he was open to
returning to the board and finding a way to move forward.

Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm who is co-chairs of Priorities
super PAC released a statement saying the group is working to address
Brock`s concerns. Granholm wrote, "We all have the same shared goals."
There`s no doubt about that but it doesn`t sound like everybody is on the
same page.

Joining me tonight in our Rapid Response Panel, MSNBC Political Analyst
Jonathan Alter also with us, Democratic Strategist Bob Shrum. Gentlemen,
good to have you with us.


Bob, you first, what do you make of this infighting? I guess they better
get this stuff out of way early on, huh?

BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well first of all it shows you can pick
your staff but you can`t pick your super PACs.

Look, a lot of the Hillary folks who are close to her have some really
influence here. I suspect this we`ll get stitched up.

Brock has done some very useful work but he shouldn`t have gone public.
And no one should have in this mess gone to the press. And it symptomatic
of a challenge she faces. She has so much support, there`s so much money
slashing around. It`s a real challenge to make sure we have a discipline
campaign here. And that`s key. It`s a key to winning. That was a key to
no drama Obama. What we need here is no conflict Clinton.

Right now I don`t think voters care about this. They`re not paying any
attention to it. But if it happened months from now, then you would
disrupt the campaign, you`ve be thrown off message, you have a candidate in
disarray, a campaign in disarray.

So I think she`s right to take the time to hone her message, to get the
people in place, to impose some discipline because team of rivals may work
in a President`s cabinet. It does not work in a presidential campaign.

SCHULTZ: Jonathan, are these people just jockeying for power position here
and influence?

ALTER: Not just influence and power but money, and this is what`s
troubling here, what this is about is that is that there was a fundraiser
who raised millions of dollars for these different groups including David
Brock`s but she was taking a 12.5 percent commission.

So she was -- herself getting millions of dollars of the donors` money.
And a lot of those donors understandably got kind of upset because they
thought they were giving the money to Hillary not to the fundraiser.

And so, what this raises is the question of what Hillary supporters are in
it for. And this was a big gap between Hillary and Obama in 2008.

In 2008, Obama`s people were in it for Obama.


ALTER: They were selfless. And that`s what helped make the campaign work.

The Hillary people were more in it for themselves. If we get a repeat of
that this time, she won`t have the passion and a genuine commitment that
she needs to go the distance.

SCHULTZ: Why do I get a feeling Jonathan that Hillary got engaged in this?
She might have personally involved in mapping this thing up.

ALTER: I think that`s a pretty smart supposition here because she
realizes, as Bob said, that she just cannot have this kind of, you know,
turmoil in the ranks. And that people have to, you know, stop thinking
about themselves and whether they have been insulted by somebody else`s
leak or whether they`re getting a commission that they think they...


ALTER: ... deserve on their fundraising and start thinking about why
they`re doing this which is suppose to be elect Hillary Clinton.

SCHULTZ: And, Bob could we interpret this as David Brock saying, look I`m
going to be player here. I`ve been around this for a long time. The
grassroots are close to do -- how he operates. And he just has to be heard
and then Jennifer Granholm saying, acknowledging his concern like he will
be heard and will be influential in this. What do you make of it?

SHRUM: Look, disagreements happen in campaigns, but you can`t take them
outside. If you take them outside, you begin to get in a lot of trouble.
Now, Jonathan is right. A 12.5 percent commission on fundraising, I was
knocked over by that. That`s bigger than any other commission that I know
of inside presidential campaigns.

And in fairness look, the people who work for Barack Obama, a lot of them
who made the ads, did the mail all of that. They made a reasonable sum of
money even a generous sum of money in 2008. But this is way over the top.

Now, I don`t want to get into the middle of the dispute, its clear there`s
a Clinton people wanted to calm this thing down as quickly as possible.
It`s also clear by the way that Barack and Media Matter have done some
important work. And they`ve done a very effective job of defending her.
But I hope what`s happened here is that Hillary Clinton and the people
around her, they`re sending a very clear message. We`re not going to have
this kind campaign.


SHRUM: ... we`re not going to have the classic exercise of everybody,
every time their unhappy going to the press, going to Politico taking this
thing outside.

SCHULTZ: But wouldn`t you gentlemen be curious to know whether Hillary
knew that somebody was getting 12 percent off the top?

ALTER: Well, that`s a really good question because...

SCHULTZ: You know...

SHRUM: There is she shouldn`t by the way.

ALTER: Yeah...

SHRUM: In theory she can`t know what was being paid at the super PAC.

ALTER: Now this is something that Bob knows more about than I do. But I
take a really hard line on this.

So political consultant, fundraisers they`re in kind of two categories of
getting paid. One is retainer and they`re paid a certain amount and
another is percentage, either percentage of the money they raise or a
percentage of the ad buy (ph).

I think that candidate who lets his or her people work on a percentage to
have head examined. And there`s enough choices of different people who`re
talented in this area that everybody should work on a retainer. Nobody
should have vested interesting in putting on more ads or they get more
money, you know, or...

SCHULTZ: Well, it raises the question, the credibility of the fundraiser.
Are you in it for the money or do you really want Hillary to win?

ALTER: Yes, you`re right.

SCHULTZ: As you said that the...

ALTER: Exactly.

SCHULTZ: ... people were supporting Obama, they were selfishly, you know.

ALTER: They were...

SCHULTZ: Unselfishly should I say.

ALTER: There were, as Bob said, there were a lot of people made good money
in the Obama campaign. But overall there was a spirit...

SHRUM: Sure, yeah.

ALTER: ... of this being...


ALTER: ... about Obama and not about himself.

SHRUM: I do have to fess up on one thing. I mean in presidential
campaigns, my media firm was paid a commission. It was nothing like 12.5
percent. I find that an absolutely outstanding number and I think that`s
probably what set off the conflict here.

SCHULTZ: Well, it would seem to me they`re going to have to raise a lot of
money because Kochs just recently had fundraiser that did $268 million.
That`s a big chunk of almost a billion that they want to throw into this.
Bob, you`re thoughts.

SHRUM: Well, yeah. I said there`s going to have to be major fundraising
effort. I think the people who do the fundraising ought to be recompense,
a lot of them are very skillful.

I don`t necessarily agree with Jonathan, that none of these can on the
commission basis. But I think the commission has to be reasonable. I
don`t think there`s a theological bright line that has to be drawn here.
But where I do agree with him is that your really have to be committed to
the candidate, because you`re going to have moments when things are in
trouble, when things are tight, when for example you might as we did in the
Kerry campaign in the last couple of weeks. Say we just giving up...


SHRUM: ... giving up all the commission...

ALTER: And I think...

SHRUM: ... we want to put more money on T.V.


ALTER: The key thing here is that, some of the Obama people are now going
to work for Hillary. So there`s a very talented guy name Teddy Goff from
Ran Digital for Obama. They raised in the month of September 2012, a

SHRUM: Right.

ALTER: ... million online in donation under $100. That`s the way to
finance campaigns. The problem in politic is not money. It`s big money.
And if Hillary can tap that small donor-based she`s going to be OK.

SCHUTLZ: All right, Jonathan Alter, Bob Shrum. Always great to have both
of your guys on...

SHRUM: Right. Thanks.

SCHULTZ: ... this matter (ph). Thanks so much.

Coming up, California opens one of the world`s largest solar energy farms,
all thanks to what? You got it, federal funding. We`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: Two minute drill here we go. Preseason football poll already,
it`s February. National signing they just ended and already college
football fans have got something to chew on.

Here are the top teams in ESPN`s 2015 way to early preseason Top 25.
Number 3 goes to USC, Number 2 goes to Horned Frogs of TCU, Number 1
defending champs, Ohio State.

Next up, a league of their own, a little league pitching phenom and NBA
star shared a moment during warm ups of a basketball game Monday night.

Mo`ne Davis and Golden States Warriors point guard Stephen Curry exchange

Finally, vintage Lynch an NBA player attempted to take a page from Seattle
Seahawks Marshawn Lynch`s playbook for a post game interviews. L.A.
Clippers center DeAndre Jordan posted 22 points and 27 rebounds against the
Dallas Mavericks. He tried to channel his inner beast mode, but couldn`t
keep a straight face.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know shooters get into a zone but do rebounder get
into that same zone?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why is your mom here?

JORDAN: Oh no, she came to support.




SCHULTZ: And there`s a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: We are just minutes away from the launch of a critical NASA
mission. We talked about this yesterday on this program.

A SpaceX rocket will take a weather satellite into orbit to monitor climate
change with technology that could be a game changer, that launch to take
place at Cape Canaveral any moment now.

Now, this is the story for the folks who take a shower after work.

A 160,000 Southern California homes can now be powered by sunshine.


SALLY JEWELL, U.S. INTERIOR SECRETARY: Is blessed with a year-round sun
and what`s happening behind me is taking advantage of that year-round sun.


SCHULTZ: United States Interior Secretary joined California state
officials to open the 550 megawatt Desert Sunlight solar project.

Now, what made this project possible was federal funding.

First Solar, the projects developer received nearly $1.5 billion from the
United States Department of Energy.

Utility companies, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Southern California
Edison have already agreed to purchase power from Desert Sunlight for the
next two decades.

California seems to be leading the way with solar in the United States and
just a short time ago, Apple`s CEO Tim Cook announced that the company will
partner with First Solar to build an $850 million solar energy farm in
Monterey County, California.

Bernadette Del Chiaro, she is the Executive Director of the California
Solar Energy Industries Association joins us. Bernadette, I appreciate it.

This is, rather interesting that $1.5 billion of public money goes to this
certainly against the conservative thinking that lawmakers have had that,
you know, it`s only the private sector that`s going to get things done. Is
this a waste of money?

ASSOCIATION: Well, absolutely not. And the private sector is getting a
lot done especially in the solar industry sector. We grew by one -- the
United States -- the job growth in United States 1 full percentage of it
came just from the solar industry last year.

So we`re providing tremendous amounts of jobs and economic development not
just here in California but all across the country. So for the government
to do what it does best which is create opportunities for innovation and
for businesses to basically do what they do best, in this case turn our
abandoned sunshine into renewable pollution free electricity.

SCHULTZ: Isn`t this kind of a wake up moment for America? We haven`t
heard numbers like this or a project like this in the past.

DEL CHIARO: It`s phenomenal. We have installed just in California alone
more solar power in the past 18 months than the past 18 years combined.
We`re putting up more solar power both in rooftops, hundreds of thousands
rooftops across the country as well as large projects in the desert like
the one you refer to that just unveiled today.

We`re doing this basically every single day of the year and it is the
absolutely the wave of the future. It`s here to stay and it`s a really --
a huge success story of government actually getting behind smart,
innovative no-brainer business opportunities turning the sunlight into real

SCHULTZ: This got very little or no conversation. I mean, $1.5 billion, I
mean, there is global investment going on solar energy and obviously it`s
on the move of the United States now but could we be doing more, is there
more money where this came from?

DEL CHIARO: Absolutely. I mean, first of all, the government`s role is
mostly in reducing risks so that businesses can come in and make those
investments and invest hundreds of times more than what the, you know, tax
payers investing in a promising technology and that`s what we`re really

We`re also seeing individual homeowners and individual businesses -- you
mentioned Apple, they`re coming up, stepping up to the plate and putting
their money with their mouth just in terms of investing in pollution free
and really smart forward thinking technologies like solar.

So there`s a really important role for government to continue to play. You
know, one of the things we need to do here is level the playing field
between wind and solar and renewable energy that is homegrown, it`s
American grown and its pollution free and traditional energy sources which
are benefited for a hundred years with government subsidies.

So, what the government is doing is help to level the playing field, reduce
risks and business will basically step up and innovation will take care of
the rest and we`ll be able to run our computers and toaster ovens in our
cities on pollution free electricity...

SCHULTZ: Where is the next...

DEL CHIARO: ... in the very near term.

SCHULTZ: Bernadette, where is the next big opportunity here? I mean, the
sunshine is on a lot of places in America.

DEL CHIARO: Yeah. I mean, really our cities, the rooftops, through out
our cities are the next biggest untapped potential. To give you a sense,
California has the biggest rooftop market right now in rooftop solar.
We`ve only installed maybe 1 percent -- 2 percent of the roofs here in the
state. So we`ve really only scratched the surface.

We have cities up all across the country that are investing in the rooftop
solar, New Jersey, Massachusetts, even in the middle of the country, Texas,
there is real Cinderella stories of unlikely, you know, states coming up
and realizing that saving consumers` money, putting people to work right in
your community, you can`t outsource these jobs. They`re inherently
naturally American.

SCHULTZ: What kind of jobs are we talking about here? This is the money
shot. What kind of job? Is this a job creator?

DEL CHIARO: It is absolutely a job creator. The solar industry just -- we
have recently report for the Solar Foundation says the solar industry
across American employs 175,000 people and what`s really important is the

So we`ve grown. We added 1 percent of all of the jobs that what added to
America were come -- just from the solar industry, 1 whole percent.

So we`re actually playing a major role in creating new meaningful good
jobs, good careers for everyday Americans all across the country.

SCHULTZ: I like it. Bernadette Del Chiaro, great to have you with us
tonight. I appreciate your time. Great story.

We have a quick update, NASA just scrubbed the launch of the SpaceX rocket.
They`ll give it another shot at 6:03 P.M. Eastern Time on Wednesday.

That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz.

PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening,


Copyright 2015 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>