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

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Tuesday, February 24th, 2015

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Date: February 24, 2015
Guest: Sen. Claire McCaskill, Sen. Mark Warner, Amanda Terkel, Joseph
Califano, Steve McMahon


Let`s play HARDBALL.

Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington.

Two huge stories tonight, both pointing to historic breakthroughs. The
first involves Homeland Security and immigration. Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell today called for the Senate to separate the two red-hot issues.
He wants a clean Homeland spending bill to meet the midnight deadline
Friday on keeping the department running and a separate, straight up-or-
down vote on whether to countermand the president`s executive orders on

The second big story tonight is word of breakthrough on U.S. efforts to win
a long-term halt in Iran`s nuclear program. We`re going to get to that
biggie next.

But let`s start with Mitch McConnell`s OK to move ahead with a Homeland
Security bill, but also with a separate bill to countermand Obama --
President Obama`s executive orders on immigration.

We`ve got NBC`s Kelly O`Donnell to tell us what this all means. Kelly,
this is an interesting division. He`s going to have a vote to basically
avoid a shutdown Homeland Security spending, but also expose those moderate
and conservative Democrats in the Senate to perhaps vote against the
president and vote to countermand his executive orders on immigration.

KELLY O`DONNELL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Exactly. Mitch McConnell has come
with an idea that would take the heat off of Republicans in Congress and
really all of Congress by finding a way to fund the Department of Homeland
Security and do sort of the right thing when it comes to being the
governing party. But he also wanted to keep the pressure on Democrats and
the president over the executive orders on immigration.

So he found a path. We don`t yet know if that will work, but what he`s
come up with is a willingness to do that funding bill without any
restrictions dealing with the immigration order, what`s kind of known in
Washington as a clean way to keep the Department of Homeland Security
funded for the whole fiscal year.

And then on Friday, he says, he wants to hold a vote, much more narrow, to
say that Congress would, in fact, stop the president from having the
funding just to implement the November executive order -- a limited
approach, less than what was in the original House bill, but a way to
especially have those centrist Democrats who have publicly said they
believe the president went too far, to have to answer on a bill, to be
called to really put their name on this.

We don`t know if it`ll work, Chris, because Senate Democratic leader Harry
Reid is saying, Not so fast. I want assurances from John Boehner that
House Republicans will go along. And he`s leaning on the fact that
sometimes Speaker Boehner has said, yes, he agrees with something, but
hasn`t been able to brings his conference along.

MATTHEWS: OK, well, it sounds like Harry doesn`t like the way this is
going, but it seems to me McConnell is a wily fox here because, basically,
as you said, he takes the heat off the Republicans because they`re not
holding up funding for Homeland Security in the wake of all these
discussions about the Mall of America and things like that. At the same
time, isn`t he putting a scorching heat on those moderate and centrist
Democrats you mentioned who may well not want to be caught for voting for
president`s perhaps overreach of authority on illegal immigration --

O`DONNELL: Exactly that. And he needs to do something to put the pressure
on Democrats because it is so important to Republicans, and especially very
conservative Republicans, to use their power of legislating to try to stop
the president. And there are so few opportunities for them to do that with
respect to those executive orders. So this is a way to say they`ll let the
courts deal with it. They`ll fund the department, but they`ll show
Democrats a chance to say, Are you with the president or are you not when
it comes to that particular executive order, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Smart fellow, that Mitch McConnell. Anyway, I`m not sure he`s
right, but he`s smart. Thank you, Kelly O`Donnell, for the great report.

O`DONNELL: Good to see you.

Last November Democratic senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri said this
about the president`s executive actions on immigration. Quote, "Our
immigration system is broken, and I support a comprehensive plan to fix it,
but executive orders aren`t the way to do it."

Senator McCaskill joins me now. Senator, if you were to get a freestanding
vote to countermand the president`s executive orders on illegal
immigration, would you vote to countermand?

SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: It`s not that I would vote to
countermand. It was I would rather debate and vote on getting rid of his
executive orders by Congress doing its job, Chris. We need to debate
immigration reform.

We hammered out a bill that wasn`t perfect, but it was exactly what we do
in a democracy. It was a compromise. We had a lot of Republican support
for the bill. We sent it to the House almost two years ago, and they never
took it up to debate it.

We`ve got to decide whether our job is to play political football with the
president, or whether our job is to legislate fixing a broken system.
That`s what we should be focused on.

MATTHEWS: Well, the Republicans in the Senate, your colleagues up there,
seem to want to do anything they can to eliminate what Obama, the
president, did last fall. Do you see there`s going to be a vote? Does it
look like that the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, is going to get his
way and have a vote like that?

MCCASKILL: Well, first what`s going to have to happen is they`re going to
have to fund the Department of Homeland Security. We had need to speak
with one voice. Right now, when we are threatened in so many ways, we need
to not be playing political games with the funding of Homeland Security.
So let`s get that funded. Get it off the table.

The Republicans are in charge. They can bring up whatever they want to
bring up about immigration the very next day, and let`s debate it. And
let`s amend it and let`s try to hammer out a solution. Just overturning
his orders puts us right back where we are, with a broken system, with not
enough protection at the border, without the kind of resources we need to
provide, you know, a lot of industries that are depending on people with
Green Cards.

We`ve got to fix this system, and that`s what we ought to do. And this is
what Congress has gotten so bad at. Our muscles about legislating have
atrophied. We need to remember our that job here is to compromise and get
legislation passed, not just beat up the president.

MATTHEWS: Well, the Senate did a great job with a dozen Republicans
supporting you guys. You got a good immigration reform bill. I think it`s
really first rate. I wish the House would pass it. But now we`re stuck
with a court system that looks like it`s going to declare -- it could well
declare what the president did last fall unconstitutional. That leaves you
back to square one, as well, just as a vote would do that, wouldn`t it?

MCCASKILL: Yes, and that`s the point. I wish that more people would be
asking Speaker Boehner, Well, what is your idea, not what upsets you about
the president, but what is your solution for the immigration problem? It`s
not realistic that we can deport...


MCCASKILL: ... 12 million people in this country. And so why do we give
them a pass? Why can they just be negative? Why can`t they be
constructive and come with a plan? It`s a little bit like them saying
they`ll repeal and replace health care reform. Have you ever seen replace?

MATTHEWS: Could it be...

MCCASKILL: I`ve never seen replace.

MATTHEWS: Could it be, Senator, if I can be candid -- you don`t have to be
-- that they`ve got 218 votes in districts that don`t have a significant
number of Latino voters, and that`s what they`re voting. This is an ethnic
thing. They figure they can stand hard against immigration, illegal
immigration, whatever, because they don`t have to deal with it politically.
They just vote against it.

MCCASKILL: Well, they need to talk to agricultural interests in this
country and they need to talk to the Chamber of Commerce and they need to
talk to businesses about whether or not -- and the talent we`re losing in
this country because of the difficulty of highly educated people to be
allowed to remain in this country.

So yes, you know, they`re all in safe districts, and yes, they`re all
worried about either their right or left flank, and the moderate people
have kind of gone away in the House. But that doesn`t remove their
responsibility to be a constructive partner with the Senate, debate bills,
compromise on bills and try to pass bills.

You know, I don`t think the American people are going to get excited about
a Republican majority that just figures out every day a new way to beat up
the president.

MATTHEWS: Well said. Thank you so much, Senator Claire McCaskill of
Missouri. Thanks for joining us.

MCCASKILL: Thanks, Chris.

MATTHEWS: One of the Senate Democrats that Mitch McConnell`s targeting is
Democratic senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who has gone on record
criticizing the president`s executive actions on illegal immigration. Last
fall, he told reporters, "A big issue like immigration, the best way to get
a comprehensive solution is to take this through the legislative process."

Senator Warner joins us now from Capitol Hill. It looks to me, Senator,
like Mitch McConnell has been very much the wily fox here. He`s gotten the
heat off his party by saying he`s not going to hold up funding for Homeland
Security at this time of theories and worries about terrorism coming at us.
At the same time, he`s making folks like you, who are more moderate
Democrats, deal with the issue of the way the president handled the issue
of illegal immigration last fall.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D), VIRGINIA: Well, Chris, let`s take them one at a
time. You know, the fact is, it would be crazy to cut off funding to
Homeland Security. We have 17,000 DHS employees in Virginia alone, the
idea of al Shabaab putting out videos, threatening American malls -- this
is not the time to stop funding for Homeland Security.

And both sides, Democrats and Republicans, had already agreed on the
numbers. So this is a simply add-on by the Republicans. Now, at the end
of the day, whether this plan that the majority leader has put forward -- I
think you`re (ph) still going to be seeing what will happen in the House.
If we end up coming back and the House simply sticks back on these
conditions, we`ve not made progress. So we need to see a bill get to the
president that he can sign before Friday night at midnight so that
Americans can go around their daily lives recognizing that Homeland
Security`s going to get funded.

MATTHEWS: But why doesn`t the Senate just do its job and pass a clean
bill? Why (INAUDIBLE) Harry Reid number (ph) -- He`s up to something here,
Harry Reid. He is doing something here. You guys, especially him, seem to
be worried that you have to vote on this immigration freestanding part of

WARNER: No, I`m not -- no, I -- listen, as someone who said I wish the
president would have done this legislatively, I think they should have
taken up the immigration bipartisan bill that the Senate passed, 14
Republicans voted for. And we have already seen now the court put a hold
on that action. They`re going to resolve that.

I would not vote for that standalone bill that rolls back the November 14
executive order because that executive order, whether it was for dreamers,
whether it was for some of their parents, whether it was some of the kids
who`ve been previous dreamers who had not been covered by the earlier
action -- I think that would have been all part of the immigration reform
that I supported in the past. Why would I vote against it now?

MATTHEWS: Do you believe it`s constitutional, what the president did last

WARNER: I think the courts...


MATTHEWS: ... executive.

WARNER: I think the courts are going to rule on that.

MATTHEWS: Where`s your ruling?

WARNER: Hey, listen, that`s why I never became a lawyer and became a
business guy (INAUDIBLE) instead.

MATTHEWS: OK. One last time. Why doesn`t the Senate do its job and pass
a clean Homeland Security bill to fund through the next segment of the --
from now to October 1st?

WARNER: Chris...

MATTHEWS: Why not just do that and expect the House to do what it has to

WARNER: Chris, you and I know that -- you and I and a few folks who follow
the insides/outsides of who`s up and who`s down are very few in number in
terms of House and Senate. What the American people want, what Virginia --
people of Virginia want is they want to make sure that Homeland Security
doesn`t go without funding after Friday night at midnight. The only way we
do that is if we get a bill that has no riders to the president of the
United States so he can sign it.

MATTHEWS: Anyway, you`re my kind of Democrat, so I hope it doesn`t hurt
you to hear that. But thank you so much...

WARNER: Thanks, Chris.

MATTHEWS: ... Senator Mark Warner, a reasonable guy from Virginia.

Coming up, the United States is inches closer to an historic deal with Iran
over its nuclear program, and that news comes just days, of course, before
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu`s controversial address to the

Plus, Hillary Clinton talks to the women of Silicon Valley. She`s
connecting with her base for 2016, women. That`s a big change in strategy
from the last time she ran.

And what`s next for the secretary of Veterans Affairs? He apologized again
today for falsely saying he was in the military`s special forces. He says
he was trying to connect with a homeless veteran and has no excuse for
making a statement that wasn`t true.

Finally, "Let Me Finish" with the upbeat news from Iran, and it is good

This is HARDBALL, the place for politics.


MATTHEWS: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says the U.S. Senate will
take up an override of President Obama`s veto of the Keystone pipeline
bill. The president issued the veto late this afternoon. It`s the third
of his presidency -- only the third of his presidency -- and McConnell
promises the Senate will consider an override no later than March. The
Keystone pipeline bill passed the Senate last month by a vote of 62 to 36.
And as it now stands, it looks unlikely that McConnell will have the two
thirds majority needed to override the president`s veto.

And we`ll be right back after this.


JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: The policy is Iran will not get a nuclear
weapon. And anybody running around right now jumping in to say, Well, we
don`t like the deal, or this or that, doesn`t know what the deal is. There
is no deal yet. And I caution people to wait and see what these
negotiations produce. The P5-plus-1 talks have made inroads since the
joint plan of action. We`ve halted the progress of Tehran`s nuclear
program. We`ve gained unprecedented insight into it, and we expect to know
soon whether or not Iran is willing to put together an acceptable and
verifiable plan.


MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That, was of course, U.S. Secretary
of State John Kerry testifying today. Yesterday, he met with his Iranian
counterpart in Geneva, and both sides are reporting progress. And
according to some reports, they could be on the verge of a breakthrough.

The Associated Press reports, "One variation being discussed would place at
least a 10-year regime of strict controls on Iran`s uranium enrichment. If
Iran complied, the restrictions would be gradually lifted over the final
five years. And one issue critics are certain to focus on, once the deal
expired, Iran could theoretically ramp up enrichment to whatever level it

Well, those are the facts. The sides are trying to reach a framework
agreement by March 31st of this year, but there are plenty of obstacles,
including very vocal critics both in Tehran and here in Washington. And
Israel`s prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, of course, is still planning to
speak to the Congress on March 3rd of this, where he`s likely to criticize
a potential deal with Iran.

NBC News special correspondent Ann Curry is just back from covering the
nuclear talks in Geneva. Ann, it`s so great to have you on for anything,
but for this hot story -- I am one of those who really is hopeful. I don`t
want to go to war with Iran because I don`t think it will ever end. I
don`t think we`re going to get tougher sanctions from our allies than we
have now, so I think the one route to avoiding a nuclear weapon or an
arsenal of nuclear weapons in the hands of the ayatollahs is what we`re

Do we have hope now?

ANN CURRY, NBC SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think that we do. In the
past, what we`ve learned is that not talking to Iran actually doesn`t work,
that, in fact, when you don`t talk to Iran, they actually increase the
number of centrifuges. They increase their enrichment capacity, so there
is (INAUDIBLE) effect.

I learned from somebody who was actually in the room -- and imagine this,
Chris -- that right after 9/11, then Iranian president Khatami actually
offered the United States that he would limit the number of centrifuges to
164 centrifuges. Because the United States was not talking to Iran, we did
not take that deal.

And now we`re talking about trying to pull back thousands of centrifuges
from Iran. So the idea of talking to Iran is actually ultimately going to
be safer. The question, though, the big debate that you talk about when
you talk about Bibi Netanyahu coming to speak next Tuesday before Congress
is, ultimately, what will be the guts of the deal?

And as you just heard from the secretary of state, who I flew back with
from Geneva last night on his government plane, we don`t actually know the
specifics of the deal. And we`ve already been told that even the things
that they have agreed to can be changed until they finally sign the bottom
line, which won`t be until June.

But there is a deadline coming up, as you just talked about, at the end of
March. And the interesting thing about that deadline that most people
don`t realize, that it`s not March 31st because -- well, probably not
because the Persian new year actually begins on March 21st, and just as the
United States negotiators refused to negotiate through Thanksgiving, it is
highly unlikely that the Iranian negotiators will want to continue to
negotiate past the 21st.

That new year lasts through April 4th, so that really talks about just in a
matter of weeks, they`ve got to nail this thing down if they want to make a
political framework that ultimately will lead to the kind of deal you`re
talking about.

MATTHEWS: Ann, you talked about them reducing the number of centrifuges.
I don`t understand a lot of this, but are they retrenching what they have,
destroying what they have, or simply agreeing or basically agreeing to a
lower number of centrifuges that they`re producing?

CURRY: You know, I think the real confusion -- and we talked about
enrichment, we talk about centrifuges. It becomes very, very complicated,
because it`s really about nuclear science. It`s about physics. And I
think it`s hard for people to really understand. I can tell you that the
debate is how many centrifuges to allow Iran to still have.


CURRY: But the real way to understand this is in what you talked about
earlier, which is the breakout capacity. How long would it take Iran to
build a nuclear bomb, a nuclear weapon bomb?

And currently what we understand is on the table is that Iran would be
limited to one year. In other words, it would take them a year. They
would have the things, the centrifuges, the enriched uranium, all those
kinds of ingredients, that that would -- it would take a year to work with
these tools to create a bomb.

Now, I need to hasten to add that Iran has insisted consistently that it
has no interest in building a nuclear bomb, a nuclear weapon, that it`s
against its faith, it`s again Sharia. It`s a Shia country, a Muslim
country, and this has come from the supreme leader.

But the interesting thing, the things that it needs to make a nuclear
program for what it says are peaceful purposes are the same sorts of
ingredients, these kinds of things we`re talking about, the enrichment, the
centrifuges, as it will need for making a weapon. So the question really
kind of comes down to trust.

And so the interesting thing that happened -- interesting sort of step
forward that happened during this particular round of talks is for the
first time, two other cabinet members came along with those two men you see
on your screen -- that`s the Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, on the
left, and the secretary of state, John Kerry, on the right.

Along with them, both of them brought their energy secretaries. The United
States energy secretary joined the talks, along with his Iranian
counterpart, Dr. Salehi. These two men actually both went to MIT to study
physics. In fact, we were told it was possible that they were so close --
that they were there almost at the same time, if not at the same time,
though we have not learned whether or not they ever actually bumped into
each other or knew each other.

These two people are considered just brainiacs on the subject matter. And
the difficulty in talking about this politically is that most anyone, most
anybody at that table will probably not fully understand unless they have
the voice of these highly trained people, every little itsy-bitsy part of


CURRY: And I use the word itsy-bitsy, because obviously I`m one of those
people who don`t -- who can`t claim to understand nuclear physics.

I think that those two people being at the table this time, for the first
time, brought a degree of comfort and a degree of credibility to the talks.
And I think it was clear -- though no one was speaking publicly on the
record, it was clear that there was a degree of comfort that their
brainpower brought this time, that it created.

MATTHEWS: Ann Curry, it`s great to have you on.

I am hopeful after that report. Thank you so much. I hope we can avoid a
war. I hope we can avoid them ever getting a nuclear weapon.

Thank you so much for that hot report.


MATTHEWS: Up next, 50 years after Selma, we look back on the march that
changed America, and the president who helped deliver the right to vote for
everyone. It`s all now on the books because of one president, LBJ.

And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics.



There`s been a lot of talk this week about Selma, of course, and next week
President Obama is going down to Alabama to commemorate that 50th
anniversary of the historic event, when civil rights demonstrators were met
with police violence at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma.

Last weekend, the leader of that demonstrations, U.S. Congressman John
Lewis of Georgia, spoke on CBS about the legacy of that historic day.


REP. JOHN LEWIS (D), GEORGIA: I don`t think as a group we had any idea
that our marching feet across that bridge would have such an impact 50
years later. If it hadn`t been for that march across Edmund Pettus Bridge
on Bloody Sunday, there would be no Barack Obama as president of the United
States of America.


MATTHEWS: Well, Joseph Califano Jr. was the chief assistant for domestic
affairs to President Lyndon Johnson. He`s author of the memoir "The
Triumph and Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson," with a new introduction just out.
He joins me right now.

He joins me right now.

Joe, thank you for joining us.

Who was the greatest civil rights president?

think it`s a tossup between Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson. I think
there`s no one closer to them, I think, Lincoln with the Emancipation

But Johnson did put a lot of flesh on it with the Civil Rights Act
prohibiting discrimination in employment and public accommodations, the
Voting Rights Act, which, as John Lewis just said, was really a partnership
between Johnson and Martin Luther King, and the Fair Housing Act in 1968,
in the wake of King`s assassination.

I think LBJ has to be way up there. And affirmative action, let`s not
forget that.


You know, driving down to spring break back at Holy Cross, where you went
as well, I remember driving down to the South, through Georgia and places
like that, and there were still those "white only" signs at the gas
stations and "white only" signs at the convenience stores, even though they
were outlawed by that act. They were still floating up there. People
hadn`t ripped them down yet.

But it shows you how life was. You remember it, what it was like in the
early `60s still.

CALIFANO: Oh, I know it.

Listen, when I came -- I was in Washington in the Navy from 1955 to 1958.
The theaters were segregated. Even -- remember the great August `63 march.
I was in the Pentagon then. I worked with the -- Walter Fauntroy and
Bayard Rustin, two great civil rights leaders, to help the Army`s part of
that march and the Justice Department.

And I remember we had trouble with the hotels. They didn`t want to take
black clients in the hotels, hotels like the Mayflower, all these great
hotels. They wanted no part of it.

MATTHEWS: Yes. People forget that D.C. was a segregated city, very much
so. It was very much a Southern town.

Anyway, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, what Johnson signed, passed with four
out of five Republicans. People don`t believe the Republican Party in
those days, and all but six Republican senators in the entire U.S. Senate.
And the Voting Rights Act passed with similar support from Republicans in
the House and the Senate a year later.

Joe, you live up in New York. You know that city. You know the Northeast.


MATTHEWS: What happened to those Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and
Jack Javits and Hugh Scott and all those people who totally, utterly
building in civil rights? They would be scorned in the party of Reince
Priebus, which is out there trying to kill voting terrorists through these
I.D. laws.

CALIFANO: Well, the I.D. laws, and they have been drummed out of the
Republican Party.

One of the great things about those years that people forget is that
virtually all those civil rights laws and all of those Great Society laws
were passed with significant Republican support. They were bipartisan

MATTHEWS: So what happened, Joe? Was Johnson right when he said the
minute he signed that civil rights bill in `64 he was kissing the South
goodbye, but he was also kissing the moderate Republican Party goodbye?

CALIFANO: Well, he certainly kissed the South goodbye, although we may see
the South start to inch back, because, as he knew, the Voting Rights Act
was the most important piece of legislation in his administration, the
proud -- the thing he was most proud of.

And as minorities and blacks become a bigger and bigger part of the voting
bloc down there, we`re going to see a change in the South, maybe not in my
lifetime, but within the next 20 years.



Your book is called "The Triumph and Tragedy."

Let me ask you about this important question.

Who is Joe Califano going to endorse for the Democratic nomination for the
president next year?


MATTHEWS: And here is your chance on national television to do what you
wish. Joe Califano now endorses Hillary Clinton or fails to. Which is it
going to be?


CALIFANO: Let me tell you, I want a bold leader. I think we`re at a
situation. We need a bold leader.

We have income inequality. We have education inequality. We have climate
change. You have a revolution in communications and technology. We need
somebody that`s going to go big and bold.

MATTHEWS: Keep going.

CALIFANO: And I would hope that whoever the Democratic nominee is does



CALIFANO: Not stay in the middle.

MATTHEWS: Whoever. You`re endorsing whoever.

CALIFANO: There`s no room -- there`s no room in the middle for greatness.


CALIFANO: You have got to be bold.

MATTHEWS: How about -- would you like Elizabeth Warren to challenge
Hillary for the nomination?

CALIFANO: I would like to see a vigorous Democratic debate. I think it
would be a -- it would be a very good thing.

But I think whoever the nominee is...

MATTHEWS: Would Elizabeth be able to fight that vigorous debate against

CALIFANO: I think it`s going to be very tough.

You know that and I know that, especially with the money you need today.
And we`re talking about an election that could be a billion-and-a-half on
each side, Republican and Democrat. A $3 billion election, Chris, my God.

MATTHEWS: John Podesta will be calling you tomorrow morning, or tonight,
Joe, perhaps to discuss this inability of you to get behind the right


MATTHEWS: Anyway, just teasing.

But we are waiting for your endorsement because you`re a powerful voice
against the evils of addiction and things like that, but I thought you
might favor us with a news announcement tonight. Anyway.

CALIFANO: Well, I just want big. Bold is beautiful for me. And I hope
that Hillary, I hope any Democratic candidate will be bold.

I think that`s -- you know, look at the last century, Chris, Theodore
Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson. They didn`t go to the


CALIFANO: They went bold and they brought the middle to them. That`s what
the Democratic Party has to do.


You have had your say, and you have had your chance, and you have blown it.


MATTHEWS: Anyway, thank you.

The book is called "The Triumph and Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson." It`s in
paperback with a new introduction by Joseph Califano.

Up next: Hillary Clinton is pushing something this time around that she
didn`t do last time. And that`s ahead.

You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics.


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

Jury deliberations are expected to begin soon in the trial of Eddie Ray
Routh. The ex-Marine is accused of fatally shooting American sniper Chris
Kyle and another man in February of 2013. A verdict could come as early as

And 28 people were hurt, four critically, when a commuter train hit a truck
and derailed outside Los Angeles.

And former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa says he will not run for Barbara
Boxer`s Senate seat. She will not run for reelection next year -- now back


And this is going to be interesting. Hillary Clinton was back in the
spotlight today, late today, speaking before a crowded room at a women`s
conference in Silicon Valley out in California, where she was reportedly
paid a speaking fee of $300,000, according to "The Washington Post."

Well, Hillary Clinton was making her 2016 pitch to what is referred to as
the upwardly mobile professional women, or, as some call, them the lean-in
voters. And Hillary hit the gender themes hard today, leaning in as a
champion for women. Here she is.


Madeleine Albright famously said there`s a special spot in hell for women
who don`t help other women.



CLINTON: So, what you do does not have to be big and dramatic. You don`t
have to run for office.





As NBC`s Andrea Mitchell put it, last time Hillary Clinton ran, she played
down her gender, as she tried to prove that a woman could be, for example,
commander in chief. Well, this time, her role as mother and grandmother
will be central to her campaign, according to her advisers. That`s news.

Being the first female candidate likely to become a major party nominee for
president is, of course, the change part of Hillary 2.0, intended to
mitigate against her age and the fact that she could be or would be the
second Clinton if she wins the White House.

Well, joining the roundtable right now is Huffington Post senior political
reporter Amanda Terkel, former Republican chairman and MSNBC political
analyst Michael Steele, and Democratic strategist Steve McMahon. He is
really a strategist, by the way.



MATTHEWS: I got to go to you, Amanda, on this thing, because, first of
all, before we went to break, I`m asking you and others here on the panel,
on the roundtable, should we call her Hillary? And I guess people -- on
the posters were Hillary, first name, because -- to separate it from bill.

And we always around here rather causally and somebody abusively at times
say W. So we are used to separating people of the same surname by their
first name. But I can also -- I also try to say Secretary Clinton. I try
to say Senator Clinton, not often. I think she goes by Secretary Clinton,
the most formal protocol.

Let`s get back to women. She`s not running as just another candidate. She
is running, it seems from this, although it was to a group of women, as the
woman candidate.


She was reaching out to women today who see themselves in Hillary Clinton.
They are upwardly mobile women who sit at a table full of men and they
think, I`m smarter than all these guys, why am I not in charge? Hillary,
I`m sure, has thought that many times.


MATTHEWS: But they could be wrong.


MATTHEWS: You could be wrong when you -- I mean, I think I`m smarter than
everybody, too. I could be wrong. Listen, we`re all guilty. Well, go on.


TERKEL: But these are women who are very underrepresented in their field.

MATTHEWS: Who doesn`t think they`re smarter than everybody else?

TERKEL: I think more men think that than women think that.

And I think that they would like to see Hillary break that final barrier,
the cracks in the glass ceiling, the glass ceiling finally break.


TERKEL: And they`re going to work on behalf of her. They have money and
they will fund-raise for her.

MATTHEWS: So, do you think, as a journalist or as a person, that if
Hillary gets elected president -- as she`s got as good a shot as anybody.

TERKEL: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: She`s I think quite plausibly the next president -- that women
will behave differently?

Like, every time I go give speeches or do a Q&A, every guy in the room has
got a question. Women don`t do it.

What is -- is that me?


TERKEL: It will take a while. I mean, women often don`t run for office,
for example, because they aren`t encouraged to run for office.

MATTHEWS: How about this? Put your hand up.

TERKEL: They aren`t encouraged to run for office. They don`t wake up and
look in the mirror and say I see a senator, I see a president. If they see
a woman as president, they might start to think that more and be encouraged
more and be told, you`re smart, rather than, oh you look so pretty.


STEVE MCMAHON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I have four daughters, I tell them
they look pretty and they`re smart. I thought it was very interesting what
she was doing today because she seems very mindful of the fact that 53
percent of voters in any presidential race for anything are women. She was
very, very explicit about --

MATTHEWS: In California, by the way, it`s about 60 percent of the
Democratic Party are women.

MCMAHON: The other thing I thought was interesting was she basically said
there were two things the next president needs to do. One is make the
economy work for everybody, especially the middle class, has been left out,
make wage growth a priority again. But the second thing she talked about
was, we need somebody who can bring the left and right together, which, you
know, people often think of Hillary Clinton as a polarizing figure, but the
mother and grandmother in her was talking about --

MATTHEWS: You think that`s the zealot, it`s that Machiavellian, I`m a
grandmother, I can make people get along?

MCMAHON: I think it`s, I`m a woman, and that`s just another advantage of
being woman, because women can bring people together.

MATTHEWS: OK, Bobby Kennedy, one of our heroes, most people here, probably
yours, too, said, hang a lantern on your problem. If you got a problem,
everybody calls you ruthless, don`t try to hide from it. Is being a
grandmother, which I`m heard she`s pushing -- she is one, my wife is
grandmother, I`m a grandfather -- is a way of saying I`m a little older,
but there`s a plus to that?

puts her in the mainstream of conversations at kitchen tables around the
country. It puts her in the mainstream of living room where grandmas and
granddads are sitting there playing with their grandkids and watching her
give a speech. I think that`s something she wants to tap into this time.
I was amazed in watching her and kind of smiling, it`s sort of like the
where`s Waldo of politics today? Where is Hillary? Everybody wants to
talk about --


MATTHEWS: You could say, she`s where they`re paying $300,000. That`s a
heck of a lot of money for an hour.

STEELE: She`s not only a grandmother, but she`s a smart businesswoman.
So, I think, you know --

MATTHEWS: To get in I think it was like 300 bucks.

TERKEL: She`s getting paid to talk to her base.

MATTHEWS: Well, that`s cute.


MATTHEWS: Anyway, on Sunday, at the Oscars, we all watch actress Patricia
Arquette voiced her loud support and actually got a standing ovation for
the issue of equal pay. Here it is to remind of what happened to the


PATRICIA ARQUETTE, ACTRESS: To every taxpayers and citizen of this nation,
we have fought for everybody else`s equality rights. It`s our time to have
wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the United
States of America.


MATTHEWS: That`s, of course, Meryl Streep seconding the argument. Earlier
today, Hillary Clinton seconded herself Arquette`s call for wage fairness.
Here is the secretary.


same work, which is why I think we all cheered at Patricia Arquette`s
speech at the Oscars, because she`s right. It`s time to have wage equality
once and for all.


MATTHEWS: So the bills out there, the bill we are fighting over here, is
to somehow make it work, wage equality. It`s on the books now, but it
doesn`t work for a lot of reasons.

TERKEL: Right. This would be a focus of Hillary Clinton`s administration
if she did take office. She had the final frontier is equal opportunities
for women and girls. She did this as secretary of state. Her argument
today was in some ways economic. We can`t succeed as a country
economically if we`re only utilizing half our population. And so, we need
these family-friendly policies that help not only women, but help men. And
I think that will be a big focus, more than it was last time.

MATTHEWS: Michael, years ago I got away for writing an article in "The New
Republic" about political parenthood, how the made candidates of the
Republican Party, your party, is all for guns, and for national defense,
capital punishment, tough, macho stuff. The Democratic party is for health
care, education, child development, women`s issues. You can say, yes, the
mommy and the daddy party. I`m not saying that anymore.

But Hillary seems to be very carefully saying, OK, I`ll be the mommy party,
that`s the big part of my agenda, and I`ll say it -- health care,
education, equal play, I will play that part. I`m not running for general
of the armies here.

STEELE: Oh, I think that`s probably true, but she`ll get tripped up on it
when, you know, the facts come out that, you know, she`s caught in that pay
equity gap just like every other employer out there, given what women made
in her office as secretary of state versus what --

MATTHEWS: Aren`t those government statutory titles --

STEELE: Well, again, but, yes, but you`re the secretary, you can change
that. You can pay --

MATTHEWS: You have that knife in your pocket. You had that ready.


STEELE: The numbers are the numbers. And the reality of it is --

MATTHEWS: Do you have the facts on this?

STEELE: Yes, I do, and it`s been reported. But again, this is -- this is
part of the conversation we`re going to have, and that as she steps out
into this light, a lot of these things are going to come out how she
handles them playing to that role that you said.

MATTHEWS: Do you want to say something here?

MCMAHON: Well, first of all, I think Michael is grasping, and her salary
is set by statute. But beyond that I think --

MATTHEWS: Not her, her employees, the women who worked in her office.

MCMAHON: I think Andrea Mitchell is absolutely right. She was the
candidate who happened to be a female candidate for president last time.
This time, she`s going to be the female candidate for president, and she`s
going to play it.

Don`t underestimated second part which I mentioned a moment ago. People
are so tired of the gridlock which is represented and embodied by all the
men fighting all the time in Washington, and only the women can make things

MATTHEWS: It`s just too bad the Republicans don`t have General Petraeus to
run, because if you guys had him, he`s a very smart guy and would play the
daddy party very well.

STEELE: If he decides to run, we`ll be ready for Hillary. This is the
least of our concerns at this point, trust me.

MATTHEWS: I like the way your eyes flashed there, at least -- it`s very


MATTHEWS: Anyway, the roundtable is staying with us.

And up next, what`s next for the secretary of veterans affairs after
apologizing today for saying he was not -- well, he apologized for saying
he was in the special forces. He was not. I don`t get this one.

This is HARDBALL, the place for politics.


MATTHEWS: The American people are growing, more supportive of a military
campaign against ISIS. According to a new Pew poll, catch this -- 63
percent, about 2/3 approve the U.S. campaign against the militant group.
Only 30 percent disapproved.

When asked whether they support sending ground troops to fight ISIS,
Americans are evenly split now -- 47 percent favor the idea, 49 percent
oppose it. By the way, that`s a 14-point swing towards ground troops since
October. And I have felt it myself.

We`ll be right back.


MATTHEWS: Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald is apologizing again
today about falsely saying that he served in the Special Forces. He made
the statement while speaking to a homeless man in Los Angeles and his
remark was included in a CBS report that aired last month.




MCDONALD: Army? What unit?


MCDONALD: Special Forces? What years? I was in Special Forces.


MATTHEWS: I was in Special Forces.

In a press conference today, McDonald called the remark a mistake and tried
to explain why he said it.


MCDONALD: In an attempt to connect with that veteran to make him feel
comfortable, I incorrectly stated that I, too, had been in Special Forces.
That was wrong and I have no excuse. My biggest motivation was to connect
with the veteran. It was a misstatement. It was a mistake.


MATTHEWS: Well, this comes after McDonald also overstated the number of
people who have been fired from the V.A. following the departure of Eric
Shinseki. But the White House said yesterday it`s standing by him.

We`re back now with our roundtable, Amanda, Michael and Steve.

Michael, as a fellow Republican, I like to connect with you --


MATTHEWS: As a fellow GOPer I would like to -- are we feeling connected

STEELE: This is the seventh sign. Go ahead.

MATTHEWS: What do you think of this? We`ve had cases like this all over
the media, of course. We know now with Brian. We know it now with, what`s
his name, O`Reilly, and there is big debate. But, you know, resume
inflation accused or real is all over the place.

STEELE: It`s not resume inflation. It is something about people wanting
to connect with our military by lying, about what they`ve done, how they
served, how they`ve interacted with the military.

MATTHEWS: First, you know, Richard Blumenthal, there is a series of
candidates who have said, I served in Vietnam.

STEELE: Right, I don`t understand what that is. The American people, they
get it, they`re not looking for you and certainly I`m sure that the soldier
thought now I`m more connected to the secretary that he`s lied to me.

MATTHEWS: How about giving him a job?

STEELE: Yes, thank you, this guy is a homeless guy. So, let`s start with
that idea.

So, it`s just an amazing to me that whether you`re in television or in
politics or whatever, you feel this is --

MATTHEWS: I don`t want to get into names or media critics, I tried to
avoid media criticism of anybody, including people from my network and
around it, but is a need to have a macho background for men especially?

What about you? You were looking at us as a gender. Is this a men to have
a Hemmingway kind of background? They can`t just be a smart guy that made
his way to the job he`s in. There has to be a back story.

TERKEL: Well, Hillary did this too, dodging sniper fire, dodging --

MATTHEWS: Yes, that`s right. (INAUDIBLE)

TERKEL: So, I mean, I think, you know as Michael was saying, there is a
little bit of, you want to show that you`re a little tougher. This may be
something more common with men. But Secretary McDonald did serve in the
military. He didn`t really have to inflate that.

MATTHEWS: Yes, 82nd Airborne is not a slouch.

TERKEL: Right, exactly. So --

MATTHEWS: Do they jump out of airplanes?


TERKEL: I mean, I don`t think he`s going anywhere. I don`t think he`s
going to resign. He has it, he`s been in front that he served in the 82nd
Airborne before --


MATTHEWS: They have a whole discussion about media guys watched over now
and gotten in trouble. He must know it is in the air, don`t inflate.

MCMAHON: It seems incredible. By the way, I think it`s also a sign that
the Obama administration might not have complete and total confidence by
the fact that he went out and had a news conference, which I suspect --

MATTHEWS: Somebody pushed him?

MCMAHON: Go do your news conference and we`ll talk to you afterwards, and
we`ll see how well you handle it. We`ll see if there are follow on stories
day after day after day.

But I will tell you one thing, you`re probably not going to hear a lot
about this on FOX News for obvious reasons, and I think that is probably
good for him because Republicans, you know, love to take these things and
just pick apart --

MATTHEWS: Why wouldn`t they go after him?

MCMAHON: Well, they`ve got their Bill O`Reilly problem over there and
they`re standing behind their man there and his embellishment was similar
in many respects to this.

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much.

Bill, his name is Steve McMahon. He`s a fellow Irishman. You can look at
him up.


MATTHEWS: Amanda Terkel, thank you. And Michael Steele, thank you.

We`ll be right back after this.


MATTHEWS: Let me finish with the upbeat news from Iran.

My guess is that people running that country are looking at three routes
that can them take them into the near and intermediate future. They can go
along with a deal that at minimum delays any plans they have for building
nuclear weapons. That would end the sanctions and put them back on a road
to a strong economic presence in the region.

In this way, they could become a major Islamic country in the oil-producing
Mideast and could make them a real economic rival of Israel over the long
haul. It would give them something real, not the threat of having a
nuclear weapon in their hands, but the present reality of economic power
and with it, conventional military strength. This would be the smart move
I would think from their way of thinking.

The two alternatives are to stiff the U.S. on a deal, taking their chance
that we could not get -- or we could not toughen the sanctions against them
and feeling that we would not attack them militarily or would not help
Israel do it. Well, those second and third options don`t seem that sane to
me. I think any reasonable person knows that an American president cannot
no matter what his ideology let this current government in Iran have a
nuclear weapons arsenal. No president could put up with that, and
certainly not a left of center president like Obama.

So, I`m hoping that the leaders of Iran make the right decision, that the
news we got today was real, that there`s now a prospect -- a good prospect
of getting a deal that keeps Iran well short of getting nuclear weapons. I
know that Bibi Netanyahu disagrees with the approach I`ve laid out, but I
bet the majority of Israelis do not. Why? Because once the United States
or Israel or both of us go to a hot war with Iran, there is no counting on
the consequences.

We listened to the neocons when they cheered us into Baghdad. We listened
to those who cheered the Bush freedom agenda, as it careened its way into
Baghdad. We listened to those who loved the sight of a toppling Egypt and
a topping Libya, and hope just as fervently for a toppling Syria. In every
case, we got worse than what we had.

Let`s hope that ayatollahs in Iran are sane and do the right thing, even as
the screwballs on our side of the world cheer for yet another U.S. war with
far worse consequences than we can imagine.

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

"ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now.


Copyright 2015 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.>