i discovered a woman my family tree, named marianne gaspard. i became curious where in africa she was from. so i took the ancestry dna test to find out more about my african roots. ancestry really helped me fill in a lot of details. do you believe that you'll be able to ensure as many people as currently insure -- >> i'm not going to get ahead of our committee process. we're just beginning to put this together. we haven't even gotten scores from cbo get on these things. >> mr. ryan, can you tell me how
and when you're going to defund planned parenthood? >> that would be in our reconciliation bill. >> with that statement, speaker of the house paul ryan confirmed that he and his party will try to yank federal funding from a health care provider that serves 2.5 million prashatients a year. it would prohibit medicaid recipients from obtaining any kind of services from planned parenthood. we're not talking about abortion services because federal law already prohibits those being paid for with federal dollars. we're talking no cancer screenings, no contraception, no std testing, no medical services as all. it will be packaged with the reveal of the affordable care act, aka obamacare, which is providing health insurance to 22 million people and counting. with me now, cecile richards and jessica gonzalez rojas.
ladies, thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> you know, i said as i was walking into the studio with you this morning i think we need to be in fight mode as women, the idea that planned parenthood, the place where when i graduated from college and had no money and was broke and had a low-paying job got all my health care. not abortion care, health care. it literally will be defunded like that. >> millions of americans are concerned. they have been writing us. women are absolutely up in arms. including women in the state of wisconsin, where paul ryan comes from, where thousands of women depend on planned parenthood as their family planning provider. we're the largest family planning provider in his state. what he is proposing and republican leadership is proposing is to cut those women off of health care immediately as soon as this bill is passed. >> jessica, we know that women of color are going to be disproportionately impacted by this. can you walk people through what
that means in real world terms. >> i think a good example comes from texas when we saw the defunding of a lot of the family planning services in texas. we saw a health crisis happen. we saw health disparities happen. things like cervical cancer, which is largely preventible, latinas had huge rates of cervical cancer. and that's something that they shouldn't have happen in their life. if they have access to regular screenings, paps, mammograms, all the services that planned parenthood provides, those types of things would be prevented. so this is a disproportionate impact on communities of color, on immigrant communities, on low income women and families, young people, so a fight against planned parenthood is a fight against our communities. >> absolutely. and i'm glad jessica raised texas because 1 in 5 women in this country go to planned parenthood for health care in their lifetime, including me, including you. >> including me. >> and that means saying you can no longer go there for your basic preventive care.
the interesting thing about texas, which unfortunately has been a cautionary tale about what happens when you put politics ahead of women's health care, they ended all these programs, as jessica said. they shut down women's health centers. we've seen a doubling of the maternal mortality rate in the state of texas. it's unacceptable. one of the biggest concerns is the highest rates of maternal mortality now are among women of color, particularly african-american women. so it is a disproportionate attack on women's health care and particularly women who have the least access to care. >> and we just saw -- i knowed to let you know that paul ryan -- there was a letter to paul ryan signed by 37 democratic senators demanding that he not defund planned parenthood. among those who did not sign it, interestingly, heidi hide camp of north dakota, joe manchin of west satisfactory, john tester of montana and joe donnelly of indiana. are we at risk now, is planned
parenthood at risk of red state democrats throwing them under the bus. >> the reason they're trying to put this on the reconciliation bill is because i don't think they have the votes in the united states senate. i do think it's important to know, joy, any senator who votes to end access to planned parenthood, because as you said it's not we're a federal line item, this is saying to low income women you can't go to pla planned parenthood for your cancer screenings and birth control. >> there was a real world fundamental example of why it's so important to have these clinics, zika. i used to hit in florida. it hit really hard. you had states with zika outbreaks. if you're an indigent on or woman medicaid, if there is no planned parenthood, what is the option? >> there is very few places to turn. when family planning programs are being aaccounted at that, our community has no place to
turn. because of immigration status, imcome, rural communities, there's no place to turn. so what will happen is these women will just not get care and that's a travesty. >> last month the president issued an executive order blocking states from doing just that, barring states from denying federal money to planned parenthood. in an existence like zika where it's a pregnancy-borne virus, you need to know if you're pregnant to know if you're at risk if you're exposed, and you can't get these services -- >> look, i think it's a perfect example of the danger of putting politics ahead of women's health care. we have millions of patients come to planned parenthood every year. they are republicans, they're democrats, they're independents. they're not coming because they're making a political statement, they're coming because they need access to affordable high-quality care. half of trump's own supporters, his voters don't want planned parenthood to end access to care. this is a nonpartisan issue. this affects millions of american families. the double whammy we're seeing
with a threat to overturn the affordable care act, 55 million getting birth control at no cost, the lowest unintended pregnancy rate in 30 years, that's what's at risk. this has been the interesting thing and women are smart. we have been flooded with calls since the election of women trying to get into planned parenthood to get their birth control now before it's overturned by the government. >> it's terrifying. there is a -- cbo has put out a statistic that 25% of patients at planned parenthood would have no access to care. this is not about women seeking abortions. this is about health care, right? >> no, i think that's the important thing that sometimes is lost in this. federal funding has been blocked from paying for abortion services for many many years and that's wrong and that should be overturned absolutely. but what paul ryan is saying and what incoming vice president mike pence have wanted to do is end access to preventive care. that means millions of women getting family planning services
that are absolutely the reason why they're not getting pregnant when they don't want to be. i mean this is -- so my fear -- jess jessica used the right word, this is going to be a public health care disaster for women in this country and particularly for women with no access to care. >> we saw this in indiana when pence did this. in places like texas we saw rates of unintended pregnancy and birth increasing. we heard stories of women splitting birth control pills to make it last longer. this is what happens when they attack women's health and women's funding. >> more unintended pregnancies is actually going to increase the number of women seeking abortions and the number of women who will die trying to seek them illegally. jessica, cecile, these air waves are your air waves. come back any time to keep this front of mind for women. this is an emergency. >> it is, and i really hope, joy, that every person, woman,
man, you know, teenager who's hearing this show calls paul ryan. this is so important that he hears not from us but that he hears from folks in his state. >> we just saw it work before. when the people call, congress reacts. thanks very much. for more on the republicans' push to dismantle not just planned parenthood but also obamacare, let's bring in perry bacon jor, sarah cliff and dr. cory hebert. doctor, my friend, dr. common sense, can you reiterate what it means for the real world for a doctor, for a medical provider when you take away the source of access to indigent women, to women who don't make a lot of money, when you take away their access to health care? >> the issue is you're going to pay me now or pay me later. the republicans are like a dog chasing a car. you catch up to the car and you don't know what else to do other than bark. these women are going to the e.r., they're getting expensive
services because they are at the final stage of their illness when in actuality the states have to pay for that and it's very expensive. so these women got obamacare, use planned parenthood, got the primary care, prevented all these horrible illnesses, saved millions of lives, saved millions of dollars. so you're going to pay me now or pay me later. if you go with the affordable care act and planned parenthood you pay a lot less and save lives. it's as simple as that, it's a no-brainer. >> sarah, you recently interviewed president obama on this very subject of obamacare and his pitch to republicans. let's listen to what the president said about the republicans' determination to repeal obamacare. >> i am saying to every republican right now, if you in fact can put a plan together that is demonstrable ebey that is demonstrable ebe bettern what obamacare is doing, i will
publicly support repealing obamacare and replacing it with your plan, but i want to see it first. >> you know, president obama is a lawyer, and most lawyers other than in the o.j. trial, never put on -- ask a question in court that they don't already know the answer to, so you've got to know that president obama already knows. this isn't a glove don't fit, you must acquit. he's not going to try a glove on o.j. that he didn't demonstrate beforehand, he knows they don't have a replacement, right, sarah? >> yeah. they have had about six years to work on a replacement plan and they haven't gotten here. it's kind of the dog who caught the car and they're not really sure what to do with the situation they have ended up in. i think they were just as surprised as a lot of people were with donald trump winning the election, and they didn't really think they would need a replacement plan so you do end up in this situation where republicans are talking about repealing obamacare. we know they don't like obamacare but they don't really
have a plan to fix it. >> sarah, what happens if they repeal it? walk us through. so they repeal obamacare. what happens to the 22 million people that are getting it now? >> most of them lose health insurance coverage. the expectation is about 20 million people would no longer have coverage, particularly people in the medicaid expansion. it's nearly certain they would lose coverage because these are low income people who don't have really enough money to buy insurance on the individual market. the folks in the individual market, it might be a little bit of a mixed case. they're a little bit higher income, but 85% are getting subsidies from the government. those subsidies would disappear and it would become much more expensive to afford health insurance coverage. >> perry bacon jr., we know that republicans, led again by paul ryan, the house speaker, sued, actually went to court to sue, to sever the government from even paying for those subsidies to say that it was inappropriate for the obama administration to put those subsidies in place. so they have already -- and they actually were successful. they actually won in court a
couple of months ago. are we looking at a situation where republicans are going to withdraw the subsidies that you out there that are getting your insurance through the affordable care act are getting, get rid of those subsidies and also ending the medicaid expansion and they can do that with 50 votes. do they have 60 votes to mass a replacement if they had one? >> senate democrats are pretty unified in not wanting to repeal obamacare. you've seen comments of people like susan collins and a couple of moderate republicans saying we want to hear the details. we shouldn't repeal until we have the details for some kind of replacement plan. i also think because of where we are now, where trump is president, the republican congress, the stories and the coverage these last few months was all about rate increases, rate increases, but the reality of obamacare is more than half of the people on obamacare are on it through the medicaid program. they pay almost nothing in cost for that. you're the first time getting the stories of them, which is people getting drug coverage,
cancer screenings for the first time. a lot of these medicare recipients are in red states not paying anything for health care and they probably do want to keep their health care, even though some of them voted for donald trump, but they still don't want their health care taken away. >> perry, you've been -- your home state of kentucky, there were people who didn't even know they were on obamacare who already lost kennect which was obama care. are we going to see stories of people whether it's mining families getting black lung disease benefits, et cetera, is that now what's going to be on the 6:00 news? people who don't have their black lung benefits anymore? >> yeah, i think so. an example, in pennsylvania, about 650,000 people have gotten enrolled in medicaid over the last year and a half since they expanded. one in ten of those people is now in drug or alcohol rehab. so that's what they're doing. so you're going to get more -- this law has given a lot of people the access to health insurance they didn't have before. i was in kentucky and i remember talking to a woman who said she
had delayed. she never got checkups or screenings before and then like the week obamacare started in kentucky in 2014, she got all these services for the first time. so i think we're now away from a political discussion into a discussion about how does it affect people's lives. that's going to make a difference. i know paul ryan has had people call his office this last week telling obamacare stories about what they're benefiting, so republicans are now in a place where they have to get away from the rate increases and probably a little bit to the here's how i'm going to solve your health -- here's how i'm going to ensure you get access to health care now and get away from the politics. this is a harder question for them now. how do they ensure people have the same access and low cost in medicaid that they do now in the replacement republicans offer. >> very quickly, doctor hebert, how do they do that? right now the system is imperfect, there are rate increases for some people. as a medical provider, what fix would you suggest as opposed to repeal? >> well, the reality is that at
the beginning of this whole thing, we knew that people were going to get insurance if they had pre-existing illness. we knew that if they had no primary care, they'd get the primary care. but if you got opioid abusers now at a 740% increase getting a medicine called vivitrol that's going to block their heroin addiction so that's going to save their life. not to mention the coal miners who got hood winked by donald trump thinking they were going to get their jobs back, now they don't have health insurance, that's a problem. so you're going to lose your insurance, lose your house, lose your car, have a $100,000 bill and then the ryan, the mitch or the donald, none of them are going to let you crash at their house, trust me. if the republicans need some help, i have all the answers, trust me. >> call your congressman. perry bacon jr. is sticking around. thank you very much to sarah kliff. i recommend her piece, yes, they can repeal obamacare and here's
i think he's worried about it undermining -- >> it's pretty personal? >> yeah, because he said it's time to move on. remember when he was asked about i think maybe on new year's eve, you know, let's just get on with our lives. here's my retort to that. our lives are built around the idea that we're free people, that we go to the ballot box, that we have political contests outside of foreign interference. you can't go on with your life
as a democracy when a foreign entity is trying to compromise the election process. so mr. president-elect, it is very important that you show leadership here. >> republican senator lindsey graham alongside senator john mccain sat down with my colleague, chuck todd, on friday. the day u.s. intelligence chiefs released a report that concluded that russian president vladimir putin directed a, quote, influence campaign targeting the u.s. election. donald trump is promising a good relationship with the kremlin and slammed his critics by tweeting that, quote, only stupid people would think having a good relationship with russia is a bad thing. joining me is e.j. dionne and evan mcmullin. evan, i'm going to start with you, you ran for president. the idea of donald trump soon-to-be president of the united states, tweeting that only stupid people would object
to us having a good relationship with russia. straw man, odd thing to say, what do you make of it? >> it certainly is a straw man. it goes without saying that it would be wonderful for our country if we had better relations with russia, but part of those better or improved relations with russia must include their stopping to attack democracy here in the united states and in europe and elsewhere. this is absolutely critical. i mean it's alarming that we have a president-elect who wants to align our country and his administration with the very foreign power that is attacking democracy globally, especially in europe and in the united states. our democracy is perhaps the most important thing, our ability to hold free and hafair elections is the most important thing to our national security. that's how we guarantee our rights. that's part of it. if we have a foreign power, an
authoritarian foreign power disturbing or impeding our subverting our ability to hold free and fair elections that's a national security issue. >> i will paraphrase my friend, former spy essentially that worked against the russians when he said russia does not want to work with us, they want to defeat us. that is their goal. e.j., i want to play one more clip from lindsey graham talking to our own chuck todd on "meet the press." this is what lindsey graham had to say to republicans who essentially being apologists for what russia did. >> most republicans are condemning what russia did. and to those who are gleeful about it, you're a political hack. you're not a republican, you're not a patriot. here's what i'm going to do with senator mccain. we're going to introduce sanctions that are bipartisan, that go beyond the sanctions we have today against russia, that will hit them in the financial sector and the energy sector where they're the weakest and we're going to give president trump an opportunity to make
russia pay a price. >> e.j., you wrote why the right went wrong. how big is this faction of putinists or putinites in the republican party? we know that donald trump is obviously the head of it. how big is this faction and how much is it tied to their fear that if they walk away from putin/assange, they'll be trumped at the ballot box. >> it was a very tiny faction until donald trump came along and that's the most disturbing thing about this. my colleague, mike gerson, at the "washington post" who worked for president bush wrote a powerful column this week about political tribalism trumping everything. and you do have a lot of principled conservatives like mr. mcmullin, like lindsey graham and john mccain, my friend mike gerson saying, look, russia under putin is alied with anti-democratic forces, oddly given the history, with forces
on the far right in europe. they are not our friends. and the notion that suddenly so many republicans and republican and conservative media outlets are turning on their heels, flipping around and suddenly saying russia is our friend, i think president obama pointed to it in an interview where he said we're at a moment where people are more inclined to agree with vladimir putin if the other side are democrats. that's really disturbing for the country and nothing trump has done since the election has made anybody feel better about this. his absolute refusal to say anything negative about a thuggish autocrat who leads russia is just very disturbing. >> and republicans, evan, were very critical of president obama when dmitry medvedev was president and he attempted to reset relations with that country. now you have "the new york times" saying put aside the republican officials, this is what the base of the party is
saying. what's the big deal? a and in indiana, a state he won found opinions about the report that ranged from are general indifference to outright derision. what does it mean when you have a political party whose base is now more pro-putin than they are pro the current president of the united states? >> well, i think e.j. hit on something very important there and that is the issue of hyp hyperrote partisanship. this is a threato our national security. authoritarians use divisions within populations, whether they be based on race, religion, political persuasion, in order to come to power. we see somebody in donald trump who i've said many times has authori authoritarian tendencies doing these same things. so we as americans need to take a look at ourselves. and yes especially on the
republican side. there are many republicans opposed to what they see happen bug many are not, as e.j. pointed out. the point is that hyperpartisanship to the point that we are dividing ourselves to the degree that we are willing to side with a foreign adversary over our fellow americans leaves us vulnerable to authoritarian, that is to authoritarianism and being deprived of our basic rights. on the right and the left we're going to have disagreements but we've got to be able to agree on basic democracy and defense of our constitution. >> but evan mcmull in, what it the american people do come together but the president of the united states refuses to agree. are you concerned that the next president of the united states will essentially be an asset of vladimir putin? >> well, whether he's an asset or a spy, that's a very -- >> not a spy but essentially an apparachic -- >> in the spy business, the word
spy means penetration. there are two tests. the first test is this question. does donald trump act in the interest of a foreign power especially over our own interests. the clear answer to that in my view is yes, and that is very alarming. the second question, though, the second part of the test is does donald trump act under the control of a control power and that's something that's very hard to determine. i think we would know more if we had his tax returns. but it is very disturbing and peculiar, to say the least, that donald trump, if there's one thing he's consistent on, it's his defense of vladimir putin and the russians. he will change his views on a range of things, but not on that. over the past year he has remained absolutely consistent on that. that's something that we need to know more about, but it's truly alarming for sure. >> joy, i think that's -- >> real quickly, e.j., because we're out of time. >> one of the most interesting
paragraphs in that cia report is a paragraph that said putin/russia like to deal with leaders who had some financial interests. they mentioned berlusconi, sh roader. we need to know more about that. maybe there's nothing there, but we need the tax returns so we can know. >> that would be helpful. e.j., i don't think we're ever going to see his tax returns. evan mcmullin, please come back, sir. thank you for being here. >> thank you. still to come, all in the family. a new round of questions about potential conflicts of interest inside trump's west wing. we'll explain, next.
in just 12 days, donald trump will take the oath of office. yet the american public is still in the dark about how he will handle the conflicts of interest facing his presidency. the latest snag involves trump's son-in-law, jared kushner, who's carried to ivanka trump. kushner is a major new york real
estate investor and is poised to take on a prominent role in trump's west wing. the specifics of that role, however, remain not public. on saturday, "the new york times" reported that kushner after the election met with executives of a chinese financial group to pursue a joint venture to redevelop a real estate property in manhattan. according to sources with knowledge of this meeting, the chairman of that chinese financial group toasted trump and quote, declared his desire to meet with the president-elect, whose ascention he was sure would be good for global business. according to "the times" these talks began roughly six months ago, around the time trump clinched the nomination. a spokesman said kushner will resign as chief executive to reduce conflicts of interest concerns adding that kushner will divest substantial assets. the spokesperson did not specify which assets and what substantial divestment is
supposed to mean. we'll take a closer look at the role kushner and other family members could play in the next administration. and we'll ask can the trump team get away with ramming through its cabinet picks without ethics vetting. that's next. her daughter's yog. she was thinking about her joints. but now that she's taking osteo bi-flex, she's noticing a real difference in her joint comfort. with continued use, it supports increased flexibility over time. "she's single." it also supports wonderfully high levels of humiliation in her daughter. "she's a little bit shy." your joint comfort can be your kid's discomfort. try osteo bi-flex ease. our 80% smaller tablet. osteo bi-flex. made to move.
in a move to address at lea least one potential conflict of interest, jared kushner plans to resign as chief executive of his real estate company. this story was pretty much a blockbuster. jared kushner needs with a gentleman who owns the waldorf astoria and wants to redevelop i believe it's 66 park avenue and he is close to the chinese state, has seen its aggressive efforts to buy up hotels in the united states and that slowed amid concerns raised by the obama administration who wanted
to review these foreign investments for national security risks. so what's the bigger concern, that the trump administration won't review them for national security risks or that it's just a straight-up conflict of interest for jared kushner? >> i think both are really big concerns, but the first one you raised is large. what they're doing in a lot of different places is partnering with groups, especially chinese -- ties to the chinese government that have had their bid for control especially in the hotel industry but also insurance questioned by the united states. there are securities firms that won't work with some of these companies because their ownership structures are not transparent. we don't know who controls them. and so this is a whole -- yes, it's another level of trump conflict of interest for sure, but there is also a national security interest and a kind of cavalier indifference to national security interest that kind of is starting to characterize this administration. >> e.j., it is also curious that
kushner struck this deal or had this meeting after the election. this wasn't something that happened before he knew that his father-in-law would be president. >> right. they said, the kushner people said this had been an ongoing project, but it does suggest a complete indifference on the part of the trump people to what obligations they assumed the day he was elected president of the united states. and i was struck, as you were in the introduction, joy, that a lawyer for kushner said he will divest substantial assets. that doesn't say all assets. what assets is he going to keep? will we have any idea which assets he's going to keep? and that's where this whole transparency issue comes in. it's a big word that we throw around, but it's actually really important to know what public officials' economic interests are and where they might conflict with their other responsibilities.
and then with kushner, it's really odd because he'll have no formal office and yet enormous power inside the government. >> perry, there is an anti-nepotism law. "the washington post" pointed that out on friday, that if he takes on this role it would definitely raise questions about this anti-nepotism law. what are you hearing on capitol hill, because a law is only as good as the enforcement. what are the chances that in a trump department of justice the anti-nepotism law is going to be enforced? >> it feels like it's not going to be enforced at all. members of the senate kind of side step the question and argue donald trump should be able to pick whoever he wants to as his advisers. it appears that so far based on these last three months since election day, two months, the trumps will behave as ethically as "the new york times" and "washington post" allow them to be. they only adjust their behavior after aggressive stories are written saying this seems to be a conflict of interest. then they pretend or at times do
make slight alterations. they say they're going to divest some. it's not clear they would divest it all. we're in a situation where it doesn't seem like ivanka, jared, mr. trump himself are going to disentangle themselves, avoid a conflict of interest, unless they're browbeat by the press to do so because i don't think the republicans in congress are going to do so. it's not clear a federal judge would rule jared kushner couldn't work at the white house. so the recourse has to be the media. >> i notice you didn't mention the "new york observer" which jared kushner owns. so he could have his own newspaper to report favorably about him. let's shift and talk about this ethics problem. there was a letter that was written to senator chuck schumer as well as to senator elizabeth warren from the office of government ethics. the director wrote that the announced hearing schedule for several nominees who have not completed the ethics review process is of great concern to
me. the headline on that was we have lost contact with the trump team. what is going on here that they haven't -- they haven't even had their nominees -- their cabinet nominees complete their ethics questionnaire? >> and mitch mcconnell is rushing them through with none of this vetting and with incomplete senate judiciary committee questionnaires. it's really extraordinary. the tops in hypocrisy is that i think think progress found a letter that mcconnell himself had written to harry reid nine years -- eight years ago saying we want all of the obama nominees to have their government ethics checks completed before we will schedule any -- before you schedule because at that point he could any of these confirmations. the obama people were so much faster. obama's team was using this office to vet some of its folks in advance. they were going to them before they went to the press and they picked hillary clinton as secretary of state.
>> yep. >> so this is just so backwards and the notion that we have lost contact with them is kind of other worldly and creepy. >> e.j., you had -- there's a lot of -- kellyanne conway was on another network complaining that president obama had multiple nominees approved on january 20th, but they had completed their ethics questionnaires. we are now in a situation where several of donald trump's appointees have yet to complete their background checks, their ethics clearances are which are customarily required, and again they said we seem to have lost contact with them. >> that is an amazing phrase. by the way, at the end of that letter he says something really important. he says for as long as i remain director, oge staff will not succumb to pressure to cut corners and ignore conflicts of interest. those are very useful fighting words. you really wonder where this is going to go. and there's something really distressing about the way in which the trump people use a
fact to say something that is completely distorted and misleading. the obama people did do all this vetting. they appointed their people early. they did all of the due diligence. the trump people expect to be confirmed on the same schedule that the obama people were confirmed on without doing any of that. and the haphazard way in which this administration has been put together is one of the reasons why none of this paperwork is done and that statement suggests it must be somewhere on the moon or mars where they have lost contact. >> you know what, perry, very quickly, look, and i've said before i am no longer shockable but you keep hearing -- what the trump team seems to be doing to e.j.'s point is trying to shame the media and everyone itself and saying you're treating us poorly in comparison to president obama. but they have done none of the normal due diligence that an incoming administration has done. do you detect any sense of
shame, embarrassment among republicans on capitol hill about the way this process is unfolding and the clear fact that they themselves are getting rolled and are willing to be in the service of the trump team, no matter what they do and no matter how unethical? >> they are joining the being rolled process. as joan noted, they jammed all these confirmation hearings into a two or three day period next week. also one thing to note is they're saying they want the same process. the obama nominees often had been vetted in other ways. hillary clinton had been a senator and run for president. kathleen se bebelius had been a governor. he has a lot never been in government, never served in office. he expects the same process. do i expect the riepublicans to push back? no. i don't think that's going to change. >> it's a kennel of puppies. they're literally letting them do whatever it is they want to do no matter how unethical it
okay. we want to continue the conversation on social media, so keep tweeting to that a.m. joy hash tag and follow us on twitter and facebook and follow me on twitter and snapchat and instagram. up next, my buddy's new book. we'll talk about it next. afoot and light-hearted i take to the open road. healthy, free, the world before me, the long brown path before me leading wherever i choose. the east and the west are mine.
show us what you have. >> with a shift from the obama era to the trump era on january 20th, we're clearly in for a huge change in leadership styles. obama is cool, measured an unflappable. trump is loud and confrontational. so what sdmeedoes that mean for country? let's bring in my friend steve adubato, author of the new book "lessons in leadership." boy, do you have great timing. you wrote before it was known donald trump would be president of the united states and you assess him and his characteristics of leadership or not. give us your assessment. >> first of all, great to be with you, joy. >> thank you. >> i assessed him, i assessed president obama, i assessed secretary of state hillary clinton. i looked at all of the people who were in public life and asked what does it take to be a great leader? i also looked at people in private life, religious life, nonprofit life. i have to say when i wrote this about donald trump, i said, look, this is not an ideology, it's not even on politics, it's
on temperament, it's on demeanor. this is when he was calling people names and said those things about a war hero like a republican john mccain, when he was saying things about the khan family. i thought he doesn't have the temperament, he doesn't have the demeanor, he doesn't have the discipline as a communicator. that was before he said the things about machado, who was in a miss universe contest. that's before the crazy tweets about russia, about assange. i have to tell you, i was hoping and praying and i still am that he has some of the leadership traits to be a good president. but from what i see, his temperament, his demeanor, his me-first mentality, that he actually goes on twitter and attacks arnold schwarzenegger on the "celebrity apprentice." he's actually saying with all the problems we have in the world, with all the issues we have, i'm going to make it clear that my ratings were better than this guy when i was doing the show. that means his priorities are off. that's not ideological or political. that means his demeanor, his
temperament, his ego is off track. >> and he's undermining his own show, because he's executive producer of "the apprentice." we showed joe biden at the top of this. >> and joe is giving you advice, who is not a particularly disciplined leader. >> joe biden is a great case study. he's not a particularly disciplined communicator, he's fun, he's joe. but he still manages in the moment when he's needed, he can go and negotiate in the senate, do the work of the obama administration. he's able to meet the test of seriousness when it counts. why is it that donald trump doesn't seem to be able to be both, be himself but also embody the characteristics that we typically wanting in a president? >> i always tell people my doctorate is not in psychology. it's in the neighborhood, but it's not. so that would mean i need to get inside his head. here's what i think. i believe a lot of it is hubris and arrogance. so when the intelligence community comes to him and says, look, we have concrete evidence this is what the russians did,
this is what their intent was in terms of the election. what he says was, you know what, it had nothing to do with the results. we still need to get along with russia. that has nothing to do with what the report says. so here's my point. my point is that his arrogance and his hubris and his me-first mentality doesn't allow him to look at the facts and say, you know something, i was wrong about this. his inability to admit his mistakes quickly unless he's forced is a leadership problem. i will tell you he's not even president yet. my fear, my concern, my hope and prayer is that he gains some humility and an ability to take a step back and take a look at himself and be intro spent i've. >> this is a great leadership test and we keep hearing people say the office changes the man. you did evaluate not just trump but barack obama and other people in tests of leadership. what do you expect a president to do as a leader? what are the key characteristics
of presidential leadership in your view? >> okay. by the way, i was not particularly kind -- >> and leadership in life. >> it was mixed about president obama. i thought he was measured. he was strategic. he was reasoned. but i thought he took too long to act in certain things. i'll just say this. it's measured. it's not an exact science. it's complicated. those of us who lead make mistakes all the time. thee the greatest thing you can find in a leader is trust the people around him or her but challenge him and me intro spective. i don't know if trump can turn it around. he's 70 years old. >> the book is "lessons in leadership" by my friend, steve adubato. ph.d. by the way. we'll give you your honorific because you earned it. people need to read this book. send it to donald trump. >> i will.
he might send it back. >> he's not a big reader i'm told. at the top of the hour, the president-elect and the press, how the media can keep trump in check. can the media keep trump in check? that's next. here? (becky) i've seen such a change in einstein since he started eating the new beneful recipe. the number one ingredient in it is beef. (einstein) the beef is fantastic! (becky) he's a very active dog. he never stops moving. he has enough energy to believe that he can jump high enough to catch a bird. it has real beef, grains, vegetables, and he loves it. well, we were coming for an interview... so he wanted to wear his tie. (einstein) it's my power tie. it gives me power. (vo) try new beneful originals with beef. now with real beef as the number one ingredient, healthful. flavorful. beneful. customer service!d. ma'am. this isn't a computer... wait. you're real? with discover card, you can talk to a real person in the u.s., like me, anytime. wow. this is a recording. really? no, i'm kidding. 100% u.s.-based customer service. here to help, not to sell. so we know how to cover almost almoanything.hing, even a rodent ride-along.
[dad] alright, buddy, don't forget anything! [kid] i won't, dad... [captain rod] happy tuesday morning! captain rod here. it's pretty hairy out on the interstate.traffic is literally crawling, but there is some movement on the eastside overpass. getting word of another collision. [burke] it happened. december 14th, 2015. and we covered it. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪
when you hit 300,000 miles. or here, when you walked away without a scratch. maybe it was all the times it got you safely out there. or all the times it got you out of there. maybe it was the day your baby came home. or maybe the day you realized your baby was not a baby anymore. every subaru is built to earn your trust. because we know what you're trusting us with. subaru. kelley blue book's most trusted brand.
and best overall brand. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. welcome back to "a.m. joy." this week republican lawmakers tried to put the foxes in charge of the henhouse when they attempted in secret to give congress the power to essentially oversee ethics investigations of its own members and then hide those investigations from the public. but that effort was stopped by you, the american people, who flooded congressional offices with thousands and thousands of calls. not that you'd know it from headlines like this. house republicans back off gutting ethics watchdog after backlash from trump. house republicans pull plan to gut independent ethics committee after trump tweets. house gop reverses on ethics change after trump criticism. if outraged constituents were
the engine driving the republican mea culpa, think of donald trump as the caboose sending those donnie come lately tweets stating the obvious after america had already spoken. it's a pattern we've seen again and again as the press struggles on how to get a grip on how to cover a reality show person who communicates via twitter without any other source of information or contact with the press and regularly contradicts his own aides after they have gone on tv and said things they learned from talking to him. we've seen the same error over and over again, repeating the trump claim that he saved a thousand jobs at carrier in indiana then walking the headlines back. running, glowing headlines regurgitating trump taking credit for 5,000 new jobs at sprint. donald trump took credit for a sprint jobs deal that had nothing to do with donald trump. in fact it had been publicly announced months earlier. or how about reporting that
trump would hold his first post election press conference on january 11th, which he very well might do, but there's every reason to be skeptical after the one he promised on december 15th and the one from melania trump on her immigration status on and on, claim after claim made on twitter that doesn't pan out. dig beneath the head loilines a you get to the real truth about the trump. joining me are msnbc political analyst joan walsh, jameel smith and kurt eichenwald. it does feel like the press keeps falling for the banana in the tail pipe to use the old eddie murphy apal gnaloanalogy. why do you think that is? >> i think it goes back to long-standing tradition that if there's something that the president-elect or president says it's important and it's
newsworthy. i don't think we've had a president before who consistently puts out things that are either entirely false or misleading. and so there hasn't been an adjustment to say, look, when trump tweets something, we need to be a lot more skeptical. yesterday he tweeted that, look, wikileaks and these russian hacks, i'm not going to say if they're from russia or not but whoever they're from had no impact on the election. that's what he's saying now. i spent my saturday night i think as most people did looking over everything trump said in the last month of the campaign, there was about a thousand pages of transcript. he mentions wikileaks and those e-mails over 160 times, five times plus per day. so you have to dig a little deeper here and it puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the press. it's not as easy as just saying the president said this, now we're going to write a headline saying what the president said.
>> but you don't have to dig that deep. paul krugman says if trump says something falls and the heads line reads trump says x, it doesn't matter if you say that it's false. it does almost seem like the media has been trained by so many years of being able to, as judd said, when a president of the united states makes a statement, you can take that as a statement and put it in a headline. but at what point does it begin to dawn on reporters that isn't the case with this guy and he's not making a statement, he's tweeting? >> well, one of the things here, the consistent story throughout the trump campaign has been the press looking back at the previous month or months or year and saying, oh, we didn't deal with him right because we were dealing with him the day we've telt with presidential candidates in the past and he's different. yes, he is. and he says he's different. and we know he's different and
we know he does different things and we know he has a different affinity for the truth than many people, which is not much of one. you know, the reality here is the press has got to stop looking in the rear-view mirror and saying, oh, well, we treated him -- we dealt with him incorrectly because we dealt with him the way we deal with other candidates and look at him right now and say this is not a man who is like any other president-elect we've ever covered. he's not going to be like any president we've ever covered. we've got to stop using the standards we've used where we assume if he says something it has some basis in reality or it's important. you know, the thing is the tweeting stories have got to stop being trump says x. exactly what we're talking about. trump says x and then way far in the story saying it's not true.
it fundamentally we have to start being -- reporting on what matters, not reporting on what's just fleeting across the sky for a second that may or may not mean anything or have any connection to reality. >> you know, a perfect example of that is a headline on friday out of reuters. trump says mexico would repay u.s. funds spent on border wall. now, let's just evaluate that for a moment. there is absolutely no reason to believe, including a tweet by the former president of mexico, who used expletives to say we're not paying for anything, but just reporting trump says mexico will pay for the wall could leave somebody with the impression oh, yeah, they're going to pay us back. >> we give a degree of trust to two categories of people in this country, celebrities and politicians. he is both. and so what we do is we see this -- okay, he says this. okay, we're just going to say that he says that and we're
going to get some clicks on that headline. and then maybe people will learn what he actually said or the nuance. no, people are not clicking on the headline, people are just reading the headline. given that this man tweeted about five years ago that president obama was not a citizen of the united states, why are we trusting anything that he says without verification. >> joan, i feel like there is a similar element to the mistakes the media make in covering trump. in the walter scott case everyone in media, all the local media said officer says walter scott attacked him and tried to take his taser and just said it because it came in a really -- but at least in those cases they're getting that from a police report or from a statement from the police department which then turns out to be factually inaccurate and wrong so that's a problem in the way we report on policing but now we're taking that same bad
standard and applying it to tweets. >> with less substance. i think our good news organizations are trying to have it both ways. we talked about that great "new york times" story on the kushner families myriad conflicts of interest. great work "new york times." at the same time, i think they're wanting the click bait, as jameel says. they're wanting to get -- they don't want "the washington post" or nbc news to get the traffic from trump says blah, blah, because it's somewhat newsworthy or perceived as newsworthy. who's going to say we're not going to do that anymore, we're going to wait -- maybe we'll wait five minutes and have our labor reporter figure out what really is going on with carrier or sprint. i'm not saying wait forever or never tweet it, but what about fact checking it even before you put it up. >> judd, is there also an element of what happened with wikileaks as well, the fear of competition meant that if wikileaks is just dumping out information, no one wants to get beaten so all the news
organizations rush to put it up as well. >> yeah. and i think one thing that's really critical here is that trump is able to manipulate each news cycle because he knows that whatever he tweets is going to fill up a certain percentage, often a very large percentage of the conversation and so i think it's essential for everyone in the media to understand that it's very important to provide just as much, probably more coverage to the issues that trump does not tweet about. he does not tweet about his conflicts of interest. he does not tweet about the fact that he's going to be receiving payments from foreign governments on his first day in office in violation of the constitution and he'll never tweet about that but it probably is the most important story and that's really what's going on. he gets up in the morning, he says what do i want people to be talking about today? to a large extent, he gets what he wants. and we can't ignore it but we
also have to look to other topics too. >> kurt, as somebody who has written stories about trump's conflicts of interest only to have his coincidentally stweegt about nonsense, also isn't he tweeting to get away from reporting like yours? >> well, you know, it's funny. i actually don't think that trump is that thought out. i really do think that he is just impulsive and that, you know, ultimately he's throwing out nonsense because that's what occurred to him at that moment. maybe i'm underestimating him. maybe it is an attempt to take the attention off of investigative reports like the ones i was doing about the conflicts. but, you know, in the end i just think what we're seeing is an individual who has no particular level of self control and that's -- you know, that's an obvious concern. you know, when you start seeing it happen again and again and again and treating each
individual tweet as if it didn't have, you know, 400 that preceded it that were equally odd or wrong or out of context or whatever, you know, it's a very dangerous situation and the media is not giving the public a real view of what's going on with the president-elect. >> yeah. we need to do better as a profession. we're all in the media, all of us here on this panel, so i think when we say do better, all of us have to be better. thank you so much. will donald trump outnixon nixon? i'll ask a man who had a front row seat to one of the most corrupt administrations in history, next. re fibromygia, i was active. i was energetic. then the chronic, widespread pain drained my energy. my doctor said moving more helps ease fibromyalgia pain. he also prescribed lyrica. fibromyalgia is thought to be the result of overactive nerves.
lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. for some, lyrica can significantly relieve fibromyalgia pain and improve function, so i feel better. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions or suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worsening depression, or unusual changes in mood or behavior. or swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects are dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain and swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain, i can be more active. ask your doctor about lyrica.
no president, including richard nixon, has been so ignorant of fact and disdains fact in the way that this president-elect does. we now have a president-elect who in terms of truthfulness, richard nixon was nothing in terms of lying compared to what we have seen from donald trump. >> there is an exclusive list of people who are qualified to make an accurate and informed comparison between richard nixon and donald trump. you just heard from one of them, investigative journalist carl bernstein. another one is joining me right now, john dean is the former white house counsel to president richard nixon and author of "conservatives without conscience" which i highly recommend you read with trump coming into office. john, thanks for being here. always great to talk to you. >> good morning. >> before i get to the ethics challenge of donald trump, i want to get you to button up the conversation we were just having with my previous panel, because you wrote what could only be described as a pretty scathing
article about media coverage of donald trump, which i 100% agreed with every word of, even though i'm in the media. what do you think that the media is missing when it comes to covering somebody as asymmetrically different an donald trump? >> one of the things that's most striking to me is they can't stay on a story very long. we watched during the campaign when issues would arise one day only to disappear from the front page the next day when the follow-up stories were often of front page quality. so there's the consistency issue. another is they're not probing very deeply. they're not telling the public that somebody with total lack of qualifications really isn't the ideal person to be the president of the united states. they're treating it very much as a show. sort of a -- his select as your prior guest said rather than somebody who wants to hold the highest office. so it's been the gutless coverage and the lack of coverage that have really been
most troubling. i pushed out a lot of examples in that piece i wrote for "newsweek." >> and you also wanted out on the subject of the cabinet that he's putting together. i mean we have a cabinet that is not turned in their ethics forms in large measure, meaning they haven't been vetted. they're not turning over their tax returns. i want to read just a little bit of the letter from the u.s. office of government ethics and this was a letter to senator schumer and warren about these concerns. the schedule has created unnew pressure on oge staff and agency ethics officials to rush through these important reviews. more nisktly, it has left some of the nominees with potential unknown issues shortly before their scheduled hearings. are we at a danger now partly because of the laxitude or overdeference of the press, we're potentially about to ram
through and see an entire cabinet full of incredible conflicts of interest with their business interests and their governmental jobs? >> well, that could very easily happen. it will be interesting this coming week when you have multiple hearings going on simultaneously how they're going to be covered, plus you have donald trump's proposed or announced press conference on the same day that there are going to be a lot of hearings. so yes, we do have a problem. the ethics office is a post-watergate creation and watergate is one of the reasons they created it. this is the first time it's largely being ignored or just sort of given tepid and partial responses to their questionnaires. you know, i haven't looked at the criminal law on this, but if the committees that have advice and consent waive really the requirements, that will be a true exception and that, again, is republicans making special rules for donald trump that they
certainly wouldn't make if it was a democrat who was setting up. >> john dean, one of the characteristics of the watergate era was that you had republicans, even barry goldwater, who were willing to turn on the president of the united states, a president of their own party, when they saw the illegality, that criminality was afoot. why don't more republicans stand up? they surely must see the unqualification, they must see the ethics problems. it's impossible that they don't know this is going on. why don't more of them stand up to him? >> i'm not sure that senator goldwater could even qualify as a republican today. the party has moved so far to the right, you might even find goldwater on the left. >> that's scary. >> it is scary. and he was a man of principle. he went to washington not to always get along but to do what he thought was right. and had very strong feelings on that. the book you mentioned, conservatives without
conscience, was really prompted by the senator and his -- really is unhappiness with where the republican party was going. we started that book together. his bad health resulted in him having to withdraw. i withdrew the project for a number of years and then came back and did it later. but he was a man of principle and that's the big difference. >> let's also now contrast richard nixon and donald trump. having worked for richard nixon and observed donald trump, is it wrong for people to say that donald trump is worse than nixon? >> well, i have actually said that, that he's more nixonian than nixon. nixon hit a lot of his dark qualities. donald trump puts them right out in front. they're clearly men, both of them, who have no problem lying. nixon would lie about only big issues. for example, during the '68 campaign saying i have a secret plan to resolve vietnam and then later when he clearly sabotaged lyndon johnson's peace efforts denying that.
during watergate he of course said i knew nothing about the watergate cover-up until my white house counsel, john dean, told me on march 21st. that was an out rarageous lie. so he stuck to the big issues. donald trump, they're just endless. just before the election, a canadian newspaper had a study of 28 days they had followed everything that trump had said during that day. they found that he was making an average of 20 lies a day. little issues, big issues, important issues, unimportant issues. there was just nothing that he wouldn't dissemble on. he's a serial liar. and that's more nixonian than nixon. >> and without -- nixon at least had an interest in foreign policy, he had thought about foreign policy, he had governed the state of california. >> big difference in their knowledge. nixon, who had been in the house
and the senate, been vice president, and a student of government, really knew his way around washington and understood the presidency. he was well read. that's the big striking difference. donald trump may be the most unqualified person to ever be elected to this, our highest office. that's one of the reasons we should all be worried. >> i have to ask you because you are a californians, california resident. he tweeted at the heritage foundation saying stay out of blue kochb. we're doing great with no gop obstructionism. as a gold water conservative, i say you are the embarrassment. they were trying to shade california. what do you make of this hiring of the hiring of eric holder by the state of california. it looks like california is ready to fight the trump administration. >> they are. i think you have to describe it as a belts and braces move. it was done by both the assembly and the california senate. it was done by the legislative
branch. p kamala harris, who had been attorney general, is now one of our senators and we have a new attorney general. so i think it was really to prepare. it wasn't to conflict. these offices are all going to be working together. and also people didn't realize, read closely, it was only a 90-day retainer for holder. really what they wanted was the background and experience of his law firm, covington and burlington in washington which has represented a number of states against the federal government. so i think it's a good move. we'll see how necessary it becomes. but they certainly are prepared for whatever does come. >> yeah. well, make room for us in california because if you guys secede, you're taking a lot of us with you, john dean. >> well, come out and visit us, we have good weather. >> wonderful, thank you very much. always a treat to talk to you, john dean. have a great day. >> bye-bye. coming up, president obama's farewell address. he may have a tough act to follow, though, after the first lady's speech. that's next. i had that dream again --
that i was on the icelandic game show. and everyone knows me for discounts, like safe driver and paperless billing. but nobody knows the box behind the discounts. oh, it's like my father always told me -- "put that down. that's expensive." of course i save people an average of nearly $600, but who's gonna save me? [ voice breaking ] and that's when i realized... i'm allergic to wasabi. well, i feel better. it's been five minutes. talk about progress. [ chuckles ] okay.
with that, i just have two more words to say. obama out. >> on tuesday, president obama, the man who launched his presidency with hope and change at yes we can will say farewell to the white house and the nation. ten days before the winner of one of the most divisive and bitter elections in american history is sworn in as the 45th president. we expect to hear president obama reflect on his eight years in office, eight years struggling from unprecedent obstruction against republicans to address the economy, protect against terrorist aaction at that, address racial tensions between police and communities of color and provide health care to tens of millions of americans, all while facing a stream of questions about of all things his birth certificate. on friday michelle obama used her final address to inspire young people and educators across the nation.
>> so don't be afraid, you hear me? young people, don't be afraid. be focused, be determined, be hopeful, be empowered. empower yourselves with a good education, then get out there and use that education to build a country worthy of your balance promise. lead by example with hope. never fear. and know that i will be with you rooting for you and working to support you for the rest of my life. and that is true, i know for every person who is here today and for educators and advocates all across this nation who get up every kday and work their hearts out to lift up our young people. so i want to close today by simply saying thank you. thank you for everything you do for our kids and for our country. being your first lady has been the greatest honor of my life
and i hope i've made you proud. >> you're going to miss them. you can watch president obama's farewell address to the country live from chicago this tuesday. special coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc. you can join me tuesday night at midnight for a special one-hour wrapping up the day's events. coming up, the race to watch in 2017. what shall we call you? tom! name it tom! studies show that toms have the highest average earning potential over their professional lifetime. see? uh, it's a girl. congratulations! two of my girls are toms. i work for ally, finances are my thing. you know, i'm gonna go give birth real quick and then we'll talk, ok? nice baby. let's go. here comes tom #5! nothing, stops us from doing right by our customers. ally. do it right. whoo! look out.
and it's convenient for those hard to reach places. and if you're like me, you'll love blue-emu super strength cream. it's made with real emu oil, it's non greasy, it's a deep penetrating formula that works itself down into your joints. take it from me. it works fast and you won't stink. blue-emu, it works for me it'll work for you.
the american dream started right here in virginia, but our faith in it has been shaken. politicians from washington to richmond write their own self-serving rules and seem committed to dividing and distracting us while they rig the system against the middle class. but we demand a different path. >> former democratic congressman tom perriello has launched his next campaign to be the next governor of virginia, shaking up a race that many had expected to go directly to the automatic successor of the current governor, terry mcauliffe, who's
termed out in the race. joining me now is tom perriello. tom, thanks very much for being here. sorry about that little intro flub there, i had a little glare in my eyes. but you apparently called the current lieutenant governor, who was the hand-picked successor of terry mcauliffe, and told him that you were going to be running against him in a primary. how did that conversation go? >> it went really well. he's a total class act, he's a nice guy and i think we understand how to have the kind of primary that will make the party stronger, build the kind of coalition we need to make sure the democrats win at the end of the year. i think voters are not too excited about a situation in which the party establishment, you know, decides who should be the option two years out. so it was a very classy call and i think we can have a great primary. >> tom, this is sort of being looked as as a proxy battle between clinton world and obama world. you were an ambassador under
president obama after you served in congress. there was a great quote that says state senator minority leader says you have a better chance of flapping your wings and flying to the moon than getting within 50 points of this nomination. what do you make of establishment democrats in the state saying you've got no shot and you shouldn't be doing this? >> well, those -- the pundit class has been wrong in election after election. i think virginians are anxious, they're looking for someone who's a problem solver. i've been most of my life an executive in the nonprofit world but also in politics and in diplomacy. what people want is problem solvers. they're not as focused on right and left as whether you're helping them move up or down. we have too many virginians who haven't had a shot at that virginia dream. my father was the son of working class immigrants and virginia is the place that gave him the chance to get a great public education and live that dream. unfortunately, we're seeing some communities be left behind, whether that's communities of color or certain regions in the state.
even those parts of the state that are doing well, where you have two incomes from people with college degrees, they're getting less and less time with family, they're working a couple of jobs, the stress is there. we were a state that rejected trump, the only southern state to do so, and i think we have that history of being able to rise up and be a progressive place. >> let's put up that poll. hillary clinton beat donald trump in virginia 49.8 to 44.4. that's actually a pretty good result. you go back and look at some of the gubernatorial races, tim kaine, who won that state over the republican 51.7 to 46%, he is with your opponent. he is with the current lieutenant governor. have you been able to get any of obama world on your side including barack obama? >> the outpouring has been amazing. the grassroots energy. we were able to have huge crowds at these events that we only had one day to build for. the comments from the president's spokesperson were incredibly kind as were senator kaine's words about me in the statement. so i think we're going straight
to the voters. the enthusiasm is there, the hunger for someone who's going to fight for working class and middle class folks and that's my track record. you know, in my first race i was 36% behind in the opening and won by 700 votes in a much more conservative district than the state as a whole. i wouldn't be in this race if i didn't think i gave democrats the best chance to win. i believe that. i believe we can give our coalition, the obama coalition a reason to show up while still winning independents, just like we did in '08 and 2010 and i'm excited to go out and make that case, but also to learn from voters. i think that's where the best ideas come from. >> you mentioned 2008. the year after that, because virginia holds its gubernatorial in off years, which is usually bad for democrats because you have lower turnout among the base. bob mcdonnell won pretty handily. you could read that as voters' backlash a little bit as having just voted for barack obama. four years after that, 2013,
terry mcauliffe squeaks through and this is just after the re-elect of president obama beating ken cuccinelli by two points. where do you see the tea leaves working now with trump winning the white house and trying to ride in his -- somebody from his party, but you have hillary clinton win virginia. which way is virginia going to backlash? >> virginia is an incredible place. i do think there's already buyer's remorse for trump. virginia went against him but i think those numbers aren't going in his direction. i think from our side it's really important we don't take voters for granted. we don't go back to that playbook that has diminishing returns. we stand by our convictions and fight for those issues that matter so much for voters, whether that's access to reproductive justice, whether that's criminal justice reform, education and economic opportunities, addressing inequality, that whole set of things. i think progressives have to start taking state races more
seriously, including a special election on tuesday that could decide virginia's legislature. progressives have to understand states matter. >> no kidding. i like the way you got that little '90s, don't go back to the '90s playbook clinton dig there. i saw what you did there. tom, thank you very much. really appreciate your time. good luck. >> thank you. next, we are the change we seek. more on my new book with my pal e.j. dionne coming to a bookstore near you. we are coming up next. asmy family tree,ing i discovered a woman named marianne gaspard...
it was her french name. then she came to louisiana as a slave. i became curious where in africa she was from. so i took the ancestry dna test to find out more about my african roots. the ancestry dna results were really specific. they told me all of these places in west africa. i feel really proud of my lineage, and i feel really proud of my ancestry. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story, get started for free at ancestry.com at legalzoom, something you love, our network of attorneys can help you every step of the way. with an estate plan including wills or a living trust that grows along with you and your family. legalzoom. legal help is here.
we have some exciting news out in stores next week. it's my new book, "we are the change we seek" when i co-ed it with e.j. dionne of "the washington post." e.j., it was so much fun working on this book with you. but tell me out of all of the speeches in this book, and we go through 26 of what we think is barack obama's greatest speeches, which is your favorite obama speech of all time?
>> right back at you, this was a real joy to do. by the way, i invite all viewers to look at the book and say, all right, which ones would you have put in, because it was a fascinating process of trying to figure out what belonged and what didn't. in the end i think the most powerful speech of the whole term was the speech at selma that he gave to commemorate the anniversary of the march across the pettis bridge because i think that had almost every element of what made a great obama speech and it rose to the historical moment. as we talked about a lot when we were putting this together, obama thinks all the time in terms of history and the trajectory of the country and the notion that from the declaration of independence forward, and he has this view in common with abraham lincoln and martin luther king, from the declaration of independence forward, we have been on a march to perfect ourselves. we talk about in the
introduction one of the fun things about obama is he uses the word perfect less as an adjective and more as a noun, that we're always on a march forward. >> we talked about this a lot, e.j., coming up with the process of it. there aren't a lot of presidents who are known for their speaking ability. we tend to think president equals great orator. obama is in a pretty small class of great presidential orators. >> lincoln, obviously, although we've never been able to hear him. but you had both roosevelts, you had bill clinton, john kennedy, and ronald reagan. and i think the fascinating think is obama had some things in common with all of them. the osawatomie speech which we cite, he had it in osawatomie, kansas, because he wanted to put himself in a direct line with t.r. but the comparison with reagan is probably the most surprising,
because what he had in common with reagan is that he was constantly advancing an argument about the country, about politics, about why americans should look back and forward with our progressive tradition in mind. of course ronald reagan did that with the conservative tradition. you know, this is obviously in defense of a book we chose to do. but when you look back at this collection of speeches, i really do think there are speeches that people will want to go back to, to understand the history of this period. >> and we just did a podcast with chuck todd and we were -- i think we both came to the conclusion that if we could include something else that wasn't in here, it would probably be more foreign policy speeches but we also had to cut down on the number of eulogies. this president has -- unfortunately he's had to give a lot of beautifully done eulogies as well. >> yeah, that was one of the biggest problems we had was because you could have included those. chuck made an interesting point on omissions.
his university of michigan speech, which isn't in there, defending government. the other one i thought about was the hiroshima speech. we wanted speeches that gave you -- there were obviously 10 or -- 10 obvious ones and then we tried to give people a sense of range of issues that he had to grapple with. >> yeah. one of the fun things that's happened since this book got done, e.j., is now every time barack obama gives a speech, i think we were e-mailing after the smithsonian speech and we were just going, oh, if only we had one more speech we could have put in. >> and we're going to put tuesday's speech into the paper back. >> there you go. i like the way you think. "we are the change we seek" will be released this tuesday. so don't forget to pick up your
copy. laurie crosswell, i like president who weren't captured. i like presidents who weren't elected by russia. look out for a dm from the show. thank you, e.j. i'm talk to you on the next speech and we'll say what we want in the paper back. up next, my panel joins me to talk about next week's big headlines. american express open cards can help you take on a new job, or fill a big order or expand your office and take on whatever comes next. find out how american express cards and services can help prepare you for growth at open.com.
♪ ♪ ♪ and it is time to find out what will be the big headline of next week. jamil, e.j. and joan will be here. what will be the next headline income week? >> obama will lay out the bottom lines of where he'll intervene against trump. president obama might have liked a quieter ex-presidency. i don't think trump will let him have it. apparently, he said something today that suggests that he will be willing to intervene. we've gotten accustom to
presidents pulling themselves out of politic, but i don't think he's going to have that option. >> were you surprised that al gore who won the popular vote in 2000 was pretty quiet during the bush administration? do you think it will be different now? >> yeah. i kind of expected more, but you know, in fairness to everybody involved, george w. bush, i think, did not pose a threat to fundamental values as i see it as i think and president obama sees it that donald trump does, and so al gore, i think, went along with the tradition of laying back. i think president obama would like to have a quieter time where he can write and reflect. >> sure. >> i think he knows the trumpieral ntrumpier al era will not let that happen. jamil smith, what do you think? >> you think he wants the death penalty behind his weird and ridiculous ram bellings?
>> not only the ramblings and his strategy. he's representing himself at the sentencing phase. criticizing his lawyers at every turn, emphasizing his own sanity and lack of remorse. i think this guy wants to be a martyr for white supremacy, and i think the death penalty, this barbaric institution that we need to get of -- >> do you think we'll see an expansion of the from file of white supremacist groups during the trump era? >> oh, goodness yes. this is their invitation to come out into the sun light and not be criticized. we often talk about shining a late on things that need to be criticized. i think we really need to understand that these folks are feeling really comfortable with the guy they have in the white house. >> and potentially in the justice department. you have jefferson beauregard sessions who is a stalwart, but you never know. >> joan walsh?
>> this is my wishful thinking, outrage explodes over trump cabinet's failure to face vetting. we need some. >> it's interesting. my headline was going to be trump nomination process spurs protests because i agree with you. do you think the democrats have a coordinated strategy, though, to oppose these nominees? >> i don't know if it's sufficiently coordinated yet, but i do know that they're getting ready to oppose quite a lot of them and that they're doing the best that they can with the time that they're going to have. the disappointment was as we talked about the other night, they're only being given two days and four of their own witnesses to question jeff sessions. >> yeah. >> so the way that the -- it's a combination of the lack of vetting, but also the way in which mitch mcconnell is vetting eight through in two or three days on the same night that president obama is giving a talk and we're allegedly going to get donald trump press conference.
>> allegedly. >> so he says. let me go around real quick and ask each of you, who do you think will be the cabinet nominee that will get the pushback from civil rights groups, from citizens and democrats? e.j., who do you think will get the biggest pushback? >> i think that jeff sessions will and tillerson will from different directions. there's already enormous opposition lining up against sessions because of his past views and actions on civil rights. >> yeah. >> and i think that tillerson raises some doubts in other parts of the party, particularly john mccain and lindsay graham. so at the moment that's what i'd say, but i think to go to joan's point, what the office of government ethics is saying is it gives democrats an opening to be very oppositional in a way they might not have wanted to because they can say, look, we're just not getting the information that every other nominee has given in the past. >> yeah. we know that trump is about
flouting norms and saying he doesn't care. even with the anti-nepotism laws, who do you think it ends up getting the biggest pushback. >> i think it's ben carson with hud. these are people that threaten the very existence of the departments they've nominated to lead and also rick per we energy. those folks should be inspiring protests right now. >> people forgot about ben carson. >> we shouldn't. >> there's almost no at this point opposition to ben carson because the others are so heinous. that's what i found in d.c. last week. i think it's got to be jeff sessions. i'm very concerned about that story today that he's so nice, a lot of his colleagues will have a hard time opposing him, but that's who the advocacy groups are really taking aim at. he affects the ability of americans to cast their right to vote, and has a long history of being opposed to voting rights. >> yeah. >> i think he's going to be the one that really calls people out. >> now i think we all need a palate cleanser, guys.
it is sunday and we'll give you a change of pace and palate cleanser. this video -- white bear lake, minnesota, brings you probably the cutest car ad you'll ever see. our gift to you this sunday on "a.m. joy" palate cleanse away. >> i wore the wrong socks. ♪ ♪ >> i wore the wrong socks. ♪ ♪ >> needless to say i didn't get my -- >> and mitsubishi is proud sponsor of golden gopher hockey. >> are you okay? >> the other one -- >> i just want to know that we're not laughing at that adorable polar bear's pain and it isn't a real polar bear, let's keep it right for our animal rights fan, it's a man in
a suit, but it was so cute and adorable and we felt we had to bring it to you because we love you and we care and you're not happy about the upcoming events, so palate cleanser. thanks, jamil laughs through the entire segment before when he walks in, so even if a bear isn't falling and my buddy joan walsh and e.j., join us next weekend for more "a.m. joy." >> chanel jones has more on barack obama's legacy and what his presidency means to americans. more news at the top of the hour.