Transcript of 'Hardball With Chris Matthews' for June 11, 2007

Guests are David Gergen, Mike Huckabee, Jenny Backus, David Frum, Chuck Todd, Linda Douglass

Transcript:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Why do people hate Hillary? Is Republican Colin Powell backing Democrat Barack Obama? The politics is getting hotter.

Let‘s play HARDBALL.

Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews. Hillary is out front on the Democratic side, but with half the country not liking her and her getting only a quarter of the independent voters, her winning the nomination could simply set up the Democrats for a loss in ‘08 that should be a win.

So Colin Powell didn‘t like the Bush policy? Then why didn‘t he quit? And what‘s this thing with Obama? Doesn‘t his flirtation with a Democrat make the Republicans look even more out to lunch this year?

And will Bush let his former assistant, Scooter Libby, go to prison if he can‘t get bail this Thursday? If he wants to pardon 12 million people who broke the law coming into this country, an ally on the right wants to know, why not pardon the guy who went down in the cause of pushing his war?

And 20 years ago tomorrow, Ronald Reagan stood at the Berlin Wall and told Gorby to tear it down. And last night, Tony Soprano had dinner with his family. I watched at the Parthenon restaurant here in Washington, a Greek restaurant, where nobody talked for an hour straight. What‘s up with this thing? We sit and watch a guy play the jukebox? Do we love this guy or what? More on that later.

But we begin tonight with NBC News‘s Andrea Mitchell and David Gergen, a former adviser to four U.S. presidents, on the numbers facing Hillary Clinton. We‘ll get to Tony Soprano in a minute, fellows.

But Andrea, you‘re Hillary Clinton. The Democratic base loves you. You‘ve got minority support. You‘ve got gay support. And you‘ve got women‘s support. And you‘ve got working people‘s support. And yet we got a new number out in the Gallup poll, 50 percent of American people don‘t like you. Can you still win the election with that kind of negatives?

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Yes, you can, because this country is so closely divided that anyone with her kinds of numbers can win the election. I don‘t think that as unfavorable as those numbers are—it‘s one poll—I don‘t think that that is disabling, given how divided this race is and how long a campaign it is.

MATTHEWS: David, you‘ve known Hillary a long time. You‘re very friendly with her. But she‘s got one other number working against her besides those heavy unfavorables, which people tell me are huge by any comparative standard. One in four independent voters likes her. That‘s it. She can‘t win the swing voters yet. What does she have to do to change that thing around?

DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Well, it‘s an interesting question, Chris. I agree with Andrea, just for starters, that, yes, this is not disabling. But I do believe that it makes it something of a risk for Democrats to nominate Hillary Clinton because the—she may be the only person on the Democratic side who can totally unite the Republican base and force them out. So that‘s—that‘s what the risk is.

But I must say, I think out in the debates, she‘s been the superior candidate on the Democratic side. Out in New Hampshire this past week, I thought she clearly won that debate. She was superior in the conversations about religion. She looked good. She looked better than we‘ve seen her, and she talks very fluidly.

You know, I don‘t discount the possibility that given the intense—the intense hostility to the Bush administration, that she can take places like Ohio. A year ago, she couldn‘t win Ohio. Today, she could.

MATTHEWS: Well, the other question, Andrea, is we all suspect there might be a hidden anti-woman vote that sits out there. Suppose you add that hidden vote to the obvious vote, the 50 who say they don‘t like her. Suppose it‘s 60 or 70 who don‘t like her and aren‘t saying so?

MITCHELL: Sure, that‘s a problem. But all of these candidates have pluses and minuses, and I think it‘s way too early to count anyone out particularly her base, which does include a lot of women who will feel empowered and eager to come out and vote for her, will be more active than they might otherwise have been. More Democrats could turn out. More of her supporters could turn out.

As David just pointed out, places like Ohio could well be in play with Hillary Clinton on the ballot. So I think, like, with all of these candidates—look, there‘s a hidden vote, a racist vote against Barack Obama, if he were the nominee. And there are others who would be against John Edwards for other reasons. There are a lot of pluses and minuses to all of these frontrunning candidates.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about...

(CROSSTALK)

GERGEN: Chris, you just have to weigh that against who the Republicans have.

MITCHELL: Right.

MATTHEWS: I mean, if John McCain were in his prime and were really rolling right now, I‘d have to tell you, I think John McCain would be favored to beat Hillary Clinton. But given the state of Republican candidacies right now, she‘s a much more formidable and much more likely president—future president than she was a year ago.

MATTHEWS: Well, keep saying, you‘ll probably rev up the right.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the “New York Times” front page today, hardly a right-wing newspaper. “The New York Times” had a piece—it wasn‘t on the front page. It was abut—it was actually inside. The front page story was about Barack Obama last week, about what a great basketball freak he is and how much he loves to play b-ball with his friends. And—which helps him out because everybody loves basketball in this country, and we especially like good basketball players.

Hillary Clinton doesn‘t have a back story hobby like that. I thought it was an odd story for Patrick Healy to write today. He said, Hillary doesn‘t have a humanizing pastime. What you make of that? Maybe this is too weird. Let me go to Andrea Mitchell.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Andrea...

MITCHELL: Thanks a lot!

MATTHEWS: I know. But is this too weird? We‘re sympathizing—it looks to me like one of those pieces you write, or TV pieces you do, when one side complains so much, you got to balance your act, so they can‘t do a b-ball story on Hillary, so the do a, Gee whiz, I wish she had a b-ball story.

MITCHELL: You know, I think (INAUDIBLE) nation at war and with so much anger about the way this country is headed right now, as we see in all of the polling on “Right track, wrong track,” the basic question that is the real test of how people feel about the future of the country—I don‘t think people are going to vote for a presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat, based on whether they can play baseball, whether they‘re good at tennis, whether they‘re good at softball.

(LAUGHTER)

MITCHELL: I just don‘t think we‘re in that era of, Can you throw the touch football? I think...

MATTHEWS: So you‘d be likability...

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: ... far more serious—

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK. Tell me the campaign where we picked somebody we didn‘t like? I mean, the only time I can think of in 50 years of watching this business—the only time we picked someone we didn‘t like as much as the guy we beat, or voted against, was everybody liked Hubert Humphrey—even those who weren‘t Democrats liked him more than they liked Richard Nixon. But it seems to me in all—every other race, the guy who‘s likable or the person likable tends to win the thing.

MITCHELL: But likability is—I mean, what makes you likable? Is it your ability to play baseball or your ability...

MATTHEWS: Well, what is it? Whatever it is, it ain‘t working for Hillary!

MITCHELL: Maybe it‘s...

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: ... give smart answers about some of the issues that people...

MATTHEWS: Oh, you mean...

MITCHELL: ... really are bothered about around the kitchen table.

MATTHEWS: Andrea, are you saying it‘s a meritocracy, picking a president?

MITCHELL: I—well, no, it has not been a meritocracy, but I think that we are at a crisis stage in this country and that whether it‘s John McCain, Romney, you know, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Edwards or any of the frontrunning candidates, it‘s what answers they have to the things that people are really bothered about, including the war, including educating their kids and paying for their retirement and paying for gasoline—those answers are going to determine, I think, who‘s going to be elected this time.

MATTHEWS: David, you think it‘s going to be one of those...

GERGEN: Chris...

MATTHEWS: ... gut-check elections, where we ignore whether we like Fred Thompson, the cut of his jib, or we like Rudy or not, and we‘re going to look basically at the hard issues that affect our lives? It‘s going to be a very sober accounting we go through, rather than a personality choice.

GERGEN: Well, the one thing we know she shouldn‘t do, and that is go wind-surfing.

(LAUGHTER)

GERGEN: That was one—and maybe she shouldn‘t bake cookies, either. The—but I—you know, normally, Chris, likability does matter. You know, we like—we want people in the White House that we can relate to, that we want in our living rooms. I do think that one of her problems is that people don‘t necessarily feel comfortable thinking they‘re going to be listening to her over the next four years because she has a tendency to be a little preachy, and her voices is not, you know, a great asset for her.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

GERGEN: It‘s a little—it‘s a little harsh for people. So I think she‘s got to work on some of that stuff. But it doesn‘t always determine elections. Remember, you know, for likability, we would have had President Humphrey, not President Nixon.

MATTHEWS: I agree with that. By the way, you‘re right about the voices. It‘s not fair, but—my old boss, Tip O‘Neill, used to say Ronald Reagan‘s great strength, in addition to his good looks and charm and all that, was that incredible cowboy voice of his, that wonderful western voice. It‘s why so many anchor people come from places like—where‘s Tom Brokaw from? That part of the country...

MITCHELL: South Dakota. Yangston (ph), South Dakota.

MATTHEWS: That‘s where we seem to get our anchor people from, Johnny Carsons, people like that, Dick Cavett...

MITCHELL: Well, that‘s...

MATTHEWS: ... they all seem to come from out there.

MITCHELL: That‘s Fred Thompson‘s big advantage here, as he enters this race, is the voice, the Southern drawl, and the actor quality, the avuncular quality that actually is very close to Ronald Reagan‘s.

GERGEN: Yes, but...

MATTHEWS: Let‘s take a look at the Republican race right now, David.

Let‘s just switch sides for a second here.

GERGEN: Sure.

MATTHEWS: The latest AP poll has it this way. Giuliani‘s still out front at 27 percent, and McCain at 19. Fred Thompson, who has yet to make it quite official, although he‘s pretty much in there, at 17. He has bumped, as we say in airline travel, Mitt Romney already. I think he‘s on the road to bumping McCain. What do you think, David?

GERGEN: I think he is on the road to bumping McCain because John McCain‘s campaign has faltered so badly. But I think that poll understates Mitt Romney‘s strength right now because Romney—while his national numbers are not good, his Iowa numbers and his New Hampshire numbers are very impressive, and you know, if he punches through a couple times, Giuliani could come down real fast and Thompson could be left at the gate.

MATTHEWS: Why do the people in Massachusetts have a problem with Mitt? Every time I ask somebody up there—maybe they‘re all Democrats. I don‘t know.

MITCHELL: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: Every time I talk to somebody up there, they don‘t like the guy. They just don‘t like Mitt Romney.

GERGEN: Well, look, you know, the guy started out as a conservative in Massachusetts. Then he became sort of a Massachusetts-type Republican, very progressive, and now he‘s gone back to more conservative ways. But he also has—I think people really take umbrage here in Massachusetts at the way he‘s gone around dissing the state.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

GERGEN: You know, after being the governor—you want somebody to be proud of the job he‘s done and the people he‘s served. And for him to go around sort of knocking people in Massachusetts...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

GERGEN: ... has not gone down well.

MATTHEWS: Andrea, do you think—what is your sense, reporting around the country? Is this guy liked? I hate to go back to like ability, but it‘s one of the things we have to work with right now. Is he likable enough to be president, this guy? He‘s perfect-looking, I suppose, but what do we make of that?

MITCHELL: Well, he could be too perfect-looking, but he certainly is very smooth, and his pat speeches and his answers in the debates are very, very effective. So he‘s a good performer, and he does have that special quality of being able to sell himself, which is something that candidates have to be able to do.

MATTHEWS: Don‘t you have to say one thing at least that hasn‘t been poll-tested for people to believe anything you say?

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: It seems like everything he says passes muster with the majority of Republicans. It‘s almost like you would think he was focused-grouped before he wrote the speech, or had the speech written.

MITCHELL: One could argue that, but of course, he then has to also figure out how to deal with all of the things he did when he was governor of Massachusetts which were not poll-tested for the Republican electorate.

MATTHEWS: OK. Andrea, what really happened last night on “The Sopranos”? Is he going to get hit, or was he just going to have another dinner with his wife and kids?

MITCHELL: It was such a clever ending, and it left all of us initially thinking, Oh, God, is that all there is? And then you realize that, you know, he could get whacked...

MATTHEWS: Right.

MITCHELL: ... very easily, indicted. The guy who went into the bathroom, the other two guys who came in...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MITCHELL: I mean, the whole sense of foreboding...

MATTHEWS: I know!

MITCHELL: ... as they sat there with the onion rings, it was unbelievable.

MATTHEWS: I was in a restaurant, you know, the Parthenon up on Connecticut Avenue. I got to tell you, there was 10 people at the bar. Everybody was watching like we were in the restaurant with him. It was intense, and then it went to black. David, what‘s your—what‘s the rest of the story here?

GERGEN: The people in Massachusetts don‘t watch “The Sopranos.”

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: You‘re kidding!

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I was just at the North End yesterday having pizza at Regina‘s Pizzeria. (INAUDIBLE) there are so many Italians up there. Give me a break. Of course they watch it.

(CROSSTALK)

MITCHELL: David, you‘re just not ethnic enough.

GERGEN: Oh, I don‘t know. Listen, people up here love it, too. I did happen to be off in Vermont in the hills, and without...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: You‘re not pulling the WASP thing on me, are you, David?

GERGEN: No, no, no, no.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... highbrow on me, are you?

(LAUGHTER)

MITCHELL: This is Howard Dean country!

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Anyway, regular people watched “Sopranos” last night. I can‘t wait to see the numbers. I like the guy. I like him immensely. There‘s some weird thing about likability. Once you decide you like a guy, no matter how bad he is, you like him. Anyway, thank you, Andrea Mitchell. I like his wife, to. The kids are no day at the beach. Anyway, David Gergen, thank you for the analysis.

Coming up, presidential wannabe Mike Huckabee.

You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. He may not be the leading the Republican pack of presidential candidates right now, but Governor Mike Huckabee is getting lots of ink and lots of TV time. Does he have a message, however, that could sell to a party in search of a savior? Governor Mike Huckabee joins us right now. Governor, Huckabee, the Ted Kennedy question from 1980. Why do you want to be president??

MIKE HUCKABEE ®, FORMER ARKANSAS GOV., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:

Well, I could tell you that I didn‘t not make the final cut on “American Idol,” but I think you‘re looking for something more substantive than that.

I want to be president because this country needs some leadership right now

that‘s positive optimistic and that can bring the country together not on

the left and the right and the Democrats and Republicans but that leads not

horizontally but vertically. I think I can do that. And I believe that if

the American people will give me the opportunity, we can really tackle some

of these problems that have divided us. And that‘s urgent, urgent for this

country

MATTHEWS: Well, this country is divided, However. Let‘s take a look at all these cultural issues, whether it‘s stem cell or it‘s abortion rights or gay marriage. Where‘s the middle ground on all this stuff?

HUCKABEE: You know, I don‘t think people have to give up their convictions. They have to be willing not to be angry at people who don‘t agree with them. No one expects to agree with somebody all the time. I don‘t agree with my wife all the time, and she certainly doesn‘t agree with me all the time, but we stay together. This country has to stay together when we understand that there can be mutual respect, we can have differences, we can be strong conservatives, strong liberals, we don‘t have to be mad at each other over it.

MATTHEWS: But many people believe that we should put doctors in jail for performing abortions.

HUCKABEE: Well, I...

MATTHEWS: (INAUDIBLE) people in jail for that. That‘s hardly...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... the language of love.

HUCKABEE: That‘s the wrong focus for the pro-life community. We need to be talking about what we really care about, and that‘s the life of the child, not punishing somebody but protecting somebody. The heart of the pro-life movement, the heart of my own pro-life convictions, is not punishing, it‘s protecting. And I think when we start talking about that it‘s about life, it‘s not about seeing what we can do to injure somebody else, then we change the rules of the debate.

MATTHEWS: Well, what about the pro-science argument, that we need stem cell research to protect life, that we need to have controls over CO2 emissions if we‘re going to protect life on this planet? Those are pro-life issues, broadly defined, and yet you never hear people on the cultural right saying, Let‘s do something about climate change. They make fun of Al Gore. If it comes to stem cell, they all say no federal funding. So if you‘re pro-life on life before birth, why not take other positions with regarding these other issues?

HUCKABEE: There‘s a great article on the front page of “The Washington Post,” Chris, on new developments in the science that we may be able to actually use stem cells from our skin that would be just as effective as embryonic.

MATTHEWS: I saw that.

HUCKABEE: I don‘t know anyone who‘s against looking for cures for cancer and Parkinson‘s disease and Alzheimer‘s‘s disease. We all want to do that. And again...

MATTHEWS: Can you do that and teach Genesis in biology classes in high school? John McCain the other night—and you‘re a Republican—you‘re laughing, but this is—I never thought evolution would become an issue in the 21st century. But when people say, Well, the school board should decide whether to teach Genesis or biology or both, I mean, it seems to me you got to make up your mind. Do you believe in biology and science or don‘t you? Or do you say, No, instead of teaching the kingdoms of animal life and vegetable life and the (INAUDIBLE) everybody‘s prepared to be medical doctors in this country today, no, we‘ll also teach this other version, which is it was six days of creation and a day of rest, and we‘ll teach that as if that‘s science.

Don‘t you have to keep religion and science separate?

HUCKABEE: Well, I think the real debate is whether or not the president of the United States ought to be deciding the science curriculum in Dubuque, Iowa, and the answer is no.

MATTHEWS: No, but you were for things like charter schools and things like that.

HUCKABEE: Well, but what‘s charter school have to do with evolution?

Charter schools are...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... Genesis. You‘re going to teach the Bible instead of biology?

HUCKABEE: No. Charter schools are not about teaching Genesis. Charter school‘s about creating a competition in the environmental sector so that schools that fail have some options for the parents to put their kids in a school that might work, give them an arts school. If we were doing more to teach music and art, we‘d be having fewer kids with their heads on their desks, sound asleep.

MATTHEWS: Yes, well, I‘m all for that, too, but why are we going back to questioning science?

HUCKABEE: I don‘t think we are.

MATTHEWS: Why are we going back to—well, you said the other night we‘re not descended from primates. That‘s fighting words. You know what you were saying.

HUCKABEE: What I was saying...

MATTHEWS: You said—you were saying...

(CROSSTALK)

HUCKABEE: Wait a minute, Chris.

MATTHEWS: If you want to believe that we‘re descended from the monkeys, you can believe what you want. That was fighting words.

HUCKABEE: It wasn‘t to me. And it wasn‘t...

MATTHEWS: It sounded like the Scopes trial. It sounded like that play on Broadway right now, “Inherit the Wind.”

HUCKABEE: Chris, the whole purpose of that question being asked was to see if we could stir something up and throw a—spark...

MATTHEWS: To see if you guys are Neanderthals or not.

HUCKABEE: No. It‘s to try to find out if we believe that there was a...

MATTHEWS: That‘s what Tom DeLay said the other night.

HUCKABEE: ... a—a god involved in this or not.

MATTHEWS: He said, the only reason Wolf asked those questions the other night, CNN—because he‘s a little bit conspiratorial, Tom DeLay—he said...

HUCKABEE: Yes.

MATTHEWS: ... was because they—a liberal network, CNN, was trying to nail you guys as a bunch of Neanderthals, a bunch of troglodytes.

HUCKABEE: I don‘t think he—he—that worked. If that was the—if that was the goal, it miserably failed.

MATTHEWS: Well, we have got three guys in our debate that said, including you and Tancredo...

HUCKABEE: Yes.

MATTHEWS: And who is the other fellow? Brownback.

HUCKABEE: Brownback.

MATTHEWS: Who said you believed—that you didn‘t believe in evolution.

HUCKABEE: No. I—I believe in God. I believe that God created the...

MATTHEWS: So do we all.

HUCKABEE: ... the heavens and the Earth.

MATTHEWS: Sure. We all believe that.

HUCKABEE: OK. Then—then what is the conflict?

MATTHEWS: The conflict is whether he did it in six or seven days and whether this Earth is only 6,000 or 7,000 years ago, if you only add up the begats in Genesis, or whether there was millions of years of history before us.

HUCKABEE: And here we are in the middle of a presidential campaign.

MATTHEWS: And you—and you—and you don‘t want to say there‘s millions of years before us, because that would challenge...

HUCKABEE: And here we are in the middle of a presidential campaign, and, Chris, I doubt there is an American family in America tonight sitting at the dinner table having a discussion on what the president, the next president, is going to believe about evolution.

They want to know, why are my gas prices too high?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you.

(CROSSTALK)

HUCKABEE: What about my kid‘s education?

MATTHEWS: So, you say it‘s not relevant?

HUCKABEE: I don‘t think it is for the presidential election.

MATTHEWS: Is it relevant...

HUCKABEE: I think we ought to be talking about...

MATTHEWS: ... where you stand on stem cell research?

HUCKABEE: Only to the degree that, if a president says, I don‘t believe in research, I don‘t think in medical advancements, yes, that‘s a real issue.

But I do believe in that.

MATTHEWS: OK.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEWS: 2007, and we‘re fighting the monkey trial all over again.

Tonight, we‘re going to stay with Huckabee. We will be back.

And later: Should President Bush pardon Scooter Libby? That‘s our big debate tonight.

You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Here‘s more of my interview with Republican presidential candidate and former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEWS: We had a president just recently—President George W.

Bush, until recently, was basically challenging global warming.

Now, that—you could argue—some people would say, that is anti-science, because you look at Greenland on the front page of the newspaper today, and the harbor is ice-free in the middle of winter. So, what is going on?

So, do you challenge global warming?

HUCKABEE: No, I think the real issue is, we need to take more into account for conservation.

A true conservative...

MATTHEWS: So, you would like to see a mission of controls?

HUCKABEE: A true conservative—well, let me finish.

MATTHEWS: Right.

HUCKABEE: A true conservative is a conservationist.

MATTHEWS: I agree.

HUCKABEE: You know one of things...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Teddy Roosevelt started it.

HUCKABEE: A consumption tax, instead of the current tax, would force people to be more conservative in their expenditures of energy. If we really want to say...

(CROSSTALK)

HUCKABEE: ... let‘s do some conserving...

MATTHEWS: Boy.

HUCKABEE: ... have a consumption tax.

MATTHEWS: And that wouldn‘t hurt the economy?

HUCKABEE: No, it would help the economy. It would...

MATTHEWS: Would it hurt...

(CROSSTALK)

HUCKABEE: ... fire up the economy.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... because a consumer tax would say, basically, if you save the money, you don‘t have to pay taxes. And people say, God, if I don‘t buy the car, I‘m making money.

HUCKABEE: But the point is, Chris, people are going to buy cars.

But you know what? Right now, we penalize productivity. We penalize...

MATTHEWS: OK.

HUCKABEE: ... people for doing well.

MATTHEWS: Let me get the Mike Huckabee story straight.

HUCKABEE: OK.

MATTHEWS: You believe that we shouldn‘t be talking about pro-science, anti-science, evolution vs. Genesis, that those issues are divisive?

HUCKABEE: There are issues Democrats and Republicans ought to be talking about they can agree on. Why do we have two kids every 60 seconds dropping out high school?

MATTHEWS: I agree.

HUCKABEE: Why are kids laying their heads on the desk and sleeping, in the most expensive nap in America? We need to be talking about fixing that, so we don‘t have a whole generation of uneducated kids.

And I‘m going to tell you, Chris, Democrats and Republicans ought to be coming together and agreeing on doing that.

MATTHEWS: OK. Here‘s a way to come together.

Rudy Giuliani is leading your polls in your party right now. And I have—I have said he has a lot of appeal. A lot of people disagree with me. But he is doing quite well in the polls. I don‘t know who is going to win your—you could win the nomination.

But suppose it works the other way, and Rudy Giuliani wins your party nomination, a pro-choicer, a guy is open to gay rights, and has other liberal positions. And he comes to you, Mike Huckabee, and says, I need a governor on the ticket with me. I need a guy who has different values than me, because I want to sell unity in my party, like you were saying.

Would you be part of a unity effort, if he said, either end of the ticket—suppose you—would you pick Rudy for your ticket, or would he pick he? Would you go for either one?

HUCKABEE: You know...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking you to back up.

HUCKABEE: Yes.

MATTHEWS: You said, you want unity; you want to bring people together.

HUCKABEE: Right.

MATTHEWS: Will you join a fusion ticket, one way or the other, with a Rudy Giuliani?

HUCKABEE: If you give me a couple of hours with Rudy, I think I will have him pro-life, pro-guns, and get his whole position straight on these issues.

MATTHEWS: Who are you, Saint Augustine?

HUCKABEE: And we would be a great...

MATTHEWS: Who are you? This is like one of these old debates with the Calvinists. Which—are you going to...

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: You are going to—you‘re going to turn Rudy around in a couple hours?

HUCKABEE: I‘m—I am in the conversion business, Chris. I think we can do it. So, that‘s—that‘s what I will say.

MATTHEWS: So, you must have gotten to Governor Romney a few years ago.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Anyway, thank you very much.

HUCKABEE: Thank you, Chris.

MATTHEWS: You‘re a great—I see your appeal out there. You‘re a very—a very popular fellow.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEWS: Up next: President Bush is standing by Alberto Gonzales, but will he let Scooter scoot?

You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARGARET BRENNAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I am Margaret Brennan with your CNBC “Market Wrap.”

With little economic or earnings news today, stocks barely budged. The Dow Jones industrial average was up just fractionally, while the S&P 500 gained about a point-and-a-half. The Nasdaq lost more than a point.

After a big drop on Friday, oil prices climbed today, rising $1.21 cents in New York‘s trading session, closing at $65.97 a barrel. There‘s good news about gasoline prices, though. The latest Lundberg survey shows that the average nationwide price for regular unleaded dropped more than 7 cents over the past several weeks to $3.11 a gallon. It‘s the first drop in almost five months.

A setback in the Supreme Court for cigarette-maker Philip Morris—the court blocked the tobacco giant‘s bid to move a class-action lawsuit over light cigarettes from state court to federal court, where damage against the company would be limited.

That‘s it from CNBC, America‘s business channel—now back to

HARDBALL.

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

With the Democrats pushing hard for a vote of no-confidence against embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, why is President Bush hanging so tough in defending his old friend?

And with Vice President Cheney‘s former aide Scooter Libby sentenced to two-and-a-half years of hard time, why are so many Republicans unhappy with Bush hanging tough in not suggesting any kind of help is forthcoming for his hawkish lieutenant?

It‘s a HARDBALL debate tonight with former Bush speechwriter David Frum and Democratic strategist Jenny Backus.

Good evening. Thank you.

Should the president intervene in the judicial process with regard to Scooter Libby? Let‘s start with him...

DAVID FRUM, FORMER SPEECHWRITER FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well...

MATTHEWS: ... David.

FRUM: ... he has got a lot more options than I think people understand.

We had a very interesting discussion on “The National Review” Web site. One of the president‘s powers is the power of respite. That is, he doesn‘t—he doesn‘t have to give him a full pardon. He can simply say, you don‘t go to jail until your appeals are exhausted. As this judge...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What is the precedent for that?

FRUM: Oh, President Clinton did it. President Truman did it. It goes back. Many, many presidents have done it.

And it allow—you just say, the sentence doesn‘t go into effect pending the completion of the appeal. Normally, the idea that you would send somebody to jail, when he has such powerful appeals as Scooter Libby has got, that is very unusual. And—and Judge Walton‘s...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Not for Judge Walton, it‘s not.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Go ahead, Jenny. Should he be...

JENNY BACKUS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well...

MATTHEWS: Should the president intervene in this legal case or not?

BACKUS: Absolutely not.

I think it‘s, A—I think he should not do it because it‘s the wrong thing to do, but he should also not do it because it is another thing that he‘s doing to—to really harm the chances of these Republican candidates in 2008.

Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Law and Order Prosecutor, you heard him talk in that CNN debate. I thought he was, like, channeling some gooey liberal Democrat. I mean, it was—he was—he was Mr. Anti-Law and Order. What about the rule of law in this country?

You do something wrong. You‘re found guilty by the system. The Republican Party is rocketing away from truth, justice, and the American way. And Super—Superman...

FRUM: Respite and pardon, those are—those are some of the rules of law.

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: They are rules, too.

BACKUS: You sound, to use you guys‘ expression, Clintonian on this.

I mean, what—this...

FRUM: Well...

BACKUS: What...

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: ... if—if President Clinton had been willing to—had been willing to take a pardon, that would have been terrific. What he did was, he—he just actually violated the rules.

And this—this—what is happening—what has happened with Scooter...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Go ahead.

FRUM: ... is just—is an attempt to say, look, he was convicted.

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: And now—but he shouldn‘t go to jail?

MATTHEWS: What would be...

BACKUS: It‘s like Paris Hilton in the legal world.

MATTHEWS: ... the president‘s motive for intervening in this particular case? What would he say to the American people when he did such a thing? You can call it respite. You can call it commutation at some point. You can call it pardon at some point.

What would be his statement to the public when he did so...

FRUM: Last...

MATTHEWS: ... intervening in a judicial case?

FRUM: Last week, a woman who had been wrongly treated by her husband, went into his bedroom, shot him dead with a shotgun, and got a sentence about as tough the sentence that Scooter Libby got...

MATTHEWS: Right.

FRUM: ... for misremembering, or you can say he lied, but whatever it was he did, that he, in a case where there was no underlying legal infraction, and where the actual wrongdoing, the person who actually did the offense that is supposed to justify this enormous sentence, is sitting on boards of directors...

BACKUS: People—people...

FRUM: ... is a respected member of the Washington establishment.

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: People who lie to grand juries...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: But that‘s the president‘s call. In other words, the president, you believe, should intervene in this case?

FRUM: The president should intervene, certainly stop the sentence from going into effect, let Scooter Libby win his appeal.

MATTHEWS: Why? Why should he do that?

FRUM: Because the punishment is just so out of line with reality.

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: I mean, Richard Armitage...

MATTHEWS: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: ... if you believe—suppose—let‘s...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Perjury...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: The charges...

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: ... believe that this is a serious crime...

MATTHEWS: I just want to ask you. Perjury and obstruction of justice are the very charges leveled against President Clinton.

FRUM: Yes.

MATTHEWS: They were the basis for him to be impeached by the Congress and almost convicted in the Senate, with 50 Republican votes voting for his removal from office, for the charge of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Why did it justify that extreme, historic step...

FRUM: Mm-hmm.

MATTHEWS: ... and this doesn‘t?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: It doesn‘t justify two-and-a-half years in prison?

FRUM: He is—Scooter Libby is punished. He has—he faced fines.

He‘s...

BACKUS: How is he punished, if—if his sentence is respited or commuted or pardoned?

FRUM: Oh.

BACKUS: How is that a punishment?

FRUM: A pardon does not wipe away the fact...

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: ... will not wipe away the requirement that...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Should President Clinton—should President Clinton have been impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice?

FRUM: I think the president—that Republicans did right to impeach President Clinton, which all—which would have...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Why?

FRUM: It would have removed him from office, which—which Scooter Libby has also been removed from office.

BACKUS: Isn‘t—isn‘t...

FRUM: But it is sort of shocking. If there had been two presidents at the same time, both of whom had done the exact same thing, and one were punished, and the other not, I mean, the Armitage question...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: You can jump in here, but it seems to me you have made an argument that I have heard before, which is, there is no underlying crime here.

What was the underlying crime that Bill Clinton committed?

FRUM: The underlying...

MATTHEWS: What was his underlying crime?

FRUM: I‘m not saying, in the Scooter Libby case, that there‘s no underlying crime. I‘m saying the person who committed the underlying crime has gone away scot-free.

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: Is not lying to a grand jury an underlying crime?

FRUM: Absolutely.

BACKUS: Is perjury an underlying crime?

FRUM: Absolutely, it is.

BACKUS: Well, people...

FRUM: The question is what...

BACKUS: ... routinely do that and go to jail.

FRUM: But...

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: Why—what is—what is different about Scooter Libby?

FRUM: Look, the question is...

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: He is the Paris Hilton.

FRUM: The—the question is, what...

BACKUS: It‘s like getting special treatment.

FRUM: ... what—what kind of—what kind of punishment should he get?

BACKUS: He...

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: And presidents have pardons. They can say, the punishments look severe. They can say—they can have all kinds of reasons for saying, as President Clinton did with—with a whole...

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: ... host of people on his last day, this punishment seems out of line to me.

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: This—Scooter Libby is the highest—highest-level official since the Reagan era, since Iran-Contra, to have been prosecuted. So, I don‘t think the comparison—the comparison with the Clinton administration is fair.

But—but here‘s my question to you. What kind of message does it send to the American people when this president, this president says that the law doesn‘t count for him? Don‘t you that think they‘re just walking into the same...

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: It does.

FRUM: It‘s just bizarre to say, after a trial, after an investigation, after conviction...

BACKUS: Where he‘s sentenced...

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: ... that the law doesn‘t count. The question is, what should the punishment be?

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me ask you this. Do you accept the Burdick precedent that, if you accept a pardon, you have accepted guilt?

FRUM: I—I...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Jerry Ford believed in that. That‘s why he gave Nixon the pardon.

Do you believe that Scooter Libby should accept guilt as implicit—implicitly accept guilt as—in accepting a pardon?

FRUM: I—I—I—you—you mean as a legal matter or as a psychological matter?

MATTHEWS: No. No, legally.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No, accepting—according to the precedents in the court...

FRUM: Mm-hmm.

MATTHEWS: And this came through in all the discussions of the Nixon pardon.

FRUM: I‘m really not sure I understand the question. Like, should he make some kind of statement, or—or what?

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that it carries the implication of acceptance of guilt, if he accepts a pardon?

FRUM: No, I don‘t think it does. I mean, I think you could say...

MATTHEWS: Well, that would be breaking with precedent.

FRUM: You could say—if you were somebody—if you are the person, and you think you have been wrongly convicted, and you accept a pardon...

MATTHEWS: Well, then Nixon never accepted guilt, then, you‘re saying?

FRUM: I have no idea.

MATTHEWS: Well, that is what Jerry Ford thought.

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: I—I‘m with you on this.

I mean, look, I think—I think that that is what Bush—that Bush is going to try to justify that, that Scooter Libby accepts that he is wrong, but he does not really have to be punished as much.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: So, there‘s no remorse in this case? There‘s a lot of factors you usually get in a case involving a pardon.

And, in this case, there has been no remorse or admission of guilt, even implicitly or explicitly. So—so, I am...

(CROSSTALK)

FRUM: Sorry. You‘re saying, if you, as president, are convinced that there‘s been a monstrous perversion, error of justice, and things have been done wrong, that you can‘t pardon the person...

MATTHEWS: Yes, you can.

FRUM: ... unless you think the—that he was...

MATTHEWS: Yes, you can.

FRUM: You can only pardon the people you think are rightly convicted?

MATTHEWS: The precedent—the precedent...

FRUM: You can‘t pardon the people you think are wrongly convicted?

MATTHEWS: No. David, the precedent is, if you accept a pardon, you have accepted guilt. That‘s the precedent.

FRUM: So, a person who believes he was wrongly convicted cannot accept a pardon? That doesn‘t make any sense.

MATTHEWS: Well, that‘s the question of whether he chooses to do so.

FRUM: That—so, you say, OK, I think—because I think I am innocent, therefore, I am going to spend 20 years in jail?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No, because a pardon is not a legal—it‘s an extralegal method of getting a person sprung.

FRUM: Yes, I...

MATTHEWS: It‘s not saying you are innocent.

FRUM: Right.

MATTHEWS: See, pardon is not to say the person was innocent.

FRUM: So, you‘re saying a person who believes he‘s innocent should stay in jail?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No. I‘m saying, if a person accepts a pardon, you are accepting an extralegal method of springing them. They‘re not accepting acquittal. It is not an acquittal.

FRUM: Look, obviously, it will not be as good for Scooter Libby if...

MATTHEWS: If you want to—if you want to have it both ways, where the guy accepts a pardon, and is perceived to be innocent...

BACKUS: And then says...

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: .. innocent...

MATTHEWS: ... that‘s extraordinary.

FRUM: I concede that, for—from Scooter Libby‘s own point of view, it is not as good to be pardoned as it would be to be acquitted. Obviously, that is right.

BACKUS: But...

FRUM: And I think—I think that is one of the reasons why I think this idea of a respite is attractive, because it allows an appeal to go ahead.

(CROSSTALK)

BACKUS: Whatever happened to doing the time if you do the crime?

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you, David. Thank you for coming. It is a difficult case.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Do think he should be pardoned?

FRUM: I hope he will not go to jail.

MATTHEWS: But you—ultimately, you think he should pardoned, rather than serve jail?

FRUM: I would ideally like to see him win on appeal. That would be the best possible outcome...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

FRUM: ... after a respite. If—if he loses on appeal, then I think that the president should pardon him.

MATTHEWS: There‘s such an uproar out there I hear from friends of mine who want him, who really want this guy pardoned. I hear it from so many people...

FRUM: Mm-hmm.

MATTHEWS: ... and especially Fred Thompson, who has made it into a cause celebre.

BACKUS: Well, but Fred Thompson...

MATTHEWS: I think he will be pardoned. I think the pressure is overwhelming.

Do you think he will be pardoned?

BACKUS: No, I do not. But I think that if he does get pardoned, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani are in big trouble—and John McCain—in the presidential race, because --

MATTHEWS: They can‘t let this guy go to hard time, because I think he was serving the president‘s policies throughout everything he did. Anyway, thank you David Frum. It is an ironic situation. Anyway, Jenny Backus, thank you. Up next, half the country has an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton. Can she do anything about it? This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. We‘ve brought you the biggest headlines, now it is time to see what it all means. We begin with top political reporter Linda Douglass, who has recently joined our partner “The National Journal.” You have seen her on TV reporting from Capitol Hill for several years, out in the campaign trail, of course. Now it‘s on to “The National Review.” Also joining us right now, NBC‘s political director Chuck Todd.

First up, loving and hating Hillary. Even though Hillary Clinton leads most national polls for the Democratic nomination, does she have a likability problem? The latest issue of “Newsweek” takes a look at the gap between those who like her and those who don‘t. Forty six percent have a favorable view of her, which is high. But an even higher number don‘t like her. Exactly half the country views her unfavorably.

Can she deal with that? Is that too many people against you to start with her. She has another problem. Only one in four people in the center like her. Linda Douglas, you are an expert. I‘m going to build you up now. Can you win a general election if you only have one in four of the independents—those are the people in the middle—and half the country is already saying they do not like you?

LINDA DOUGLASS, “NATIONAL JOURNAL: Well, I think it is very hard. I mean, obviously this is early, so a lot of these numbers are like funny money right now. But I think that Hillary Clinton has a couple of problems, one of which just simply has to do with being female. It is very hard to do what you have to do as a woman and be strong, without appearing to be cold. That‘s number one.

But number two, this is a woman who has been on the defensive throughout her political career, all the way through President Clinton‘s first campaign. She was on the defensive about being a feminist, about being her own person. She was angry. We saw her as angry about being asked about his infidelity. She was angry about what she thought was the vast right-wing conspiracy.

So the country has seen her angry. I think that it is hard sometimes for people to put their arms around a woman who they see as angry.

MATTHEWS: Can you really help me digest why it is that people don‘t like her? A lot of people do like her. But why do so many people not like her? What is the not like about? You say it is her gender.

DOUGLASS: I think that‘s part of it.

MATTHEWS: People do not dislike Dianne Feinstein. They don‘t dislike

I mean, there are other people who have been out there politically, not a whole lot, I admit. You know, Jennifer Granholm in Michigan, although she had a very tricky reelection, Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas, very popular.

Now, maybe they haven‘t gone for the brass ring. Nancy Pelosi, of course. What is it about—is it just—well, what is it? Is it people think she thinks she is better than us? Just guessing here.

DOUGLASS: Well, that is a guess. That certainly is a guess that many people would make, because she has been pushing back a lot. She is a fighter. And, again, she has been on the defensive.

MATTHEWS: Do people think she is honest?

DOUGLASS: Well, I think that certainly the Clinton team, whether fair or not, has been accused of having an ethical tenure throughout the Clinton governorship—

MATTHEWS: You mean the 100,000 dollars she made in cattle futures?

DOUGLASS: Which was something that was debunked during the president‘s presidency.

MATTHEWS: How was it debunked? I‘m still mystified how you can pick up 100K in a field you know nothing about.

DOUGLASS: Well, certainly they thought they debunked it. It went away. I would predict it is going to come back, by the way. I would also predict that the Mark Rich pardon is going to come back to haunt Hillary Clinton.

MATTHEWS: Bill Jefferson is probably going to federal prison for 100,000 dollars.

DOUGLASS: Well, and the cattle futures, again, was never proved to be a crime or not a crime. It was certainly an issue that will be revisited.

MATTHEWS: Well, it is found money. Let‘s put it that way, found money.

DOUGLASS: Every other one of the things that was thrown at the Clintons, some of which—what 70 million dollars was spent investigating Whitewater, and it turned out to be nothing. A lot of that stuff turned out to be nothing, but it will all come back. And that is why many Democrats are worried about her.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Chuck, about this. Is this the—you know, Dick Cheney gets away with secrecy. He won‘t let people even know who visits at the vice presidential residence. He certainly won‘t let anybody know who helped him with energy policy, although you can assume they‘re all oil guys and the gas people. Right?

But maybe he is hated as much as Hillary? I don‘t know. Maybe he

only has like 23 percent popularity. Maybe they‘re both guilty of the same

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: He is hated more than Hillary.

MATTHEWS: Tell me about it. Is it secrecy, superiority?

TODD: Linda is working for the second best company in town, “National Journal,” as opposed to hear.

MATTHEWS: No, we‘re working together.

TODD: Exactly, we‘re together. Look, I think she is polarizing. Unpopular I think is the wrong word. I think some of it is fatigue. I think some of her unfavorability rating is not about hating or about her. I think it‘s fatigue of the Clinton name and fatigue of Bush. I think some of Bush‘s unpopularity rating is rubbing off on her, and that is something that I think that they worry about.

They worry about this whole—you know, the stat that they think that an Obama can throw, you know, hey, we need to turn the page. Do you realize there‘s been a Bush or a Clinton on the national ticket since 1980.

MATTHEWS: But people still buy Hershey Bars and M&Ms and they buy Exxon gas. People get into habits of voting. Don‘t they? Look at the people who get elected because their father was famous.

TODD: But in a change election—I have had this theory on Clinton, watching her in this campaign, which I think she is running a perfect campaign if she were running against an incumbent president of the United States. She should have—this campaign she is running now would have been the right campaign to run in 2004.

It may end up being the right campaign and she may get there. But she is running a much better cautious change, competent change campaign that would have worked a lot better in 2004, and a lot better than John Kerry could ever could have pulled off. She might have beaten Bush.

MATTHEWS: Every time I talked to somebody, they have a problem with her, male, female, mostly female. I cannot figure it out.

(CROSS TALK)

MATTHEWS: I look at these polls, and she is leading all the polls.

DOUGLASS: And yet she has a lot of support from women. That really is her base. It mean, hasn‘t that been her base throughout this campaign?

MATTHEWS: Not in the chattering class I hang around with. Anyway,

next up, why didn‘t Colin Powell just resign? Former Secretary of State

Colin Powell has criticized this administration since he left office. But

why did he salute the boss if he did not fully support the war? Where was

Powell‘s tough talk against the administration when it would have counted

the most, before the invasion of Iraq? Here he is on Sunday‘s “Meet the

Press:”

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TIM RUSSERT, “MEET THE PRESS”: After your presentation to the United Nations, and you realized that the information that you had been giving was faulty, did you ever think of resigning?

COLIN POWELL, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: No. The information was faulty. But it wasn‘t faulty because people in the intelligence community were lying or trying to deceive. It was faulty because intelligence can sometimes be faulty. And it was not managed properly. It wasn‘t processed properly. And we should have realized the inadequacy of some of our sourcing earlier. But it was (INAUDIBLE) on the part of the intelligence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: What do you make of that? I know what I think.

TODD: He has always been the ultimate cautious guy.

MATTHEWS: Why is he covering. Why is he saying—

TODD: He is a loyal soldier. I can‘t tell you how many people on the left—you know, when he sort of dropped these hints that he might endorse a Democrat, I‘ll tell you their are a lot of people on the left who lost a lot of respect for Powell because he did not resign, because he didn‘t—

Because the whole point of him being in this administration, for those in the middle that did vote him—I have some relatives who ended up voting for Bush over Gore because they though Powell will make sure. And Powell wasn‘t there to stop it.

MATTHEWS: He helped sell this war on the two grounds most people bought it. There was a nuclear threat from these people in Iraq, and it was somehow connected to 9/11. All this stuff—he‘s talking about all this stuff when it‘s not proven. No, it‘s the stuff that was pushed that was not ever true that bugs me.

DOUGLASS: He laid—During this interview with Tim Russert, he laid this all on the intelligence, which was mismanaged he said, not in a venal way, he said.

MATTHEWS: I‘m sorry, it won‘t sell, because they sold us on the fact that he had a nuclear weapon. He was coming to get us with it in some balsa wood plane. And he was somehow involved in 9/11. And Cheney was right in the middle of it. It was not the intelligence community; it was the politicians, of which he was one of them.

He was part of this team that sold this war was based on bogus information, and the fact that they chose to use it was their decision. Nobody else in the world bought it. Nobody else went to war.

DOUGLASS: There was a lot of information that was out, even right before the war. I mean, Henry Waxman, Congressman Henry Waxman, who‘s now committee chairman, was debunking the fact that Iraq was trying to buy from the country of Niger this enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons.

(CROSS TALK)

MATTHEWS: -- were a joke. We knew they were bogus. Who knows which side of the war hawk crowd put up that information? Everybody on the inside knew this. It was not a question of taking the bad advice of George Tenet or anyone else. It was a question of—well, you know all this.

TODD: It was cherry picking.

MATTHEWS: Picking out stuff that would get us into the war, and that‘s why they selected it. Anyway, Linda Douglass and Chuck Todd are staying with us. You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: We‘re back with the “National Journal‘s” Linda Douglass, who has just joined our grand team here, and NBC‘s political director Chuck Todd. Next up, 20 years ago “tear down this wall.” On June 12, 1987, Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate, demanding that Michael Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall, a symbol of communist oppression.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Peter Robinson wrote that, one of the great speeches of the Ronald Reagan era. What‘s its significance?

DOUGLASS: What it reminds I think all of us is that this was a very, very popular president at the time of America‘s probably all-time popularity. I mean, it was such a different time, where you had a president who was able to certainly have the appearance of making these things happening, of contributing to bringing down the wall and to ending the communism that was sweeping through the Soviet Union and elsewhere.

MATTHEWS: Do you think Reagan was that popular in Europe?

DOUGLASS: Reagan was respected. Reagan was larger than life.

MATTHEWS: I wouldn‘t over-state that. I think they still don‘t like cowboy Republican presidents in Europe.

TODD: We are more liked than the Russians, than the Soviet Union. In comparison, we looked good.

MATTHEWS: -- we grew up praying for in church wanted out. By the way, do you know how you knew that? They had to build a wall to keep them in.

TODD: The biggest problem that this president and any U.S. president has now is there‘s no enemy. There‘s nobody to compare ourselves with, to be able to say, do you really want be under that regime. You know, it used to be, do you want to be the United States or do you want to be the Soviet Union.

MATTHEWS: Being an older member of this group I must tell you, I remember growing up and worrying about nuclear holocaust. I worried about a mistake made, a weird Armageddon moment in Cuba or Berlin. I didn‘t like it. This is better. I‘m sorry. I don‘t care what Rudy Giuliani or anybody says. Terrorism is better than the Soviet Union.

Anyway, dinner with “The Sopranos.” What is it all about, Tony? You‘re first. What is it all about? Everybody in America was watching this thing last night. They end up having dinner together as a family, with Meadow and the kid, Junior, and it was just a dinner. What was it about?

TODD: You know, the ending has grown on me. I didn‘t like it. I like it now. I get it. I‘m with it. I‘m OK with it. And it‘s—

MATTHEWS: Are we in a dream—

TODD: He has all of us talking about it. I hope he doesn‘t sell out to a movie. That‘s my biggest fear. Yes, my biggest fear is that he is somehow going to want to do a movie. No, let it end, because Tony was ambiguous. He was kind of good. He was kind of bad. So let it end ambiguous.

DOUGLASS: The foundation of the whole—

MATTHEWS: Did you like Tony?

DOUGLASS: Like? Tony was hard to like? I‘m thinking of all the people that he graphically murdered in that TV series. But I was shocked at the ending. I was completely shocked and disappointed. Then I woke up this morning and it felt like somebody you‘ve known for years and years, and they‘ve just moved away. And you sort of lost track of what happened to them.

And I think that is the feeling that Chase was kind of going for, not a hard separation, but just kind of the way people drift away from each other.

MATTHEWS: I like those world wary eyes of Tony Soprano. It‘s almost like a European old movie. You know, I‘ve seen it all. I‘m good. I‘m bad. I‘m everything. That look he gives; you know that dead look? It‘s such a great look.

TODD: And he knows that he always has to live that way.

MATTHEWS: I love the loyalty of the wife. I‘m sorry. I love it. I love it. That family having dinner at that restaurant, eating onion rings together, the kid who is a pain in the butt, the daughter who can‘t parallel park. It was so American. It was us.

(CROSS TALK)

TODD: He went into the mob so his kids didn‘t have to.

MATTHEWS: -- at the north end in Boston the other day, the Italian neighborhoods. It‘s so much a part of this country. Anyway, thank you Linda Douglass, thank you Chuck Todd. Join us again tomorrow tonight at 5:00 and 7:00 eastern for more HARDBALL. Our guests include Don Van Natta, the co-author of the new book about, who else, Hillary, “Her Way” it‘s called. Now it‘s time for “TUCKER.”

On Hardball with Chris Matthews, April 13, 2007

Guests Cynthia Tucker, David Gergen, Faye Williams, Armstrong Williams, Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, Maury Wills, Sheryl Crow, Laurie David, talk with guest host David Gregory

DAVID GREGORY, GUEST HOST: Tonight: Don Imus is off the air, but the debate has not died down. Where does the conversation go from here about race, words and how we talk to each other?

Let‘s play HARDBALL.

Good evening. I‘m David Gregory, in again tonight for Chris. Thursday night, CBS followed NBC News in taking radio talk show host Don Imus off the air in response to his racist and sexist comments about the Rutgers women‘s basketball team. Today the team, after a personal meeting with Imus, announced it has accepted his apology, but his comments and firing have triggered a fiery debate and backlash around the country. Tonight, a frank, and we hope, candid discussion on the fall of Don Imus and the firestorm left in his wake.

Plus: It is ironic that this debate comes 60 years after such an important moment in this country. That‘s when 60 years ago, Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier and came into the game of baseball. Much to my delight as a lifelong Dodger fan, we‘re going to Dodger Stadium this hour, and we‘re going to talk to one of the greatest players in baseball history—about one of the great players in baseball history, Jackie Robinson, with one of the greatest Dodgers, and that‘s Maury Wills (ph). That‘s coming up a little bit later on.

We‘re going to begin this hour with Faye Williams, the chair of the National Congress of Black Women, and Armstrong Williams, who is a radio talk show host and a syndicated columnist. Welcome to you both.

Dr. Williams, I want to talk about where we are at the end of this week. And my observation, having covered this story and discussed this story at great length this week, that I think there‘s a lot of anger on both sides of this divide at the end of this week over the firing of Don Imus. What do you think?

FAYE WILLIAMS, CHAIR, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF BLACK WOMEN: Yes, I think you‘re right, David. But at the same time, plain old anger will just consume and destroy us. So we in the National Congress of Black Women have been on this issue for almost 15 years, when we started out with gangsta rap and talking about the destructive nature of it to our culture. And here we are, nearly 15 years later, still dealing with it. It says to us that all of us have got to work a little bit harder and that just being angry about it is not going to help.

GREGORY: Why do you think people are angry, though?

FAYE WILLIAMS: Well...

GREGORY: Why do you—where does the anger come from?

FAYE WILLIAMS: I think people are angry because they thought they had fought some battles, and what they find is we are continuing to fight the same old battles. So today, about 30 women‘s groups came together and basically said, Enough is enough. We can‘t settle with just being angry, we‘ve got to have a plan because we see now that this kind of thing is going to continue to happen, and we‘ve got to...

GREGORY: And what is—so what is the plan? What is—what do you think is the action item that comes after this incident?

FAYE WILLIAMS: Yes. Well, first of all, we talked today about the need to monitor these shows, to monitor our society more closely because there‘s so many things going on out there, so many things are getting past us that are being said, and we don‘t feel the need to do anything about it because we think it‘s just a passing fancy. But we see now it is not. And I think the Imus incident has taught us that we have to be ever vigilant, we can never assume that this problem is resolved. So these 30...

GREGORY: Do you have a list of people that you‘re going to be monitoring that you feel you need to go after?

FAYE WILLIAMS: Oh, I think I think we‘re going to looking at everybody because who knows where the racism, the sexism or the bigotry is coming from. We‘re just seeing that in our culture, everybody just seems free to talk about anybody, to destroy and to denigrate anybody. And we as women have said that we—you know, enough is enough. We have got to look at it.

And we want stations like yours to have a policy so that we don‘t have to fight these battles every time, a station knows what it is to do when somebody crosses that line. So we‘ve drawn some lines in the sand, and we‘re saying it can go so far and no farther.

And if the stations don‘t realize it, then we‘ll be there, including civil disobedience. We were prepared to go there today, but it just so happened that, you know, this part of the crisis ended. But it has not ended at all. And those 38 women‘s groups that came together today have vowed that we‘re going to be together. We are—at this moment, we have our staffs working on the rest of the plan in terms of what we will be doing.

We have purchased stock in your company. We‘ve purchased stock in other companies, as we did with gangsta rap, so that we can talk go to those shareholders‘ meetings and we can talk about what is that is denigrating to our people. And we‘ve called upon stations like yours to have diversity of leadership, of on-air personalities, and of people who come on the shows to talk about our issues.

GREGORY: Armstrong, I want to take on an issue here of about diversity because it‘s been a big topic, and it‘s a fair topic in a conversation to have. And Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have come on this program this week and said, What we‘re really going to take on is diversity inside NBC News and inside the other networks.

But I want you suggest this and have you comment on it. There is a level of diversity within NBC News that provided for a dialogue within NBC News that led to the firing of Don Imus. And I‘m not certain if 10, 15 years ago, that would have been the case. There were African-American voices within this network who were heard and heard loudly and heard strongly and who made a compelling case to our management, where they said, You know what? It‘s no longer appropriate to be associated with him.

So I ask you for a comment on that and about whether what Dr. Williams is saying is where you think this conversation goes next.

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, I think the biggest dilemma for American, because of our history from human slavery to de jure segregation to the Civil Rights movement, Americans actually are conditioned to believe that there is such a thing as black problems, white problems and Hispanic problems. The problem is, there are certain people in this country who seem to get outraged by a Don Imus, or run off to Durham, North Carolina, to do—when they assume that a black woman has been raped by three white men and ratchet up the rhetoric and say so many demeaning things because in our society, you‘re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. But we crossed another threshold. You‘re guilty until proven innocent.

And the Sharptons get more energized if the victim is black. They seem to think that whites only care if the victim is white. We should not be outraged, as African-Americans in the newsroom, because Don Imus is white and what he said offended black people. It offended our humanity. There should be no such thing as a black and white problem in the way we talk about it. I should be just as offended by what happened to these Duke players as by what Don Imus said about those ladies at Rutgers.

The problem is, we like to put ourselves in camps. So what we got to do is realize that black people can‘t take care of their problems, their out-of-wedlock births, lack of men in their households, the crime in the inner city, the lack of justice in the justice system. It takes all Americans to solve those problems. The probably is, we‘ve decided that we have to do it ourselves and nobody can take care of our problems. Just like Katrina. That was a black problem. White people wouldn‘t understand. That is ridiculous! That was an American problem.

We may have come here on different ships, but we‘re in the same boat now where you sink together or swim together. The problem is, we have been swimming separately and apart. There is one America. Until we are energized about all the problems that affect us all, and stop trying to put them in little boxes, nothing‘s going to change!

GREGORY: Let me bring you back, Armstrong, to where I started, which is my observation at the end of this week, I think there‘s African-Americans who are saying, Yes, it‘s an important step that Imus is off the air, but this is the beginning of this conversation, and it‘s just the start of taking on some of these issues.

And I think there are a lot of white people, including fans of Imus—and I‘ve gotten the e-mail and we‘ve gotten the e-mail at NBC News—who say this is crazy, that he shouldn‘t have been taken off the air, that he apologized, that it‘s Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who are leading the fight and that they‘re not pure actors in this drama, and who are they to judge and lead the charge and that it was reactionary and we were responding to a kind of media mob mentality about sort of bringing Imus down.

Why do you think there‘s this anger at the end of this week, rather than a sense of resolution?

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS: Well, it was Jesse Jackson, when he made the “hymie” comment, at his press conference, he said, Be patient with me, God is not through with me yet. In other words, he said, I‘ve fallen (ph). I‘ve done a very bad thing. I‘ve hurt a lot of people. But I still think the hope of my becoming a better human being and striving to correct this and bring about productive change is still within me.

But people are saying, Well, you‘re not willing to say that about Don Imus. You‘re not willing to hold Don Imus to the same standard that you asked for when you fell short. The Reverend Sharpton, when he and Reverend Jesse Jackson went down to Durham and condemned these white players and took the side of this accuser—we now know that she was lying, and they‘re not willing to say that, and destroyed the lives of these boys that they can never get their reputations back and their good name back. And so they realize that Reverend Al Sharpton used (INAUDIBLE) He—Reverend Al Sharpton caused by his rhetoric eight people to die, Reverend Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley.

It is one thing—Al Sharpton is a good man. I know Al Sharpton. But sometimes good is not enough. Al Sharpton should be man enough to say to America, I owe you an apology. I‘m sorry. The same thing that he could sit so high and mighty in his studio to ask Don Imus to do, he should have the moral authority, especially as a minister, to do for himself.

And so until Al Sharpton and Reverend Jesse Jackson and these so-called leaders are willing to hold themselves to the same standard that they are holding Don Imus and everybody else to, they cannot be respected, and the American people will not want (ph) them. And this is not a black and white issue. They just don‘t have the moral authority because they‘re not the ones whose houses are totally clean. And that‘s just being honest. You may not like it, but that‘s what it is. And people see the hypocrisy. They see the contradictions, and they don‘t like it. They said, If we‘re going to do it, let‘s challenge the rap artists, let‘s challenge hip-hop, let‘s challenged these other shock jocks who use racist remarks toward whites and we laugh at it. Let‘s hold everybody to the same standard.

Don Imus could have been a force for good if we had left him on the airwaves. I really believe Don Imus learned and he was challenged, and I think he could have been a part of this dialogue.

GREGORY: I want to take that up when we come back. We have to take a break. We‘re coming back with Faye Williams and Armstrong Williams. They‘re staying with us. And when we return, we‘ll talk with Benita Fitzgerald Mosley of the Womens Sports Foundation and MSNBC political analyst Craig Crawford, as well, who was a frequent guest on the Don Imus radio program.

You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: We‘re back on HARDBALL and back with Faye Williams of the National Congress of Black Women and syndicated columnist Armstrong Williams. And I‘m also going to bring in Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, who‘s president and CEO of Women in Cable Telecommunications. She‘s also a trustee for the Womens Sports Foundation and a 1984 Olympic gold medal winner. And MSNBC political analyst Craig Crawford, who has been a frequent guest on the Imus show. Welcome to all of you.

I want to talk about Imus specifically here and the fact that he met with the Rutgers women last night at the governor‘s mansion in New Jersey. Reverend DeForest Soaries is a familiar face on this air this week because he has been talking to Imus, talking to the Rutgers ladies and mediated this meeting. I asked him about what was said specifically by Imus during this powerful meeting. This is what he said earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GREGORY: What did we say that we haven‘t heard him say in the past few days, to them?

REV. DEFOREST SOARIES, PASTOR TO RUTGERS WOMEN‘S BASKETBALL TEAM: He said something I believe that was quite profound and sincere. He said, I was just fired by CBS, and I‘m still here. Obviously, I‘m not here because I‘m trying to save my job. And he said, I‘m not trying to save my job, I‘m trying to save my life. Don Imus is attempting to get beyond this issue, and the meeting last night, I believe, gave him the kind of information that he indeed will need to make decisions about his future.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GREGORY: That was Reverend DeForest Soaries. Craig Crawford, let me ask you, as somebody who not only knows Imus, has been a guest, as I have, but has been following this story all this week, where do you think Imus ended the week, as opposed to where he began, in terms of his recognition of all of this?

CRAIG CRAWFORD, “CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY,” MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I would go back to one of the things the reverend said when you had him on this morning and we talked about it. One quote that has stuck with me all day is when Imus said, I told the students, I‘m not trying to save my job, I‘m trying to save my life. That‘s something Imus fans would understand.

He‘s a complicated man, and you know, one of my problems with a lot of the critics of the show is they didn‘t actually watch the show, and only those facets of the show that are so controversial are the ones so many have seen. There were other parts of the show where a lot of his fans—he was a friend to them, almost like a family member who would come into their homes and he would talk about religion. He would talk about more—he had many sides.

And sometimes I think he sort of played Archie Bunker, in a way, which was sort of the play-acting side of him that got him in so much trouble. But the genuine side of him is the side that that quote came from. And a lot of Imus fans would recognize that—I‘m not trying to save my job, I‘m trying to save my life.

This is a man who came back from a lot of personal crises over the years...

GREGORY: Right.

CRAWFORD: ... and many of his fans overcame their own personal crises, substance abuse and various things, with his leadership. I had a fan one time tell me he actually used the Imus show as an AA meeting to keep from drinking. I think a lot of fans, you know, looked at him that way, and those fans are the ones that have totally been forgotten in this debate.

GREGORY: And Dr. Williams, I want to ask you a question that I‘ve asked a lot this week. And based on what you heard Reverend Soaries say about Imus‘s state of mind and what he told these young women—you talked about your goals going forward now.

FAYE WILLIAMS: Yes.

GREGORY: Why is it that you think Don Imus couldn‘t have been a helpful part of that agenda and of that conversation?

FAYE WILLIAMS: Well, let me put it like this, David. Suppose I were a drug addict or I was an alcoholic, I don‘t think I would be allowed to talk with young people and be that role model for the young people. Armstrong talked in the beginning about Reverend Jackson and about Reverend Sharpton. So I think it‘s for that reason. I have a young niece at Texas A&M University who is an honor student, dean‘s honor roll. She‘s a three-point champion. She plays basketball. She‘s bright. She‘s brilliant. She‘s beautiful. But if all she‘s got to hear is that she‘s a “nappy-headed ho,” I mean, where is the incentive for her to do better in our society?

Black women have been kicked around so long that it‘s time for us to start kicking back because we cannot allow our children to grow up having to listen to that. It‘s hard enough being a black female.

And while my heart goes out to Mr. Imus and his family and we pray for his recovery, being out here in the public airwaves is not the place for him to be because there are young people out there who are listening and because of his problems, we never know what he‘s going to say.

GREGORY: But Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, let me bring you in here and take what Dr. Williams said because I think, in some ways, you‘re making my point. If he is a drug addict and he‘s a recovered drug addict, which by the way, happens to be true, if he is saying racist things and is trying to get over that—whether you believe he can or not, I suppose, is a separate debate—but why can‘t he be a force for good to try to heal the wounds by talking about the mistakes he‘s made? Why doesn‘t he have credibility on that topic?

BENITA FITZGERALD MOSLEY, WOMEN‘S SPORTS FOUNDATION: He may have credibility, but clearly, he has really abused the privilege of being on the public airwaves. And I think there are two different issues at hand here. One is the issue of free speech and whether or not he‘s allowed or legally allowed to say certain things at will. And the other is, you know, there are a lot of hard-fought anti-discrimination, anti-harassment issues that come into play here, laws that are in place, policies that are in place at many corporations, including, I‘m sure, GE...

GREGORY: Right.

MOSLEY: ... NBC and MSNBC, that have been violated. And for instance, you know, if you were in a corporate workplace and you said some things to a colleague that were similar to this or called them a “jigaboo” or some other...

GREGORY: Right.

MOSLEY: ... word, you would be called on the carpet by...

GREGORY: It‘s actually a good point...

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: I mean, Armstrong—I mean, you know, in a work—I couldn‘t call anybody a “nappy-headed ho” and be—I wouldn‘t be around for five minutes.

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS: But the difference here is—and I respect Dr. Williams so much, we‘ve worked together before—is that hearing the “H” word and the “B” word and all these other words—it‘s not as if they‘ve heard it the first time from Don Imus. She‘s been fighting a battle with rap artists and hard-core lyrics for a long time. I don‘t know anyone who‘s lost their recording contract because of using these words. I don‘t know too many people other than the target—the poster boy for this kind of discussion, white men, who‘ve lost their jobs or their way of life.

So, when Americans see this—and you could make that argument, but it would be one thing if Don Imus was saying something that shocked people. Dr. Williams is not shocked by the rhetoric he has used. She is shocked by what he—who he directed it towards.

She has heard this rhetoric. So, what is our goal here? To kill the messenger or to kill the message? I think our goal should be to rid our marketplace of the message.

I mean, do you know that, at the 2006 Grammy Award, what the song of the year was? “It‘s Hard Out Here to Be a Pimp”? And they used the word hos and B‘s. It was so bad, when they were trying to bleep it out during the broadcast, it was still coming across.

What kind of industry celebrates “It‘s Hard Out Here to Be a Pimp”? I mean, so, I‘m not so concerned about the messenger. It‘s the message. That‘s the moral issue, not the political one.

GREGORY: All right. We‘re going to take another break here, come back with everybody, Faye Williams, Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, Armstrong Williams, and Craig Crawford. They‘re all staying with us. And we hope you will, too.

We‘re watching HARDBALL. You‘re watching HARDBALL, right here on

MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: We are back with Faye Williams, Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, Armstrong Williams, and Craig Crawford.

I want to bring something up from Russell Simmons. This is a

statement he issued on this very topic about these questions about where

the word ho comes from, and the fact that it comes from the hip-hop culture

Russell Simmons, the founder, of course, of Def Jam Records, launched artists like Run-D.M.C. and LL Cool J and others, back in ‘80s, when I listening to rap music as a kid growing up in Los Angeles.

He said the following—quote—“Don Imus is not a hip-hop artist or a poet. Hip-hop artists rap about what they see, hear, and feel around them, their experience of the world. Like the artists throughout history, their messages are a mirror of what is right and wrong with society. Comparing Don Imus‘ language with hip-hop artists‘ poetic expression is misguided and inaccurate and feeds into a mind-set that can be a catalyst for unwarranted, rampant censorship.”

Dr. Williams, the point that I was making just a minute ago off the air, Don Imus, if he‘s a racist, and is going to speak as a racist from his heart, he‘s not going to—a 67-year-old enjoy is not going to use the phrase nappy-headed ho. That‘s something that he is picking up, and used stupidly and hurtfully and wrongly, but it‘s something that he learned from the rappers that Russell Simmons is talking about, no?

F. WILLIAMS: Oh, I—I think the word ho and nappy-headed, those are words that came long ago, long before hip-hop.

And I want to make the point, there are some very positive young people who are doing hip-hop. There‘s a group called Hip-Hop Culture out of Seattle, Washington, right now who is working with us to put the first African-American woman in the United States Capitol. Sojourner Truth, it happens to be.

GREGORY: Right.

F. WILLIAMS: They are working very hard. They are meeting right now.

So, I don‘t want to castigate all hip-hop. What we started to work against was the gangster rap, and just what gangster implies. It‘s meant to hurt. These young people were doing this because this is what was being paid for. This is what they were being encouraged to do.

Some of them have had tears. They have cried with us. They have said they wished they had an option, but this is all that they know. Dr. Tucker, took the time to try to teach some of the young people that there are alternative words you can use. Use that same beat. The beat sounds good.

Many people like it. But use lyrics to promote something that is good, to advance our culture. And I think that‘s what—not what the money is doing. The money is encouraging them to demean and to castigate black women.

GREGORY: I just want to get a—just a thought from everybody here in a little less than two minutes, first, Armstrong, because you were making the point that it‘s what hurts the most, right? Is that—that‘s kind of, in your mind, what the standard is?

A. WILLIAMS: I think, when you think about collateral damage—and I said “It‘s Hard Out Here Being a Pimp” was a Grammy. It was an Oscar. It won an Oscar.

GREGORY: An even bigger...

A. WILLIAMS: Bigger forum—forum. It‘s about the damage. There is no way you can say that Don Imus has done more damage to the young women she‘s trying to protect than these gangster rap artists. And have—they have been—in fact, this is historic. This is the first time that I can recall that we have had a meaningful debate about gangster rap music and hip-hop and its impact.

And you know why we‘re having it? Because of Don Imus, the poster boy scapegoat for all this. But Don Imus should not be in this hall of shame by himself.

GREGORY: Well, but this is kind of like when you discipline kids, Craig, because this is Don Imus‘ day in the public court. It doesn‘t mean that we can‘t be taking on gangster rap, but it doesn‘t mean that he should not be confronted as well.

CRAWFORD: And I would point out, I don‘t think he would sit here and say—and hide behind gangster rap. He took responsibility for what he did and said. He apologized for it. He asked for forgiveness. He only got it from the students.

And I would bring back this focus to the students. I said it earlier in this week. I think, today, after I heard what they said, they have been the most sane voices in this thing. None of them were interested in kicking back, as I just heard someone suggest should be done. They‘re not interested in being victims.

I think they are closer to understanding that it‘s not empowering to make yourself a victim. Their self-worth is not determined by what someone else calls them. I think these students have made more sense to me than most of the adults I have heard talk about this.

GREGORY: Quick—quick final comment from Benita Fitzgerald Mosley.

Benita?

MOSLEY: Yes.

I think that, really, this debate has opened up a whole ‘nother level of discussion about the still remaining cultural divide, as far as gender equity is concerned, as far as cultural and racial equity. And it really goes to where women are in society today.

And, when we look across the board, particularly at corporate America, and see that women are still only getting paid 77 cents on the dollar, that we—it will take us 43 years in order to catch up to men, as far as our parity in corporate directorships, 74 years to catch up with men as far as the board of directors, we‘re still so far behind.

And, really, if you‘re talking about people of color, particularly African-Americans, it‘s a lot farther to go than that. So, I‘m—I‘m glad for the discussion. I‘m heartened by the outcry. I‘m also very respectful of all the efforts that the—the women‘s groups are doing in order to collectively bring light to this issue, and continue the heat, to make sure that women, specifically African-American women, are treated more favorably in the media.

GREGORY: To be continued, for sure, and I hope.

And I think it‘s interesting that it was Don Imus who said this week:

If I hadn‘t have said it, we wouldn‘t be here.

And where we are is beginning to have a bigger conversation that goes beyond Don Imus.

Thanks to my guests, Faye Williams, Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, Armstrong Williams, and Craig Crawford.

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: Coming up next, we are going to continue our discussion about Imus, race relations, and how we communicate with “The Atlanta Journal-Constitution”‘s Cynthia Tucker and former presidential adviser David Gergen.

And we‘re also going to assess where the political culture has been in all of this, the presidential candidates, national leaders, where they have been on this.

And, by the way, there it is. That‘s Chavez Ravine, Dodger Stadium, a source of great joy in my young life. We are going to talk about the legacy of Jackie Robinson on a fitting day, 60 years after he broke baseball‘s color barrier. And we‘re going to have Maury Wills.

You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MARGARET BRENNAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I am Margaret Brennan with your CNBC “Market Wrap.”

Stocks closed higher on Friday, with the Dow Jones industrial average gaining 59 points, the S&P 500 up five points, the Nasdaq up just short of 12.

Wall Street welcomed news that core inflation at the wholesale level was flat last month. Also helping stocks today, word that the nation‘s trade deficit improved for a second straight month, and that the trade deficit with China narrowed to its lowest point in nine months.

And there was also some positive earnings news from General Electric, the parent of MSNBC and CNBC. GE shares rose just about half-a-percent in trading. But Merck shares jumped more than 8 percent, after the drugmaker raised its earnings outlook. Fast-food giant McDonald‘s also raised its profit outlook.

And this news just breaking: Google has agreed to buy DoubleClick for $3.1 billion in cash. DoubleClick is a marketing technology and services company. Google definitely going to be a stock to watch on Monday.

That‘s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to

HARDBALL.

GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

For more on the political and media debate surrounding the firing of Don Imus, let‘s bring in Cynthia Tucker—she‘s an editorial page editor of “The Atlanta Journal-Constitution”—and David Gergen, director of the Center For Public Leadership at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He‘s also an editor at large at “U.S. News & World Report.”

Good to have you both here.

DAVID GERGEN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Thank you.

GREGORY: Cynthia, let me start with you.

In the media, the media management of this, the media reaction, and, ultimately, the media reaction in firing Don Imus, what—what happened this week, from day—not day one, but, say, the day one of this week, where he apologized, to the suspension, to both NBC and CBS firing him?

CYNTHIA TUCKER, EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR, “THE ATLANTA-JOURNAL CONSTITUTION”: Well, I think, among many other things, Don Imus was the victim of new technology.

He‘s a veteran of the business. He‘s been in the business for many, many years. And, when he started out, he would not have had to contend with YouTube or the Internet, where the video clip of him, the TV—his—his radio show, after all, had been simulcast by this very network, MSNBC. And you could see him and actually hear the words and see the expression on his face, the smirk on his face.

And, after this video has been shown over and over again, it has an effect it wouldn‘t have had with people just repeating it or you seeing in it print.

GREGORY: And, David Gergen, there is a culture now of media watchdogs and interested parties, special interest groups, that can mobilize and organize and reach the Internet, and, therefore, reach us, and have an impact in a hurry.

And that‘s what—the real story of this week. The anatomy of his

demise was how fast it happened. ~

GERGEN: Well, I think that‘s partly right.

And I certainly believe, as Cynthia and both of you have put it, that the fact that it was on YouTube, that you could see it, that it was so—people could share in it, what—drove the story a lot.

But I have to tell you something. There‘s another factor here. And that is the degree to which the media itself has changed and the diversity that is now out in the media, with many more women and many more African-Americans and Hispanics in the media, that you had the National Black Journalists, who got on this and pushed it really hard, which was terrific.

And then Gwen Ifill wrote that piece in “The New York Times...”

GREGORY: Yes. Yes.

GERGEN: ... which I thought was one of the turning points, that it was from an African-American woman who is a journalist, who said, when she was covering the White House, he called her, you know, this—this cleaning woman in the White House.

GREGORY: Yes.

GERGEN: And I thought that—it was very powerful.

And, then, on top of that, the girls themselves, I have to tell you, David, I thought that the Rutgers girls being out there really was the absolute turning point. After that, I think he was finished.

GREGORY: Now, you know, I think Gwen Ifill writing the piece, Al Roker speaking out, as well...

GERGEN: Right.

GREGORY: ... as internal conversations within NBC, Cynthia, led a lot of people who were on his show to sort of question themselves and say, what‘s my part in this?

You know, I was a guest on his show. Did I tune out some of the aspects of the show that were so offensive to so many, because I was interested in what I was tuning in to the show for, which is to be on it, to have an interesting conversation about politics and world affairs and such? Were we numb to it? Were we in denial about it? What?

And it sort of forced all of those questions to the foreground.

TUCKER: Well, I‘m glad it did. I‘m very glad it did. And I think David is absolutely right to point to the diversity in the news media now. That‘s one of the wonderful things.

We have long argued—I am old enough now to be a pioneering member, sad to say, of the National Association of Black Journalists. And one of the reasons we always argued for diversity is because we said, you need to be able to hear from us, too. We may have a different point of view about this.

If you are—have a black daughter, not just on a basketball team, but anywhere, then you don‘t want her to be subjected to these horrendous disparaging remarks. And Al Roker has daughters.

And, so, I think it did make a tremendous difference that black journalists talked about how they felt about it. And it may not have struck white journalists who had appeared on the show in quite the same way. It was just sort of the white noise for them.

GREGORY: Right.

TUCKER: But it affected black journalists much more personally.

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: David Gergen, I have just got a minute left. I do want to talk about some of the political debate here.

Barack Obama came on this program earlier this week and said—and condemned Imus, said he would never go on there again. Chris Dodd was on this program, wouldn‘t really weigh in as to whether he thought he should have been fired.

GERGEN: He announced on “Imus.”

GREGORY: He did.

GERGEN: Right.

GREGORY: Hillary Clinton is going to Rutgers to speak about this on Monday.

What do you think about the extent to which the politicians have—have or have not weighed in?

GERGEN: I think the politicians have been remarkably silent. I‘m glad Barack Obama finally weighed in. He was slow, but he did weigh in, and he weighed in on the right side.

Hillary Clinton going to Rutgers, I think some people are going to think that may be a little over the top or exploitive.

But, nonetheless, it has thrust race into the campaign, and—and questions extending to women. And that‘s very healthy in this campaign. After all, we have a historic possibility in this campaign. We could elect the first woman in history. We could elect the first African American in history to the White House. It‘s good to race and gender as part of the national discourse, so we can all grow up.

I mean, the fact is, a lot of us as white males, David, as you well know, have sat around talking and using phrases for a long we didn‘t realize caused deep offense. And it‘s come sharply to our attention in this. I hope it will help to change the national discourse overall and will help us to have a more mature conversation about can a—Isn‘t it time for an African American to be considered seriously? Isn‘t it time for a woman to be considered seriously for the White House?

GREGORY: All right, we‘re going to leave it there. Thanks to David Gergen and Cynthia Tucker. When we return, we‘re going to go, as I‘ve been saying, to Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles to talk about the legacy of Jackie Robinson with Dodger legend Maury Wills.

And later singer Cheryl Crow on the fight to slow down global warming.

This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: We are back on HARDBALL. The conversation about race triggered by the Don Imus incident comes on the anniversary of a watershed moment in the history of race relations in this country. Sixty years ago this weekend, Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in baseball‘s Major Leagues when he joined the Brooklyn Dodgers. We go now to Los Angeles, to Chavez Ravine in Dodger Stadium. And we are very pleased to be joined by Dodger‘s legend Maury wills.

Mr. Wills, it‘s a pleasure to have you on the program.

MAURY WILLS, FMR LOS ANGELES DODGER: Thank you David.

GREGORY: I want to ask you about Jackie Robinson. You know, we talk about sports teaching the country about itself, about what it is and what it can be. I want you to reflect about Jackie Robinson and when he broke in, what it taught the country about itself and also, sort of, held out there about what the country could be.

WILLS: Well, David, when I was just a kid growing up in the projects in Washington, D.C., I remember asking all the older folks, who were buzzing about this black man up in Brooklyn called Jackie Robinson. At the time I was a fine little athlete. I had four brothers who were also good baseball players. But I didn‘t think of myself as having any future in the game on a national basis.

So I asked about this man named Jackie Robinson, and they told me and they told me where Brooklyn in, and they told me where New York was. I didn‘t even know that. And I remember walking away. I was about 14 at the time. And I said, you know, one day I‘m going to play for the Dodgers. And at that time every young black kid who played baseball wanted to play for the Dodgers, was a Dodgers fan. I shudder to think where I would be right now if not for Jackie Robinson, because he gave me a dream of getting out of those projects and somehow having a good life. That came true for me.

GREGORY: Talk about the reaction to Jackie Robinson when he broke in and how the country responded then, but came to respond over time.

WILLS: Well, you see, at that time I had no idea how the country was responding to it. We speak of today as the world as being small, because we are all so knowledgeable about everything that‘s going on. But in that time, just the opposite I would have to say. The world was very large, because my scope was narrow. I didn‘t know that much about what was going on.

It was in the days when everything was separated; the neighborhoods, schools, transportation and everything else. I just know that this man named Jackie Robinson gave us a feeling of being more significant, a feeling of wanting being someone or being able to be someone. And I did that. I spent eight and a half years in the minor leagues, when only—after four years, if you haven‘t made it to the big leagues usually you get discouraged and you quit or the young player gets released by the organization.

But because of my dream through Jackie Robinson being there with the Brooklyn Dodgers, I was able to persevere, and after eight and a half years in the minor leagues, playing on teams where I couldn‘t stay where my teammates stayed. I couldn‘t eat where my teammates ate. I couldn‘t travel the way they traveled. But nothing was going to deter from that dream that I had, all because of Jackie Robinson.

GREGORY: Tell me what he was like. Tell me about the Jackie Robinson you knew.

WILLS: I got to barn storm with Jackie when I was just about 19-years-old. He was barn storming through the south for a month after the regular baseball season with Brooklyn. He had a couple Major League players and they filled the rest of the positions with the minor league players and I was one of those minor leaguers. It was just a terrific experience. The man cared about us.

I remember being sometimes—he would check the bus every night to make sure we were on the bus. He wanted to know where we were and how we felt and what was going on. He was a tremendous individual.

GREGORY: Did he talk about race? Did he talk about what he was going through?

WILLS: No, no such thing. We just lived life. We played baseball.

Baseball was life. We didn‘t get into that. I remember I played in 1955. I went to the Texas League and played with Fort Worth, Texas. I was the first African-American or black player to play there. I was to be their Jackie Robinson and I failed utterly.

It wasn‘t because people were mean to me. Nobody yelled any obscene or nasty things. It was the laws that got me. I never felt so lonely in my life. I couldn‘t stay where my teammates stayed. I couldn‘t travel with them. I couldn‘t eat where they ate. And I said, now I know what Jackie went through, but that just made me more determined.

GREGORY: Maury Wills, I‘ve just got a few seconds left. I have a four ½-year-old boy, Max, who loves to play baseball. What‘s the number one thing I can tell him about how to run those bases and steal bases like you did?

WILLS: Well, don‘t be afraid, you know, just run, run, run. That‘s all he needs to know at this point.

GREGORY: That‘s pretty good advice for life too, I would say. Maury Wills from Dodger Stadium, a great pleasure. Thank you for coming on.

WILLS: You bet, David.

GREGORY: All right, we‘re going to take a break. Coming up next, singer Sheryl Crow and environmental activist Laurie David; they‘re on the road trying to get young people to do more to stop global warming, and they‘re coming up next. You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: Welcome back to HARDBALL. What can the next generation do to stop global warming? Singer Sheryl Crow may have some answers. She and environmental activist Laurie David begin a 13 day, ten stop tour of the southern U.S., colleges is where they‘re going to raise awareness of global warming among the students. And they both join us now from New Orleans, looking fun in the sun, looking cool in the sun out there in New Orleans.

Thank you ladies, Sheryl Crow, is the new grass roots for fighting global warming, on these campuses, do you find?

SHERYL CROW, SINGER: This is about as grassroots as it takes. And we are really, literally taking it to the people on a bio-diesel bus. And I think that we are kicking up the dust on a subject that‘s the most important subject right now, that we all need to be concentrating on. And there‘s never been a social movement that has not involved college students. So that‘s why we‘re starting right here at Loyola, and we have been to Texas, and we are headed up to Alabama, and we‘re going to wind up in D.C. on Earth Day.

(CROSS TALK)

GREGORY: Laurie, go ahead. Yes, there‘s a little satellite delay, so we‘ll bear with each other. But you started in Texas, why?

LAURIE DAVID, ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST: Well, because Texas is the number one emitter of CO 2 emissions in the country. So what better place to shine the light than there?

CROW: We didn‘t want to go someplace where everyone is driving hybrids. We wanted to go to a place where maybe people were not completely sold that global warming is actually happening. And it doesn‘t do us any good to go out and preach to the converted. What we want to do is really start some momentum here, because this is a topic that‘s not going away.

DAVID: That‘s one of our messages, that we are all guilty of this problem, so we all have to be part of the solution.

GREGORY: What is the Al Gore affect that you‘re finding?

DAVID: Well, you know, I think the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” had a big impact on this country and people, and all around the world. It‘s opened all around the world right now. But now we have to move very quickly to solutions, and that‘s our goal, to go from—OK, the debate is over. The globe is warming. Humans are causing it. Now what do we do about it. And that‘s where we have to focus all of our attention.

GREGORY: Sheryl, this is a grass roots effort, and I cover the White House, and have heard this president talk about alternative sources of energy. It‘s been on the political agenda, but as it moves to the next election cycle, where does it have to be, beyond where it‘s been as a discussion piece, as an agenda item.

CROW: Listen, talk is not enough right now. All the scientists in the world -- 2,000 scientists in 150 countries have already said, look, we have a window of opportunity here. As we all know, scientists are pretty conservative laws. So ten years, maybe we have five years, six years. Now it the time not to be discussing, to be arguing, to be debating whether this is happening.

We have to move, and we have to be responsible when we vote. We need to vote for people who are actually going to do something about this. And I believe, in the next two years, something is going to happen in Washington, because it has to, because the people are demanding it. We‘re seeing the repercussions right now.

It‘s not just about warm days. It‘s about extreme weather on both ends. And while you guys are having snow tomorrow in New York, we had snow in Dallas on Easter on Sunday, and now, two days later, it‘s 80 degrees. This is not normal.

DAVID: Listen, we just came through the warmest winter on record. And they‘re saying—and 2006 was the warmest year. They‘re saying 2007 is going to worse. So we have to do something and do it right now.

GREGORY: Sheryl, before I let you go, I also want to ask you about your efforts on breast cancer. I know you have been working on legislation on Capitol Hill. Where does that stand and where do you think there is an opportunity now?

CROW: We heard an amazing mayor from Arlington, Texas the other day, talking about how global warming is going to affect our health, and it‘s very astounding. And that‘s something that‘s not being addressed. And this bill that we are trying to get passed with the Breast Cancer Coalition, which is a fabulous organization, is looking at the environment, and what kind of play it has in breast cancer. And hopefully that will become the model for looking at all diseases.

That‘s one area—we can go into laboratories and look at genetics, but we‘re not looking at the environment. And there is no denying that the environment does have a large play in disease, and we‘re going to see it coming up as global warming gets worst. I think our message really is not to be defeated by what we are seeing and reading. It‘s to get involved and try to stop what is happening or slow it down.

And what Laurie and I are doing with our program is just talking to kids about what they can do, how they can start personally, how they can get their colleges to change, and then how—what to ask the country to do.

DAVID: Right.

GREGORY: Ladies, I‘m going to have to leave it there. I know you have to get to your next interview, because I know there‘s a Cadillac Escallade waiting to take you. No, no, I kid. I kid. Thank you very much.

CROW: Not unless it‘s running on vegetable oil.

DAVID: Thanks David.

GREGORY: Sheryl Crow, Laurie David, thank you very much.

And this programming note, this Sunday night on MSNBC the premier of the documentary of “Journeys With George.” This is good. I was there. I can tell you—in which film maker Alexander Pelosi goes on the bus with then Governor George Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign. I would keep telling her get that camera away from me, but it turned out to be a very interesting film, Sunday night at 8:00 eastern, right here on MSNBC.

Chris Matthews returns to HARDBALL Monday. He will be in Las Vegas.

I‘m David Gregory. Thank you for watching tonight. Have a good weekend.