tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News August 16, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
>> thanks to gavin. john gab bore. father jonathan morris, marc cuban, katherine, joanne, the liberal panel. boy this show is people are listening, they're not going to hear a political speaker from me. >> we'll sit down with one candidate whose gotten a big post debate bounce in iowa, dr. ben carson. plus clinton's e-mail server, how will her campaign handle the latest setback? >> the hero doesn't usually ask you to do thing, they demand that it happens. >> we'll talk with trey gowdy, chair of the house benghazi committee about the investigation. plus our sunday panel weighs in on the new poll numbers and
the rise of the anti-politician. >> people are tired of professional politicians. people are tired of politics as usual. >> who do you think they're watching, jeb bush? huh, i don't think so. >> all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. well, there's been a big shake-up in the republican presidential race since the gop debate. today, we have the results of the first fox news national poll since then. donald trump still leads the field with 25% support among gop primary voters. but dr. ben carson has now jumped into second place at 12%. also on the rise, senator ted cruz and carly fiorina, jeb bush down five points to 9%. it's his first time in single digits since april. when it comes to who won the debate, the highest net score goes to fiorina, carson, governor john kasich, and
senator marco rubio. and the lowest goes to chris christie, rand paul, and donald trump. joining me now, the candidate with the biggest post debate bump, ben carson, whose campaigning in ohio after the ohio state fair, running second to trump among likely caucus growers, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thank you chris, nice to be withes you. >> well, congratulations on those strong numbers, i not only want to talk to you about your surge in the polls, but also that of carly fiorina and donald trump, what do you think republican voters are saying about the appeal of non-politicians? >> well, i think people are starting to recognize that the same old, same old is going to take us to the same place. and you know, we're sort of at a precipice right now, are we going to continue down this road which is leading to a very bad place or are we going to try to make a change? i think they are also looking at the lives of people who have had
very significant accomplishments because that's what we need right now is accomplishments, not just more of the same. >> but how do they distinguish, you know, because yes, you all three have had extraordinary accomplishments, but some would say some of you are fit to be president, some aren't, how do they distinguish between you and fiorina and donald trump? >> well, i hope they are actually listening to our plans. you know, i want more people, for instance, to talk to me about the economy and about foreign affatend to get a lot o about rates and about medicine, and i think as time goes on and as i get out there and i talk to audiences, i talk about those things, and they're hearing it. >> well, let's get into that, especially now that you're a top tier candidate. you say you want people to examine your policies, both foreign and domestic. let's drill down first of all
into your position on taxes. you say that income inequality is a big issue, you favor raising the minimum wage, but you also want to impose a flat tax, somewhere between 10% and 15% for all americans, all tax payers, and the allegation is that that would be a big tax increase for low and middle income wage earners, but a big tax cut for the wealthy. >> well, first of all, what i want to do is i want to equalize things. i want things to be fair for everybody. i don't want to pick and choose who the winners and losers are, and i think when you do things in a proportional basis, it works very well. you know, 10% is an easy number to use because it's easy to do the calculations, but you make $10 billion, you pay a billion. now i know there are a lot of people that say that's a problem because the guy still has $9
billion left, we need to take more of his money. but that's called socialism, and i recognize there are a lot of people here who believe in socialism that increasing, they look the same way with a small group of elites at the top, rapidly diminishing middle class and independent class. that's not america. we're different than that. >> but, you know, the idea of a progress of -- go ahead, sir. >> the other thing i want to mention is when you have a tax system that includes everybody, it's very difficult for the politicians to engage in their favorite activity of raising taxes. it's easy to do it on one is or 2% or 5%, it's hard on 100%. you have to live within your budget. >> what i was going to say is we've had a principle in this country for a progressive tax rate, the tax rate is lower for lower income people and yet higher for the wealthier. for decades, and let's take a
look at what the congressional budget office, a non-partisan government agency says would be the impact of your policy. currently, the bottom fifth of households, in terms of their income in the u.s., pays an average federal tax rate of 2%. while the top fifth pays an average federal tax rate of 21%. again, if your flat tax is somewhere between 10 and 15%, just looking at that statistic, the bottom gets hit while the top makes out. >> okay. well what we have to think about, chris, is how do we fix the economy so that it encourages entrepreneurial risk-taking and capital investment. how do we create a ladder that allows those people in the lower income brackets to move up that ladder. not how do we make them comfortable in that situation. that's not what america was all
about. and we can do that. >> but, what do you say to that person who's making 30 or $40,000 and maybe paying an effective tax rate of 5 or 10%, basically you're saying you're going to get a tax increase. >> i say the thing that is really impacting that person making 30 or $40,000 is all the incessant regulations that we're coming up with. every single regulation costs us in terms of goods and servicings. it increases the price of everything, and who gets hit the most? the people and the lower economic brackets. that's what we need to be concentrating on. those are the kinds of things that are driving the income gap. opportunities, we make available, we create a ladder, we create opportunity, and the can-do attitude rather than the what can you do for me attitude. that's what made america great. >> let's turn to foreign policy, as president you say that you would revoke the current iran deal and negotiate a better one, and you also are fiercely
critical of president obama for you say attacking his credits. here's an article that you wrote this week in the jerusalem post, you called the president the divider in chief and you write this, shockingly, his diatribe was employing standard, anti-semitic things, involving implied disloyalty and nefarious influence related to money and power. question, barack obama, anti-semitic? >> well, all you have to do, chris, like i have, go to israel and talk to average people. you know, on all ends of that spectrum, and i couldn't find a single person there who didn't feel that this administration had turned their backs on israel. and i think, you know, the position of president of the united states should be one where you begin to draw people
together behind a vision. not one where you castigate those who believe differently from you. i think it's a possibility for great healing, if it is used in the correct way. >> but, you know, with one thing to, one could argue your policy differs from israel, but you say in your article and you're talking about his domestic credits here in this country that there is anti-semitic themes there. what specifically is anti-semitic in what the president is saying? >> well, i think anything is anti-semitic that is against the survival of a state that is surrounded by enemies and by people who want to destroy them. and to sort of ignore that, and to act like, you know, everything is normal there, and that these people are paranoid, i think that's an anti-semitic. >> one sign, i guess, of your
rise in the polls is that you were attacked by the left this week for your involvement in a 1992 study that involved fetal research. the charges that you're being hypocritical now when you call for defunding planned parenthood because you were involved in a study that involved fetal research 23 years ago, and even one of your conservative critics, rivals, rick santorum says that the position you're taking is morally suspect. how do you respond to all of this? >> i say a lot of people are getting pretty desperate if they're going back almost a quarter of a century looking for things that aren't even true. you know, what i did as a surgeon is take tissue samples and give those to the pathologist who then compare them with their archives. it's sort of like if you were an ark yols and you find something in a dig that had some writing on it, you don't recognize it, you give it or it your archivist and they go through all the
archives that they've been able to maintain over the many decades, and they say you know what, that looks like something from manchester me taken ya, that's the same thing, nothing to do with me doing an abortion or even touching fetal tissue. it is a desperate attempt by some people to try to change the argument, and also to justify some of the things that are being done by planned parenthood. completely different than anything that i was doing. >> let me ask you, dr. carson, where are you, because it seems to be a little confusing on the issue of abortion and exceptions in the case of race and incest. if someone is a victim, they can goen to emergency room and get the rua 46 pills, that is a chemical abortion pill. where are you on exceptions in the case of abortions, yes or no? >> i think that when conception occurs, life occurs.
and -- but i do believe in contraception. and at an appropriate time, you have to know what the psych it will is, the egg is only fertilizable at certain periods of time. and there are certain types of drugs, projeton that can prevent ovulation. let's say someone has been raped and they're administrated that drug, it can prevent ovulation which allows the egg to come down because the healthy sperm can live for up to five or six days, but if the ovulation doesn't occur, then you won't have conception. you know, it has to be understood, you have to have people who actually understand thousand works. >> doctor, we have about a minute left, we're going to dig into the hillary clinton e-mail scandal later in this program, but i want to ask you whether, one, you think she has broken the law, and two by her private e-mails, the classify the information she has disqualified herself as a potential
president. >> well, you know, i will leave the legal discussions to the lawyers after they've gone through all the evidence because i think it's foolish to make a proclamation without seeing it all, however, what we do know is that she was the united states senator, she was the secretary of state, and she makes this information, which should have been known to be something that you didn't want to be available to our enemies or anybody else, putting it on a private server, shows incredibly bad judgment. so would you take someone with judgment like that and hand them the keys to the white house, i would not. >> dr. carson, thank you. thanks for joining us. always good to talk with you, sir, again, congratulations on the good poll numbers. >> thank you, chris, i appreciate it. up next, our sunday groups joins the conversation as we have still more results from the latest fox news poll. which candidates do debate-watchers think are the most and least qualified to be
i've been getting politicians to pass whatever in all my life. nobody has more experience. it's sort of interesting, nobody has more experience dealing with politicians than i. i've been dealing with them all my life. >> donald trump outside the iowa state fair this weekend, touting how effective he would be as president. in the latest fox news national poll, we asked voters whether candidates are qualified to be
president. 67% say jeb bush is very or somewhat qualified, followed by rubio and hillary clinton, on the flipside, 52%, a majority of registered voters say strump not very or not at all qualified to be president. 53% say about clinton, and 35% about ted cruz. and it's time now for our sunday groups syndicated columnist george will and gagarin of the washington post, arthur brooks president of the american enterprise institute and author of the new book "the conservative heart:how to build a more produce produce america." and bob woodward. pretty interesting poll results. candidates like jeb bush who voters say overwhelmingly is qualified to be president are now lagging in the polls, meanwhile, candidates like trump and carson and cruz, the voters say, are not qualified are the three front runners, which raises the question, what is going on here? >> what's going on is those
deemed least qualified to be president are most qualified to do what the vetters want done today, 160 days before the first votes are cast in iowa. which is send a message. that was george wallace's engaging theme in 1968. he said send them al message. them was anything you wanted it to be. that's what they're doing. this is a version of the 1960s fad called primal stream therapy. you're supposed to shout and get rid of all your repressed pain from childhood. this is particularly so for mr. trump and what makes him fragile as a candidate is, first of all, he's a one-trick pony. he consistents of saying i'm rich, everyone who disagrees is stupid and all our problems are simple if you put me in charge. second, people haven't reminded themselves of the intimacy we live with our presidents now, they're on our living every night, they're constantly in the
conscious, and third, since we are at the end of this going to send a president, do we really want to get nuclear weapons to donald trump, at which point i think things change. >> you think that's a rhetorical question. >> yes. >> all right. we ask you for questions for the panel, and we got a punch like these, on facebook, see what politicians have done to our country, time for something different. and david tweeted, is this a second phase of a trend started by the tea party movement to shift power away from career politicians? and how do you answer that? >> they're on to something here. there's definitely a mood where there's an inestablishment with visceral interest in people who are not career politicians to use the phrase that donald trump frequently does. but there's not, and that really had something that's been largely missed by the clinton campaign and by the jeb bush campaign, they were the
establishment candidates, they have the credentials on paper that people are going eh, not interested right now. i think that'll change over time. but right now -- >> that's precisely the question, george say it's a primal scream, acts as if this is a phase, is it a phase or conceivable that we could be headed for a real shake-up in american politics and the people governing in washington? >> history would suggest that the lek tort will get it will out of its system and the candidates currently not fairing as well certainly on the republican side will rise back up, bush probably among them. the question for clinton is, can she hold on to the front runner status and build on that at the same time as sanders is tapping into something that, yes, it'll sort of peter out, won't go away. >> we'll get to the democrats in the next segment. arkansas thour, as a student of the conservative movement, how
do you explain the surge as we see in the latest poll of trump, of fiorina, of ben carson at the expense of all of these fitting and former governors and senators with all of their credentials? >> well george has it just right, this is a low information, high entertainment, high protest moment, it's summer time. it's the same thing in the movies, it's low information, high entertainment. and this is what you see. if this persists past labor day, it's something for the republican party to panic out. the protest vote as we see it across the candidates is only about a third of the voters, half the of the voters still have the mainstream candidate. republican voters always aggregate up toward kind of this mainstream person or persons. >> let me interrupt for a moment, i get the e-mails, and you are saying to me, when you say low information, that just makes people's blood boil. they say this isn't low information, this is a considered judgment, we think
the -- the republicans said give us the majority in 2010, things haven't changed. barack obama talked about hope and change, things haven't changed they feel in the right direction. they say this isn't low information, they've gotten something that you haven't gotten. >> i understand that, i'm not saying that people are ignorant, they're not asking for specifics about policy. that's not what people are interested in at this point in the cycle. they will become more interested in that, and republican voters will gravitate towards the person who's more qualified to be president. the challenge for the protest candidates is to get those numbers up. that's the most important thing. republicans always come back, they came back to mitt romney, they come back to the candidate who's qualified to have the nuclear -- >> people yelling at me say came back to john mccain, we came back to mitt romney, and those weren't the right guys. let me put up another data point. gop primary voters say that dr. carson is the most likable of the candidates, followed by rubio, when it comes to the
least likable, here are the bottom four, trump, leading by a wide margin. bob, what do you make of the trump phenomenon? >> well, i think george has it right, it's reflective of a primal scream attitude, but, you know, as john kasich said in the year debate -- your debate, trump has struck a nerve. but i think your poll in a way answers the question, who's best qualified to be president, and it's not trump. it's the traditional candidates, and having spent two innate decades trying to understand presidential decision-making, it's really important. presidents make important decisions, and the presidency is not a roulette wheel. and if you look at trump, any time he talks, any number can come up, anything can come out of his mouth, and i think people
are entertained by that. and i think it's got a gravitational pull on a certain level, but to say we to want make this guy president, i suspect it's not going to happen. >> i have to tell you, george, i was telling you by e-mail, this is really on my mind, and i got a lot of e-mail about you and your somewhat unkind comments over the last couple of weeks about trump, do you want to take any of that back? >> no. not at all. >> another rhetorical question. >> i would simply say this, a lot of people sending you e-mails are angry, they're angry at mitch mcconnell and john boehner, they should be angry at james madison. their problem is we sent all these republicans to washington, and they still can't work their will from congress. the fact is the separation of powers, which is there for a reason, served us well over time is an impediment to getting things done in washington, get over it. >> all right, panel, we have to take a break here. we'll see you later in the program.
over to the fbi. amid revelations at least two of the e-mails in her private account contained top secret information. in the latest poll, 58% of registered voters think clinton knowingly lied when she said last march there was no classified information on her private server. >> joining us now to discuss this investigation is republican congressman trey gowdy, chair of the house benghazi committee. congressman, what do you think is the significance of the developments this week, first the fact that clinton had to turn her private server over to the fbi and also the revelation that at least two of the e-mails on that private server had top secret information? >> well, chris, i think it validates what we initially asked her to do in march was just to turn her server over to a neutral, detached independent arbiter, we suggested a retired federal judge. once it was determine nad classified -- determined that
classified information was on that server, the fbi then had a jurisdiction. so i wish she had done this in march, we would be further down the road, but she swore she would never turn the server over again, it was taken, it wasn't turned over, it was taken. >> you talk about wanting a neutral detached observer, and one of the questions is whether or not the fbi, in your mind, fits that bill. how much confidence do you have that the fbi, which is part of the obama justice department will conduct a thorough investigation, one into whether clinton mishandled classified information and secondly whether she turned all work e-mails to the state department or whether perhaps that she deleted, destroyed, scrubbed some of those e-mails? >> well i'm 100% confident in the first, i'll tell you why, chris, from 1994 to 2000, i worked for the department of justice under a president named clinton. and i don't think i knew the political ideation of a single
fbi agent. it's a premier agency of the world, they are as a-political as anything can be in the culture and they'll go wherever the facts take them, but that's with respect to classified information. the completeness or the wholeness of the record, i frankly don't think that's what the bureau is looking into, that's what the inspector general wanted to look into. and when the baur row was through with the server, i hope they will turn that server over into the inspector general so they can determine whether or not the record is full and complete. >> well that will raises the question, what if it turns out, and this is actually what clinton and her lawyer said, the server has been scrubbed clean, and any of the 30,000 e-mails that she destroyed that she said were about yoga lessons and chelsea's wedding, what if they're not available? >> i'll tell you, i don't know whether you do yoga or not, i don't, i don't have any yoga e-mails, but the greater steps that you take to clean something or delete something, that's a
higher level of concealment. that's a higher level of consciousness of concealment. so your viewers have to ask themselves, to what lengths would they go to delete a yoga e-mail? would they call in forensic experts to triple wash a serve sore they could get rid of bridesmaids e-mails or yoga practice e-mails? of course not. we hit the delete button, and we forget about it. the more energy she put into cleansing or wiping this server clean, i think your viewers should take, or infer from that that perhaps it was something on there she really didn't want us to see. >> congressman, i want to ask you a question that when i told folks you were going to be on the show they've asked me, why is all of this your business? what does this have to do with investigating what happened around benghazi? >> well, probably not much of anything. it was just us that determined this unique e-mail arrangement she had with herself. we have interviewed three dozen witnesses, not a single one is
named clinton, in fact, while i'm happy to be on the show, had she not had this arrangement herself, you would not be talking with me this morning. before i can write the final accounting of that, i have to make sure that the public record is complete. sop all of this started with my desire to get her e-mails. and e-mails of her top aids. that's when we learned she had this unprecedented e-mail arrangement with herself, and thanks to frankly some folks in your line of work who did some good journalistic investigation and thanks in part, i guess to my colleagues on the committee, we have determined that there's a lot more to her e-mail story than just the completeness of the record. in terms of what i'm interested in, it is doing a good job for those four murdered americans and their families. the classified information, the rest of it is in other people's jurisdiction and i'm content with that.
>> now, and you know this, clinton said this is all politics, republicans like yourself trying to hurt her presidential campaign. here she is in iowa this week. >> i won't get down in the mud with them. i won't play politics with the national security, or dishonor the memory of those who we lost. i won't pretend. that this is anything other than what it is, the same old partisan games we've seen so many times before. >> congressman gowdy, same old partisan games? >> well, the inspector general isn't farce, and they were nominated by president obama and confirmed by harry reid-led senate, the fbi is not partisan, i get that she's frustrated. her poll numbers are tanking, folks who never thought about getting into the race are getting in the race, but she need not blame house republicans for having her own personal server for exclusively using private e-mail, for telling us
the sydney bloomingthal were not solicited. then we later find out that there was, for telling us the public record was complete, and then we find 15 e-mails she never turned over. i get that she's frustrated. some engage in a little bit of self-reflection, and sometimes they lash out and blame non-existent right wing conspiracy sis, and she's chosen to do the latter. >> let me ask you about the nonexistent conspiracy. i want to show you awe clip from a video that house speaker john boehner, republican house speaker john boehner put out about the investigation. >> if hillary clinton wants the benghazi committee to finish their work, she could help them by turning over all of her e-mails, sooner rather than later. >> we're not going away until we get it, it's really important. >> congressman gowdy, it looks, it sure looks like a negative
campaign commercial. >> well, i haven't seen it. i can tell you this, chris, we have interviewed three dozen witnesses, not a single one has been named clinton, she hasn't been called before the committee yet. once she comes before the committee, i suspect people's interest in talking to me is going to dissipate down to being nonexistent. we've gotten tens of thousands of pages from other executive branch entities that no other committee of congress has gotten. again,ly just tell you this, had it not been for this unusual e-mail arrangement she had with herself, you and i would not be talking this morning. you don't know the name of a single other person we've interviewed as a part of our committee. you haven't seen any of the documents that we've acquired from the executive branch entities, we're trying to run this investigation the way this serious investigations are one, but low and behold, we find something that all seven of those other committees, that she claims looked into benghazi never found.
so we're going to follow the facts wherever they go, and if that impacts people's perception of her fitness to be commander in chief, so be it. i can just tell you this, for the first three public hearings, i never mentioned her name. >> let me ask you about this because clinton's lawyer says that she will testify before your committee on october 22nd, and i'm a little confused. have you agreed to that date, and have you and the clinton team agreed on the ground rules for that testimony? >> we have agreed on a date. and the ground rules are simple, you're going to stay there until all of the questions are asked and answered with respect of benghazi and libya, and part of that is ensuring that the public record is whole and complete which means we necessarily have to discuss your unusual e-mail practices, but we're going to stay there until all of the questions, if she's going to insist, chris, she's only coming once, i'm going insist that that once be fully constructive, which means she's going to be
there far while. >> i understand, and you've made it clear that the mishandling of the classified information is not part of the jurisdiction of your committee, but i want to ask you about something very interesting that secretary of state john kerry said this week. take a look. >> do you think the chinese and/or the russia is reading your e-mails? >> the answer is it is very likely. it is not without, you know, inside the realm of possibility. >> question, congressman, when the inspector general for the intelligence committee says that on these private e-mails with information that came from satellite intercepts, imagery, or electronic surveillance, and you've got john kerry saying it's very likely that foreign powers are reading his e-mails, does that raise the stakes here? >> absolutely. it was one of the most reckless decisions that's been made in public service in a long time. and the notion that she did this for convenience, i would just ask you, chris, convenient for
whom? because it sure as hell isn't con convenient for the american people or for our intelligence apparatuses. it may have been convenient for her, but not for anyone else. i don't know who's accessed her e-mails. members of congress have not, but i don't know who has. >> finally, as we have mention the, clellan tons position is evolved. first she said there was no classified information, then she said there was no information that was classified at the time, now she says there was no information that had been marked as classified at the time, and i know the state department is checking into whether or not any aids, officials, advisors may have changed the marking on some of those to remove the classified designation. what do you think of the chances that one of her aids will take the fall for this, and that that will get hillary clinton off the hook? >> well, i don't know about getting someone off the hook.
. you're talking about criminal exposure, i would leave that up to the bureau, if you're talking about the court of opinion, i don't think it ever works when the person in charge blames those under him or her. it's never worked in any position aye ever been in in life. she's the secretary of state. she's the top diplomat for the country. and either she knew or should have known what was being sent to her. so the notion that somebody under you is going to take the fall, metaphorically speaking, i think my fellow citizens would reject that. she wanted to be the secretary of state, in fact now she's auditioning far job even more important than that, with that comes responsibility. i think my fellow citizens, if that proves to be correct, the classified information was mishandled, i think they will portion the culpability appropriately. >> chairman gowdy, thank you, we'll stay on top of the story. >> yes, sir, thank you. next, we'll bring back the panel and have more results from the latest fox news national poll. this time on the democratic
i did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified material. i am confident that i never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received. the state department has confirmed that i did not send nor receive material marked classified. >> marked classified. hillary clinton's changing accounts since last spring on whether she had any classified information on her private e-mail server.
according to our fox news poll, the e-mail scandal is hurting clinton. she still leads the democratic field with 49%, but that's done ten points from last month. and then some head to head match-ups, jeb bush leads clinton by two points. marco rubio beats clinton for the first time well within the margin of error, and donald trump has narrowed his gap from five points down to 17 two months ago. and we're back now with the panel. well bob woodward, you've covered a scandal or two, how big a development do you think it is now that clinton has been forced to turn her server over to the fbi, that this is no longer politician versus politician, but handled by law enforcement. do you see any parallels to nixon? >> fascinating question. first of all, i think this potentially is a really big deal. first of all because the volume. we're talking about potentially
60,000 e-mails. i mean, and for people to make decla rations it never had this or that, we don't know. it would take somebody a month to just go through and sort this stuff out. and the other thing is you know yourself, i mean, suppose somebody got all your e-mail, you may think, oh it's clean, and everything's fine, but then when you start looking at things. there's going to be some problematic interchanges, somebody would send you something and no one wants all their e-mail out. and so, this is going to be -- what about e-mails from 22,974, i mean we're going to go through endless process here in fairness, nothing has been proven, and i think the clinton team wants to make sure that this is not a protracted legal fight like happened with nixon
on his tapes. but if you look at nixon in the history of this on the tape, nixon would always say, oh yeah, everything was fine, it look gad. he didn't -- good, he didn't remember the bad stuff. and that's human nature. we don't remember the bad stuff. and 60,000 e-mails, my god. >> that ends the conversation. but it doesn't, arthur, how much trouble sl hillary clinton in legally and politically? zbh we don't know how much trouble she's in legally. i would suspect it's going to get worse before it gets better. the problem is inevitability of this. this is what happens when a party chooses coronation over competition. and the whole idea that there's only one candidate and you put all the eggs in this basket, and this is somebody who has not succeeded in the past of getting the nomination. four years ago george and i had lunch, i bet you don't remember it, what about mitt romney, said something that was telling, he said, political markets one time found him wanting, and they will
again. this is actually in modern campaigns, this is what you buy. once you lose, you typically lose again. the astonishing thing about the democratic party today, all the alternatives are people who lost in the past, kerry, they're talking about gore, why not just dust off docacus, let's fill out the line for alternatives. this is a big problem for the democrats. >> it's a guy named nixon -- >> but -- the point is in the new environment, political markets are much more efficient than they were in the past. and this bodes very, very poorly for the democrats. >> all right. this moves us exactly what i want to discuss with you, ann, barack obama and bill clinton, and you'll enjoy these videos within were playing golf yesterday on martha's vineyard, seemed to be enjoying themselves while they were having a good time, i want to ask you, ann, what's the mood inside the democratic party?
how worried are they about hillary? how vulnerable do they think she is, and how seriously do you take this talk about people like joe biden or even al gore, this week, getting into the race? >> i'll break those into two. how worried are democrats? a lot more worried than they were a month ago. we just, a couple of my colleagues and i heard quite a bit over the last week from supporters of hillary clinton who said, we still think she's going to be the nominee. we think she with can win the white house. we wish she was doing it it better. >> is there a specific thing? >> they point to two things, lay it point to sanders, not so much the summer, it's her reaction. how fast on her feet does she appear and does her campaign appear in responding to that? she never says his name. she doesn't address him directly, and that is a calculated decision by the campaign to only attack republicans that the point and
to save, whatever she's going to have to say -- >> that's flat footed. >> they do. not so much that she should be purging him in the those every day, but she should be speaking to some of the same things that is fueling the surge. >> all right. now what about the rivals? >> well, the other thing is the e-mail issue. people are worried about it. they don't know where it's going. any time you get the words fbi, you know, out in front of the public consciousness, that is a risk. people are worried about that. and on the rivals, i mean, it is more plausible this week than last that joe biden could see a path for himself. he still has huge, structural issues that he would have to overcome in order to be a viable candidate. he's been around the track a few times. he would know that, i think it's not hugely likely that he actually gets into the race, but the fact that he's being discussed, first of all has to be, i mean, there's a reason,
right. he's a, he should be a viable candidate. >> and what about somebody out of left field as arthur suggests, cuomo, elizabeth warren, you know, somebody in the new democratic party, not of failed presidential nominee? >> i mean, we're not hearing that. i certainly, it could happen. i mean andrew cuomo could be looking and thinking, wow, if she continues to look weak, if things don't turn around fairly quickly that there might be a path to run, maybe not to win, but to get out there and be a part of it. we're certainly seeing that dynamic on the republican side and it could happen on the democratic side. >> george, how politically vulnerable is hillary clinton right now, and do you see a land rush of democrats getting into the race? >> i don't see the land rush, but then we don't know yet whether michael mccasey, how right he was in his opinion
piece in the wall street journal yesterday saying that she is vulnerable to prosecution for one misdemeanor and three felonies. we don't know also whether the justice department will be less lackadaisical than about the internal revenue service scandals. the good news for her is the bad news for the democratic party. in 2010 and 2014, because of obama and obamacare, the democratic party suffered wave elections that wiped out a generation of potential competitors for her. there are now 60 some fewer members of the house, 11 fewer senators, many fewer governors if there would have been if he wasn't a disaster for the democratic party. peter harp, a poll taker say goes back to the all the elections since the world war starting with truman dewy. and every election, except the nixon election, the most likable candidate wins. hillary clinton, to many people,
radiates a kind of solemn since of entitlement that she has to work for the nomination. this is not bode well for her. >> just quickly because we only have a couple of seconds left, i read the article as well, i found is interesting, both talk about her legal liability or potentially jeopardy, and also this question of her common sense, the fact that it just seems reckless. >> leave aside the felonies and the prosecution, her judgment suggests she is not qualified that she said h or is seeking. >> thank you panel. up next, the power player of the week. the man who keeps america's clock kicking on time.
a look at the iowa state fair. a must-stop for presidential candidates this time of year. time is a big deal in television news. this show starts on time and ends on time. but as we asked in october, what does that really mean? here is our power player of the week. >> i'm obsessed with time. but i do think about time all the time.
>> dr. matsakas is talking about his job at the u.s. naval observatories time service department. >> we provide the official time for gps and via gps, it goes to much of the world. >> so it's not an exaggeration to say, you are the time keeper. >> yes, we are the time keeper. >> and keeping time, precise time, is important. for the financial system, for the internet, for the pentagon. the department has more than 100 atomic clocks, and there are three different types. one measures the oscillation of atoms. how often does the atom oscillate in one second? >> that's a definition of a second. >> the doctor took us to see another kind of clock, called an atomic fountain. >> we use it to freeze atoms to
about a million degree above absolute zero and then we launch them. >> all that information which varies by nanna no seconds is then fed here. this is the nation's master clock. all of those, all of those 100 clocks -- >> this is the national clock, the master clockpartment of def. >> next door, the time transfer room sends the time out to the nation and the world. even that phone number you call to get the time. >> at the tone, eastern daylight time, 15:50 exactly. >> he headed the time service department for 16 years, starting in 1997. he is now the chief scientist. and he says the job comes with a certain amount of, well, time-pressure. >> there have been three times when the master clock itself has broken, always when i've been on an airport. when people leave working for a time service, it doesn't take
long, maybe a week or two when they realize that they're not teetering anymore. >> all this talk about time got me thinking. i got 3:15, what do you got? >> i don't wear a watch. >> pardon? >> i don't wear a watch. >> he explains, he doesn't want the measurement of time, especially something as imprecise as a watch, to get confused with time as an objective reality. it's the pursuit of that absolute truth that drives him. >> beauty, beauty is a satisfaction. tremendous beauty to it. with beautiful, it's an explanation of how things are happening, an explanation of what's going on, be with beautiful is doing the job right, that's all beautiful. that's the only way to put it. >> the doctor says his atomic first down dane clocks are so accurate, if taken together, they wound lose or gain a full second in 300 million years.