All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 02/10/15

CHRIS HAYES, ALL IN HOST: Tonight on All In. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, 44TH AND CURRENT PRESIDENT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: You know, I -- I`m not in favor of gay marriage. HAYES: A Barack Obama Bombshell. DAVID AXELROD, OBAMA`S FMR. POLITICAL ADVISER: The president does oppose same sex marriage. HAYES: President Bush lied the country into a war, now we know President Obama lied America into same sex marriage. OBAMA: I struggled with this. HAYES: David Axelrod reveals for the first time, he got the president to oppose marriage equality to get elected. And breaking news, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart is losing Jon Stewart. And as the measles outbreak continues, the vaccination fight comes to D.C. ELIZABETH WARREN, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: Is there any scientific evidence that giving kids their vaccines further apart or spacing them differently is healthier for kids? ANNE SCHUCHAT, CDC`S NATIONAL CENTER FOR IMMUNIZATION AND RESPIRATORY DISEASES DIRECTOR: No. It actually increases the risk period for children. HAYES: All In starts right now. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Good evening from us in Texas. I`m Chris Hayes. It is been a remarkable news day today, lots to get to. But today, something truly rare happened. We got to look at the inner workings and a premeditated politically calculated ends-justify-the means lie. It involves candidate and then President Barack Obama knowingly, willfully misleading the public. Now, no one died. It`s not a case of corruption. It is politics at its most elemental and morally treacherous. And it comes courtesy of Barack Obama`s long-time adviser, David Axelrod. In his new book, the headline, Obama mislead nation when he opposed gay marriage in 2008 -- a striking admission of political dishonesty. Of course, many suspected at the time that candidate Obama was just pretending to oppose full marriage equality in his first presidential race because he felt the country wasn`t ready to vote for a presidential candidate who supported it. Some even believed he never would have been elected president in 2008 if he had supported gay marriage. But the evolution of this bit of politics is both convoluted and fascinating. According to "Time Magazine", "As a state senate candidate in 1996, Obama filled out a questionnaire saying, I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." That was state senate candidate Barack Obama way back in 1996. Bear in mind that President Barack Obama didn`t voiced support for same-sex marriage until 2012 -- 16 years later. So what happened in between? Political calculation. Carefully articulated campaign position -- lying. In fact, even U.S. Senate candidate barrack Obama circa 2004 sounded remarkably different from the 1996 state senate candidate who filled out that questionnaire. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I have been very clear on this. The -- I have said that I -- I`m not a supported of gay marriage. I think that the term "marriage" itself has strong religious roots and a strong tradition that mean something special to people in this country. What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Obama won that Senate race. And in David Axelrod`s new book, "Believer: My Forty Years in Politics", Axelrod describes how presidential candidate Barack Obama claimed to oppose same-sex marriage for religious reason even though President Barack Obama -- candidate Obama was never very comfortable with the political ploy. According to "Time Magazine`s" account of the book, "I`m just not very good at s-ing." Obama told Axelrod after an even where he stated his opposition to same-sex marriage." And yet it appears that candidate Obama was good enough. Axelrod writes quote, "Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as Obama run for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a sacred union." What we`re talking about is wholesale misdirection if Axelrod`s book is to be taken a face value. Here is candidate Obama with mega church Pastor Rick Warren in August 2008. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me as a Christian, it`s also a sacred union. You know, God`s in the mix. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: You`ll note the rockets applause that line perceived. In other debates and campaign stops, candidate strained to have it both ways opposing same-sex marriage or strongly supporting same-sex civil unions. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples. With respect to gay marriage, I do not support gay marriage but I support a very strong version of civil unions where I think the state has to recognize the same rights and responsibilities for gay people, same-sex couples as they do for anybody else. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: And that is just a sampling. Of course, Obama was elected president and then came the evolution leading to this moment in May 2012 just six months before the 2012 presidential election and just one day after North Carolina had become the 30th State to explicitly ban same-sex marriage. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I have to tell you. As I`ve said, I`ve been going through an evolution on this issue. At the certain point, I`ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: With the hot tip (ph) to Vice President Joe Biden who Obama would later say, quote, "Probably got out a little bit over his skis", because Biden had voiced his own public support for gay marriage before President Obama did. And the post script, the president`s State of the Union address just last month when by that time same-sex marriage was legal in 36 states. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I`ve seen something like gay marriage go from a wedge issue used to drive us apart to a story of freedom across our country of civil right. Now legal in state with seven in 10 Americans call home (ph). (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Whether Obama`s choice was a political imperative than actually advance the cause of gay rights is open question. Joining me now, activist Dan Savage, editorial director of "The Stranger", Seattle`s Weekly alternative newspaper, and the man behind "Savage Love" is indicated calm and the "Savage Lovecast". All right. Dan, I think you and I had conversations about this before. What is your reaction to this news? DAN SAVAGE, THE STRANGER EDITORIAL DIRECTOR: We knew this all along. We joke. I wrote at the time when the president was opposed to marriage equality during the campaign and his first term that he was going to pretend to oppose marriage equality and we would pretend to believe him -- those of us who are activists. And we would hold his feet to the fire. Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously said to some folks who had a meeting with him who wanted some changes made, "You`re right about this. I agree with you. Now, get out there and make me do it." And that`s kind of what LGBT Civil Rights activists working on marriage had to do. We had to get out there and make the president do it. And it was a large piece of political theater and a very effective one. And nobody I think in the LGBT Civil Rights would have believed him when he went from being pro-marriage equality in 1996 to oppose to for it again. That`s not the way people evolve on this issue. People evolve in one direction. People move from opposition to support. I`ve never heard of a case except for the president where we`re supposed to buy somebody. HAYES: That`s right. SAVAGE: . evolving on it, then devolving on it, then revolving on it as the president did. But it was useful political theater. I agree with David Axelrod and the president that the country wasn`t ready in 2008 for a ticket for national candidate who supported marriage equality. And by pragmatically making this choice to adjust in (ph) his support for marriage equality, the president managed to bring the country along by making his discomfort with the political calculation he clearly made -- part of the drama, and part of the performance of his office. And it benefited LGBT people in this country tremendously. HAYES: OK. So I basically agree sort of strategically. But let me give you this though experiment and sort, David Savage, here. Let`s say there`s a young conservative libertarian who`s coming up in kind of a Rand Paul movement and he says, "I think we should get rid of the minimum wage. I don`t believe in it philosophically." He starts ascending national office, understands that`s not a tenable position, runs for president says, "Well, of course I believe in the minimum wage," and then kind of works with libertarian activists while in office to get rid of the minimum wage in America. And then later, his adviser writes a memoir being like, "Of course, he wanted to get rid of the minimum wage the whole time" I would be angry. I mean I could feel like that was. SAVAGE: You would only. HAYES: . duplicitous, that fundamentally people had been had (ph). SAVAGE: I think you would be angry if he succeeded doing away with the minimum wage which he could not be able to do. HAYES: Right. SAVAGE: I don`t think that that`s a realistic parallel because the minimum wage is hugely popular and people have a personal stake in wages in a way that people begin to understand that it didn`t affect them. Even if they oppose same-sex marriage for moral reasons or it violated the tenants of their faith, that a gay couple down the street marrying had no impact on them and their lives. And as people begin to see gay couples marrying, they let that go. If we did away with the minimum wage, we had a real debate about it. People would be in terror of to being pauperized or used or exploited. HAYES: Right. SAVAGE: No one`s pauperized, used, or exploited in same-sex marriage. HAYES: So there -- and there`s a sort of -- I mean there`s a kind of a unique moral introductory but can you imagine yourself in that room counseling the same way David Axelrod or could you imagine being the person -- Barack Obama looking, you know, Pastor Rick Warren in the eyes and saying that line, "It`s between a man and a woman", and getting that applause when you actually in your heart of heart think that is more -- actually kind of a morally odious view? SAVAGE: Yeah. And that would be very difficult. And sometimes the president said things that upset me personally and so a lot of us like "God is in the mix." That tossed off at the end which begs the question what`s in the mix when a same-sex couple marries. Satan? HAYES: Right. Do you think ultimately -- and this is something I wonder about the kind of meta-story David Axelrod choosing to include this in a book in which, you know, ultimately this kind of closes the loop, right? It brings the trajectory full stop and that in the judgment of history how does this factor into how -- from a civil rights perspective Barack Obama`s presidency is judged? SAVAGE: I`m not sure how that factors in. But I think we can`t be so na‹ve as to think that politicians are 100 percent straight with us all the time nor do we want politicians to be 100 percent straight with us all the time. That this pragmatism, this parsing, this prioritizing certain issues over other issues, this is not getting out in front of the country, not getting out over the skis -- to use the president`s expression -- is a part of the performance of politics. And it`s not a violation I think of the pact between politician and public. It is a part of what politics and moving public opinion is all about. And the president like I said -- and I said for a long time ever since we came out and supported, before his reelection campaign which I thought was very gutsy and bold, is that he brought the country along. He helped create. HAYES: Right. SAVAGE: . this change that made it possible for him to be open about his position all along really. And I guarantee -- and I believe in my heart that Axelrod ran that by the president before he published it. HAYES: I think that`s probably right. Dan Savage, thanks so much. All right joining me now. SAVAGE: thank you. HAYES: . Hendrik Hertzberg, staff writer and senior editor at the "New Yorker", author of "Obamanos!: The Birth of a New Political Era", former speech writer for Jimmy Carter. So Rik, how do you think this works from a legacy perspective? I mean to me it seems like it does kind of saw neatly that this was all kind of master game of three dimensional chess by the president and these are the kinds of calculations you make to be president of the United States and ultimately the kind of proof of the putting is in the eating. And as far as we`re going to see probably constitutional recognition of marriage equality in 50 states before the presidency is over. HENDRIK HERTZBERG, OBAMANOS! AUTHOR: Yeah. That`s exactly right, Chris. You know, I think Obama saw a parallel here with the Civil Rights Movement. The Post War Civil Rights Movement`s first great victory was the integration of the Armed Forces by President Truman. And I think that Obama thought that it would have been a mistake for the Civil Rights Movement to start with things that had to do with intimate relations and marriage. So don`t start with anti-miscegenation laws. Start with the military and then public accommodations in voting, and ease it along in that way. I think that was his strategy. It`s regrettable that he had to dissemble, that he had to disguise his real position. And I think there`s no question whether that was his real position. It was a case of ends justifying means whether you think he would have been better off, and gays would have been better off, and we would have all been better off had he expressed his true opinion in -- during the 2008 campaign and thereby possibly had lost the presidency and yield it to a Republican whose position was to amend the Constitution in order to prevent gay marriage. I think that that`s -- that the strategy was really an end justify the mean. Justify it. HAYES: How often do you think -- I`ve had conversations with politicians off the record in which they will say things off the record that they basically can`t say in public. And I wonder sometimes, how much of a politician`s life at all levels and particularly the higher levels is this kind of divided consciousness between what you actually believe and what you can say. HERTZBERG: Yeah. I think that`s true. That`s certainly true in politics. It`s true in a lot of areas in life. You have to take it -- you have to take things a step at a time. You have to be cognizant of the reality and what of the real bars are to progress and how to get around them and get over them. That is a fact of political life. And I think as Dan said, it`s not -- it`s -- it doesn`t really break the bond of trust fully between the public and politicians. You know, I think for example of Bill Clinton`s support on capital punishment. It`s not quite a parallel because he wasn`t in his goal in saying he was for capital punishment -- was not to abolish capital punishment, whereas, Obama`s goal in saying he is against gay marriage was essentially to pave the way to gay marriage. HAYES: Right. HETZBERG: So there is that difference, but does anyone believe? I certainly don`t believe that in his heart of heart, Bill Clinton favors capital punishment. I think he made that sacrifice, to sacrifice to his own integrity to, you know, in a higher cost. And I think that`s essentially what... HAYES: To me. HETZBERG: ... Obama did. HAYES: To me, the lesson here, which is a very important one, every time we have elections is that you are electing more than a person, you are electing a coalition of folks. And that coalition of people, the various interests that will determine the agenda of the people you put in power, and in this case, people elected the coalition that was on the side of gay rights. And what they got was gay rights. And no one -- everyone should be clear right about what`s going on when you do that on both sides. Hendrik Hertzberg, always a pleasure. Thank you. HERTZBERG: Thank you. HAYES: All right, Jon Stewart is leaving The Daily Show, we`re going to talk about that ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: All right, we`re going to bring you some breaking news. NBC news decided today to suspend Brian Williams as Managing Editor and anchor of NBC Nightly News for six month without pay. The suspension is effective immediately. And Lester Holt will continue to anchor the Nightly News. In a note to NBC staff, NBC News President Deborah Turness said, "While on Nightly News on Friday, January 30, 2015, Brian misrepresented events which occurred while he was covering the Iraq War in 2003. It then became clear that on other occasions Brian had done the same while telling that story in other venues. This was wrong and completely inappropriate for someone in Brian`s position." She went on to say this was a "very hard decision. Certainly there will be those who disagree. We believe the suspension is the appropriate and proportionate action." Back with much more, in a moment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JON STEWART, THE DAILY SHOW HOST: Well whether reporters baring witness to a storm`s power, has become a bit of cliche, but constantly evolving an innovative industry has once again upped their game. I give you anchor in a car. HAYES: Good evening from the snow bound and nearly quiet streets of New York City, I am Chris Hayes. Right now, we`re out and about in New York, where very few others are. STEWART: Yeah, you guys, you know Google Street View, right? That would be in good show, don`t you think? (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: In nearly two years we`ve been in the air, lots of clips from all end have appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and we took it as a point of professional pride around here that those clips were always used to help Stewart tell a story, sometimes to illuminate a point, never to mock us for doing something foolish. Until (inaudible) in two weeks ago, and that is the thing, that is the thing about Jon Stewart in The Daily Show. Do not slip, because he will make you pay. Tonight, we have breaking news that sadly he won`t be doing that much longer. Stewart announced during a taping today, he will be leaving The Daily Show, which he has hosted since 1999, a run in which he transform the Comedy Central show into an essential source of media and political criticism, while also keeping things very, very funny. News first trickled out by a social media, from people who are actually active in his taping, it was then confirmed by Comedy Central in a statement, reading in part, "His comedic brilliance is second to none. Through his unique voice and vision, The Daily Show has become a cultural touchstone for millions of fans and an unparalleled platform for political comedy that will endure for years to come." Stewart plans to leave The Daily Show later this year. Comedy Central has not announced the exact date. Joining me now on the phone is David Carr, Media Columnist and Cultural Writer for the New York Times. David, pretty big day on the media beat today. DAVID CARR, THE NEW YORK TIMES: I would say, you don`t know which way to look, Chris. This today news is pretty -- it`s kind of sad isn`t it? HAYES: About Stewart`s exit. Yeah, it is. I mean... CARR: Yeah. I mean, I mean... HAYES: ... I think... CARR: ... it leaves a little hole in... HAYES: ... I assume he`d be there forever. CARR: ... all of this, let`s face it. He created a whole runway of comedy that, you know, now we`re seeing more and more of what, you know, of course Stephen Colbert and John Oliver, and now Larry Wilmore is running with it. But he is the originator and still reigning champion, and kind of going out on top, I would say. HAYES: The thing about the "The Daily Show" that always struck me. And has struck me more -- the more that I have come to host a nightly news show, is that it was -- in some ways the way that the barrage of particularly cable news. But coverage of things was kind of digested, distilled and send up, right? It wasn`t self vote (ph) kind of a critic in the media but also had it`s own kind of (inaudible) points to make. CARR: Most definitely. And if you -- I teach at Boston University one a week and when you talk to those kids about the -- they don`t call it fake news, they call it "the news", and it`s a digest of the news, it teaches them things about what`s going on in the world in a way that they found other media was not. And until their holding their diet. HAYES: Do you think he is replaceable? Can you imagine the "The Daily Show" with a new host or do they have to go with something else? CARR: Well it`s straight up (inaudible). I certainly wouldn`t want to wonder into those giant footprints. And, you know, in the instance of Colbert (inaudible) insidious (inaudible), they decided not to. I mean, it`s a good sturdy framework, but you got to admit that Jon Stewart wear the uniform better than most. And that so, it`s a little hard to imagine what he`s going to do next, because, you know, he did a great job with Rosewater, the film he directed. But in terms of like doing the straight up talk show, you know, he`s never excelled in interviewing all that much. And if you`re thinking about, "Well he`s going to do straight up comedy somewhere", I don`t know, he`s a (inaudible) guy, right? HAYES: My sense from watching him during the press of Rosewater and I interviewed him about that film, that was really a passion project. And I think he loved doing it. In my sense, I don`t know anything -- I have no access internally to his thinking on this. Is that probably he just wants to try doing different stuff, you are Job Stewart, you`re super famous, you`re very wealthy, you`re extremely accomplished, you can probably go up and make a (inaudible), kind of independent art house films. And I genuinely respect someone willing to walk away from something like this to undertake new creative endeavors, don`t you? CARR: Yeah, I do very much, especially, the timing of it. and if you were close student of the show and I wouldn`t pretend necessarily that it was -- I think every once in a while, the fact that he was a little tired, that was becoming more and more manifest. One of the things that I think we`ll miss though, Chris, is only Lorne Michaels was able to find and promote talent like he is. Go down the list, you got Steve Carell, you go Ed Helms, you got Wyatt Cenac, you`ve got Stephen Colbert, you got John Oliver, Olivia Munn, Ed Helms, I mean Steve, you know... HAYES: You got Jessica Williams now who is absolutely incredible. CARR: Yeah, and there`s that -- it just -- I do wonder about where that sort of apparatus it`s going to produce that kind of comedian talent. I mean, some of those people have (inaudible). I mean a huge deals. HAYES: David, do you have a response? I`m in a sort of strange position, obviously, I think I`m too conflicted for a million reasons to comment on the Brian Williams situation, but I`m curious to get your response to the news since it isn`t kind of a bombshell that we just dropped. CARR: I don`t think it`s much of a bombshell. I do think that your feeling is not going to be uncommon one, which is one of very significant sadness. Because I don`t think anybody is going to wish Brian Williams (inaudible). They don`t think he`s a jerk or a perpetrator. He`s a guy who made a mistake. And I think it was very good of NBC to step up, take custody of this narrative and come up with a suspension that is, you know, very, very deep, very, very serious. And see -- everyone can see where they are and work from there. And I think it`s really a good outcome of a terrible situation. And, you know, it`s obviously -- there`s no perfect way out of this. But you knew whatever is going to happen was going to have a profound effect in his career and sort of what goes on with the Nightly News. And I think it`s -- when I spoke to the people in NBC about it, I kept trying to bring up business and what they said is, we want to know if you can credibly cover a hurricane, or combat or call a politician (inaudible), that`s what we care about. And that`s what they`re going to find out over the course of time. And so I thought it was a good move in the meeting. HAYES: David Carr of the New York Times, thank you. I really appreciate it. CARR: It`s a pleasure to be with you Chris. HAYES: All right, if you just sat and hit refresh of the Google News page, after plugging measles in the search box everyday, which by the way I think is one of our senior producers does, you would find no shortage of terrifying headlines, like this, and this, and this. The latest developments in the measles outbreak, ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: A New York City police officer has been indicted in the shooting death of an unarmed African-American man. And while just an indictment may not seem like big news, after the past year it certainly is. Because over the last 12 months, the deaths of young unarmed African-American men at the hands of police have dominated headlines and sparked a nationwide protest. We know their names: Michael Brown, Eric Garner, John Crawford are just a few. From Ferguson, Missouri to New York City to Beaver Creek, Ohio and across the country. Their cases all ended the same way: no indictments and no punishments to suggest a wrong was committed when an officer pulled the trigger and took the life of an innocent person. In the midst of all that came, the story of 28-year-old Akai Gurley. On November 20, Gurley and his girlfriend entered the stairwell of her building her building, one housing project with elevators malfunctioned and lights in the stairwells were often out as they were that night. At the same time, two rookie NYPD officers entered that dark stairwell from the floor above. Gurley did not make it out of that stairwell alive. Investigators say Officer Peter Lang was holding his gun in the same hand he was using to open the door when the gun went off, striking Gurley in the chest and killing him. A law enforcement official told the New York Times that Lang has been indicted on six counts, including second degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. A formal announcement from the district attorney`s office is expected tomorrow. And as you know, an indictment is not a determination of guilt or innocent, it`s simply a recognition there is enough evidence to go to trial. And let me tell you, if an when that trial happens, it is going to happen amidst a tremendous national spotlight. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: In just over a month, 121 people from 17 states and Washington, D.C have been diagnosed with the measles. The current outbreak does not bode well as we`re coming off the biggest year for measles in the U.S. since it was declared eliminated in 2000. According to the CDC, most of this year`s cases are part of a big, ongoing multi-state outbreak that seems to have started at Disneyland. The cluster of cases is probably most terrifying to new parents is the one in Illinois where 10 cases have now been confirmed, nine of those 10 are linked to a KinderCare daycare center outside Chicago, eight babies, all too young for the measles vaccine, which is typically given around 12 months, and one adult who is not an employee of the daycare center, but it linked to it, all diagnosed with measles. That adult was also unvaccinated, according to local health officials. So far, the Illinois cluster has not been connected to the Disneyland outbreak. And health officials are still trying to figure out how it started. Meanwhile, today, in Washington, senators from both parties talked about ways to prevent further outbreaks. Dr. Mark Sawyer, a pediatrician and infectious disease specialist was quick to point out that things are getting worse, not better. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. MARK SAWYER, INFECTIOUS DISEASE SPECIALIST: We`re all crossing our fingers here with this Disneyland outbreak that maybe we`re near the end, but I notice that the case number went up by 20 just this last week, so I`m not sure we`re don`t with this yet. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: A week ago, the CDC reported 102 cases. Today we`re looking at 121, a nearly 19 percent jump. Not surprisingly, health officials have said most of the people who have been infected were not vaccinated, that is a problem, especially considering some parents are intentionally not immunizing their children. Frustrated over his own kids exposure to measles, pediatrician doctor Tim Jacks testified about the parents who put his children at risk. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. TIM JACKS, PEDIATRICIAN: Eli, my 10 month old son, has received all of his immunizations on schedule, but is too young to receive his first dose of MMR. And my daughter, Maggie, who was also previously fully immunized is at extra risk right now because of her weakened immune system due to her leukemia as well as her treatment. Prevention is simple: vaccinate. As immunization rates drop, the herd immunity starts to break down. And this herd immunity is the only thing protecting my two young children from being exposed to measles or whatever the next outbreak is. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Joining me now, best-selling author and surgeon Dr. Atul Gawande. His latest book "Being Mortal" will also be featured on PBS`s Frontline this month. Dr. Gawande, in other contexts I`ve seen you write about and talk about the change between the doctor/patient relationship that`s happened particularly in the last 10 to 15 years with two things: the rise of the internet and people sort of checking their symptoms, and also the declining trust people have in the medical profession. How much of that is driving what we`re seeing here in terms of vaccinations? DR. ATUL GAWANDE, SURGEON: I think those are significant. You add to it that these are diseases we don`t seem to remember, which is ironic. These conditions, you know, people will say measles, is it really that dangerous? And we forget that childhood viral illnesses were major killers not that long ago. In my own childhood, I developed mumps which has since been something that we have controlled with vaccinations. And I was one of those kids, because there was thousands with mumps, I developed the most severe form encephalitis , and I was just lucky that I survived in the 60s. Roald Dahl, his daughter developed measles in the 1960s and his daughter Olivia -- he was the one who wrote James and the Giant Peach -- his daughter died from encephalitis developed from the disease. So, you know what we have now, which is the real surprise, is a generation that has had this kind of dire illness and range of illnesses that shorten lives eliminated from our memory. And then that same generation that benefited from it is the one that doubts giving it to the next generation. HAYES: So, I guess the question here is, and this pertains to the new book you have out which is about sort of end of life and end of life care and how we make these very difficult decisions in concert with medical professionals and our family about end of life care. And it relates to vaccinations, which is how do you go about sort of rebuilding this trust so that you can have conversations or reconstituting medical authority at an age where it seems inexorably to be on the decline? GAWANDE: I think this is where story telling is incredibly important because we don`t remember the stories of what happened to people when there was a time when infectious disease was the most dire thing that families worried about. Now it is injuries. And we`re rightly concerned about accidents -- guns, and other concerns like that. Abroad you see the stories and you begin to understand what happens. And it is similar at the end of life. We haven`t really brought the stories of what the experience is of dying in a hospital, dying in intensive care, and making it clear that that is a kind of suffering that doesn`t actually extend people`s lives, it often shortens people`s lives when we don`t have that kind of approach. So I think we`re beginning to understand that we need to bring the stories and be able to make them public. HAYES: Dr. Atul Gawande, a pleasure, thank you. GAWANDE: Thank you. HAYES: A growing number of Democrats are refusing to attend the Israeli prime minister`s address to congress next month. Plus, after the death of American aid worker Kayla Mueller, President Obama talks about the refusal of the U.S. to pay ransoms for American hostages. That`s ahead. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: The story of who Kayle Mueller is and the heartbreaking thing all the American hostages who have been killed in ISIS custody have in common next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: The family of Kayla Mueller, the American aide worker abducted by ISIS in 2013, confirmed in a statement today she was been killed. The Mueller said they received a message from her captors over the weekend containing evidence that was authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community. Some of Kayla`s friends and family paid tribute to her at a press conference this afternoon. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LORI LYON, KAYLA MUELLER`S AUNT: She had a quiet, calming presence. She was a free spirit, always standing up for those were suffering and wanting to be their vote. ERYN STREET, KAYL MUELLER`S CHILDHOOD FRIEND: I`m not sure how to live in a world without Kayla, but I do know that we`re all living in a better world because of her. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Mueller`s family also released a copy of a letter she wrote to her loved ones in the spring of 2014 while still in captivity, which includes this remarkable passage. I read it earlier today and it has just haunted me all day. She wrote, "by God and by your prayers I have felt tenderly cradled in freefall. I have been shown in darkness, light and have learned that even in prison, one can be free." In an interview with Buzzfeed today, President Obama shared his reaction to Kayla Meuller`s death and defended his policy of not paying ransom for ISIS hostages. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARAK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My immediate reaction is heartbreak. I have been in touch with Kayla`s family. She was a outstanding young woman and had a great spirit. And I think that spirit will live on. The one thing that we have held to is a policy of not paying ransoms for an organization like ISIL. The reason is once we start doing that, not only are we financing their slaughter of innocent people and strengthening their organization, but we`re actually making Americans even greater targets. It is as tough as anything that I do, having conversations with parents who, understandably, want, by any means necessary, for their children to be safe. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: A senior U.S. official told NBC News the family was e-mailed a photo appearing to show Kayla dead with trauma injuries, injuries not inconsistent with the kinds of wounds sustained in an air strike according to the official. Although they show nothing conclusive about when and how she died. Last Friday, ISIS claimed Mueller had been killed in a Jordanian air strike, releasing photos purporting to show where the strike occurred. Mueller was originally captured in Aleppo, Syria on August 4, 2013 after exiting a Doctors Without Borders hospital. She had traveled there the day before from Turkey where she worked for an organization giving aide to refugees of the Syrian civil war, continuing a history of humanitarian work that had taken her to India, Israel and the Palestinian territories as well as an HIV/AIDS clinic and a women`s shelter in her hometown of Prescott, Arizona. In a 2010 blog post reprinted at the site Forkayla.org. she wrote, quote, "this really is my life`s work, to go where there is suffering. I suppose like us a all, I`m learning how to deal with the suffering of the world inside myself, to deal with my own pain and most importantly to still have the ability to be proactive." This is what is so especially heartbreaking about each of the American hostages killed in ISIS custody. In every case -- James Foley, and Steven Sotloff, freelance journalists, and Adbul Rahman Kasig and Kayla Mueller, aide workers, they were deeply selfless people who put themselves at tremendous risk to serve the people of Syria and to tell their stories and try to ease their suffering. That`s the type of person who chooses to work amid the horrors of the world`s most brutal civil war. In his daily briefing today, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest revealed there`s still at least one American being held hostage. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There is at least one other hostage that is held in the region. What I can tell you is that we are aware. We have avoided discussing the individual cases of Americans being held hostage, but we`re aware of other hostages being held in the region. (END VIDEO CLIP) HAYES: Today we learned for the first time what the official legal U.S. response might look like. New details on President Obama`s request for broader authority from congress to fight is ISIS. That`s next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HAYES: Six months after the U.S. started a bombing campaign against ISIS, and with 3,000 troops already on the ground in Iraq, President Obama is finally poised to submit an authorization for the use of military force or AUMF, to congress for vote. Today on Capitol Hill, the president`s chief of staff and White House council briefed senate Democrats for the broad strokes of the new AUMF, which according to Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, would rule out what the White House calls enduring offensive ground operations, will automatically sunset after three years and will replace the 2002 AUMF enabling the Iraq war. According to another the report by Bloomberg`s Josh Rogen (ph), the bill would authorize military action against ISIS and its associated forces, and it would have no geographic limitations leaving the administration free to expand the war to other countries. Legislation is expected to be delivered to Congress as early as tomorrow. I talked with congressman Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, who told me his reaction to the administration`s draft AUMF. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. ADAM SCHIFF, (D) CALIFORNIA: I think it is a good discussion draft. I think it has a good limitation of three years, which will place it beyond the presidential election and into the next presidency, give the new president about a year to determine whether or he needs a different kind of authorization from congress. So the sunset date I think is appropriate. Where I think there are improvements that are going to have to be made, is it still have as very broad provision in terms of the use of ground troops. And there is no sunset of the original 2001 AUMF. And without that sunset, Chris, a future president could simply say that when the new authorization terminates that he`ll rely on the old one or she`ll rely on the old one. So, this is a real issue that I think is going to have to be addressed. HAYES: In fact that is precisely the legal argument made by the White House right now. I mean, obviously they are engaged in kinetic activity against ISIS. They are bombing. We have 3,000 or so U.S. personnel on the ground. They say can do this under the 2001 AUMF. So why are we even debating this or talking about doing this at all if they already have the legal justification to do what they`re doing? SCHIFF: Well, because I think the administration recognizes that is a pretty week constitutional and legal argument. It`s a very slender read. That old authorization that they`re relying upon allows a president to use forces against those who were responsible for 9/11, which they`ve interpreted meaning al Qaeda and its affiliates. Well, ISIL wasn`t even in existence on 9/11, it has often been at war with al Qaeda, so it plainly, I think by it`s terms, doesn`t apply unless you use the most broad interpretation, which is what they`re using. But it is all the more reason why that authorization should have the same sunset as any new authorization so that the next president can`t simply fall back on this at some later point when the new resolution expires. HAYES: That key provision in the 2001 AUMF that you proposed sort of rolling into this new one sunsetting in three years in your own proposal, that key phrase is associated forces, right, which gives them the latitude to strike at a variety of targets, some of which didn`t really even exist in 2001. We see that same language in the draft the White House had proposed here. Are you concerned that will provide the same kind of wide latitude to future administrations? SCHIFF: Well, I am concerned about it. And of course all of these provisions are intertwined in a way. And that`s why this is going to be the subject of a broad negotiation. And that is, if you have a limit that, for example, prohibits the use of ground troops in a combat mission and it`s narrowly drafted so it can`t be interpreted in an over broad fashion, that may give you some comfort in terms of other issues like the geographic limit or whether they`ll use an expansive interpretation of associated forces. So the narrower the authorization in terms of one provision helps you potentially with other provisions. I would be less concerned about that associated forces language if for example we confine this to Iraq and Syria. If on the other hand there is no geographic limitation, then that term associated forces could become very significant if, for example, the president wants to after Boko Haram. That is clearly not -- what is intended right now but you could read that associated forces very broadly to include Libya, to include other parts of Africa as well. HAYES: Right now there is no geographic restriction. It also seems to me that one of the issues that is going to come to the fore is that there is going to be some members of congress, people like Lindsey Graham in the Senate, other Republicans who are going to want this to be broader. I mean, how are you going get to some kind of language that can get majorities in both houses? SCHIF: Well, it is going to be a challenge, and a lot will depend on what kind of a coalition the administration really wants to build. If they want, they could build a coalition that consists of the Grahams and the McCains and is very Republican oriented with a few Democrats, but I think they want something very broadly bipartisan that enjoys the support of a majority of members on both sides of the aisle. That will be a challenge, although I think it is a challenge that can be met and I think what they put forward is a good starting point. HAYES: Not to be overly frank here, but isn`t congress rendered irrelevant in the era of the war on terror with the wide interpretation of the AUMF, with the administration already engaging in the kinds of activities they now seek legal authorization for? Isn`t it a foregone conclusion you guys are going to vote to give them what they want? SCHIEFF: Well, I hope it isn`t. But yes, for the last six months, congress has been AWOL. War has been going on. We haven`t had a vote to declare it, to authorize it. We haven`t even really had a debate in congress over it. So you`re absolutely right, congress has been sidelined but not by the administration, we have sidelined ourselves by insisting that the administration put forward its draft first. There is nothing in the constitution that says we have the power to declare war only when we are asked by the president or only when we`re asked nicely. So we have marginalized ourselves. This is an opportunity for Congress to reassert itself, to show that it is an equal branch and has a check and balance when it comes to making war. It was what I think the founders certainly envisioned. And I hope that we insist upon it and we make meaningful changes to this resolution. HAYES: All right, Congressman Adam Schiff, thank you very much. SCHIFF: Thanks Chris. HAYES: That is all in for evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts now. Good evening Rachel. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END