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

Melissa Harris-Perry, Transcript 04/05/15

Guests: Michelle Goldberg, Sabrina Siddiqui, Niels Lesniewski, YevgeniyFeyman, Lucas Agnew, Tuwisha Rogers, Cole Stryker, Dorie Clark, HillaryMann Leverett, Kendall Fells, Catherine Ruetschlin, Jessica Davis, VanessaDe Luca

DORIAN WARREN, MSNBC GUEST ANCHOR: This morning, my question. Should I tweet every thought I have? Plus, the delicate details behind the deal of a decade. And the McCray`s, you want fries with that? But first, how the 2016 election belongs to the millennials. Good morning. I`m Dorian Warren in for Melissa Harris-Perry. This week when Arkansas governor, Asa Hutchinson announced he would not be signing the first version of the Religious Freedom Bill that reached his desk on Wednesday, it may have been because he had taken a long, hard look at what his fellow governor was going through just a couple of states away. In Indiana, Governor Mike Pence had earlier signed a similar bill and was trying his best to clarify that he didn`t really mean to allow businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians, but the initial backlash and boycotts against Pence`s decision were loud enough that Governor Hutchinson could have heard it all the way in Arkansas. Considering whether or not to sign the bill, the governor said he paid particular attention to the voice of one of his closest critics. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOVERNOR ASA HUTCHINSON (R), ARKANSAS: There is clearly a generational gap on this issue. My son, Seth, signed the petition asking me, Dad, the governor, to veto this bill. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Seth Hutchinson not only signed the petition, but according to a profile in the "New York Times" also wrote to his father expressing his concerns about what the bill could do to the economy and reputation of Arkansas. The younger Hutchinson, unlike the governor who`s a dyed in the wool red Republican is according to the "Times," a progressive, a union organizer who is strongly pro-labor and a supporter of LGBT rights. Also, unlike his father, who`s 64, Seth, at age 31, is a member of the millennial generation. It`s unclear how much Seth influenced Governor Hutchinson`s request for lawmakers to revise the bill. When asked by the "Times," he declined to take credit saying, "I did not sway my dad. I think my dad is rethinking this because of the pressure that`s coming at him from all sides." Perhaps, but what is clear is that in considering his son`s opinion, the governor recognized something that has become increasingly apparent to political leaders, especially if they are running for office. When millennials speak, it would be wise to listen especially now as the presidential election cycle starts to get under way. Because sometime this year the U.S. Census Bureau is projecting that millennials will surpass baby boomers as the country`s largest living generation. The numbers of those millennials who are eligible to vote is increasing by about 4 million every year. By 2020, the first presidential election of which all millennials will be voting age, they will comprise nearly 40 percent of all Americans eligible to vote. Of course, all those numbers of eligible voters don`t necessarily add up to actual votes. Millennials, as is the tendency for young people in every generation have lower voter turnout than their elders, in fact, in last year`s midterm elections, which are already notorious for low turnout especially among young voters. Millennials managed to stay home in record numbers unseen in the last decade, but when properly motivated, millennial voters can make all the difference as they did for President Obama in 2008. During the 2008 presidential election, the first in which all voters between 18 and 29 were exclusively members of the millennial generation, young people overcame their turnout apathy and exceeded their 2004 numbers by 2.2 million. In 2008, young first time voters were key to then Senator Obama`s pivotal margin of victory in the Iowa caucuses. They then went on to choose him by a 34-point margin over Senator John McCain in the general election. The success of the Obama campaign that year was due largely in part to the young voters who spend their time and energy as volunteers and grassroots campus organizers. Right now, presidential hopefuls are trying to figure out how to harness some of that millennial power for themselves as they look ahead to 2016. Perhaps none more so than the guy expected to announce his presidential candidacy this week, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, and who as the "National Journal" reported this week is positioning himself as the candidate for young people. According to "The Journal" younger conservatives are emerging as a backbone of his campaign strategy, a source of not just volunteers and energy, but votes. Senator Paul has been tapping into that source by campaigning on college campuses, Snapchatting and appearing on MTV. He even started attacking his 2016 competitors using the millenials preferred method of unsettling an adversary, trolling online. Paul has been taking jabs on his opponents on Twitter and Facebook. After Jeb Bush announced he actively would explore a run for the White House, Paul bought a Google ad that made search results for Bush`s name turned up in a surprise, Rand Paul ad questioning Jeb`s conservative credentials with a suggestion to, quote, "join a movement working to shrink government, not grow it." Of course, it`s going to take more some well executed internet shade to impress millennial voters because millenials have clearly staked their claim on the issues that matter most to them. It seems in the age-old culture wars over social issues, they have unequivocally planted their flag on the progressive side. A whopping 68 percent of them have a favorable view of same-sex marriage. On the question of immigration, a majority of millenials 55 percent favor a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and 54 percent of them disapprove of the Affordable Care Act, the same amount of millennials also believe it`s the government`s responsibility to ensure health coverage for all. While half of them are pretty sure they won`t ever see a single dime of social security, most of them don`t want to see their elders lose their benefits either. All of which makes more sense when you understand that of all generations, millennials are the only group where polling shows a majority are in support of bigger government. If you`re a Republican looking to win over this emergent generation, you might find yourself doing a tricky political tap dance around the social questions where you and millennials disagree. If you`re Rand Paul, that means emphasizing the issues like marijuana legalization, criminal justice reform, and domestic spying. And kind of hoping they just don`t notice your opposition issues like same- sex marriage. We saw him take his best shot at it this week when "The Hill" reached out to find out his position on Indiana`s Religious Freedom Bill. And the paper was told by a representative, "Senator Paul is out of pocket with family and not doing any media all week long." For a generation that has come to expect the answers to all of their questions to be just a tap, a text, social media post or Google search box away, the senator and his counter parts in the class of 2016 are going to have to do a lot better than that. Joining me now are Sabrina Siddiqui, political reporter for "The Guardian," Neil Lesniewski, staff writer for "Roll Call," Yevgeniy Feyman, fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and Michelle Goldberg, senior contributing writer for "The Nation." Thank you all for joining on this holiday weekend. Michelle, I want to start with you and ask you, what is going to be the motivating factor for 2016? What are the key issues and who are the exciting candidates in your view? MICHELLE GOLDBERG, SENIOR CONTRIBUTING WRITER, "THE NATION": Actually I think it`s too early to say what are going to be the key issues. I don`t think we yet know whether it`s going to be a big foreign policy election, whether Iran will still be at the center of the debate. I think it`s extremely unlikely Rand Paul would be the candidate, but it would be really fascinating to have an election between a sort of more dovish isolationist Republican and a hawkish interventionist Democrat. That would scramble political categories in a way that we haven`t seen in many, many years. I mean, you know, if I had to guess, it`s going to be Hillary Clinton obviously as the Democrat. Unlike a lot of people, I think that Jeb Bush is pretty unlikely to get the nomination. I think there`s a big difference between a Jeb Bush and, say, a Mitt Romney. You know, I think probably it will be someone like Scott Walker. And the other thing that I think will be fascinating in the next election is going to be the role of women`s issues and family issues, which is a place she`s really staking her claim. WARREN: What about young voters and young women in particular? Will they go for Hillary? Will Hillary be attracted to them? Are there others on the Republican side for whom young voters will see some excitement around? NIELS LESNIEWSKI, "ROLL CALL": Well, I think we need to differentiate two different groups of young voters because there are -- if you talk about young voters in a Republican primary field, they may have completely different social views than young voters in a general election will. While young voters in a general election will probably regardless vote in overwhelming numbers for Secretary Clinton or for whomever the Democratic nominee is, you`re going to have an interesting situation in a Republican primary where you`ll have a group of young voters who may be enthusiastic about Rand Paul on the sort of marijuana issues and the like, but of course -- WARREN: Huge assumption you`re making. LESNIEWSKI: But where it is that Ted Cruz rolled out his campaign at Liberty University, those are Evangelicals, but they are also millennials. WARREN: OK, you said we have to distinguish between young voters so I want to break the demographics of this generation down a bit. So -- this is from a Pew social survey, 57 percent of people between 18 and 33 are non- Hispanic white people. And this number means that millennials, which are the largest living generation are also the most racially diverse generation in American history. So Sabrina, how does that number, when we segregate by race, how does that complicate our understanding of what it means to be a millennial? SABRINA SIDDIQUI, "THE GUARDIAN": Well, I think that one of the big things that you`re going to see when it comes to demographics of millennials is how that plays particularly with the GOP because they have, as you pointed out, struggled among millennial voters as well as when it comes to splitting it down demographics based on race. They have also struggled with minorities. So that makeup is important. But I think Niels is spot on when you say you have to look at the primary process and the number of conservative millennials and whether they support a Ted Cruz almost as equally as they do Rand Paul. Not quite, but it`s not quite as cut and dry as when you go to the general and they lean more Democratic. I think when it comes to -- it`s still going to largely be about social issues when it comes to young voters. I think a lot of the pitch that will come certainly from Democrats will be trying to paint Republicans as extreme on issues like same-sex marriage. They will try to play the women`s reproductive issue as well as they did in 2012. But also the economy will be a big part of it. It remains to be seen what the recovery will look like a couple of years from now, but the extent to which millennials are left out of that recovery, youth unemployment is high, that will be a key factor especially with Hillary Clinton because she will have to either carry the burden of the Obama economy or be able to tout it. WARREN: Yevgeniy, let me get you in really quickly because I want to be careful we don`t make the demography power fallacy. So this is a diverse generation. Does it necessarily lead to political power in terms of that diversity? YEVGENIY FEYMAN, FELLOW MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: Absolutely not and I think one of the big factors is going to be how many millennials turn out to vote, especially when you look at Hispanics and African-Americans, they tend to vote much less often than whites do. So you can have a very diverse population that`s not represented by the voters actually turning out. Even if the Hispanic population does turn out, I think that could be a boost for Jeb Bush or Rand Paul because on immigration they`re better than some of the other GOP potentials. WARREN: We know they turned out in record numbers for Obama in `08 but it remains to be seen if Hillary or Jeb or Rand can mobilize young voters in the same way. Stay right there, I want to bring in the young man behind the super PAC "Millennials for Jeb Bush. That`s next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) WARREN: Super PACS are often known as a way for the political heavyweights and the super rich to throw their money to influence elections. For one California college student, a super PAC is a way to get millennials engaged with the 2016 presidential election and one candidate in particular, Jeb Bush. In January, 21-year-old Lucas Agnew, a senior at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California filed papers with the Federal Election Commission to launch a new super PAC called "Millennials for Jeb." According to the "Millenials for Jeb" web site, the super PAC was started with a singular goal in mind. Quote, "To get Jeb elected president of the United States in 2016." Joining me now from Los Angeles is the founder of "Millennials for Jeb" super PAC, Lucas Agnew. Lucas, good morning. LUCAS AGNEW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, "MILLENIALS FOR JEB" PAC: Thank you for having me. WARREN: Tell me why Jeb Bush. What was appealing to you about him and why do you think he is the right choice for millennial voters? AGNER: Sure. Well, Governor Bush is a proven leader on many of the issues that matter most to millennials, and in particular the two most important issues to millenials are job creation and economic growth. As governor of Florida, Governor Bush created 1.32 million jobs and Florida actually led the nation in jobs creation for multiple years in his tenure. So from issues like immigration reform to economic opportunity, we believe that Governor Bush will represent millennial interests well if elected president in 2016. WARREN: OK, so why a super PAC? What are you hoping to accomplish? AGNER: Right, well, we focused on how there`s kind of low engagement among the millennial generation. You touched about this, only one in five millennials actually voted in the 2014 midterm elections. It`s about trying to find new and innovative ways of engaging millennials and attempting to raise the civil engagement among the millennial generation. WARREN: OK, new and innovative ways to engage millenials, tell us how exactly how plan to do that. How are you going to get millennials excited about Jeb Bush? AGNEW: We`re kind of taking a two-front approach into how we`re trying to engage millennials, the first being social media. Obviously social media is a tremendous tool for us because just about every millennial in some way or another is on social media. So finding ways of engaging them, whether it`s things like political means or you talked about how Rand Paul attempted trolling on social media, aspects like that and also developing a large kind of boots on the ground grassroots network across the country with things like chapters on college campuses. We have chapters at Arizona State and we have volunteers in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to New York City and also reaching out to young professional groups and trying to engage millennials there. From social media to developing an on the ground network, those are the ways we`re trying to engage millennials and find new takes on traditional engagement and outreach. WARREN: All right, and how`s the fundraising coming along? AGNER: It`s coming along, it`s coming along. When it started, it was just me, an idea and a web site. So on our end we`ve really kind of developed organizationally and now that we`re getting up and running, we`ve definitely seen good feedback and the fundraising is coming along. WARREN: So Michelle, I want to come out to you because you went in February to CPAC, which is the annual right wing conservative conference that you have in previous years, but you wrote in "The Nation" that there`s something different this year that scared you. What was different this year and how was it different from the previous years? GOLDBERG: Well, CPAC which I`ve been going to for an embarrassingly long time because I`m not a millennial is usually or had been in the past a freak show. I remember going when you could buy a no Muslims equals no terrorists bumper sticker. You could throw a ball at a troll saying the homosexual agenda on it in this demented fair ground game and they had really went out of their way to tone that stuff down because they`re aware in the age of social media any of this stuff is just one Instagram post from going viral. So they really backed off on the crazy. Even the -- even on the issue of same-sex marriage, the candidates aren`t in favor of same-sex marriage, but they framed their objection in many terms of state`s rights or in terms of religious freedom. You didn`t hear anything going on and on about one man, one woman, the sanctity of marriage. They had crafted their message -- it was much slicker than it`s been in the past and designed with a surface level within kind of a sheen of moderation. WARREN: So backed off on the crazy, you say. Lucas, I want to ask you, because a lot of us think that Rand Paul is seriously positioning himself to be the candidate of millennial Republican voters. How will your super PAC take on Rand Paul? AGNEW: Well, we`re not really going to focus on other potential candidates, we`re just about focusing on Governor Bush and his message of, you know, right to rise, economic opportunity for our generation and how you go about that is creating jobs, actually establishing immigration reform and education reform. So we`re just focusing about Governor Bush showing millennials who he is, what he stands for, why you would want to support him and leaving it to the millennials to compare Governor Bush to other candidates. WARREN: Yev, let me get you in here really quickly and ask you the same question. How will Rand Paul try to position himself against Jeb Bush and this super PAC that Lucas has started as the candidate for millennials. FEYMAN: So I think where Rand Paul might have the edge on Jeb is he can really pitch himself as tough on criminal justice reform and he`s also going to really hit hard on the big government/small government. He`s going to pitch himself as a small government mainly through criminal justice reform. There`s some other positions that target the fed and whatnot that probably won`t be too popular. WARREN: The fed? Yes, let`s target the fed. That`s going to get everybody else motivated. All right, stay with me. Lucas Agnew in L.A., thank you very much. Up next, is a hipster Brooklyn office the key to millennial voter hearts? (COMMERCIAL BREAK) WARREN: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 30 percent of young millennials are living at home with their parents. Of those that managed to leave the nest, a Neilson Report found 62 percent rather live in the cities than suburbs. And if television depictions of millennial urban life are to be believed, among those who are choosing to settle in the city of New York, the millennial destination of choice is Brooklyn. From HBO`s "Girls" to Comedy Central`s "Broad City" to TVLand`s new series, "Younger" millenials seem to be riding the gentrification wave right into the most popular borough. Which means VK`s newest political tenant is uniquely position to get up and close and personal with all her millennial neighbors because this week, Hillary Clinton`s still unofficial campaign reportedly made its new headquarters official right in downtown Brooklyn. "Politico" first reported that the lease for two floors of an office tower was signed late this week although former Secretary Clinton was still punting on a question about the new digs on a Wednesday event with New York`s first lady, Charlene McCray. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Secretary, can we expect you back in Brooklyn, your headquarters here possibly? HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: All in good time. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: All right. So Sabrina I want to ask you, what should we make of Hillary Clinton`s decision to put her headquarters in Brooklyn and on the break, Michelle mentioned that this is the death Nell for hipster Brooklyn? Is this a strategic move for Hillary? SIDDIQUI: Well, I don`t know if this is a strategic move, but if we`re talking about her appeal among younger voters, she has to do more than just set up camp in Brooklyn. The reality is and this goes back to the turn out issue that we were talking about earlier. Even though millennial voters tend Democratic, there`s an enthusiasm gap when it comes to Hillary Clinton. There`s no guarantee that they`re going to turn out in large numbers the way they did for Barack Obama, both in 2008 and 2012, even though people thought they wouldn`t in 2012. Simply because she does represent more of an old guard school of politics and that`s why you`ve seen at least her make more efforts to move a little bit to the left and the Elizabeth Warren effect for lack of a better word, to be a little more progressive with income equality and position herself as a supporter of same-sex marriage. Whether she`s able to sell that case comes down to the voter turnout issue. WARREN: So Neils, when we think about New York, we think Manhattan. That`s the place where money and power are centralized, but Hillary decided to go to Brooklyn. She wants to be sort of hipsterish, right? Rent prices are probably not the reasoning for her going to Brooklyn, so why not just go to Manhattan? LESNIEWSKI: Well, I would have thought about comparing it to something completely different. She could have sent a very different message had she gone to, say, Syracuse and Utica or Rochester and gone upstate and away from the urban center entirely. It`s people who are outside of the New York metropolitan area aren`t really going to tell the difference all that much. You hear vaguely when you don`t live around here of Brooklyn being where the hipsters are and whatnot. But I don`t think generally people still think of it outside of the sort of New York City area or outside of the northeast corridor as still being part of New York in a general sense. GOLDBERG: There`s also a practical thing here. A lot of the people who work on the campaign and cover the campaign live in Brooklyn. In terms of recruiting top talent, you`re going to get a lot of people who aren`t going to want to move to Utica or Rochester, they`re happy about riding their bikes 5 minutes to work every day. And also in terms of covering the campaign, this is where people who cover campaigns, a lot of them hang out. If you`re going to be in the bars at night trading information and leaks and stuff, this is a pretty easy organic place to do it. WARREN: Yev, I want to come to you because Sabrina mentioned earlier that clearly in terms of young women, reproductive justice issues is going to be front and center. So I want to read something from a "National Journal" piece earlier this year and it was in regard to women in the House of Representatives choosing to take their names off a Republican bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks. This is what Congresswoman Renee Elmer said. "I`ve urged leadership to reconsider bringing it up next week. We got into trouble last year and I think we need to be careful again. We need to be smart about how we`re moving forward." Elmer said in an interview, "The first vote we take or the second vote or the fifth vote shouldn`t be on an issue where we know that millennials, social issues just aren`t that important to them." Is this going to influence the Republican strategy around reproductive justice, reproductive rights in terms of focusing on female millennial voters? FEYMAN: Well, I really hope Republicans have learned if you`re a white male between 40 and 60 perhaps you shouldn`t be talking about female`s reproductive rights. If you`re doing that, you should do it in a very, very nuanced way. There`s much better ways to do it. I think Republicans have learned from a lot of the faux pas that have happened recently whether that`s going to translate into a different campaign strategy. It might just be avoiding the issue as much as possible. And not talking about abortion when they can avoid it, not talking about access to contraception, but it`s something that Democrats and progressives are going to have an edge in over Republicans. WARREN: Michelle, I want to get you to respond to something that Yev said earlier because he said Rand Paul would use a smaller government frame to try to recruit millennial voters, but I want to put up a look at the racial views of millennials or broken down by race. When you look at the question of preference for smaller or bigger government, it`s in fact just the non-white millennials who prefer big government, 71 percent to 39 percent of white millennials. So talk to me about the demographic differences among millennials and how that will drive attitudes around big or small government. GOLDBERG: Well, I think part of it is race is more important kind of a proxy than age in determining people`s political attitudes, right. So kind of white millennials are not that different from whites -- they are on certain issues, same-sex marriage is a big one. But on a lot of issues, they pretty much track other white voters, right, the white millennials favored, for example, a Republican takeover of Congress in 2012. WARREN: By the way, white millennials went for Romney over Obama in 2012. That wasn`t the case in `08. GOLDBERG: Right. So I think, you know, but when you`re talking a Republican primary you`re almost exclusively talking about white voters so those are the people that Rand Paul has to go over. At CPAC which had a huge youth turnout, more than I had seen in the past, the big message was big government sucks, you know, which is the kind of message that is tailor made for Rand Paul. WARREN: That`s a nice bumper sticker. Still to come this morning, is the Iran nuclear deal, the deal of the decade? But first, on Easter Sunday, checking in on Pope Francis. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) WARREN: Now a look at news making headlines this morning. Tens of thousands of people turned out in St. Peters Square in Vatican City this morning to hear Pope Francis celebrate Easter mass. The pontiff called for peace, expressing concern about many of the conflicts raging around the world, including in Yemen, Iraq, Nigeria and Kenya. And he made his first public comments about the framework nuclear agreement reached with Iran, praising it as an opportunity to make the world safer. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) POPE FRANCIS (through translator): At the same time in hope we entrust to the merciful Lord the framework recently agreed to in Lausanne, that it may be a definitive step toward a more secure and fraternal world. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: In one of the war-torn countries mentioned by the pope, a disturbing development. In a newly released video, ISIS extremists in Iraq have claimed to have destroyed a major archaeological site in the ancient city of Hatra. The video shows militants smashing sledgehammers into walls and shooting assault rifles at priceless statues. But it`s not clear when or under what circumstances the video was made. And in this country, a huge upset in the final four of the men`s NCAA basketball tournament. The number one seed, the Kentucky Wildcats, lost their bid for perfection last night after falling to the Wisconsin Badgers. Kentucky was 38-0 heading into last night`s showdown and dominated early on before Wisconsin rallied late in the game to win 71-64. Wisconsin will face Duke for the championship Monday night hoping to win the Badger`s first national title since 1941. Up next, what Trevor Noah taught us about how to get that next job. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) WARREN: Trevor Noah had a really good wok good week and also kind of a bad week. Comedy Central announced that the South African will take over "The Daily Show" when Jon Stewart retires, giving him one of the best jobs in comedy. But then people started trolling through Noah`s social media presence looking for dirt and they found some. Like this tweet from October 2011. "Yes, the weekend. People are going to get drunk and think that I`m sexy. Attributed to fat chicks everywhere." Or this one from June 2010, "South Africans know how to recycle like Israel knows how to be peaceful." Now the old tweet set off an avalanche of Twitter backlash and think pieces like Vox`s the line between funny and offensive is thin. Trevor Noah is on the wrong side. And Howard Kurtz says, "Daily Show" disaster: How Trevor Noah picks on the powerless." Now, Noah defended himself on Twitter saying, quote, "To reduce my views to a handful of jokes that didn`t land is not a true reflection of my character nor my evolution as a comedian." The Twitter storm swirled but Comedy Central did not back away from its new host. The network said that Noah has, quote, "a bright future on Comedy Central." The storm seems to be dying down for now and Noah will surely step on more toes when he takes the helm at "The Daily Show." We can talk all day long about whether the jokes or funny or offensive or both. Whether they should disqualify him in any way from leading the most trusted fake news source in the country, but we`re not going to talk about that. Instead I want to ask some of the important questions this incident raises for the rest of us, for our careers, our privacy, our very reputations as we lead increasingly public lives on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and the internet at large. Joining me now, Sabrina Siddiqui, political reporter at "The Guardian," Dorie Clark, author of both "Reinventing You" and the soon to be released, "Stand Out, How to Find Your Breakthrough Idea and Build A Following Around It," Tuwisha Rogers, vice president of Brand Leadership and Strategy at TV One and a creative problem solver of Wish Factor Consulting, and Cole Stryker, author of "Hacking The Future, Privacy, Identity And Anonymity On The Web." Thank you for joining MPH this morning. Towisha, I want to start with you and ask how does someone strike a balance between having an authentic online presence and posting something that might be harmful down the road? TUWISHA ROGERS, VP BRAND LEADERSHIP TV ONE: First of all, I think we need to remember that first off, social media is an extension of who you are, it`s not who you are. So having an identity and knowing who you are first individually should be the premise of how you would show up on social media. I think part of the problem is social media for some folks has become the likes, the personality, who they are, what they`re supposed to be instead of authentically being who they are and let that story shine. So the balance is, first of all, don`t try to follow social media and make that your platform. Have a platform and be yourself on social media and then you won`t run into those types of problem. WARREN: So no catfishing is what you`re saying. ROGERS: Exactly. No catfishing, but I think the self-awareness in social media is important. Again, I think we have a society that`s looking for the next stage, the next big thing, instead of just being themselves. WARREN: Cole, let me get you in here. We know the best example of a Twitter joke gone wrong is that of Justine Sacko who is a PR executive ridiculed online and then fired for tweeting, quote, "going to Africa. Hope I don`t get AIDS. Just kidding, I`m white." Why are we seeing this kind of mass public shaming online? COLE STRYKER, AUTHOR, "HACKING THE FUTURE": I think it has to do a lot with people needing a mechanism to punish behaviors that aren`t necessarily illegal, but fly in the face of social norms. We all know about the stocks in medieval times and how you get rotten tomatoes thrown at you. It was because if you were living in your village, everyone knew who you were. With the internet we`re experiencing a re-villaging of sorts of the everything you say is permanent and the people around you know who you are. WARREN: The re-villaging. So Sabrina, let`s talk about this re-villaging when it comes to politics. There`s a particular shaming that happens around political figures and the best example of this is Jeb Bush`s chief technology officer who was announced as the CTO on Monday and resigned on Tuesday over old tweets. Talk to us about what role people`s personal social media histories are playing in politics. SIDDIQUI: Well, I think we increasing live in a society where nothing is private anymore. If you`re going to be using especially public social media tools, you have to understand that your words might be used against you and that people will take those and try to extend them to your employer. That`s why employers are very defensive. If you`re a politician especially, you can`t have someone who you just hired saying things that are sexist or racist on Twitter or Facebook because it`s going to extend to your campaign and there will be opponents who say this must be the views of you as a candidate. I think unfortunately there`s a line that`s now being crossed because there`s a new blood sport that`s emerged as well for especially public figures. I think that`s what happened to Trevor Noah. I think people are combing through looking for something that could be deemed offensive, not because they`re trying to call out an injustice but simply because it`s become a sport. But in politics, of course, I think candidates have to be increasingly mindful of the digital footprint not just for themselves but for the people around them they hire to run their campaigns. WARREN: OK, Dorian, in terms of lines being crossed, I found this story fascinating. Last month we saw the former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, actually track down the people who made really vulgar comments about his 17-year-old daughter, including rape threats. Schilling said he is aware of nine trolls who lost their jobs or got kicked off athletic teams and said, quote, "And we`re not done." So does this cross the line? Should employees be fired for the things they do and say online? And where should be the line drawn for businesses? DORIE CLARK, AUTHOR, "REINVENTING YOU": Well, it really goes to the question of judgment, because if you`re an employer, you want to make sure that the people you`re hiring can exercise good judgment on the job and off the job. I think that it`s very valid. If someone crosses a line, you wonder what they would do with a customer. Ultimately someone like Curt Schilling hunting people down, it`s why people go to Liam Neeson movies. We want to see the bad guys taken down. WARREN: It was kind of stalkerish to me, but I would want to react in the same way. CLARK: Yes, absolutely. I think really the phenomenon that`s happening here, having been a former presidential campaign spokesperson. We`ve seen politicians for years have been under incredibly intense scrutiny. Now that same level of scrutiny is being applied to regular people. For Trevor Noah, he`s a 31-year-old guy. All of a sudden he gets elevated from the minor leagues to the most major of major leagues. This is the White House of comedy and he wasn`t ready for it. And I think more and more people are going to have to be cognisant that as millennials are ascending in the work force, this is what they are going to see. WARREN: Tuwisha, let me ask you this question, what are some of the mistakes that you see people make when using social media to promote themselves or their businesses? How can they prepare themselves to get hired and keep their jobs? ROGERS: As you alluded to, you`re a brand so you have to think of yourself as a brand 360 and what you represent. Some of the mistakes I`ve seen is when brands don`t have their own identity and they`re not authentic and connecting when again we`re chasing a story or a trend. Even more so a see brands failing when they have a target audience and don`t know how the audience communicates or use proper companies that are put in place to help you navigate what that looks like. So again we need to be sensitive to who you`re talking to. We need to be authentic and connect and engagement needs to be -- engagement is extremely important and it needs to be bigger than insights or demos, really understand what is that a person is looking for, what they are thinking about, how they interact. Today, I think especially with millennials being they`re so 360 and so engaging and they have this platform, it`s extremely important to really just dive in and understand who you`re talking to, and what is the proper way to communicate. WARREN: OK, don`t go anywhere. Coming up, from top executive to living off government existence, supposedly all because of posting a YouTube video. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) WARREN: Two and a half years ago the CFO of a medical device firm recorded himself going through the drive-through of a Chick-Fil-A restaurant and berating the employee for working at a company whose corporate leaders oppose same-sex marriage. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`re always happy to serve everyone. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know how you live with yourself and work here. I don`t understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We`re here to serve you in any way that you need. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You deserve better. Rachel, you deserve better. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I hope you have a really nice day. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will. I just did something really good, I feel purposeful. Thank you so much. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: The CFO, Adam Smith, posted the video to his YouTube page. The video went viral online where he was excruciated for bullying the employee. Later that same day, Smith was fired from his $200,000-a-year job. In an interview with ABC`s "20/20" this week, Smith says he hasn`t been able to hold a job since and is now on food stamps, something he attributes entirely to that viral video. So panel, is it right that this guy is unemployable right now? SIDDIQUI: I think where he went wrong. He`s berating an employee probably working there on minimum wage and doesn`t have a lot of options. That wasn`t the best way to express that. You can post something online, but going up to someone and harassing her in that way didn`t work well. I think companies are still very reluctant to get involved in social issues. I wonder how different it might be now because of the conversation we`re having around the religious freedom act just in Indiana and Arkansas and companies are starting to get involved on same-sex marriage. But going after the employee -- WARREN: Dorie, how does one recover their reputation online once something like this happens? CLARK: The only way to recover your reputation online is by flooding the internet with more positive content. Things never disappear on the internet, but if you can push it back to page number 64, also you`re applying for a job with the FBI. No one will find it or discover it. This guy needs to start blogging about finance or anything else to wipe the slate clean. ROGERS: I actually kind of agree and disagree. I think you need to embrace what you did. There`s a story there. I think we live in a society where the human story is important, right? So if there`s a lesson to be learned, if he embraces that I was wrong, I may have went too far, then there`s something that comes out of it like here`s my redemption. It`s Easter Sunday, right? Here`s how I come out of it and rise from the ashes. But more importantly I think the consistency whatever that positive is, is just as important. If there`s another hiccup, it`s almost like your brand is inconsistent and no one is going to believe you. WARREN: Cole, I want to flip the script because we`ve been talking about people that post things themselves and get in trouble. But what about people who are targeted online who did not post anything themselves, here I`m thinking of Monica Lewinsky, who describes her online humiliation like this. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MONICA LEWINSKY: The experience of shame and humiliation online is different than offline. There is no way to wrap your mind around where the humiliation ends. There are no borders. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: So is Monica right, are there no borders anymore? STRYKER: I think she`s absolutely right. I think more so than when she experienced her public shaming, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of teenage girls every day facing this scrutiny in their high schools, in their churches, wherever. We all know about how nude pictures can be leaked and how slut shaming happens. I think that while being able to call out people in places of power for corruption and other, you know, cardinal sins, I think that we also have to have a bit of perspective. And recognize that this person might not deserve to have this hanging over their head for the rest of their lives, especially when they`re underage, because people change and people grow. You shouldn`t be held accountable for something you did as a 14-year-old, no matter how heinous it is. WARREN: So Tuwisha, I want to come back and ask how does the internet change how private figures are swept into the spotlight because of their interactions with a public figure, much like Monica Lewinsky? ROGERS: So I think right now they have to embrace the fact that there is the internet, there`s a conversation happening. But I like to flip is little bit. Instead of looking at the negative, look at the positive. The internet has an opportunity to touch the world. You have an opportunity to touch people in different places, share a story, have a testimony and change someone`s life. If we think about it that way, I think we`ll make better decisions on how we`re going to engage. Now we know that we have an audience and can do something to move the world forward as opposed to being selfish or not thinking or not being considerate of -- not being considerate of the impact of what we`re doing. So that`s what I think about it. WARREN: At the break, we`ll all do a group selfie here. My thanks to Tuwisha Rogers and Cole Stryker. Sabrina and Dorie will be back in our next hour. Coming up next, the complex details of the nuclear deal with Iran and the even more complicated politics over the deal here at home. Plus, the mcraise, a good deal for workers or just some corporate clowning? More nerdland at the top of the hour. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) WARREN: Welcome back, I`m Dorian Warren in for Melissa. This morning the reaction continues for the historic deal reached with Iran, the United States and five other countries. On Thursday, after 18 months of negotiations, the parties arrived at a preliminary framework for curbing Iran`s nuclear capabilities. The landmark agreement between two countries, who had been hostile to each other for decades, is considered one of the biggest accomplishments of President Obama`s administration. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It is a good deal. A deal that meets our core objectives. This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Mohammad Javad Zarif Iran`s foreign minister and chief negotiator in the talks sounded a note of optimism but a wary one saying, quote, "We have serious differences with the United States. We have built mutual distrust in the past so what I hope is through courageous implementation of this some of that trust could be remedied but that is for us all to wait and see." Now, the two have until June 30th to iron the final text of the agreement. But here`s what we know from now, according to the framework, Iran will scale back its number of operating centrifuges, reduce its stockpile of blow enrich uranium by 97 percent, redesign the arak reactor so that it cannot produce weapons grade plutonium. Provide the International Atomic Energy Agency greater access and information and allow the agency to investigate sites. In return, according to the framework agreement, the United States and European Union will drop many of the sanctions levied against Iran. We`re going to look at this story from many angles this morning. But first I want to bring in two NBC News correspondent, John Yang at the White House and Ali Arouzi, NBC`s Tehran Bureau Chief. And John, let me go to you first. And ask you how satisfied is the administration with what they have gotten out of this agreement? JOHN YANG, NBC NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Dorian, around here they`re saying they`re pretty satisfied. They feel that they did have to make some concessions, they describe them as face-saving concessions for the Iranians, but I think what the challenge is that a lot of what they feel good about is very complex, very scientific. It is literally nuclear science they`re talking about, the capability of developing nuclear weapons from nuclear material. It`s very tough to explain to skeptical lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including many democrats, so I think what you`re going to be hearing a lot is the monitoring system that they say they now -- that this agreement would put into place a strict monitoring system so that they would be able to watch what the Iranians are doing. You`re going to hear the sort of thorough phrase from the Reagan era that this is not based on trust, this is based on verification -- Dorian. WARREN: Now let`s go to Tehran where NBC`s Ali Arouzi joins us by phone. And Ali, talk to us a little about the reaction on the ground there in Iran as the news of this deal sinks in. ALI AROUZI, NBC NEWS TEHRAN BUREAU CHIEF CORRESPONDENT (on the phone): Well, it`s interesting that last night, Foreign Minister Zarif gave an extensive interview on a talk show on Tehran. He addressed Tehran hardliners, Iran`s suspicious neighbors and international community. Saying that Tehran would be able to return to its nuclear activities if the west withdraws from the pact that should be finalized in June. Zarif and also the chief nuclear negotiator said that Iran has the power to take corresponding action and we will be able to return its nuclear program to the same level if the other side fails to honor the agreement. Adding to the framework nuclear deal in Switzerland isn`t binding until June. He took also objection to Senator Kerry using the word suspension rather than termination regarding sanctions against Iran, adding that Iran had formally complained to the -- that measures listed in the American statement were in contradiction to what had actually been accepted. So there`s a lot of political jockeying here, but the country is still waiting to hear from the most powerful man on his opinion on this supreme leader who has yet so far remained silent. Back to you. WARREN: Ali Arouzi in Tehran and John Yang at the White House. Thank you. At the table with me here in New York this morning, Sabrina Siddiqui, political reporter at "The Guardian." Niels Lesniewski, staff writer at Roll Call. Ayman Mohyeldin, NBC News Foreign correspondent. And Michelle Goldberg, senior contributing writer at The Nation Magazine. First I want to go to Hillary Mann Leverett in Washington, D.C. And Hillary, it`s been a consistent voice on this program for months on the story. She is the author of "Going To Tehran: Why America Must Accept the Islamic Republic of Iran." And Hillary, I understand that you have actually led negotiations before with the Iranian foreign minister. And let`s just start with the basics here. In your assessment, is this a good deal or a bad deal for the U.S. and why? HILLARY MANN LEVERETT, AUTHOR, "GOING TO TEHRAN": I think it`s a very good deal for two main reasons. The first is on proliferation. It would allow the United States` policy makers here to turn to international inspectors and monitors, scientists, to really understand what`s going on in Iran instead of to the neoconservatives here in Washington and various other agenda driven groups who told us falsely that Iraq, for example, had nuclear weapons to justify an invasion there. This would give us an objective basis to make decisions on. More profoundly though is the strategic importance, the strategic opportunity that this potential agreement could give the United States, to get off of our incredibly self- damaging pursuit of war after war, failed military intervention after failed military intervention in the Middle East, especially since 9/11. This would give us the opportunity not to do that, to have a much more constructive relationship with all of the region`s principal countries and to lessen our dependency even on some of our allies who take policies that are often reckless for U.S. interests, whether that`s the Israelis or the Saudis or others. WARREN: So, let me play a portion of President Obama`s weekly media address and get your response to that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: They, the United States together with our allies and partners has reached historic understanding with Iran which if fully implemented will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. As president and commander in chief I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people, and I am convinced that if this framework leads to a final comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies and our world safer. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: So that wasn`t the weekly media address, that was the President speaking on Thursday. But I hear him saying and I wonder what your take is about this. I hear him saying this is about safety in terms of reducing nuclear weapons. And I`m wondering if there`s something more complicated here. Because if we lift economic sanctions in exchange for Iran ending its nuclear program, shouldn`t we be worried that Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism would do a range of nefarious things with the additional billions of dollars in revenue? LEVERETT: Well, there are two routes I think that President Obama could go. One is the route that for example Nixon and Kissinger took with China where it was a fundamental overhaul of the relationship, a real strategic realignment, an historic breakthrough that not only I think saved the United States from a fateful war with China but allowed us to get out of the strategic quagmire of Vietnam and stopped our military interventions in Asia. Something incredibly beneficial for the United States. It enabled us to see China in different ways. We don`t look at China today as our best buddy but we look at it in an entirely different way than when we demonized them in the `50s and `60s. That`s the chance that Obama has with Iran. But instead I think he`s pursuing more of a Jimmy Carter, President Carter like approach. When he negotiated the sought two arm controlled agreement with the Saudi union that failed, Congress killed it. Because if you can`t look at your adversary in another way, there`s no deal that would be good enough. There`s no good deal that could be had with an evil Islamic republic of Iran just like Jimmy Carter found out with the Soviet Union when Congress killed sought too. So I`m afraid that President Obama unfortunately is going potentially the President Carter route that leaves Iran as its demonized caricature in the American discourse. Because in fact today it`s Iran that is fighting against ISIS, it is Iran that is fighting against al Qaeda and it`s our allies, for example, the Saudis that are bombing in Yemen, enabling al Qaeda to take over more and more territory there. It`s the Saudis that just supported an al Qaeda group to take over yet another Syrian City. That`s not going -- that`s not going to end up well for the United States. We know where that trajectory goes. It leads to more and more war. He needs to make the strategic case like Nixon and Kissinger did about China. WARREN: So, let me bring in NBC News Foreign Correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin into this. And Ayman, I want to play what the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on NBC`s "Meet the Press" this morning and get your reaction. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: It leaves the pre-eminent terror state of our time with a vast nuclear infrastructure. This is a deal that leaves Iran with the capacity to produce the material for many, many nuclear bombs and it does so by lifting the sanctions pretty much up front. So Iran will have billions of dollars flowing to its coffers not for schools or for hospitals or roads but to pump up its worldwide terror machine. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: So, Ayman, how does the U.S.-Israeli alliance factor into this deal and the ongoing negotiations they tried to reach a final agreement by the end of June. AYMAN MOHYELDIN, NBC NEWS FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it`s a huge factor for domestic U.S. politics. We know that Israel is perhaps going to do everything in its power between now and the end of June to make its case to members of Congress to try to lobby Congress in whatever capacity it can to prevent this deal or try to have as much oversight over the deal as they possibly can. And perhaps even to try to derail the deal. There`s no doubt that Israel feels this is not a good deal by any measure of the word and for the arguments that we just heard from the Israeli prime minister. But I think we`re at a position where the U.S. is re-evaluating all of its relationships in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia, with Iran, certainly the strain in the relationship between Israel and the U.S. has come to the forefront as a result of this Iranian issue. And the Iranian nuclear issue has managed to create a little bit of a political wedge for the first time between the United States and Israel over a key foreign policy national security issue. WARREN: So, Hillary, I want to come back to you because Ayman just mentioned domestic American politics and what role that will play. But I want to ask you quickly about the role of the clerics in Iran. How likely are they to let this deal move forward and what are the other internal political challenges facing Iran`s leadership? LEVERETT: Well, you know, the supreme leader has been behind these negotiations from the beginning, has said so repeatedly and publicly. Has caused the negotiators the children of the revolution, has cautioned them to be careful not to be deceived by the United States, but has supported them from the beginning, as he did when I negotiated with the Iranians over Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. He even came out then and condemned publicly in Friday prayers the attacks on the United States on 9/11, something our other allies in the region, particularly the Saudis, did not do. So the supreme leader I think is often caricatured here as some sort of, you know, Islamist lunatic when in fact he`s been a pretty straight shooter and has supported reasonable negotiations with the United States and I think we`ll continue to see that. Though, in Iran there will be continuing concern about whether the United States will be able to hold up its end of the bargain to lift sanctions. You know, no one in Iran missed the letter from Senator Cotton with 47 senators saying that if the republican is the next president they will revoke this with the sign of a pen. WARREN: Right. LEVERETT: Nobody missed that. So I think the Iranians instead of panicking or, you know, reacting negatively are focused on the U.N. and getting international guarantees. They`re an incredibly rational sophisticated actor and it will be important for the United States to have a good relationship with them. WARREN: Thank you so much to Hillary Mann Leverett in Washington, D.C. When we come back, I want to bring in the rest of the panel here in studio and sort out if the republicans are determined to torpedo this potentially history-making deal. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) WARREN: If reaching a deal with the Iranians is hard, President Obama knows he could face a similarly strong challenge in getting a republican- controlled Congress to go along with such a deal. Even as he touted the initial news of a framework agreement on Thursday, the President put Congress on notice. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: If Congress kills this deal not based on expert analysis and without offering any reasonable alternative, then it`s the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. International unity will collapse and the path to conflict will widen. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: But the GOP has been very clear that they are not on board. Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton has emerged as a key critic in the Obama administration`s move to secure this deal and vowed Friday to block it. In a statement the Senator said, quote, "There is no nuclear deal or framework with Iran, there is only a list of dangerous U.S. concessions that will put Iran on the path to nuclear weapons. These concessions also do nothing to stop or challenge Iran`s outlaw behavior." And House Speaker John Boehner on the heels of a visit to Israel to spend time to Prime Minister Netanyahu said in a statement it would be naive to suggest the Iranian regime will not continue to use its nuclear program, and any economic relief to further destabilize the region. So, Niels, I want to come to you first and ask, can Congress sabotage this deal? And what is the power they have to do so? And talk to me about the role of the democratic caucus in particular here. LESNIEWSKI: Well, it`s going to be the Senate Democratic Caucus and particularly it`s going to probably have the most important roll ultimately because anything that Congress and the Senate in particular ultimately tries to do to block this deal is going to need to get to 67 votes in order to overcome a veto by President Obama, which would invariably come. WARREN: So break that down for me. A veto. The President has the power to negotiate this deal. LESNIEWSKI: Yes. WARREN: Congress could then pass a law requiring their oversight, right? LESNIEWSKI: Yes. They could pass a law requiring their approval or they could even attempt to enact new sanctions notwithstanding the deal, which would be even a step beyond that. And either of those things, though, would need to be able to either get the President`s signature, which in this case it sure won`t, or able to get the votes to override that signature. Now, you know, override the veto. WARREN: Right. LESNIEWSKI: And either way, that`s going to require the agreement of some number of democratic senators. Now, we heard recently that the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for the oversight bill doesn`t seem to yet have the 67 votes that he would need. So, you know, it seems like that there might be time that`s been bought, but we may be back at this again in June. WARREN: Right. So, Ayman, I want to get you in here and ask you about the republican caucus in the Senate and ask what role does Bibi Netanyahu play here? How much power and sway does he holding over the GOP caucus in Congress? MOHYELDIN: Well, directly and indirectly, I think you can look at it from two different perspectives. You know, he`s going to make the public campaign as he has come out today doing the rounds on the media and certainly we`re going to expect similar from the Israeli government at all levels but also you can expect it from the pro-Israel lobby inside the United States who also share those viewpoints to try and in any way, shape or form bring that to the forefront of the republican agenda, if you will. I think there`s going to be a fundamental question to be asked here when you have some of the United States` closest allies, France, the United Kingdom who are obviously endorsing this deal and you have one close U.S. ally who`s not, how this is going to play out in terms of domestic U.S. politics. Will the United States Republican Party take into consideration that America`s closest allies in Europe are supporting this deal, say they want this deal to happen, or will they leave it up to the pro-Israel lobby and the Israeli camp who say this is not a good deal. And I think it`s going to raise a fundamental question then about the United States` national security policy and who within its sphere of allies it`s going to listen to when it comes to this nuclear initiative. I think that`s a very important question. WARREN: So, Michelle, are members of Congress trying to exercise responsible oversight here? This is not a trick question. I`m being genuine. Or are they simply trying to kill the deal no matter what? GOLDBERG: I think they`re simply trying to kill the deal no matter what. I mean, we talked about, you know, can the Iranians be trusted to uphold their ending of the bargain because they have all these crazy voices who still say they want to obliterate Israel. Well, we have Senator Mark Kirk who has been talking about mushroom clouds over Tehran. You know? So we have our own kind of, you know, radical clerics, if you will, who -- yes, who probably cannot be trusted if they`re able to garner -- if they can garner the support to kill this deal, they will. MOHYELDIN: And to ask that really quickly, let`s not forget from an Iranian perspective, it was the United States who overthrew an Iranian government back in the 1950s and that legacy within the Iranian political leadership and among ordinary Iranians make it very difficult for ordinary Iranians to want to trust the United States when they know that there is a long, nefarious legacy of CIA involvement and even more recently with things in the region that would make the Iranian government extremely, you know, questionable and suspicious of U.S. intentions in the region. WARREN: So historical context super important here. We can`t wipe away history. All right. More coming up after the break with -- and I`ll get Sabrina in here to say more about this Iran nuclear deal. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) WARREN: Okay. We`ve been talking about the Iran nuclear deal. And Sabrina, I want to ask you first. There is an argument and this is made by my colleague at Columbia Austin Long that a deal would actually be useful for the hawks in Congress who want to bomb Iran. And the argument is that because of this deal we would actually gather more intelligence through the inspection process that would make military action more effective. What`s your response to that? SIDDIQUI: Well, I think that that makes perfect sense, but to argue a reasonable point with the GOP hawks in Congress is an oversight because obviously when it comes to the opposition that you`ve seen, it`s just already inherent among republicans. Before the details of this deal were even released, you`ve seen this campaign they have mounted on unprecedented ways by inviting Netanyahu around Obama, by sending that letter signed by 47 republican lawmakers to Iranian leadership. I think the point is, the most important piece though is the democrats. There`s no coincidence also that Israel, according to the White House, they leaked this to "The Wall Street Journal" that they were leaking details of the deal to democrats in Congress trying to influence democrats. Because they recognize that it`s going to be about those, you know, seven odd democrats who peel off and join republicans to try and override a presidential veto. They`re the key players. And the biggest thing Obama will have to contend with are those who are facing re-election and those who don`t have the best relationship with this White House. WARREN: But Ayman, I`m really compelled with this argument, why shouldn`t the President then try to lobby republicans and say, hey, you want to bomb Iran? I`m going to give you better intelligence. MOHYELDIN: Well, I`m not sure that, you know, from the argument that he made this week when he addressed the American people, he laid it out pretty clearly. There are three ways that we can get a nuclear bomb, uranium, plutonium and covertly. And addressing the covertly potential path off to a bomb was a priority for the United States. And this gives the United States the best from the White House perspective, this gives the United States the best opportunity at finding out what Iran is doing covertly because it`s getting all of the information through international means, inspections not just at the end product but throughout the entire supply and chain. So, he can go back and say that this positions the United States and its allies in the best position possible to know everything that Iran is doing, unlike what we`ve known in the past couple of years when we`ve had to find out either after Iran had begun constructing something or too late, so to speak. You know? WARREN: So, we`ll have to wrap it there. I want to thank Sabrina Siddiqui, Niels Lesniewski and Ayman Mohyeldin. Michelle is sticking around. And up next, dollar menu size wage news this week as the fight for `15 continues. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) WARREN: Friday`s monthly job numbers show that the U.S. added only 126,000 new jobs in March, a marked slowdown from previous months. And wage growth, while up a little more in February, largely stayed tepid at 0.3 percent. But the really big news on wages this week came from a place you might not expect, underneath the golden arches. Wednesday the fast food giant McDonald`s announced that it would raise wages to least $1 more an hour from the local minimum wage at its non-franchise locations. That will mean a pay increase for about 90,000 employees. In addition, those employees will now be able to earn some paid time off and employees at all locations will be eligible for assistance in earning a college degree or high school diploma. McDonald`s move follows recent wage increases by other major corporations like Walmart, Marshalls and TJ Maxx but it`s important to stress that the McDonald`s pay raise will not affect its franchises, which employ about 750,000 workers. The move by McDonald`s comes in the wake of a sustained social movement led by groups like fight for 15 that have targeted corporations for their wage and labor practices. And despite the news of this Mc raise, activists said make clear, they`re not done and will continue to fight for still higher wages. At the table, Kendall Fells, organizing director, Fight for $15. Catherine Ruetschlin, senior policy analyst at Demos. Yevgeniy Feyman, fellow at the Manhattan Institute. And Michelle Goldberg, senior contributing writer at "The Nation" magazine. And also joining us, one of the workers and protesters on the front lines, Jessica Davis, a cashier at a McDonald`s in my hometown of Chicago. Good morning, Jessica. And I`m curious what you think of this new policy and how does it affect you? JESSICA DAVIS, CASHIER, MCDONALD`S: Well, you know, I think that this is definitely a pr stunt. I don`t believe that this -- this is not going to help me get off government assistance, you know, help me pay rent, you know, provide the basic necessities that I need, you know, as a single mother to take care of my children. I think that it comes as not at an alarming time. You know, as fast for work as we just announced our largest strike on April 15th and then the day later, you know, McDonald`s announced this pay increase. It`s not even going to affect, you know, it affects 10 percent of the workers there. And, you know, everyone knows, you know, we deserve, you know, $15 an hour and the right to have a union, so we know that this has added fuel to our fire and we`re going to just continue to grow because we know we forced their hand in this. WARREN: So, Jessica, I want to ask you how long you`ve worked at McDonald`s and how much has your pay increased during that time? DAVIS: Well, I`ve been working at McDonald`s for four-and-a-half years now. I make $9.28 an hour so I started at $8.25 on the past four-and-a- half years. I`ve only got up to 9.28. You know, it`s really hard to, you know, take care of my children. You know, I`m a student as well. You know, like I said earlier, a single mother taking care of my children. You know, we`re still forced to live for poverty when we work for a corporation that can afford to pay us a better wage. WARREN: So, you mentioned you announced the largest strikes in the history of the fast food industry on April 15th. Is this what`s next for protesters like you, that you want to keep pushing McDonald`s? DAVIS: Definitely. Every time we show out, we come in mass proportions, large numbers. We make history every time. And, you know, April 15th will be another historic day to us. This raise for the 10 percent of McDonald`s employees actually just shows us that, you know that we`re winning here. We`re going to keep pushing and keep growing because we know that this has shown us that, you know, organizing and sticking together and taking it to the streets is actually working for us. WARREN: So, Kendall, as the organizer here, I want to ask you why target businesses when you could easily target lawmakers? We`ve seen in Seattle and other places successful efforts to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Why focus on corporate behemoths? KENDALL FELLS, ORGANIZING DIRECTOR, FIGHT FOR $15: I mean, when you look at McDonald`s, you`re talking about the second largest private employer in the world. There`s about a $1 billion price tag every year that taxpayers are paying to subsidize McDonald`s. So, because McDonald`s employees about half of them, actually over half, on public assistance, Medicaid, food stamps, can`t afford food, shelter and clothing, the taxpayers are picking up that bill. McDonald`s has a responsibility when they`re making $5 billion, $6 billion a year because workers like Jessica Davis are breaking their back and they`re doing everything they need to do to make sure that that store runs well. McDonald`s has a social responsibility to make sure workers like Jessica and Kwanza Brooks and others, can get $15 an hour and have a union so that they`re protected on the job. WARREN: And what`s the end game here? I mean, all right, big protests April 15th. You want McDonald`s to pay $15 an hour and workers the right to join a union. Is that ultimately -- that`s the end game. FELLS: Yes. WARREN: And you`re not going to stop unless you win that? FELLS: Well, there`s not going to be big protests on April 15th, there will be the largest mobilization of low wage workers in U.S. history. On the 15th, there will be fast-food workers, home care workers, child care workers, Walmart workers, adjunct professors and others. This will be international, there will be activity in 40 different countries. And this is about one thing, $15 an hour and a union for fast food workers. There`s no compromise. This increase, this pr stunt of $1, this is over 650,000 McDonald`s employees in the U.S. that will not receive a raise. 1.6 million around the world that will not receive a raise. They will remain on public assistance. Kwanza Brooks who I met a couple of weeks ago in Atlanta makes $7.25 cents to work at a corporate store. Maybe she gets to $8.25. He stays on Medicaid, he stays on food stamps, and taxpayers stay picking up the bill because McDonald`s is not taking care on their social responsibility. And that`s why workers like Jessica Davis are going to go on strike and we`re going to have the biggest mobilization on low wage workers in U.S. history on April 15th. WARREN: Catherine, this seems to be a huge concession from one of the largest multinational corporations in the world. CATHERINE RUETSCHLIN, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, DEMOS: That`s right. And I just want to take a second to congratulate Jessica on her new raise. It`s actually really a significant win for a workforce that has been trying really hard for more than a year now to turn their Mc jobs into real opportunities. It`s also a really interesting sign about what`s happening in the labor force. As you mentioned, the last jobs report was pretty disappointing but even before that under more robust growth we weren`t seeing the kind of wage gains in the economy that usually accompany wage growth and economic growth at this point in the recovery. It was six years in. Household budgets, workers` paychecks still haven`t reflected the growth in the overall economy. And the reason is that these big powerful institutions, like Walmart, like McDonald`s, have a choice about what they pay their workers. And this announcements, these -- kind of fanfare around these big companies offering the chosen wage that they choose really signifies the institutional power of these companies and the need for a countervailing power that`s organized workers out there to keep that in check. WARREN: So, I want to come back to this question of the choice of these corporations when we come after the break. I want to thank Jessica Davis in Chicago. Congratulations and good luck. DAVIS: Thank you. WARREN: Up next, what access to an Egg McMuffin in the afternoon tells us about the relationship between McDonald`s corporation and the franchise owners. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) WARREN: McDonald`s wage increase for some of its works was not the only major decision the fast food chain made this week. Just before announcing the new wage policy, McDonald`s is testing another big change, one that could have huge implications for the future success of the restaurant and hash brown lovers everywhere. I`m talking, of course, about all day breakfast. That`s right. As part of an effort to increase sales, McDonald`s will begin testing a breakfast any time menu at some of its San Diego locations. And if the new menu is successful, the company may take it nationwide. Now, all kidding aside, the announcement of this new test policy does have major implications. That`s because as business insider points out, there are logistical hurdles to implementing all day breakfast and it might be difficult for McDonald`s franchisees to make it happen. Specifically, some McDonald`s owners have pointed out that an average McDonald`s does not have enough toaster and grill space to accommodate an all-day breakfast menu along with its traditional burgers and fries. That means that the burden of figuring out how to increase capacity could fall on franchise owners. Now, consider that in light of McDonald`s new wage policy which specifically does not apply to franchise owners. It seems that when it comes to policies for paying workers another $1 an hour, McDonald`s doesn`t want to burden the four franchisees but when it comes to policies that might make the corporation more money, well then franchise owners may have to do as told. So, who`s really in charge here? And Michelle, I want to ask you as I take a bite of this, because I`m kind of hungry, who`s the real boss? RUETSCHLIN: You know, the CEO of McDonald`s, Steve Easterbrook, has come out with these strategies to overcome quarter after quarter of poor performance, McDonald`s lagging its peers, both its peers on the S&P 500 and higher paid quick service restaurants who are really outstripping its sales performance. As a result of its underinvestment, franchises are upset, workers are upset, shareholders are upset and McDonald`s really has to take some drastic measures. Now, when it makes a decision like to raise wages for just 10 percent of the workforce and calls it an investment in its people and its product, there`s something that doesn`t connect there. And that`s a really significant indication of what it`s really trying to do with the wage increase while at the same time it captures a third of its company revenues from the fees, royalties and rents that it receives from franchisees. And that means $9 billion worth of leeway within which it could accommodate Franchise owners. WARREN: So, I think I`m finished chewing there. It`s not the hottest Egg McMuffin. All right. Michelle, I found one of the interesting things about this announcement was the educational assistance it`s extending to all of its workers, even those that work at the franchises. And I`m just wondering why can`t McDonald`s do the same thing around wages? GOLDBERG: It can. It doesn`t want to. You know, to be honest, I think the educational assistance, that`s great. I wonder if it has something to do, you probably know better than I do whether that has something to do with employee retention, right? (CROSSTALK) Right. Which is not just a matter of McDonald`s good will, they spend a lot of money churning through employees because people don`t want to work very long for a company that, you know, doesn`t pay a living wage. And it`s pretty brutal, hard, dirty work. So it`s nice that they are extending these benefits, but what McDonald`s employees really need is to be able to work full-time and be able to take care of their families. WARREN: So, Kendall, I want to come to you on this because I love talking about the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB. And it seems that the federal government is saying to McDonald`s, hey, corporation, you are the real boss overall your franchisees, and has stated in a "New York Times" editorial yesterday, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board found that the control exerted by McDonald`s over its franchises made it a joint employer of its workers. At issue is whether McDonald`s will be allowed to keep maximum control over franchises while disavowing responsibility for the franchise`s workers. What`s the significance of the National Labor Relations Board weighing in on this question? FELLS: I mean, McDonald`s has had a history of trying to hide behind their franchise owners essentially. There`s no way that you can be McDonald`s and dictate how many staff need to be on staff at any given time, be able to expand the high school and college completion, be able to institute all day breakfast and then turn and say but there`s no way that I can raise wages for and give a union to the workers who work in franchise stores. What they`re trying to do is they`re trying to draw artificial distinction between franchisees and the corporate stores. But in reality, just because McDonald`s says that doesn`t make it true. In reality, workers have always says since the beginning of this campaign, McDonald`s is the employer. The general counsel ruled that McDonald`s is the employer. And now McDonald`s just proved that they`re the employer. WARREN: All right. So I`ve got to get you in here. Isn`t there some legitimacy to the idea that a minimum wage hike actually hurts franchise owners? FEYMAN: Yes. I think what`s being missed in this whole discussion is that labor markets are fundamentally local. So the cost of living in Manhattan is very different than the cost of living in rural Idaho. So it doesn`t make much sense in my view to say that you`ve got to pay workers in midtown Manhattan the same as you`re paying workers in rural Idaho. And when you get into the issue of requiring breakfast, supply chains are national and it makes a little bit easier on that front, and beyond that, you know, breakfast items are their most popular items. They are trying to increase revenue so there`s some franchises that will be able compete on that front that have to shut down and that really is a business decision that McDonald`s is making at the national level. WARREN: All right. So, I know, so much more to say on this. I want to thank my guests, Kendall Fells, Catherine Ruetschlin, Yevgeniy Feyman and Michelle Goldberg. I`m going to take another bite of this on the break. Up next, the new study by "Essence" magazine on women at work. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) WARREN: On Friday, "Essence" magazine launched its black women at work campaign with a discussion here in New York. As part of the event, the regular host of this show, Melissa Harris-Perry moderated a panel of high- ranking corporate black women. They tackled topics ranging from mentoring to racist jokes in the office and, of course, hair. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: A superior, I was in a meeting in his office and I saw a huge bug. And the bug was running. And so I lifted my feet up and I said, oh, my gosh, there`s a bug. You need to deal with that bug. So he went to open his door to let the bug -- I mean, this was this bug, a huge water bug. And he went to open the door to let the bug leave like it was a third member of our meeting. You can`t just let it roam, you have to kill it. And he said oh, you know, my wife usually kills the bugs. This is a white male. My wife usually kills the bugs at home and then he ended up stepping on it. There was, you know, a crunch and a crackle. He picked it up and threw it away, it was huge. And then he said, well, I don`t know what you`re so worried about, your ancestors used to eat bugs like this. MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY, MSNBC HOST, "MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY": When I meet young women of color, it is any of their single question, the thing they ask me about their futures is how do I proceed in the world with my hair. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I`ve come back from vacation and couldn`t get to the beauty parlor and so it will look curly. And I`ve had people say, oh, that`s what your hair really looks like? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I`ve been natural back since before her roles, before -- daughter, before -- back when nobody was natural, so the last time I had a relaxed was in the `80s. (END VIDEO CLIP) WARREN: Black women at work is the culmination of a ground-breaking study commissioned by "Essence" and partnership with added value Cheskin, which highlighted the ways in which black women feel the need to change themselves in order to get ahead at work. Eighty percent of the women surveyed said they felt they needed to make adjustments to their personalities in order to be successful, and 57 percent felt they needed to physically appear a certain way. Straightening their hair or dressing conservatively, in order to get ahead in the workplace. Joining me now is the editor-in-chief of "Essence," Vanessa K. De Luca. Dorie Clark, branding expert and author of the forthcoming book, "Stand Out." Yesi Morillo-Gual, a finance executive and founder and president of "Proud to be Latina." And Adrienne Hopkins, management consultant. And Vanessa, I want to come to you first. And ask you, what are the challenges facing women of color at the workplace? VANESSA K. DE LUCA, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, "ESSENCE MAGAZINE": Well, the challenges, I mean, the thing is, black women are very ambitious in the workplace, you know, they are fine with developing the skills that they need to succeed. They want to be executives, they want to be managers but there is this overriding sense that they have to be careful about how they act, how they appear, how they look, because they don`t want to be stereotyped. They don`t want to feel like people are going to make judgments about them based on their appearance and how they conduct themselves. So they`re hypercritical about that and hypersensitive to it and because of that, they tend to hold back and not show their authentic selves in the workplace. So, there`s a sort of internal policing in the sense of behavior. DE LUCA: Absolutely. WARREN: And Yesi, I want to ask you, what do you think happens when women change their personalities at work? YESI MORILLO-GUAL, FINANCE EXECUTIVE: I think first it`s exhausting. You have to remember what to do, when to do it, who to do it with. Second, people will see right through you. If you`re not being authentic they`ll figure out that you`re a fake, they`re not going to want to talk to you, they`re not going to want to get you involved. And third, the more time that you spend trying to change who you are is the less time that you`re spending really like she said, fortifying those skills, creating that network, finding those mentor sponsors and the allies are going to help you move to the next level. WARREN: Adrienne, let me continue in here and ask you this question about code switching. So we know that many women change not only their appearance and their personality but even the way they talk at work. Talk to me about code switching at the workplace. ADRIENNE HOPKINS, MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Absolutely. So I think code switching is a necessary or critical tool to be an emotionally intelligent human being. I think the challenge comes in when that code switching causes you to be someone that you feel like you are absolutely not and the reason why you feel forced to do this is because you think your most authentic self isn`t good enough or there`s something wrong with the way you talk or you`ll never be seen as smart. And that`s really the issue is because, you know, to speak a different language of people from various walks of life you have to meet them where they are, right? But you`re meeting them where they are in like a mutually respective way but you don`t do that in a workplace when you feel like, let me try to be like you because who I am isn`t good enough. WARREN: So, Dorie, there is a really interesting finding in the "Essence" survey. So, far more black women felt they needed to make adjustments at work but the study also showed that 62 percent of white women felt the same. Have you experienced this? CLARK: Well, this goes to the results of a study that was done by Deloitte University Center for leadership inclusion, talking about the phenomena of covering which is basically downplaying aspects of our identity that we think might make others feel uncomfortable, and the interesting finding is that 61 percent of all respondents, even including 45 percent of white males, straight white males reported covering because there`s aspects, I mean, for instance, if you`re dealing with a health issue or mental health issue, a lot of people feel the need to present an image of their perfect selves to the world, and even more so, of course, it`s true with LGBT people, 83 percent of whom reported covering and African-Americans, 79 percent of whom reported covering but the interesting finding here is that based on research by the center for Talent Innovation, it turns out that specifically with regard to sexual orientation, which is what they were researching you might think that you would advance more quickly if you were covering up or if you were closeted but actually out employees are more likely to be successful and be promoted because as Yesi was mentioning it freeze you up psychologically to focus on the job and doing well rather than your own identity and it signals a kind of comfort with yourself and confidence that others respect and say that`s a leader. This is interesting in light of the conversation we were having earlier about being your authentic self-online in and social media. Vanessa, I want to ask you, what are some of the ways "Essence" is using the study to address the challenges that black woman face at the workplace. DE LUCA: Well, it`s really driving a bigger conversation in social media, with #BlackWomenatWork, where women are sharing some of their challenges and some of their career journeys that they`ve been facing and then also offering up solutions, part of that conversation on Friday, what are the real world answers, what are the real world tactics that you can use to address some of these challenges in the workplace and the more that we share that information, the more we talk about it, the more that we all win because then they were able to truly be ourselves, and be accepted. In fact, in our study, we talked about like 39 percent of the women who we consider the -- women said that they are, you know, being themselves, being authentic is what helped them to shine, what helped them to soar in the workplace. WARREN: So, I want to talk about Ellen Pao and get your quick response to this. So, Reddit CEO Ellen Pao recently lost her gender discrimination lawsuit that she filed against her former employer. I mean, as many people talking about the subtle sexism that women face at work which wondering, have either of you experienced this? HOPKINS: I think definitely, in much of the same way that you experience micro-aggressions for being a black person, I think just the way people treat you. They don`t talk to you the same. You`re not privy to the same personal information that you would be if you perhaps looked like them and other things like that, that just make you feel like you`re on the outside so even if you wanted to be your most authentic self-it`s hard when people close the door and you constantly every time you give a little. WARREN: Yesi? MORILLO-GUAL: I think piggybacking off of what she said it`s also about interest and my interests that are going to a ski-trip and am I interested in golfing and finding ways of being involved in other things that are of interest to you and that you can relate to with them. WARREN: So much more to talk about. Thank you so much to Vanessa De Luca, Dorie Clark, Yesi Morillo-Gual and Adrienne Hopkins. That is our show for today. Thanks to you at home for watching. Melissa will be back next Saturday at 10:00 a.m. Eastern. But before we go, one quick shout out to my new nephew Ian, he just nine-days old today, Happy Easter Ian, and Happy Passover, too, and happy holiday to all of you at home. And now it`s time for a preview of "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT." ALEX WITT, MSNBC HOST, "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT": Oh my gosh, you have so much to celebrate Dorian today. That is adorable. Thank you so much. Hey, everyone, sharp words today on that Iran deal, we`re going to hear from a prominent U.S. senator who takes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to task over his position on the framework agreement. The defense for former New England Patriots player Aaron Hernandez begins its case tomorrow. We`re going to look at whether he stands a chance of walking away a free man. And how thin is too thin? We`re going to look at a new law in France which cracks down on agencies hiring those super skinny models. Don`t go anywhere. I`ll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I`m not trying to kill any deal. I`m trying to kill a bad deal. SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: I don`t think it`s helpful for Israel to come out and oppose this one opportunity. (END VIDEO CLIP) WITT: Taking sides, new word from all parties on the Iran nuclear deal, showing just how deeply some key players are divided on the issue. Reaction ahead. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END