Melissa Harris-Perry, Transcript 05/30/15

MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY, MSNBC HOST: This morning my question: will the Supreme Court change the balance of power in America again? Plus, Dave Zirin in Nerdland to talk soccer. And, the man behind the world`s largest family reunion. But first, the ever-growing class of 2016. (MUSIC) HARRIS-PERRY: Good morning. I`m Melissa Harris-Perry. Momentarily, now in Baltimore, the former governor of Maryland, Martin O`Malley, is expected to take the stage and declare his intention to seek the Democratic nomination for president. O`Malley, who is also a former mayor of Baltimore, will be the second Democrat this week to announce that he is taking on front-runner Hillary Clinton, the other candidate being Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who officially kicked off his campaign on Tuesday. Now, both O`Malley and Sanders have their work cut out for them. A Quinnipiac poll released Thursday shows Clinton with a huge lead at 57 percent compared to 15 percent for Senator Sanders and one percent for O`Malley. It`s a far cry from the Republican side with more official candidates and absolutely no clear front-runner. Former New York Governor George Pataki declared his candidacy on Thursday. And South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is expected to announce his WELCH House bid on Monday. And why not Pataki around (ph)? Well, the Quinnipiac poll shows no fewer than five candidates or likely candidates on the Republican side tied for first place. And even they only have about 10 percent. One thing the early polling tells us about the class of 2016, the Republicans are going to have a real contest. The Democrats, maybe not so much and that is a big problem for Democrats. You see, vigorous, contested primaries are needed in order for Democrats to win. Look, just take a look at the track record of the last three Democratic presidents -- Jimmy Carter, who was a relatively unknown former governor of Georgia, ran as a Washington outsider, well (ph), an asset (ph) in the post-Watergate era. But there was more to his strategy. You see, Carter understood the importance of building momentum early in the race. He traveled to more than 50,000 miles, visited 37 states and delivered 200 speeches before any other candidates even announced they were in the race. Carter emerged as the unexpected nominee from a crowded field of far better-known candidates. Let`s go to 1992. In the `92 race, several high-profile Democrats decided not to run, given President George H.W. Bush`s popularity following the Gulf War. But Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, like Carter, a Southern governor, relatively unknown on the national stage, jumped into the race and lost early state after early state to other candidates like Tom Harkin and Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown. But Clinton used a second-place finish in New Hampshire, declared himself the comeback kid. And by Super Tuesday, he nearly swept the table. And of course, there was the first-term junior senator from Illinois who would go on to defeat -- defeat the biggest brand name in a generation of Democratic politics, the Clintons. Two thousand eight Democratic primary went beyond the states and all the way to the super-delegates. But rather than bruising the nominees for the general election, as some Democrats feared, these hard-fought deep primaries helped propel the Democratic nominee to the White House. And in each of these cases, a Democratic winner exceeded expectations just (ph) as the party galvanized the base, a contested primary served as a tool to create organization on the ground that carried over to the general election. Like Carter hitting the streets of 37 states, Mr. Obama focused his organizing resources into states and areas that never appeared likely to play a major role in the nominating process. And the strategy worked. Even in the critical swing states in Iowa, the Democratic Party`s count of registered voters increased by nearly 70,000 between January and August of 2008. And in many states, there was record voter turnout in the primaries, but far more the Democrats. About 28 million people voted in the Democratic races compared with the 17 million in Republican races. In fact, in the first five weeks of 2008, voter turnout was a phrase that was used almost exclusively in connection with the Democratic Party. That was according to the "U.S. news & world report." Hillary Clinton may be this year`s inevitable candidate but history shows that is not always what you want to be if you`re a Democrat. We continue to keep an eye on Baltimore this morning and the expected announcement by former Governor Martin O`Malley. But for now, joining me in the studio are Amy Goodman, host and executive producer of "Democracy Now," Marcus Mabry who is editor-at-large to "The New York Times," Richard Kim, executive editor for the nation.com and Matt Welch, editor-in-chief of "Reason" magazine. Thanks, everybody. MARCUS MABRY, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Thank you. All right, can Martin O`Malley make this an actual contest? I mean, it`s not just primary for primary`s sake. People only show up if there is a vigorous contested race going on. MATT WELCH, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, REASON MAGAZINE: No. (LAUGHTER) HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, I -- that feels like the answer, yes. WELCH: What problem does Martin O`Malley solve? That`s one way of looking at any kind of presidential scrums. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, exactly. WELCH: I think he solves only or addresses only one problem which is youth. Everyone who is being contemplated so far for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, even Jim Webb -- these are all 70- year-olds, basically. And so he, you know, gets his guitar out and he`s young (ph) but no one... (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY (ph): A lot. WELCH: But no one sits -- no one sits around and talks about like the Baltimore miracle or the -- the Maryland blueprint for governance. (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: OK, but they did. They did talk about Maryland blueprint for governance, right? They just didn`t call it that. They called it city stat, right? And there was a point in which first Baltimore and then Maryland became kind of the technocratic way to run, right, a local government, this idea that you -- that you collect all these data. You analyze these data. And they were bringing in people from all over the country which is undoubtedly part of why Martin O`Malley thinks he has kind of a -- a base on which to run. He`s a bureaucrat bureaucrat. MABRY: Yes, see this is the problem. See, in Europe, you might elect a leader based on technocracy. In America, we don`t do that. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. MABRY: So America -- the American electorate has never heard what you just said. (CROSSTALK) RICHARD KIM, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, NATION.COM: Well, and then -- and then... MABRY: They have no idea. They have no idea. KIM: ...and then -- but (ph) the technocracy argument there, right, was largely about crime... HARRIS-PERRY: Tops (ph) that. KIM: ...and the conjunction -- right. MABRY: And that`s a problem. KIM: And it`s just after Baltimore, you know, that just -- the legs are gone from... (CROSSTALK) AMY GOODMAN, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, "DEMOCRACY NOW": I mean, he is known for the zero-tolerance mayor. But it`s not supposed to be zero tolerance of the Constitution. And that`s the problem with what has happened in Baltimore for so long, is people have been so swept up for so long without cause. And there is tremendous anger so that when Governor O`Malley walked through the streets of Baltimore, you know, he famously was met by both praise but also boos. He really set the table there for the kind of repression of especially the MABRY community in Baltimore. HARRIS-PERRY: So it`s interesting is that -- that goes back to Matt`s point about so what problem does he solve, right? Part of the problem that Senator Obama solved in the context of 2008 was an invigoration not only of the youth vote but a -- a youth vote of a generation that is far more multiracial, far more likely to be non-WELCH, right? And it`s not really clear that -- because I think -- I think Clinton continues to have that problem, but O`Malley doesn`t seem to... KIM: Well, so that`s -- that`s how I view primaries. It`s -- it`s -- it`s the process by which the party decides who is... HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. KIM: ...who are the constituencies at the table. So if you look at like a Jesse Jackson campaign in `84... HARRIS-PERRY: Yes (ph). KIM: ...and `88, he had a proposition there. And his proposition was this could be a party of immigrants, women, people of color, LGBT Americans. And they didn`t (ph)... (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: A rainbow coalition, one might say. KIM: ...right (ph). So -- so that argument didn`t prevail... HARRIS-PERRY: Right. KIM: ...in `88. And there was a backlash to that in `92. And that`s what -- how you got Bill Clinton. But the kernels of that is what ended up in the Obama campaign. And now, it`s unthinkable that Hillary Clinton would actually run without appealing to those constituencies. So my question is O`Malley and Bernie Sanders, who -- who are they going to bring to the table that Hillary Clinton does not already bring to the table? What constituencies are they going to activate that she is not already activating? And -- and I don`t know the answer to that. I don`t know if they do. HARRIS-PERRY (ph): Good (ph). GOODMAN: Well, I mean, -- I mean, I think Bernie Sanders certainly brings a lot to the table than his former colleague in the Senate, right, that Hillary Clinton does not bring to the table. And he said he wants to launch a political revolution at his -- at his campaign opening in Vermont. He has been taking on big money in a way we`ve never seen. He`s talking about the collapse of the middle class. He`s appealing to the vote, the young people and also older people who are major voters. HARRIS-PERRY (ph): Right. GOODMAN: Hundreds and hundreds of people are coming out to see him in New Hampshire. Now, he`s in Iowa. And they are major voters both ends. HARRIS-PERRY: OK, so -- so -- but I wonder, though, if that`s -- if that`s precisely the problem, that the -- that the people that Bernie Sanders activates are people who are likely voters. So particularly, for the -- the kind of boomers who are looking now for a progressive, discursive ways that will push back against Hillary Clinton, who will sort of pull over to the left, but those folks are going to show up and vote in the fall of 2016. MABRY (ph): Part of my question is whether or not O`Malley or really, quite seriously, any Democrat at this point, can bring in the people not likely to vote unless they are on the ticket because that -- that was kind of a -- I hate to use the word "magic" in the context of President Obama -- but that was the magic of the 2008 Obama campaign was that it actually created voters who weren`t there. WELCH: Well, sanders could, but in a -- in a Ron Paul type of way, right? So he can -- because he`s a socialist, a Democratic socialist and he talks in terms... HARRIS-PERRY: And you`re allowed to say that because he actually uses that in his own language, yes. WELCH (ph): Yes, yes... HARRIS-PERRY: Right. And I don`t mean that in a bad way, right? WELCH: I mean, for me, you know, talking about, you know, 18 brands of deodorants are too many and that links to poverty is crazy talk. But at the same time, he talks about, you know, he talks about war in a different way than Hillary Clinton is going to talk about war. And there`s a lot of disaffected Democrats who will be excited about that and especially young people. The question is what`s the ceiling on that number of people? And is it enough to actually move Hillary Clinton in a direction, which is part of the ideological exercise of primaries anyways is if you have a front-runner, are you going to change your mind about stuff? Are you going to push her in that direction? MABRY: There are two things. He will be the liberal conscience of -- of Hillary Clinton and of this Democratic primary. And that`s incredibly important because that`s important for the -- for your base. So if the -- if the -- if the left wing base is not excited about Hillary and -- and you know, and if -- exactly, they aren`t. So if -- if he can make this a real contest -- some (ph) real contest than he, you know, since he might win but a real contest of ideas and makes her address the ideas that they care about, and the point of view that they have, then that may actually invigorate them to actually turn out to vote, whether they make it... (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: But I -- but I want to -- but I want to point... (CROSSTALK) KIM: ...though to say not going to be a real concept (ph). I mean, we... HARRIS-PERRY: ...yes, but right. But part of what I want to point out here is the whole time that we`ve been talking, there`s been a breaking news banner about Martin O`Malley. And within 52 seconds, we were onto Bernie Sanders like, you know, I guess past of my concern about O`Malley, I mean, we are here literally to talk -- I have many questions about Martin O`Malley, like whatever. We`re going to talk about something else (ph). You -- you pointed out the one percent that he has so far, I mean... HARRIS-PERRY: Yes -- no, but stick with it. We will talk about Martin O`Malley and listen to Martin O`Malley because up next, the campaign`s narrative and now, Martin O`Malley`s past could come back to haunt him. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: Martin O`Malley may have one big advantage over Hillary Clinton. And that is his relative obscurity. OK, I know that might seem counterintuitive but Clinton`s name recognition, although it may seem like a huge advantage, does create a bit of a problem. For good or for ill, most voters already know what they think of Hillary Clinton. And Clinton may find it difficult to change the opinions of those who have followed her on the national stage for more than 20 years. Campaigns are, in part, about creating narratives to introduce a candidate. So he may not be well-known. But for O`Malley, that means a chance to tell a fresh new story to voters. The former two-term governor of Maryland and former mayor of Baltimore is clear about the framing he wants construct -- a more populous, progressive, alternative to Clinton, who`s not quite as far left as the other declared candidate in the race, Bernie Sanders, O`Malley is, after all, the governor that backed same-sex marriage and abolished the death penalty in the state. And just this month, he renewed his criticism of the death penalty as well as the transpacific partnership, an issue that Hillary Clinton has yet to weigh in on definitively. But O`Malley`s narrative is not his alone to write. And now that he is declaring his candidacy, many are left asking just how progressive is Martin O`Malley. According to some, not very. O`Malley, as Baltimore`s mayor between `99 and 2007, implemented a zero-tolerance policy of policing strategy that critics say was partly responsible for the unrest that occurred there last month. Two thousand five, his police department made more than 100,000 arrests, in a city of 640,000 people, basically, one-sixth of the city`s population. The ACLU and NAACP eventually sued the city. And in 2010, the complaint was settled. In an interview with the Marshall Project, David Simon, the creator of the HBO hit series "The Wire" called this practice, quote, "the wholesale denigration of MABRY civil rights." He went on to say the stake through the heart of police procedure in Baltimore was Martin O`Malley. I want to now bring in MSNBC`s Alex Seitz- Wald who is live at the O`Malley event in Baltimore. OK, so Alex, how does that narrative -- how is that going to be different than the one that O`Malley`s going to want to start telling today? ALEX SEITZ-WALD, MSNBC REPORTER: Well, campaign officials tell me that he will definitely highlight his record, both as a mayor and governor of Maryland, a progressive record, and what they point to as the executive experience, something that no one else in the state has and the race has. But this record on policing is definitely something that he`s going to have to highlight. In fact, there is, right now, a protest planned just across town to unwelcome Martin O`Malley to the race because of his history of bringing broken windows to the city, his history of his mass arrests, incarceration at the (ph) top on this (ph). Remember, he announced his mayoral campaign in front of an open-air drug market, taking on crime, being tough on crime. That was what really put him on the map (ph) in his first mayoral run. And I`ve also talked to officials who have been familiar with O`Malley`s campaign, and they acknowledged that he`s going to have to address this in a more clear way, take it head-on because these questions have -- have really damaged him, I think, heading into his announcement. HARRIS-PERRY: So Alex, let me ask you this, I mean, obviously, the -- part of the primary juggernaut for then-Senator Clinton in 2008 was -- was about the decision that she made on the war in Iraq and in part, the fact that she never made the choice to just say, I was wrong about that until related (ph) until (ph) this primary campaign. So I`m wondering if O`Malley saw that, if he`s learning from it and if he will begin, in part, by saying, you know what, I made those decisions. But they were some of the wrong decisions. SEITZ-WALD: Right. I mean, it`s a great question. And on -- on both sides, I think it`s a question for Martin O`Malley. We`ll -- we`ll see what he has to say. And he hasn`t said a whole lot on criminal justice. In fact, I think Hillary Clinton has probably been more out front in the past few months since the campaigns have really started up on criminal justice. He was the first governor to decriminalize marijuana. He outlawed the death penalty. They point to that. But we`ll see what he says specifically on criminal justice. But I can point (ph) on the Iraq war politically, there`s really nothing like that in this race the same way that it took on Hillary Clinton. And he needs to find some way to draw a contrast with her. And without one key issue like that, we`ll have to see if he can find some way to draw a big contrast to her. HARRIS-PERRY: Thank you to MSNBC`s Alex Alex Seitz-Wald, who, as we were talking to you (ph), we can hear the -- the Clinton campaign song from the first election playing behind you there, the -- the "Don`t Stop Believing." I`m wondering if that`s a little dig at Clinton 101. We`ll be keeping an eye on Baltimore throughout the show. Thank you. All right, so back to the panel. So what do you think, I mean, you obviously brought up this policing question in our last block. GOODMAN: I mean, he really laid the groundwork. And I mean the interview David Simon did at the Marshall Project is so damning about what happened to Baltimore. For some, and we all know the figures about the mortality rate for the -- the life expectancy for people in parts of West Baltimore is like 10 years below what -- the average and just down the road in Roland Park, it`s 84 instead of 64 where it is in these communities. What did he do for them? This issue of broken windows goes to an issue of really a broken government, of targeting one sector of society, to try to improve the lot for others or to keep them out of the way. The fact that there was the numbers you`re talking about of people who were killed and arrested in Baltimore, one-sixth of the population arrested in Baltimore, he has got to explain himself. HARRIS-PERRY: And so -- so and yet, it was -- I guess what I don`t want to -- so -- so I get that. And I get that he has a direct culpability in relationship to it because he made those decisions. On the other hand, I can`t say the name "Clinton" without thinking about many of those same policies that happened at a national level and had enormous impact... WELCH (ph): Right. HARRIS-PERRY: ...during the -- the two terms of... (CROSSTALK) MABRY: But it was Clinton that did it. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. Granted (ph) -- but -- but they -- but there they are to, I mean... (CROSSTALK) KIM: But here is -- here is (ph)... HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, she did. She -- and nobody -- nobody in her own word (ph)... (CROSSTALK) MABRY: ...her police force (ph)... KIM: Yes, yes. HARRIS-PERRY: ...but granted -- granted but in her own words, she publicly supported -- so it`s not that, oh, she was the supportive spouse. She -- she played a policy role, stood up and actually said, so here is something... MABRY: I think -- so I think -- I think the one thing in (ph) Clinton, I think this is -- this is fantastic for Hillary Clinton because if you look at the media coverage and god bless us journalists, with the media coverage of this Democratic campaign thus far, and we have been all about basically reporters whining about how she won`t talk to us, reporters whining or (ph) making fun of her. We`ve been digging on every little thing we can to make a story. We`re going to be ecstatic. We`re probably send a fruit basket to the National Press Corps to Martin O`Malley, say (ph), thank you. We`re going to talk about this now. And you, and your past (ph), this is -- this is a salvation for her. We`re going to stop digging into her because it`s (ph) the only story we had (ph) to do for the last months. And now, we`re going to start digging into him. And we`re talking about these issues in relation (ph) to Baltimore. And that is fantastic for her. It`s good for him because if anything should go wrong and if she doesn`t blow (ph), and if our constant taking kind of -- if at any point, the Hillary train goes off the rail, he is there. He is there. HARRIS-PERRY: No, no, no. MABRY: He is the solid (ph) guy there. He`s (ph) the (ph) Democratic candidate. HARRIS-PERRY: But -- but the Clinton train -- but the Clinton train going off the rails -- and I -- and actually, we shouldn`t even, in the context of what just happened, well, probably shouldn`t even make that analogy -- but the idea of -- of this -- of this thing going bad isn`t about the primary... MABRY (ph): Right. HARRIS-PERRY: ...in which Martin O`Malley would still be there. The problem is if -- if it occurs in the context of a general election, right, because... (CROSSTALK) MABRY: Right, right, right. HARRIS-PERRY: ...because the issue isn`t whether or not she can win a Democratic primary. Probably. The issue is whether or not then she has the capacity to encourage those voters who will then look at those statements about... WELCH: There`s going to -- there`s going to be huge enthusiasm gap on the Democratic side if she waltzes to... HARRIS-PERRY: Just will be. WELCH: Just will be. I mean, no one is -- I mean, very few people wake up in the morning and say I am excited about Hillary Clinton. I -- I`d like... (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: There`s a group (ph) -- there`s a core (ph). WELCH: I like her record. HARRIS-PERRY: There`s a core (ph). WELCH: I like what she said about... (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: There -- there is. There`s a good (ph)... MABRY: There are -- there are a lot of women, a lot of people who want to vote for... (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: ...there`s a good strong core. But... MABRY: We conclude (ph) that... (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: ...but the question is is (ph) there (ph) 51 percent in the right electoral college age. We`re going to continue to -- as we continue to wait for Maryland Governor Martin O`Malley`s big announcement this morning in Baltimore. Up next, looks like the young people -- and Richard was saying this earlier -- this time around might actually show up in a way that could surprise us all. In fact, looks like Bernie might be their candidate. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It is insane. It is counterproductive to the best interest of our country that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college and that millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades. (END VIDEOTAPE) HARRIS-PERRY: That was Senator Bernie Sanders on Tuesday, official campaign kickoff as president. The Vermont senator said he would fight to make public colleges and universities tuition free. Free college -- what young person wouldn`t sign up for that, which has us wondering if the self-described Democratic socialist who is 72 years old trying to pitch himself as a candidate for millennials. It seems counterintuitive or curious or maybe just odd but keep in mind that as we talked about before, Ron Paul, who was 75 years old when he announced in 2012 his presidential run, also struck a chord with young voters when nearly half of the under-30 vote in the New Hampshire primary that year. So does this guy end up somehow being the millennial choice of the -- of the Democratic primaries? KIM: You know, I -- I think he -- he could be. He certainly is sounding the right notes on Twitter (ph). I think on the question of policing, you know, I`m waiting to see what he says there. And I want to just go back to that point briefly because I think, you know, it`s totally fair to ding O`Malley for his record. But I don`t want to leave with the perception that he was, you know, the -- the outlier. If you go back, it would be hard to find a governor or a mayor of a major urban area that didn`t also escalate, you know, incarceration... HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. KIM: ...policing. It -- it goes with the Clinton crime bill, the war on drugs, the surveillance under the war on terror. So you know, this problem -- this policing problem implicates every single politician, Republican and Democrat. (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: Well, but OK -- but all right, sure, but I also want to lay the blame a little bit more at the front door of the Clinton WELCH House because it wasn`t just an ideological question. There were structural incentives to cities to police in this way, right? KIM: Absolutely. HARRIS-PERRY: And I think -- I think that gets lost in our sense of like, well, were they good or bad mayors. Well, they were mayors looking for revenue. And as we saw, for example, in the Ferguson report, right, revenue ends up... KIM: The spigot was turned on, you know... HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. KIM: ...to militarize basically (ph)... (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: At -- at 1600 (ph) Pennsylvania. KIM: ...smart (ph) work (ph) exactly. Exactly. WELCH: And it continues to be, I mean, you know, Barack Obama and Eric Holder have made tentative baby steps by being pressured by a right-left coalition underneath them to kind of begin to roll back some of the excesses of this. But there`s a lot of really good criminal justice reform on the table. It is a right-left thing. And it`s not establishmentarian (ph) thing right now. That is available for someone. Right now, think about this... (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: I feel like former Attorney General Eric Holder would be irritated by the idea that it was only baby steps. WELCH: No, it is, on -- on things like civil asset forfeiture, that is baby steps, on things like doing pardons and commutations of sentences, unfortunately, that`s only baby steps. And one thing to do in the next, you know, the -- in the remaining days of the Obama presidency is to push him further in that. But think about this right now. And this should give a lot of Democrats pause. The two candidates running right now and I don`t know where Bernie Sanders is, so maybe that`s wrong about Bernie, but who are going the furthest on criminal justice reform are Republicans. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. WELCH: And one was named (ph) Ted Cruz. That`s got to hurt. Yes, there`s -- there`s space available for Democrats to run on that. I want to know who`s going to do it (ph). HARRIS-PERRY: Actually -- actually, I want to back up from that a little bit because I think it`s not just on that, but that there is a -- there is a bunch of things that if we look and we say, OK, who is the most diverse party right now in terms of who they`re offering for the American presidency? Oh, the Republicans beat out -- like I think about that (ph) 2008 campaign, we remember it now as Senator Obama versus Senator Clinton. But the last four included a Southern Democrat in John Edwards. I -- I know how that turned out and -- and Bill Richardson. So we had a Latino. We had a WELCH Southern Democrat. We had an African- American urban president from Chicago and a woman all running. And I felt like, oh, well, that`s what the new Democratic Party is meant to look like. Now, that`s what the Republican side looks like. I just want to wonder what happened to the bench on the Democratic side? MABRY: I -- I think we -- I think we overemphasize this in -- in the media. I -- I think the fact, it`s because it`s the Hillary effect. It`s the coronation (ph) effect. Once she is gone, once she`s no longer the factor, I think the Democratic Party will look a lot more like what you think the Democratic Party is supposed to look like. (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: But they came out in `08. So why -- why -- I mean, it`s really -- why doesn`t... MABRY: Because Hillary tends (ph) to (ph) run away. HARRIS-PERRY: ...well, why doesn`t any Democrat who want to be president not (ph) enough (ph) to run? MABRY: Well -- well, let`s -- let`s see -- let`s see if there is a woman of color who is the next senator from California who`s a Democrat if that happens... HARRIS-PERRY: Are you going to make them all -- here (ph) is the president already. MABRY: I know. I`m saying, to what (ph) happens in four, eight years if Hillary was (ph) -- doesn`t (ph) win (ph) that (ph). That`s all I`m saying. GOODMAN: But talking about diverse ideas, Bernie Sanders has been there from the beginning. I think he appeals across the political spectrum as well. It`s not just the Democrat-Republican thing. I mean, when he says there is something immoral when so few have so much, that addresses the occupy crowd. That addresses older people... HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. GOODMAN: ...people of color, people across the political spectrum. HARRIS-PERRY: And he`s not a... GOODMAN: He`s been there from the beginning. HARRIS-PERRY: Great (ph) and -- and in part, he`s not a Democrat like this (ph) -- so part of what`s interesting to me is on the Democratic primary side, we have one person actually in, one person apparently getting in, anytime now Mr. O`Malley and someone who calls himself a Democratic socialist and is actually independent, because they can`t even stomach (ph) it (ph) as a Democrat Party, that we`re -- look at the Democratic Party. That looks pretty anemic to me. GOODMAN: But I think what`s important is to talk about the ideas that are and are not addressed. He not only took on the money (ph) classes in this country when he made his big address in Vermont. He took on the mainstream media. And that`s pretty bold because they -- he depends on them to get his message out. And he immediately said, you know, the campaign is not a baseball game. This is not a sports contest. I hope that didn`t talk -- turn off all the sports fans. But it isn`t. HARRIS-PERRY: Well, yes. GOODMAN: And it`s about, for example, TPP -- the Media always talks about the Warren (ph) part of the Democratic Party. Well, Elizabeth Warren is not running. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. GOODMAN: And Bernie Sanders has been as staunchly leading the charge against the transpacific partnership which will determine 40 percent of the global economy opposed to what President Obama is representing (ph). HARRIS-PERRY: And -- and for -- and for a long period of time. Still to come this morning, how the Supreme Court could change everything about who has the power in America. And we are still keeping our eye on our watches and on Baltimore. Martin O`Malley is expected momentarily. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: We`re still awaiting the announcement of the person who will become the third official candidate running for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. presidency here in this year going towards the 2016 election. We are waiting. You see there a live shot of Baltimore, Maryland, waiting for the announcement by former governor of Maryland, Martin O`Malley as well as he was the mayor of Baltimore before that. I do want to point out maybe, you know, we`ve been really tough on the policing, which I think is fair. But there are some -- there are some meaningful policy initiatives that I think he can make a last (ph) or progressive claim on, marriage equality being one of the key ones. WELCH: He`s given (ph) -- he`s going to get on that and the death penalty and these kinds of things. But also, if you think about one of the kind of broad categories of left disaffection, policing is definitely one of them but so is this -- the, you know, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, kind of economic populist. And part of that is an anti-kind of cronyism out there. His approach to development in Baltimore is just like classic. Let`s get the city to own a convention center and a hotel and all those kind of stuff. Let`s just build up the inner harbor and forget the rest of the place. He doesn`t have a good record on that as far as I`m concerned. KIKM: And if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality in -- in this month, which I`m optimistic that it will... HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. KIM: ...I think that becomes a settled question, right? And it undercuts, you know, the sort of moral, you know, sort of aura that he wants to run on. And -- and you know, Hillary`s not -- Hillary has also now endorsed marriage equality, wants the Supreme Court to make it legal. So it`s -- it`s... (CROSSTALK) HARRIS-PERRY: So they`re going to tie it -- they`re going to... KIM: ...it`s going to be to tough to adjust on the death penalty and then on being a kind of like corporate technocrat developer. GOODMAN: You know, it`s the issue also of opportunism. He was there early on that. I mean, Bernie Sanders voted against... HARRIS-PERRY: All right, we`re -- we`re... GOODMAN: ...which is amazing. Hillary Clinton doesn`t make her views clear on a lot of issues. HARRIS-PERRY: ...we`re going to go live now to Baltimore where former Maryland Governor Martin O`Malley is expected right now to announce his candidacy for the U.S. presidency. We see him there walking up onto the stage, beautiful day in Baltimore. We`re about to hear from Martin O`Malley. He`s going to address -- he`s trying to draw out this narrative. Most of America does not know much about Martin O`Malley. Running on Baltimore might have been a kind of strategy about Baltimore, the city that works from a technocratic perspective up until a couple of weeks ago. And now, when you say the word "Baltimore," you cannot help but to think about the protests there, the question of policing, the question of whether or not there is deep and abiding inequality in racialized communities in that city, the disaffection (ph). And so the -- the word "Baltimore" has changed its meaning dramatically on the national stage. And Governor Martin -- former Governor Martin O`Malley`s capacity to -- to use that has changed as well. Let`s take a listen. MARTIN O`MALLEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: My goodness. (APPLAUSE) Thank you, all, for coming out today. (APPLAUSE) Katie and the kids and I want to thank you for being here. And we have a little announcement we`d like to share with you. (APPLAUSE) I want to talk with you today about the American dream -- about the American dream we share, its powerful history, its current condition and its urgent need of rebuilding. (UNKNOWN): Yes. (UNKNOWN): Yes. O`MALLEY: Our nation was founded on two self-evident truths, that all of us are created equal and that we are endowed by our creator with certain rights to life, to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And with these words, the American dream began -- no fine print, no expiration date. All of us are included, women and men, MABRY people and WELCH people, native Americans, Irish Americans, KIM Americans, Latino Americans, Jewish, Christian and Muslim Americans, young and old, rich and poor, workers and business owners, gay, lesbian and transgender and straight Americans, all of us are needed. (APPLAUSE) For in our idea of country, there is no such thing as a (ph) fair American. There is, however, a growing gap of injustice in our country today. (UNKNOWN): Yes. O`MALLEY: It is the gap between the strong, just nation our children need for us to be and the nation we are in danger of becoming for today in America, 70 percent of us are earning the same or less than we were 12 years ago. And this is the first time that that has happened this (ph) side of World War II. (APPLAUSE) Today in America, family-owned businesses and farms are struggling to compete with ever-larger concentrations of corporate power. Fifty years ago, the nation`s largest employer was G.M. And the average G.M. employee could send his kid to college on two weeks` wages. Today in America, with dreams of college and a decent-paying job and a secure retirement slipping beyond the reach of so very many, the American dream seems for so many of us to be hanging by a thread. And yet, for America, there is always a yet. And the final thread that holds us just might be the strongest. It is the thread of generosity, compassion and love that brings us together as one American people. (APPLAUSE) For over 200 years, we have been the architects of our own future. And now, we must build anew. My father and mother, Tom and Barbara O`Malley were born to the great depression. And they grew up to be part of that great generation of Americans that won the second World War. My dad flew 33 missions over Japan in a B-24 liberator and went on to college only because of the G.I. bill. And my mom, herself, flew in the civil air patrol at the age of 17. (APPLAUSE) They raised their children, the six of us, they raised (ph) to -- on the -- to a secure middle-class future because of the sacrifices and the better choices of their generation. But they would never accept the notion that somehow theirs was the greatest generation, for they believed and they taught us that every generation of Americans has the ability and the sacred responsibility to make themselves great for their country. (APPLAUSE) And so we must, and so we will no matter the odds, no matter how tough the fight, no matter how big the challenge and that is the urgent calling for us today, to rebuild the American dream now in our time. (APPLAUSE) Last month, television sets around the world were filled with the anger and the rage and the flames of some of the humblest and hardest-hit neighborhoods in Baltimore. For all of us who have given so much of our energies to making our city a safer, fairer and more prosperous place, that was a heartbreaking night for all of us. For us, Baltimore is our country. And our country is Baltimore. And there is something to be learned from that night. There is something to be offered to our country from those flames for what took place here was not only about race, not only about policing in America, it was about everything it is supposed to mean to be an American. (UNKNOWN): Yes. (APPLAUSE) O`MALLEY: The scourge of hopelessness that happened to ignite here that evening transcends race. It transcends geography, witness the record numbers of -- of young WELCH kids killing themselves on heroin in suburbs and small towns across our country. The hard truth of our shared reality is this -- unemployment in many cities and many small towns across the United States of America is higher now than it was eight years ago. Conditions of extreme poverty breed conditions of extreme violence. We have work to do. Our economic and political system is upside-down and backwards. And it is time to turn it around. (UNKNOWN): Yes. (APPLAUSE) O`MALLEY: Understanding precedes action. And we must understand that what happened to our economy, the damage done to the American dream we share did not happen by chance nor was it merely the result of global forces somehow beyond our reach. Powerful, wealthy special interests here at home have used our government to create in our own country an economy that is leaving a majority of our people behind, an economy that has so concentrated wealth and power in the hands of the very few that it has taken opportunity out of the homes of the many. (UNKNOWN): All right. (APPLAUSE) O`MALLEY: An economy where a majority of our people are unheard, unseen, unneeded and left to conclude that their lives and their labors are worth less today than they were yesterday and will be worth less still in the future. We are allowing our land of opportunity to become a land of inequality. Main street struggles while Wall Street soars. Tell me how it is. Tell me how it is that not a single Wall Street CEO was convicted of a crime related to the 2008 economic meltdown. (APPLAUSE) Not a single one. Tell me how it is that you can get pulled over in this country for having a broken tail light. But if you wreck the nation`s economy, you`re absolutely untouchable. (APPLAUSE) You know and I know this is not how our economy is supposed to work. This is not how our country is supposed to work. This is not the American dream. It does not have to be this way. This generation of Americans still has time to become great. (UNKNOWN): Yes. (APPLAUSE) O`MALLEY: We have saved our country before. And we must save our country now. And we will do that by rebuilding the dream. As I look out here today over this original land of the free and the home of the brave, I see the faces of so very many who have helped so many people and the life of our city and the life of our state. Together, we`ve made our city a safer, healthier and better place for kids. Together, we made our city believe again. And we invented a better and new way of governing called CitiStat. And we got things done. (APPLAUSE) Together, we made our state`s public schools the best in the nation. We made college -- college more affordable for more families. (APPLAUSE) Let`s hear it from the teachers back there. (APPLAUSE) We led our people forward through a devastating recession. And we took greater care to protect the land, the air and the waters of our Chesapeake Bay. (APPLAUSE) And we passed the Dream Act and we passed marriage equality. (APPLAUSE) Together, we raised the minimum wage. And we maintained the highest median income of any state in the nation. We achieved... (UNKNOWN): Yes. (APPLAUSE) O`MALLEY: ...top rankings in innovation, entrepreneurship and women and minority business ownership and participation. (APPLAUSE) And, yes, it took new leadership. It took new perspectives. And it took new approaches. But together, we believed in the American dream. We took action to make it real. And that is exactly what our nation needs to do today. (APPLAUSE) You see, our economy isn`t money. Our economy is people -- all of our people. We measure success by the growing prosperity and security of our people, all of our people. A stronger middle class is not the consequence of economic growth. A stronger middle class is the cause of economic growth. (APPLAUSE) And together as one people, we must build an American economy that works again for all of us. (APPLAUSE) This means good jobs and wage policies -- wage policies that allow families to earn more as they work harder and harder. And that means a higher minimum wage. That means overtime pay for overtime work. And that means making it easier rather than harder for workers to organize and bargain collectively for better wages. (APPLAUSE) And if together we take these actions, the American dream will live again. Climate change is real. And it also happens to be the greatest business opportunity to come to our country for a hundred years. So we must create an American jobs agenda for America`s renewable energy future. (APPLAUSE) And we must also launch a new agenda to rebuild American cities as places of hope, opportunity and justice for all. (APPLAUSE) And if we take these actions, the dream will live again. For the sake of our country`s security, our country`s well-being and our country`s economic growth, we must also bring 11 million of our neighbors out of the shadows by passing comprehensive immigration reform. (APPLAUSE) Because the enduring symbol of our nation is not the barbed-wire fence, it is the statue of liberty. (APPLAUSE) Yes, yes, yes, we are a nation of immigrants. We are a compassionate and generous people. And if we act according to our principles and the better angels of our nature, if we return, in other words, to our true selves, the dream will live again. Make no mistake about it. Our ability to lead the world, our ability to be safe in the world depends on the strength of the American dream here at home. The challenges we face in this world today are not the challenges that we faced in the 1990s. So together, we must construct a new national security strategy and build new alliances that are forward-seeing and forward- acting. (APPLAUSE) And the center of this new security strategy must be the reduction of threats -- fast-evolving threats from violent extremism, pandemic, cyber attacks, nuclear proliferation, nation state failures to the drought, famine and floods of climate change. We must also craft a new foreign policy of engagement and collaboration. We must join with like-minded people all around the world and especially right here in our own hemisphere for the cause we share of a rising global middle class. (APPLAUSE) And we must put our national interests first. We must put America first. And we cannot and will not rebuild the American dream here at home, though, by catering to the voices of the privileged and the powerful. Let`s be honest. They were the ones who turned our economy upside down in the first place. And they`re the only ones who are benefiting from that. We need to prosecute cheats. We need to reinstate Glass-Steagall. And if a bank is too big to fail without wrecking our nation`s economy, then we need to break it up before it breaks us again. (APPLAUSE) True story. Goldman Sachs -- Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest repeat investment banks in America. Recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he`d be just fine with either Bush or Clinton. I bet he would. (LAUGHTER) Well, I`ve got news for the bullies of Wall Street. The presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families. (APPLAUSE) It is a sacred trust to be earned from the American people and exercised on behalf of the people of these United States. (APPLAUSE) (UNKNOWN): O`Malley, O`Malley. O`MALLEY: The only way we are going to rebuild the American dream is if we retake control of our own American government. (APPLAUSE) The poet laureate of the American dream, Bruce Springsteen... (APPLAUSE) ...once asked, is a dream a lie if it don`t come true or is it something worse? Whether the American dream becomes a lie or becomes an ongoing truth that our children can enjoy, that our children can live, that our children can build upon is really up to you and to me. It`s up to all of us. It`s not about Wall Street. It`s not about the big banks. It`s not even about big money trying to buy our elections. It`s about us. It`s about whether together, we, the people, still have the will to become great Americans. (APPLAUSE) I believe that we do, and my decision is made. Now, you will all have a vital choice to make next year for the good of your families and for the good of the country that you love and the country that you carry in your hearts. And it is a choice that people will ask you about for years to come. And so when a child with a world of learning ahead asks you who you voted for, I want you to be able to tell that child, I voted for you. (UNKNOWN): Yes. (APPLAUSE) O`MALLEY: When you see a dad... (APPLAUSE) ...sweating through another long shift in order to give his daughter a better future, I want you to be able to tell that dad, I voted for you. When you see a mom working long hours at two jobs for the dream of being able to send her only son to college, I want you to be able to tell her, I voted for you. And when you see a young father who hungers for a decent job to support his family, I want you to be able to tell him, I voted for you. (UNKNOWN): I voted for you. O`MALLEY: For the story of our country`s best days is not found in a history book because this generation of Americans is about to write it. (APPLAUSE) And that is why today, to you and to all who can hear my voice, I declare that I am a candidate for president of the United States. (APPLAUSE) And I am running for you. May god bless you. And may god bless the United States of America. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) HARRIS-PERRY: And that was former governor of Maryland, Martin O`Malley making it official. He is now a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. presidency. Well, there`s a lot of familiar lines in that speech. What do we think, people? GOODMAN: Well, I think him saying the presidency is not a crown to be handed back and forth between two royal families, that`s a very important statement for everyone. HARRIS-PERRY: And a true one. And it should be... GOODMAN: Right. HARRIS-PERRY: ...and it should be true. We want that to be true. GOODMAN: Yes. HARRIS-PERRY: And a -- and a Clinton-Bush race could feel like that. WELCH: There`s a reason why new leadership is on all those signs. It`s trying to remind people that, you know, you need new faces and maybe people who are a little bit younger. But my god, either he doesn`t have a speech writer, he`s just using control on a bunch of things or a -- I mean, that was some -- some really kind of warmed-over yawn fest. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, but so we`ve talked a lot about stage craft of announcement on this show. And -- and I have to say, it seemed like there was such an obvious opportunity for this guy, that based on all the critiques that we were leveling initially, which was, if you want to give that speech, go stand in front of the CVS in the part of Baltimore that right now is on everyone`s mind. Stand there with a community that will be critical of you and then say, it`s about all of us. And all of a sudden, it takes on a very different tone. That, you know, like (ph) you said, is (ph) the (ph) kind of office-park feeling... WELCH: Yes. HARRIS-PERRY: ...almost of that image, it`s lovely. It`s beautiful. Maybe it`s even presidential. But when you have 1 percent name recognition, you got to do something that`s going to -- KIM: The speech had all the words there, like the anger at Goldman Sachs, the sort of anger at inequality, the sort of moral handing over to two families. It didn`t feel genuine. HARRIS-PERRY: The name check of city state. KIM: It didn`t feel real to me. It just felt like very warmed-over rhetoric at this point. MABRY: Well, you raise that question. Will he address the issue of the policing that he inspired, orchestrated and led what we`ve seen in Baltimore recently? And no, he didn`t. All he talked about was the positive aspect of his reign. He didn`t talk at all about the negative. So, of course, He couldn`t go to where Baltimore was burned up, because that would mess up his narrative because that would say what do you have to do with this? What`s your responsibility o this? And he`s staying away from that. HARRIS-PERRY: But I consistently believe that American voters like courage. Even when they disagree with a candidate, if they feel like you`re courageous, that you`ll take a risk, that you`ll be interesting, then you`re going to be willing to kind of potentially take a risk. And, again, dude, you have nothing to lose. You have 1 percent approval at this point. WELCH: I mean, he`s saying rebuild America and the American dream for everybody. He`s using a lot of the same rhetoric that I think a Democratic president who is actually in office has been using for eight or nine years. So, part of this needs to be what went wrong then, too. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. WELCH: I mean, blame Republicans if that`s what you have to do, but blame someone. HARRIS-PERRY: It is tough to rebuild America when it`s your party for two terms in the White House that`s got to be addressed. OK. Thank you, Matt Welch. Everybody else is sticking around. Look, we took a little bit of Martin O`Malley there. But now it`s 11:00. I want to turn to another big story this week, FIFA. All right. Follow me here. There`s been a lot of talk out in the nerd world about the diversity of superheroes. Marvel, for example, passed an African-American man, Michael B. Jordan, to play the traditionally white super hero, the Human Torch, in the new "Fantastic 4" movie. Even Thor, God of Thunder, is a woman now, an American woman, who is also a brilliant astrophysicist. And this week, we learn that Captain America is actually a black woman, this black woman. On Wednesday, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch went after a powerful global organization on charges of racketeering, money laundering and fraud. We`re talking, of course, about the international soccer governing body FIFA. On Wednesday, Attorney General Lynch announced 47 federal counts against 9 high level FIFA officials and 5 corporate executives accused of participating in bribery and kickback schemes worth over $150 million over the last 24 years. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: These individuals, through these organizations, engaged in bribery to decide who would televise games, where the games would be held and who would run the organization overseeing organized soccer worldwide. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Earlier today, the longtime president of FIFA, Sepp Blatter, who has not been named in the investigation, rejected claims that he is responsible for a culture of corruption at FIFA. Blatter was re-elected today despite the scandal. And among many other things, FIFA officials are accused of taking bribe in exchange for some of the most important votes on where to hold future World Cup tournaments. Take the 2010 World Cup which eventually went to South Africa. According to the indictment, Moroccan officials vying to host the tournament offered a FIFA official $1 million to cast his secret ballot for Morocco to host the 2010 World Cup. They were far outdone. According to the indictment, South African officials arranged for the government of South Africa to pay $10 million in exchange for three votes for the World Cup. Some of the alleged bribes were paid out like in a spy movie, a particularly unoriginal spy movie. At one point, according to the indictment, one FIFA official put a relative on a plane from the Caribbean country of Trinidad and Tobago, all the way to France to a hotel in Paris for the sole purpose of collecting a briefcase containing bundles of U.S. currency in $10,000 stacks from a high ranking South African official. The former FIFA official involved in those allegations, Jack Warner, has said he`s not guilty. The South African government also denied the bribery allegations as basely. Blatter, again, FIFA`s longtime president, said his organization is cooperating with authorities. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEPP BLATTER, FIFA PRESIDENT: I will not allow the actions of a few to destroy the hard work and the integrity of the vast majority of those who work so hard for football. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: This story is far from over. The Swiss government has opened a criminal investigation to FIFA`s decision to award the World Cup to Russia in 2018, and to Qatar in 2022. And on Wednesday, Attorney General Lynch warned that there will be more indictments to come. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LYNCH: They corrupted the business of worldwide soccer to serve their interests and to enrich themselves. This department of justice is determined to end these practices, to root out corruption and to bring wrongdoers to justice. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Still with me: Amy Goodman, host and executive producer of Democracy Now, Marcus Mabry who`s editor at large at "The New York Times," Richard Kim, executive editor of TheNation.com and through the magic of television while I was talking Matt Welch has turned about Dave Zirin, sports editor of "The Nation" magazine and author of the book "Brazil`s Dance with the Devil: The World Cup, the Olympics and the Struggle for Democracy." Don`t you like it when you write a book and then the whole news world conspires to make it accurate in this way? DAVE ZIRIN, THE NATION: It means, I have to forget certain things like sleep, because now is the time to actually talk about this. But I have to say, like we`re talking about Loretta Lynch and the question I`ve been getting all week is why the United States doing this. And that`s I think a -- it`s a very interesting answer there. First of all, very simply, the United States is leading this because the United States did not win the 2022 World Cup. HARRIS-PERRY: Sure. ZIRIN: If the U.S. had gotten the World Cup in 2022 instead of Qatar, there`s no way this raid would have taken place even though the investigation -- HARRIS-PERRY: Does Loretta Lynch care that much about whether or not we got the World Cup? ZIRIN: I think there are people in charge of Loretta Lynch who care very much that we would be hosting the World Cup. It was something that Barack Obama spoke out personally for, Bill Clinton headed the delegation to get that World Cup. We can talk more about Bill Clinton in a moment because he figured into this story. But the other reason is that this is very low hanging fruit for the Justice Department. I mean, you`re talking about a very muscular transatlantic arrest. You`re arresting people who are not U.S. citizens, and you`re also arresting people in a way that looks like you`re taking on power, you`re taking on the big banks. There`s this thirst for people to go after Goldman Sachs. This is a way of going after Goldman Sachs without going after Goldman Sachs, if you catch my drift. So, it`s like the sort of thing where people can say, hey, they`re going after people in power, while at the same time I think other folks can and should say, if you`re this muscular with FIFA officials, why aren`t you this muscular with the banks? Why aren`t you this muscular with local police departments incurring civil rights violations? So, that`s there, too. HARRIS-PERRY: Although, let me just suggest, that this DOJ might on the second one, so I think it`s a very accurate sense that they`re insufficiently muscular on Wall Street. I`m not sure that I`ll make the same claim that given that the FIFA arrests happen on the same time or in the same week as the Cleveland consent decree which is muscular in its own way. But it is interesting point. I mean, particularly when we put -- we just heard from O`Malley right next to I like this language of this kind of muscular aggressive U.S., I also wonder the extent of which a cultural disconnect in part because soccer is growing in kind of American imports enough that we now, you know, care about it. But it doesn`t have the deep cultural roots and identity in the U.S. as it does in other places. MABRY: I think you make excellent points, the point that`s often missed in our coverage of this issue. Soccer is corrupt and has been corrupt for a long time. This is all correct to bring them down. At the same time, what -- soccer is not central to the life of America. Soccer is not central to our politics, to our society, to our economic structure. HARRIS-PERRY: But it is to other nations. MABRY: It is for other nations, and other things are. Our banking system, our economic system, our campaign financing system. We`re about to have a multibillion dollar election in which money will play a greater role than any time in the history of the United States republic. And that those aren`t the issues we`re dealing. So, soccer is easy. It`s an easy target to go after. KIM: It`s also like the open secret nature of this corruption is really interesting to me. Like all of these things everyone knew for decades and decades, and it took this moment to sort of make these charges stick. We know about steroids in Major League Baseball. We know about rampant fraud in the mortgage market. We knew that before the housing bubble collapsed. So, there`s like this way that the open secret to me it`s -- this is an example of when it`s sort of brought to light. I wish more of these sort of corruptions that we know about that are in plain sight were prosecuted. HARRIS-PERRY: So actually, that notion of corruption in plain sight is part of -- as soon as it broke I thought, I wonder what Dave Zirin will say about this. And part of what I was wondering is given that you`ve made this claim that there`s such a broad -- that the nature of the corruption in soccer in particular is every single step of it. ZIRIN: Yes. HARRIS-PERRY: Whether or not taking just slice of bribery and racketeering is again not only easy relative to the Goldman Sachs of it all, but also easy even relative to the soccer of it all. ZIRIN: Exactly. I`m so glad you said, because the central point here is that this is an issue of the, quote/unquote, "real crimes" not being discussed. When I think of real crimes and FIFA in the same sentence, I`m thinking debt, displacement, the militarization of public space -- HARRIS-PERRY: Deaths in Qatar. ZIRIN: Deaths of hundreds of migrant workers, Nepalese migrant workers in Qatar. And that`s where the bribery comes into play. I was in South Africa before the 2010 World Cup. When you think about things like water shortages, while they`re irrigating stadiums 24 hours a day, that`s a crime. When you think about what $10 million could do for a life of a township in South Africa and that`s in a publicly funded briefcase that gets handed to a FIFA official to get the games, that I think needs to be discussed, that there`s a human cost. And that`s why if we`re talking elections, too, to tie it in, there`s a question that Bill Clinton`s going to have to answer about why the Qatari government and the Qatari World Cup Committee gave millions to the Clinton Fund after Clinton led the delegation to win the 2022 World Cup for the United States. It`s a question. And it`s something that I don`t see how you don`t answer given the hundreds of deaths in Qatar, and given that that`s been the ideological basis for why this is a story. HARRIS-PERRY: The plot thickens. Stay right there. Up next, soccer and social change. Why some believe it is actually a winning combination. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: We have been talking about alleged corruption at the highest levels of international soccer, but we do not want to lose sight of what soccer means to people around the world who love to play and to watch the beautiful game. My next guest worked for an organization that uses soccer as a tool for social change. Joining me now is Mike Geddes who is managing director for Street Football World USA, which works with a global network of soccer- related nonprofits, also partners with FIFA on the Football for Hope program. Mike, talk to me about how football can be a tool for social change. MIKE GEDDES, STREET FOOTBALL WORLD USA: Well, some many guests have already talked about how soccer, I`m actually calling it football, by the way, but soccer is embedded into the societies and really embedded into people`s lives. And that makes it a powerful force for non-formal education. So, around the world there are many organizations which have identified social challenges within their community, often affecting young people. It could be homelessness, it could be HIV/AIDS, infection rates, it could be gang culture, it could be violence. And they decided that soccer is actually a very powerful way of addressing it, because it brings young people into social programs. It keeps them there. Young people love to play it. They may not have stable family structure, stable formal education structures. Soccer is the one thing that kind of gives them hope and gives them meaning. And if you combine that with social education messages, it becomes extremely powerful. HARRIS-PERRY: There`s a kind of inherit egalitarianism to soccer, to football, in that truly you need a ball and other people. I mean, some of the images we`ve been seeing here of children playing barefoot. It`s very different than the American game, for example, of basketball or football where you need, you know, expensive equipment and particular courts and all that sort of thing, right? So, on the one hand, it`s inherently at its core so egalitarian. And then this scandal -- and I guess that`s part of what I`m wondering is, whether or not this scandal about the rich and powerful taking advantage of a sport that is so core to the ordinary lives of so many people creates a kind of disjunction that is ultimately problematic for the sport. GEDDES: Yes, for us, I think the level of the game that where we operate is that grassroots level. So it`s not the kind of highest level. It`s not the organization of the world cup. I think that for us anything which draws criticism from sponsors or kind of lessens people`s willingness to invest in the sport is a challenge because for us, the more investment there is in the game the more resources we can try to divert to some of these organizations that are really using the game to create social change. So, for us, our mission really is to look at the entire world of football, whether that is the sponsors, confederations, individual athletes, governments, anybody who is kind of interested in the power that the game has and sort of encourage that movement towards using the game to create social impact because really, as we`ve seen, you know, South Africa, Brazil, countless countries around the world, it can be incredibly powerful and often one of the most powerful forms of non-formal education that exists. HARRIS-PERRY: Mike Geddes, thank you so much for joining us. And thank you for your work on the ground with young people and the question of using football for social change. Amy, I do want to talk to you for just one second, because I wonder about this, though, if a government is getting $10 million to try to host a game at the same time that we`re talking about using that game in a different -- I wonder about -- so I love the idea of using sport as a way of social uplift, but I also really like the idea of government power by the people for social uplift. GOODMAN: Right. And you know, we don`t have to separate this soccer, which is not -- it`s increasingly becoming popular in the United States, but football here. Look at the stadiums that are built all over this country and the money, the public money that`s poured into them versus -- and the communities right around them that need them so desperately. HARRIS-PERRY: I wonder if that then allows for -- like by doing it diverts our attention from the things that we generate meaningful structure -- like actually creating the -- so it doesn`t say anything bad about the nonprofits that really are doing this work, but if there`s a way that it creates cover for not having to take responsibility for the production of that inequality on the part of the very governments that are now bribing. ZIRIN: That`s the problem with FIFA being a cartel because so much of international soccer is underneath that umbrella of FIFA. So, they fund a great many charities and they fund a great deal of graft and injustice at the same time, and they use the charities as a way to cover for injustice. That`s been a Sepp Blatter move for as long as there`s been Sepp Blatter. That`s why I think we have to recognize people who are trying to use soccer independently of FIFA for social uplift. There`s an organization in Oakland, to Oakland, the United States, Football for Life that`s reaching young kids by using soccer. There`s a group in Europe, in England, that`s called Football Beyond Borders that uses soccer as a way to reach South Asian and Muslim women and organizing leagues around their play in England, a country that often marginalizes Muslim women. So, it`s like trying to use soccer because it connects with people and speaks to the best angels of our nature, it`s something we can do. But I would just say to the listeners out there who want to use the sport, do it outside of FIFA, because you don`t want to be fastened to the empire as it`s dropping into the sea. HARRIS-PERRY: All right. So, you want to break that corruption, you don`t want to break the sport. Thank you to Dave Zirin. And the rest of my panel is sticking around. Up next, the Supreme Court and voting quality or inequality in America. The court`s next decision could change the balance of power again. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: Every ten years when the census form shows up in the mail between all the questions, names, facts and figures, you`re trying to get right on questionnaire, it can be easy to forget that filling out that form is an essential part of the democratic process. Making sure you get counted in the census is how the government makes sure you count in our representative democracy. Federal and state governments use the census tally of the total population as the basis for a process called apportionment. Now, it doesn`t have quite the same emotional resonance as freedom, liberty, justice, but apportionment is at the very heart of how we try to ensure equality of representation. Apportionment is process by which a governing body, like a country or a state, is divided into voting districts so that elected officials can be allocated to represent the people of their district in that legislature. Under our current system states decide how to make those divisions using census numbers to make sure that their entire populations are represented, then in accordance with a landmark 1964 ruling from the Supreme Court, states divide the populations into districts that are roughly equal in size. But a decision made this week by the Supreme Court could change all that. Because the court just agreed to hear a case that could mean that not every person gets counted. Sue Evenwell, a county chairman for the Texas Republican Party, is arguing that using census data to draw voting districts dilutes her voting power. She believes the process is unfair because it distributes equal political weight among districts with unequal numbers of voting age citizens. So, Evenwell is asking the court to reform the current system to base apportionment not on the total population but only on the population of the state that is eligible to vote, which would mean in effect if you`re a legal immigrant, a legal immigrant who doesn`t have citizenship, if you are an undocumented immigrant, if you`re under voting age or if you`re a person who is incarcerated, you would no longer count under the process Evenwell and her conservative backers are proposing. And since those groups tend to be, well, Democratic-leaning city dwellers, counting them out could mean a political shift away from cities and towards rural areas that are older, wealthier and less racially diverse. The consequences of a ruling in favor of the voter-based districts would be especially acute in Latino communities that are home to a large proportion of noncitizen residents. "The Los Angeles Times" broke it down using a comparison of two districts, the 23rd state district which covers Rancho Cucamonga and has a small share of noncitizens, and the 24th district which includes the East Side of L.A. and is home of California`s largest share of noncitizens. According to "The Times", current voters in each of those two districts get to elect one state senator but if the court were to say that the districts must have an equal number of citizens rather than equal number of people, the East Side District would be much too small and would have to be combined with other parts of Los Angeles to make up a district. Its voters would lose power in that sense. Conversely, voters in the other district would gain clout. As of now, the case concerns only states and local voting districts but according to "The New York Times", it`s likely the decision from the court will also encompass redistricting in the U.S. Congress. Joining my panel now is Dale Ho, director of the ACLU`s Voting Rights Project. So, Dale, this is in many ways basically the possibility of shifting back what happened in Reynolds v. Sims, right, which shifted sort of egalitarianism toward city dwellers, right? DALE HO, DIRECTOR, ACLU`S VOTING RIGHTS PROJECT: I think that`s absolutely right. Reynolds versus Sims established the basic principle and it`s been here for 50 years now that everyone counts equally in the process. If you look at things before that principle was established, places like California assigned one legislator, one state senator to each county. So, L.A. County in the early 1960s had 6 million people in it. The smallest county in California, rural county, had 14,000 people. So, people in that county had 400 times the representation as people in L.A. County. Now, that created a host of problems. It was fundamentally undemocratic. It artificially inflated the political power of rural areas in the expense of urban areas and there was a racial justice component, right, because the urban areas are the places that are more diverse. And Chief Justice Earl Warren after he left the court said he thought that Reynolds versus Sims was the most important case he decided. Now, this is man who wrote Brown versus Board of Education. HARRIS-PERRY: Right. HO: And he thought that the fundamental problems in mal-apportioning power in our democracy were responsible for everything else, but you wouldn`t have the problems of racial justice if you could make our democracy work better. HARRIS-PERRY: At this point, Amy, I really -- it feels to me like part of what your work has been so much about, to say apportionment on TV, on the radio, people are like, huh, what? You can say one man, one vote, they get that. But the rules of the game at this point that this might be the most important -- the rules of the game almost more than anything else that really create the thing that allows us to determine is our democracy healthy or not. GOODMAN: I mean, voting is what allows us to decide everything about how we want to live. And I was reading some pieces about this. Paul Weyrich, sort of long dead now, but figurehead of the new right, what did he say? Very interesting Christian activist. "I don`t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." That`s what it seems like they want to accomplish. HARRIS-PERRY: This idea of oppression -- I think we finally communicate things like voter ID have suppressive effects, that changes in registration, Saturday voting have suppressive effects. But to talk about apportion -- I mean, this is a massive suppressive effect, not so much whether or not you can cast a vote but whether casting that vote makes a difference in your representation. HO: I mean, absolutely. If there are two basic principles that underlie our democracy, it`s this everyone should be able to vote, right? Under attack, right? With the Shelby County decision and the elimination of key provision of the Voting Rights Act. And that every person should count equally in that process. So, the second principle, now that`s apparently under attack as well. HARRIS-PERRY: No three-fifths person, right? That`s meant to be not a thing. HO: Zero fifths person. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. MABRY: From on initiative perspective, how does one justify the U.S. Senate, though, where, of course, Wyoming and New York state have the same power in the U.S. Senate? Why is that OK? HO: So, I think -- HARRIS-PERRY: Mabry (ph) -- (LAUGHTER) HO: The House and the Senate embody two different conception of democracy, right? The Senate embodies this conception that the United States is constituted by independent sovereigns, the states, each of which gets equal representation in the federal government. The Congress is based on a very different principle, that the people are sovereign and that the people need to be represented equally. What`s ironic here is that states like Texas that gain a lot of representation in Congress because of the noncitizen and young population now are saying that maybe those people aren`t going to count within the state of Texas. HARRIS-PERRY: So, that`s a good point. This is interesting, right? I just said that it may ultimately impact how we do apportionment in the U.S. House, but maybe not if in fact in the interests of large, diverse states, they want you to count for the federal, but they don`t want you to count for the state. HO: It could set up two systems where we apportion representation among the states based on total inhabitants. That`s set on the Constitution. It`s uncontroversial. No one is challenging that. But then when we divide the power in the state, maybe only the voters will count. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. I mean, the Senate, it is unfair, and then, of course, the whole thing around the Electoral College, too. That was a fight about -- Mabry. OK. Thank you to Dale Ho. My panel is sticking around. After the break, a teenager who became an icon on this day nearly 600 years ago. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: On this day in 1431, one of the world`s most celebrated military leaders, Joan of Arc, was burned at the stake. But before she became a legend, she was just a young woman on a mission. At 13, she believed God had chosen her to help France win its long-running war with England. As part of her mission, Joan took a vow of chastity, and when her father attempted tried to arrange a marriage for her at the age of 16, she successfully convinced a local court that she should not be forced into the match. While still a teenager, she cropped her hair, donned men`s clothing and embarked on an 11-day journey across enemy territory to meet with France`s Crown Prince Charles. Despite having no military training, she promised she could help him defeat the English and see him crowned king of all of France, if he gave her an army to lead. Against the advice of his generals, Charles granted Joan`s request, making her at 17 the youngest person ever to command a national military force. Joan delivered on her promise. She led the assault that lifted the siege of the city of Orleans, a pivotal victory that turned the tide against the English. She then escorted Charles against enemy territory setting the stage of his coronation as king. But the next year, she was captured by enemy forces and tried on some 70 charges including witchcraft, heresy and dressing like a man. And even though King Charles owed his crown to her, he did little to try to save Joan out of fear of being associated with a witch and a heretic. After a year in captivity and under threat of death, Joan signed a confession denying that she`d ever received divine guidance. Just days later, she recanted and defied orders again by donning men`s clothing. As punishment at the age of just 19, Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. But her death only increased her influence. Twenty years after she was killed a new trial cleared her name. And in 1920, nearly 500 years after her death, she was canonized a saint by Pope Benedict XV and remains France`s patron saint today. She`s been further immortalized in arts and literature and on screen and movies like 1999 film "The Messenger". Even in fashion, her short hair cited as the inspiration for the hairdresser who created the bob that became popular during the Roaring `20s. And her name still invoked when celebrating modern women of courage. At her trial, Joan of Arc said, "One life is all we have and we live it as we believe in living it. But to sacrifice what you are and to live without belief, that is a fate more terrible than dying." An enduring message from a young woman who made the ultimate sacrifice for her beliefs on this day, May 30th, 1431. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: Last night, Cleveland residents gathered at Cleveland`s Olivet Institutional Baptist Church for a peaceful rally that featured Reverend Al Sharpton speaking about unity and police reform. The rally comes a week after Ohio Judge John O`Donnell acquitted Officer Michael Brelo in the 2012 shootings deaths of Malissa Williams and Timothy Russell. Brelo was one of 13 Cleveland officers who fired 137 rounds into the car Williams and Russell were traveling in. In March 2013, four months after the shooting, the Department of Justice launched an investigation into the Cleveland Police Department`s use of force and released its findings in December 2014. The Department of Justice reported a pattern of deadly or excessive force that includes the use of guns, tasers, chemical sprays and fists. This week, just three days after Brelo`s acquittal, the DOJ reached a 105- page consent degree agreement with the Cleveland police department to resolve the city`s unconstitutional policing practices. The settlement is meant to ensure that all Cleveland police engage in constitutional community policing. The consent decree includes provisions but prohibits retaliatory use, warning shots and pistol whipping, requires de-escalation training and immediate first aid for injured suspects, and instantiate a civilian advisory panel to enhance community relations. It also requires officers to document each time they unholster their guns. With the consent degree signed, Cleveland will now face some of the most stringent policing standards in the nation, leaving many wondering if other cities will adopt similar community policing standards. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) VANITA GUPTA, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DOJ: Today`s agreement should really serve as a model for those seeking to address very issues in their communities around the country. Today, Cleveland demonstrates to the rest of the country that people can come together across perceived differences to realize a common vision of a safer and more just city. (END VIDEO CLIP) HARRIS-PERRY: Back at the table are Amy Goodman, Marcus Mabry and Richard Kim. And joining me now from Washington, D.C., is Jonathan Smith, former chief of the special litigations section of the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. He also has a new op-ed out today on police reform, barriers to reform and police officers Bill of Rights. Jonathan, you write in your piece of the 20 cities where you did investigations and you say in part, in many instances we found that force was much more likely to be used against African-Americans than against whites. We often saw that police department system of accountability to address misconduct were inadequate. So, is it the case of each of these cities is distinct or are there similarities for why force was more likely to be used against African- Americans? JONATHAN SMITH, FMR. SR. LITIGATOR, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DOJ: Good morning and thank you for having me. So, there were every city and the issues that every city confronts, with regard to the problems with policing is in some way unique. The history of each jurisdiction is different. The culture and police departments are different. The extent to which communities play a role in their policing is different. However, there are common themes that have developed across the country. And as we look at each of the places where these Department of Justice reports have come out, where there have been consent decrees, there are common themes that can be drawn from them. That show that, while there are unique problems in every jurisdiction and you need a unique solution for each of the communities that engages those communities that are subject to policing, that the basics of the need for their to be community engagement -- a very meaningful role not just in the discipline of officers but the establishment of what policing policy is, the values of the police department, the tactics that the department use, accountability systems that collect data and use that data and make it publicly to ensure that police departments are serving the communities in a constitutional, equitable and community policing kind of fashion, and that officers are held accountable -- that those systems must exist in each of the jurisdictions and it`s the failure of having those systems across this country that have led to some of the problems that we`re seeing. HARRIS-PERRY: OK. Stick with us. Don`t go away. But, Richard, I want to come to you on this idea of systems, because we were talking earlier about Martin O`Malley, we were talking about a history in Baltimore, and we were talking about the set of federal incentives that in part generated this. It still feels to me like, in part because there are so many horrors that we see with individual stories that have become part of our art, that we still talk about it as though it`s these bad individual officers rather than really understanding the system. KIM: So the one line in the entire 108-page consent decree that really stuck out to me was the idea that before Vinita Gupta said you need to get first aid, when you use deadly force on someone, it was standard operating -- it was allowed to not do that, right? That really to me gets to the level of dehumanization in policing that was routine and so -- like I`m glad these systems are being constructed where they are -- like the idea that the police should give first aid now has to be written down, but it`s stunning that it took that. HARRIS-PERRY: That it needs to be written down. KIM: What are police supposed to do except save people`s lives? So to me, it`s a really, really -- the document itself is a record of dehumanization. HARRIS-PERRY: So, Jonathan, let me come to you on this because in part you make the point in "The New York Times" op-ed that you have been -- when you were in the DOJ, you were in many of these cities, New Orleans, Portland, places that we know have come to stand for this, and yet part of what you say is that the police unions themselves can sometimes be barriers to meaningful reforms. So, at the same time, saying there are individual terrific police officers but also that the unions themselves can be difficult. How so? SMITH: Sure. So, almost everybody joins the police force for all the right reasons. Police officers come because they want to serve their communities. And -- but they end up being failed by the police departments. There`s inadequate policy guidance, there`s inadequate training, there`s inadequate supervision. There are systems in order to ensure that when something goes wrong somebody asks the question what went wrong and how do we correct it. And what ends up that develops a very significant breach between police and the communities in which they serve, in that breach not only interferes with public safety but it makes the job of policing vastly less safe. Officers who walk down the street that have no contact with the communities that they police, they don`t know those communities, they have no relationship to those communities, they have no positive experience with the people who are most likely to be subject to the kind of policing tactics that have created the breach, make the job of policing less safe. And I talk to officer after officer when I was in the Department of Justice who said, I want to serve my community. I want to be part of these communities, but the fact that officers who engage in this conduct, that nothing is done to address this conduct with officers, and that nothing is done so that the systems that led to the misconduct are mixed makes my life more dangerous, it makes it more difficult for me to solve problems in my community, it makes it much more difficult for me to serve and I`m afraid to be on the street. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. Jonathan Smith in Washington, D.C. -- I`m hoping that we`ll have more time together on another day. I want to dig into whether the DOJ can fix that, who can fix that, very interesting. Thank you so much. Also here in New York, thank you to Amy Goodman and to Marcus Mabry and also to Richard Kim. Up next, our foot soldiers are hitting the road in an effort to shorten the distance, quite literally, between people in rural communities and their hospitals. Do not miss this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) HARRIS-PERRY: One year ago, 48-year-old Portia Gibbs went into cardiac arrest. In the 90 minutes it took the medivac helicopter to get her, she lost her life. Mrs. Gibbs lived in rural North Carolina where her local hospital had just shut its doors five days before her death, leaving emergency room care out of her immediate reach. And Portia`s story is not unique to North Carolina. Nearly one quarter of the U.S. population lives in rural communities where only 10 percent of our country`s physicians practice. Since 2010, 50 hospitals in the rural parts of the United States have closed their doors for good. And that pace is accelerating with more closures in the last two years than in the previous ten. This year, could be even worse. The National Rural Health Care Association estimates that 283 rural hospitals across the country are facing possible closure. And our foot soldiers this week are committed to raising awareness of this issue by walking from Belhaven, North Carolina, to Washington, D.C., 283 miles, one mile for each hospital in danger of shutting its doors. Joining me to talk about their walk is civil rights activist Bob Zellner and from Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Belhaven Mayor Adam O`Neal. Mayor O`Neal, I want to start with you. Tell me why this walk? Why is this important? MAYOR ADAM O`NEAL (R), BELHAVEN, NORTH CAROLINA: Well, the reason it`s important is because 283 hospitals may close this year and it`s amazing to me that our government will stand by and let this take place. We have a situation with these hospitals close, people needlessly die. We have to do something about it. It`s a horrific tragedy that`s not getting talked about in our country today. I spoke at a policy forum for the National Health Association in D.C. back in February and learned about these 283 hospitals might close. I couldn`t believe it. I asked if somebody would like to walk I will do another walk. So, four or five came forward and here we are doing another walk. And I`m so glad to see Bob Zellner there in your studio. He`s been such a great help throughout this process. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, Mayor, hold on a second because -- Bob, I want to ask you about that. I think we talk about injustices in urban areas and cities a lot, to the extent people understand inequality, they understand it there, but it`s like this rural story just got lost. Why do you think we`re not talking about the hundreds of hospitals now out of reach of ordinary citizens? BOB ZELLNER, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Well, it`s amazing we`re not talking about it, because in those poor areas of the South, especially, where people are poor and they need these Hill-Burton Hospitals that have been there a long time, they`re more likely to have representatives who are against the expansion of Medicaid, against the retention of rural hospitals. So, it`s a real contradiction. And people have to point that out and that`s what the mayor and Reverend Barber are doing in North Carolina. HARRIS-PERRY: So, Mayor, let me come back to you this as you point out a real life and death issue. It deeply impacts constituents across ideological lines. Talk to me, Mayor, is this a Democrat/Republican issue or is this one place where maybe there could be bipartisan agreement? O`NEAL: It`s an American issue. When a hospital closes Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, independents, black, white, Latino, Asian, all of us die, needlessly. When we did the walk last year when I got to Gravelly Point Park by Reagan Airport and went walking the last leg, that`s video of it right now, we had a man come up on a bicycle, he lived in D.C., he and his dad were vacationing in Ocracoke, came through Belhaven and his dad had a heart attack. So, even when you have people in urban areas that visit rural areas that need these hospitals. So, it affects all of us. This is not a finger-pointing campaign. This walk is not about pointing fingers. It`s about bringing the nation`s attention to this horrific tragedy about to takes place in our country. We have a lot of good elected officials that will stop this. We need a Hill-Burton Act number two and we need it to be called Portia Gibbs Act. She`s the one that inspired this. HARRIS-PERRY: So, hold on one second. Bob, tell me quickly what is the Hill-Burton Act for people who may not know? ZELLNER: The Hill Burton Act passed after the Second World War to provide critical access hospitals and emergency rooms in sparsely populated poor areas of the South and the Midwest and the West, and that`s why it`s so important. It`s ironic the first one that was built was in Belhaven and the first one that was closed was in Belhaven. That`s why we march. HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, it`s so interesting. You and I were talking before we came on air about North Carolina, as a place where so much of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and `60s was born and mayor, honestly when I was looking at the images, I was like that`s the North Carolina that I love, that`s the North Carolina I want to live in, where neighbors across racial divisions, across partisan divisions talk about what really matters to ordinary people, that is the very best of North Carolina. So, I want to say thank you to Mayor Adam O`Neal in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Good luck on your walk. Here in New York, thank you to Bob Zellner. This kind of everybody coming together to actually save people`s lives. This is the politics that matters. And that is our show for today. Thanks to you at home for watching. I`ll see you tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. Eastern. Right now, it`s time for a preview of "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT." Hi, Alex. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END