wikilooks. the documents are classified, so one question is who leaked them and what if anything can be done about a major national security breach? they paint a messy and mostly blook picture of the ten-year-old war as proof it is time to bring the troops home and proof pakistan is often with the taliban and other forces in the region. the obama administration says wi wikileaks can have its aents-war views but they made secrets available to the enemy. >> there are ways in which one can disagree with policy without breaking the law and putting in potential danger those who are there to keep us safe. >> in a moment the political fallout and how this could shape the war funding debate on capitol hill. how big of a national security breach? and are comparisons to the pentagon papers fair or baseless? jeff, to the point robert gibbs hinted at, the fear that something in these documents could put at risk troops currently in the field in afghanistan, how serious is that question. >> john, we don't know. this was dumped on us like it was dumped on everyone else last night. we have a team going through it trying to ascertain whether there's anything in these documents which could put our forces in danger, those of our coalition partners or civilian partners. we just don't know. one of the great tragedies from my perspective on this from a journalistic perspective, if you got ahold of the documents, john, you would have called me up and said, jeff, we have something we think is worth publishing, but we need to have a conversation about whether it might in the process endanger the lives of american forces or our nation's security. we were not afforded that conversation by this group. they published, and now we deal with the consequences afterwards. >> let's come right in on that point, because the head of this group says number one, they have more documents and they're redacting them and looking at them. they're trying to be careful. number two, esdz his job isn't to be a journalist. that's why he gave them to the "new york times" and the guardian newspaper. his intent is number one. he believes there's evidence of war crimes and he wants to paint a fair picture of history. let's listen. >> it's important to understand this material doesn't just reveal abuses. this material describes the past six years of war. >> he paints himself as essentially contributing to history. >> to the first point, these guys are somehow reviewing these documents to see if there's thaerl could endanger our forces, i don't know his expertise to make such judgments. we're the united states military that know whether or not the information contained in these could jeopardize our forces, partners, civilians in the field, our sources and methods and the people cooperating with us, giving us information we use to go after the taliban and al qaeda and so forth. i don't have any faith they have the ability to make those judgments. with regard to them being a news outlet, i'm glad he said it and i didn't have to. there's no editorial judgments made by this organization as to what is fit to print or not print. their view is to put it up and let the chips fall where they may. it could endanger american lives, those of our coalition partners and civil i can't answer in the field swm. >> david, if you look at the military blogs, some of the other blogs online and the conversations happening around the world, some people are saying, so pakistan is not always a trustworthy ally, no news there. others say this is on par with the pentagon papers. >> first of all, john, i think geoff morrell is exactly right in his arguments about this. these are very damages disclosures. it's less about the content than the fact that 92,000 documents were illegally put into the public arena. it's a very selective portrait of the war. we don't know what he left out. we spent a whole week last week talking about somebody who maliciously put out an edited version of what a woman said. it strikes me there's some similarities with that here, too, with an organization that's clearly very anti-war that did this. in terms of a comparison, the pentagon papers, the size of the document dump is bigger, i think. there is a very, very big difference. the pentagon papers fundamentally showed that there was a great credibility gap between what the then administration was saying about vietnam versus what it actually thought. there was not just a gap. there was a canyon. it showed that the top administration people were basically lying to the country about it. there's no such hint here. this is all -- we have -- this goes back into the previous administration, and there's no gap about what the government has been telling us about this. i think it's going to have much less impact, but it is still destructive. let's not forget, the real culprits in this are the people that leaked it. these people took an oath to defend america's security, violated that oath willfully, and should be severely punished if we can find them. >> i want to get to some of the substance on those documentses. it is your job of your building to investigate somebody who wears the uniform or in a high civilian position to have all these classified documents in front of them, assuming it's one person, that leaked it to this organization. how do you find it out? >> clearly as much as i don't like the way it was handled by this organization, the main culprit is whoever leaked classified information to this organization. we all take an oath when we put on the uniform or go to work for the department that we'll defend the constitution and defend the country, and when we are entrusted with classified information it is our duty and our legal obligation to safeguard it. this trust has been violated. >> do you have any idea how many people have access to this. >> to classified information? there's a slew of people. it will be very difficult, but we are determined to find out who is responsible for this and to make sure they pay or are held accountable for it. this is a very big breach for which there must be consequences. >> as you know, it has become rightly or wrongly fodder for the political debate about the war and whether the strategy is on the right track and whether pakistan can be trusted. some of this led by people against the war from day one. some of the conversation is driven by people supportive of the administration policy and even to a degree the prior administration. john kerry who is the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. however lylely these documents came to light, they raise serious confess about the reality of america's policy towards pakistan and afghanistan. those policies are at a critical stage, and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make thealibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent. very clear in that is the chair of the senate foreign relations committee thinks you need calibrations to the policy. geoff morrell what many people say if gu through these some go back to 2009 but some are late 2009 where there are troops in the field where they believe the ieds or the pakistani intelligence services are helping the insurgents. >> let me pick up on david's point. this is most certainly not the pentagon papers, because they did reveal that the government was lying to the people about what was going on in vietnam. these documents reinforce what we have been telling the american people for some time. that there are very real issues we are grappling with in pakistan and afghanistan but we're making real progress, particularly on the pakistan front. the most recent documents is as late as december of 2009. that's six, seven months ago. our relationship with pakistan has been trendsing in the right direction for the last couple of years. anything that goes back to late '09 is outdated by now. we continue to move forward with that relationship. making progress. is it perfect? no, it's not. we have challenges ahead of us, and you spoke of senator kerry when he was on the phone with the pakistani bams domplt there are challenges, but we recognize that we're moving fundamentally in the right direction. that's the truth on the other issues, whether it be the resourcing for this conflict, which was underresourced for years given what was going on in iraq. the troops have been tripled. casualties have gone down. meanwhile, the taliban is trending upward. we recognize the problems and we're confronting them. >> david, will this be a conversation forgotten in 48 hours, or will the release of these documents lead to another look at the strategy, i assume the idea of the cooperation, the degree and depth of trust with pakistan? >> well, i think, first of all, i hope geoff is bright pakistan. i hope they're not playing a double game. i think there is evidence that karzai has been playing a double game over time in afghanistan. but to the larger political point, john, it does -- it's very clear that this document dump something to further fuel the rising discontent with the administration's approach to afghanistan. i've been very taken aback almost by talking to some senior people from past administrations who have been supportive of this war who are beginning to rethink what we ought to be doing there and how we ought to be doing it. my sense is that this debate is going to grow and intensify in the next few months leading to big decisions by the president this december. >> we appreciate your thoughts. when we return we'll pick up on the points david left off, how will this impact the debate about the strategy and war funding. two key members of congress will be here. we'll be back in just a minute. just to make phone calls. but when at&t or verizon offer you an unlimited plan for $69.99, that's all it's good for -- phone calls. with sprint, for the same price, you get unlimited text, unlimited web and unlimited calling to every mobile phone in america. now that's more like it. [ male announcer ] get our $69.99 plan and experience america's most improved customer satisfaction. only from sprint. deaf, hard-of-hearing and people with speech disabilities access www.sprintrelay.com. and experience america's most improved customer satisfaction. waking up with morning pain can drain the energy right out of you. fight it with new... it combines extra strength bayer aspirin to treat pain plus an alertness aid to help you get off to a running start. try bayer am the morning pain reliever. host: could switching to geico really save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance? host: was abe lincoln honest? mary todd: does this dress make my backside look big? abe: perhaps a... vo: geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. the white house is condemning the leak of thousands of classified documents about the war in afghanistan saying it's illegal. could it change the politics of the war, which is one of the few topics that republicans and most democrats agreed on during the obama administration. joining us now is dennis kucinich of ohio and mike rogers of mish who is a republican member of the house and intelligence committee. congressman kucinich to you first. what impact -- you have long said we should end this war and get an exit strategy. what impact do these documents have on the debate? >> i think they have a great impact because the documents indicate that our troops are in real danger, that there's countless innocent civilians being killed, that the afghan government is hopelessly corrupt and pakistan intelligence is collaborating with the enemy against the u.s. they have a top pakistani general who's visiting a suicide bombing school monthly. we've got a mess in afghanistan, and we have one that's bur juning in pakistan. we have to take care of things at home and get out of that region. >> congressman rogers, come in and follow-up on that. i suspect you don't agree with congressman kucinich. he mentioned the former intelligence chief visiting madras. i'd love your perspective. cia's counterterrorism comment. 97% of the suicide tackers are trained in the ma drad ras . monthly the former chief of the pakistan intelligence service is visiting this. do you have confidence, sir, in the u.s./pakistan parts of this relationship? >> this has been an off again on again friends maybe not friend relationship since the start of it. there's information going back where certain elements of the intelligence services cooperate with certain elements of the taliban, and there's been all kinds of problems around the tribal areas. you have to understand they're pulled in both directions, and we need to use pakistan to our advantage when it comes to al qaeda and senior taliban and other groups just like they gained advantage from having us do that. >> is congressman kucinich right saying too many billions and too many lost men and women, it's time to come snoem. >> obviously, you want to continue that reemgsship. you cannot afford to abandon safe haven areas where these networks can grow and finance and recruit and train and do exist. so you walk away from that, and i'll guarantee you they'll be back because they understand it well and they know how to use nose particular rejons of the world to launch attacks gets the united states. they've done it once. we have to be careful about saying these documents say this, and we ought to pull the plug. intelligence is always a messy matter, if you will, and it is really the raw truth about how we have to analyze who our friends are and who they are not and how you work with those people to the best of your ability to serve the best interests of the united states national security. to that end they've done it. it is a tricky thing. listen, i've been a vocal critic of pakistan as any in the last two years when they have not gotten a handle on their cooperation efforts. i will say this. this culture of disclosure is danger, and some notion these are only secret documents and provide no value to the enemy is simply wrong. it shows what we know and don't know and how we operate and the don't operate. that's valuable information to people trying to kill u.s. soldiers, and we ought to treat that seriously. this is a life and death disclosure, and having nird party who is don't understand the impacts of this information saying we determined it wasn't is just wrong and dangerous to our troops in the field. >> congressman kucinich, on that point these documents you believe helps your political argument to end the war. do you agree thaits reckless and criminal if they find out who did it approximate and they deserve time behind bars? >> i honor his service on the intelligence committee. it's important. now it's a fact. there's 92,000 documents that have -- that cite chapter and verse the danger of the united states going deeper and deeper into our war experience in afghanistan. the american taxpayers are being asked this week to spend another $33 billion on a war that is costing hundreds of billions. we really owe it to the taxpayers to go forward based on the truth, nothing but the truth. we're told the truth shall set us free. we'll see if congress votes to continue our expedition into pakistan, and if we continue our expedition in afghanistan, it's in the face of a mountain now of evidence which now tends to cast serious doubt as to the mission and as to the rationale for our staying. >> congressman kucinich and congressman rogers, thank you for your time. we appreciate you helping us tonight. when we come back, a lot more to cover on the program tonight. we unveil the cnn 100. we're inside 100 days to election day right now, and we look closely from now to election day at 100 key house races. tonight a peek at new hampshire's second district, one of the key battlegrounds in the northeast this year. today's most person you don't know, in the house of representatives he made that history today as this country celebrates the 20th anniversary of the americans with disabilities avenlgt in the play by play, you don't want to miss this. the political direction of the president. we'll fill you in, and how about your attitudes about immigration. on the radar tonight, any bounce the president was out to campaign for this candidate, help or hurt? which candidate is talking about betting on suffering. you don't want to miss that. don't go anywhere. let's go. come on. hurry up. [ laughter ] [ slamming ] [ engines revving ] [ tires screech ] [ engine revving ] [ male announcer ] before you take it on your road trip... we take it on ours. [ children laughing ] now during the summer event, get an exceptionally engineered mercedes-benz like the 2010 c-class, an iihs top safety pick, for 1.9 percent apr or lease one for $349 a month. now snapple's got healthy green tea, tasty black tea, real sugar, what's our slogan? for 1.9 pbester stuff! - stuffy stuff! - good stuff for bettering stuff! guys? the best stuff on earth just got better. - good stuff, craig. - we're dating. [ announcer ] snapple. the best stuff on earth just got better. in wall-to-wall tonight politics and an important kountddown. 99 days to the election now. these midterm elections are huge for the battle of congress. look at the house of representatives. at the moment 256 democrats and 179 republicans. you can do the math at home. republicans need 39 seats assuming they don't lose any. they need 39 seats to gain control of the house of representatives. that is where the biggest battle grounds is this november. cnn has the new device, the cnn 100. looking at the 1 hundred most contested house races in the country. every night we'll look at a key race. tonight we look at one of the cnn 100 district 2, the second district in the state of new hampshire. the votes in the east come in first, so we'll watch on election night r. they swinging seats over? this district is held by dame, but the incumbent is running for the senate. who will win? the primary has yet to come up, bullet katarina is the democratic favorite and ann mcclain. swett is currently favored. the on the republican side another familiar face here. if you follow this, charlie bass is the former congressman. he once represented that district. he wants that seat back. he has two opponents as well in the republican primary on september 14th. why is this seat important? it's held by a democrat, so the republicans are targeted for a pickup. number two, on election night watch the results in the east first. the northeast is the president's strongest area, the democrats' strongest area. if the republicans pick up these seats, that's an early sign on election night that perhaps good things are in store for them. this is the first race. cnn 100 we will introduce to you. we will do it every night from now to election night. stay right here. you'll know a lot more by the time it rolls around and all the key primaries yet to happen. a representative made history today in the house. he's here to go one on one with us. don't go away. you don't want to miss his story. today's most important person you don't know made important history today on capitol hill. he became the first person in a wheelchair to provided over the house of representatives. it was about time. he was elected in 2000. his list of platforms allowed him to resign on the debate on a resolution honoring the 20th anniversary of the disabilities akts. it's against people with disabilities and requires reasonable accommodations like the ramps we see everywhere on sidewalks and building entrances. he used a wheelchair since a shooting accident at a police station as a teenager. the bullet didn't stop him from making his mark. just a little bit ago he was prased by nancy pelosi and received a standing ovation from his colleagues. the house approved the ada resolution. he joins us now to talk about this special moment. let's start right there. you've been there now all these years waiting for them to let you up there. what was it like? >> it was one of the most thrilling, exciting, and humbling experiences of my life. it's a real honor, and i'm grateful to nancy pelosi, the speaker of the house, who made it all happen. it was one of the last major things in the house chamber that needed to be made access i believe for the chamber really to be fully acceccessible and inclusive. i was thrilled to be part of it. >> let me ask you about the mechanics of that and thecessar. we've watched in this town, especially older buildings like the capitol, it's harder to do the work. what had to go into this today, and have you been frustrated over the course of your career that some of these things don't happen quicker? >> as you pointed out, these are old buildings here at the capitol complex and doing the renovations do take time. there have been several changes to the house chamber and different office buildings and committee rooms that have been done already over the years, but the last thing that need to be done to make the house chamber accessible. they put in a series of two lifts. looking at it you wouldn't know there's there because they're under the floor and they raise or lower according to where i need to go, and they lift me up to the podium. it was a thrill to take the gavel today and several as speaker pro tem presiding over the house of representatives. it's been a long time coming, but it was worth the wait. i'm excited about it. >> i was here in this town when the ada passed 20 years ago. we don't hear much about it anymore. it's called bipartisan legislation. a lot of people watching at home wouldn't know what bipartisan legislation is given what's gone on. you were paralyzed before this legislation was passed. what difference has it made in your life? >> that's right. i was paralyzed in 1980. so it was almost 30 years ago, so i remember what the world was like before the ada became law. there were countless examples i could give you of how i was denied access to things. i can remember the college i wanted to go to at the time. i got accepted, but it the the wasn't possible for me to attend. the world has changed since the ada, of course, and now that that's passed bts only is providence college accessible but so much public transportation is accessible. it's changed the world and it's much inclusive. so many barriers have been brought down and so many opportunities have been provided. i'm so grateful to steny hoyer who introduced and saw the ada was passed sxen aand enacted in. i was proud to join in the effort just a couple of years ago when we passed the ada amendments act to clarify some of the supreme court decisions that had weakened the ada over the year. i was proud to be at president bush's side in the oval office when he signed it into law. it's about inclusion and providing opportunities. if we can create a culture of inclusion and empowerment and allow people with disabilities to contribute their talents, then a stronger and brighter america is yet to come. i think americans with disabilities are in many ways one of the graets untapped resources in in the country. the ada will bring down a lot of barriers and allow people to contribute their talents and we should do that. >> we appreciate your coming in today. i hope you made clear to the speaker that once isn't enough? >> thank you, john. what's nice is even for a brief time we brought a spirit of bipartisanship to the house of representatives and that was nice to see tonight. >> shocking that could happen in this town. we'll check in more as the campaign year goes on. still ahead, another candidate backs away from his own word. we'll tell you who and why next. welcome back. let's check into the news you need to know right now. >> tonight around 2:00 a.m. eastern time we expect big news from bp executives in england. right now it appears the ceo is on his way out, and we also expect bp to announce a $4 billion quarterly profit. in the meantime crews are back at the crippled well in the gulf of mexico and barring any more weather delays the next big attempt to seal the well could begin early next week. the congressional blackhawk is just put out a state on embattled new york congressman charles rangel slamming republicans and democrats who, quote, presume guilt, end quote, before an ethics committee hearing this week on thursday, john. now let's run through stories off my political radar. here's the first one here. this town is about to have a new fight on its hand wlshgs to let george w. bush's tax cuts expire at end of the year. orrin hatch want to frame this debate as democrats allowing a giant tax increase. hatch writes these massive tax hikes would be an anti-stimulus, putting our economy at greater risk. washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it's got a spending problem. democrats, though, including the treasury secretary, tim geithner say there's nothing wrong with letting what they call tax cuts for the rich go away. >> we think it's responsible to let the tax cuts expire that just go to 2% to 3% of americans. we think that's the responsible thing to do, because fwheed to make sure we can show the world that we're making progress bringing down our long-term deficits. >> robert, to the republican first. can republicans on the one hand say the big deficit is the obama administration has run up and say we have to extend those tax cuts cost the treasury about $2 trillion? >> we need to put this in context. the wealthy individuals are farmers, small business orns. on paper they may be wealthy, but in terms of job creation and job growth, which is the last conversation we had about this, that is the most important thing in this economy, that's very, very important. if you let the tax cuts expire you may hinder job growth and creation. >> if cutting taxes brought prosperity, we'd have prosperity coming out of our ears. remember the clinton years where we had peace and prosperity? there's nothing wrong with going back to those policies, going back to the tax rate nen and allowing everyone to pak their fair share. right now this country is in trouble. the wealthiest americans have to pay their fair share. >> this is litigated. this is no surprise. some people have said the president has done this or that and it's a surprise and it's not what they ran on. he ran on this. >> he did. what the democrats are trying to do is turn the deficit issue on its head right now. the deficit is a huge problem for them. if we let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire, you save $700 billion, and how can republicans talk about extending those tax cuts when it would cost $2 trillion to do it and how are you going to pay for it. republicans i talk to say come into the wheelhouse, guys, we're really happy to have democrats talk about the tax issue, particularly when we want to cut it. >> 99 days we can go on this. we have to get this. a republican national committee spokesman confirms andrew brightbart will headline an august fund raise ner beverly hills hosted by michael steele. brightbart started last week's political firestorm by posting out of context misleading remarks about race and shirley sherrod. it's a republican event. i'll get to the democrat next time. is this a smart move by the rnc chairman? >> no, i don't think it is at all. this does nothing but place right into the other side's point, that not only is mr. brightbart a biassed journalist but it feeds into the stereotype that the rnc and perhaps mr. brightbart were in cahoots together to blow it up. i think it's a bad move. the reason they're doing this i think is to encite the base and ignite them, but they're ignited. >> in beverly hills? >> my point is they'll do a -- obviously, it will go viral to a certain degree. they don't need to excite the base right now. the base is very, very happy with how things are going within the party. >> that's when you do all your focus group for the republican base in the beverly hills. >> i'm not going to try to score political points. to me it's outrageous, but it speaks to who they're trying to talk to and energize by getting this race baiter to headline a fund-raiser for them. it speaks ill of michael steele and the republican party i think. >> if you were advising michael steele, though, who was probably trying to lower his profile a bit, would you say why don't you share a stage with andz drew brightbart right now unless michael steele doesn't intend to remain chairman of the republican national committee, which could be the case. >> there you go. the headline on "new york times" columnist maureen dowd's latest op ed says you'll never wlooef what this white house is missing. the obama white house is too white. the smug cordon of overprotective white guys surrounding him. otherwise this administration will keep tripping over race rather than inspiring on race. to the democrat first on this one. is the first african-american president, is his white house too white? >> you know, once again onto the breach for americans is the issue of race. there has been some push back on the piece with the argument that patrick gaspar, valerie jarrett, who is to say they're not black enough. it's questions of blackness. patrick and valerie are very black. the other part is this should be a larger conversation, because we both agree both parties should do a better job with adversity with black and brown people and women. there's not enough women in any party, there's not enough black or brown people with budgetary power in any congressional committees whatsoever. yeah, i'm all for more diversity in the party. it's not just the white house. by the way, the white house would say they're diverse. people in the clinton administration say they're more diverse. >> this isn't a white house known for reaching out to democrats in congress, and i think when you -- what maureen wrote about was a tight inner circle, which there clearly is at this white house. lots of folks are complaining about that, too. >> this is a largest point about the diversity of thought and it goes into the diversity of people being brown or another gender. i don't understand what is being too white or too black. this is a country that prides itself on being a melting pot. we have to recognize ethnic differences and so forth. why are we still have this conversation whether or not barack obama is black enough. i don't understand what that means. >> i'm not sure what this conversation means. but this republican is running for govern or from tennessee. he's run ago way from something elgsd on friday. he said health care reform will force states to consider, quote, separation from this government. over the weekend he told the associated press, of course we will not see seed from the union but we will also not a governator who will cave in to barack obama. on second thought is the file there where we put that one. >> you want to see seed from the union. you don't pay taxes, and you don't want to get your social security, you don't want to get your medicare. i mean, thoughts for -- thoughts for candidates for either party, this is just silly and stupid. >> i bet kentucky is one state where they get more back from the federal government than they give to the federal government. it's the extremist politics that we see way too often in mainstream and the idea they leave the union because they don't like barack obama sex treemism and it's not helpful. >> it's extreme and not helpful. people are very frustrated mainly republicans but arguably the angry white male is extremely frustrated with the the direction of the government. the question is whether or not the president and his advisers around him get that message. >> this was about mandate on health care reform, people shoond be required to be part of it. >> what are they specifically angry about? >> the debt. they're concerned about immigration. >> on that point, here's something they're angry about. here's something they're angry about. unless a judge stops it arizona's law on illegal immigration goes into effect this week. nationwide three-quarters of americans have negative attitudes about i will leem immigrants. 23% say they're angry about the number of illegal immigrants, another 51% say it makes them feel dissatisfied. >> here's where i will jump in. i think this is overdone and i think we're all guilty of it, angry. most voters aren't angry. to a certain degree we put too much emphasis on anger. when i talk to middle american women and men white and black, they're anxious more than they are angry. we give a lot of tone and time to anger when especially middle america women where the majority of the vote is -- >> it's angry white men. that's who is really angry and particularly in a bad economy they're worried about people taking their jobs. >> i don't want to define an entire electorate by white men. >> they're angry because they're -- they're angry because they're playing by ruthe rules d illegal immigrants don't play by the rules. they're angry because they live paycheck to paycheck, and you have illegal immigrants on well famplt that's the point. >> let's give them a chance to weigh in. on your point are you angry or dissatisfied? what is it? each week we ask you to make your case on an important topic. this week's question, should states be allowed to create their own immigration laws. record it at cnn.com/johnkingusa. we'll play the best on friday. stumping for candidates might surprise you. up or down do they go? we'll break it down in the play by play next. when your eyes are smiling... you're smiling. and when they're laughing... you're laughing. be kind to your eyes... with transitions lenses. transitions adapt to changing light so you see your whole day comfortably... and conveniently while protecting your eyes from the sun. ask your eyecare professional which transitions lenses are right for you. here comes the play by play. >> 99 days until the election. here to help tonight still with us, robert trainer, republican strategist and cornell bell cher. one of the bellwether senate races is out in missouri. the president went out to help carnahan a couple weeks ago. is the president welcome and does he help? let's listen to the message. >> i think most missourians want to see something done. so does robin carnahan. that's why you need to send her to the senate instead of the other guy, because she gets it. >> the president makes a personal appearance in the state. he comes back to washington, but in a way he still is out there campaigning. it's in the other guy's ads. >> barack obama is raising money for robin carnahan. why? >> i need another vote. it would be helpful. >> he knows robin carnahan will rubber stamp the agenda. >> if you look at the polling about agenda. >> the same poll obama job performance? only 34% approve, 57% disapprove. now, the president did not carry missouri and it's clear from this polling that's still a tough state for him. >> we lost it for 3900 votes. it's a solidly republican state. we were awfully competitive there. that red state is going to stay fluid. but the idea that a president shouldn't go to place where is he's not popular, we would have presidents going to half the country, whether you're a democrat or a republican. the other part is you're going to see this more and more, with the president getting outside of washington, outside the bubble, taking his message to the people argue about what democrats have been doing. and you can see they're also trying to nationalize this election. the last time we saw them trying to nationalize an election, they guaranteed a victory, and our guy came out on top. >> john, what we saw a couple of months ago in massachusetts, the president trying to save a democratic team. his presidential coat tails are not that deep, you're right. john mccain won the state by about a percentage point, but it's very competitive. what's even more important about this race, notice what the announcer said. reid-pelosi agenda. it's not even an obama agenda. reid and pelosi is running the country and thus in the process, if you send this person to washington, d.c., it's going to be more of the same. more nationalized health care, more increasing debt, more chaos in the white house. that's what you don't want. >> it's great with the midterms. every state is different. in colorado, ken buck is running in the primary. he's an ad we played you last week talking about i don't have high heels. we won't revisit that debate tonight. but he's on his way to a tea party and little does he know somebody is recording him when he says this. >> the tea party needs to stop asking questions about birther is tiff cats when i'm on camera. what am i supposed to do? >> he makes light of questions come up from the birthers. it's a debate that's asked and answered, settled and done. he's supposed to be the tea party darling, and he called them dumb bleepers is how it ended up on cable television. >> he's frustrated. people want to talk about the economy, their future as it relates to health care and so forth. i don't condone those remarks, but the birthers are out there with elvis and ufos, but the point is whether or not this is a candidate worthy to be sent to washington, d.c. to represent the best interest of coloradoans. we'll see. >> man, you are spinning your head off. that's really good. >> all right, i think it speaks for itself. >> speaks for itself. >> florida, another great senate race. the democratic party favorite, then jeff green, this big well thu real estate guy figures he's not going to run. he launched an ad today saying meet the real jeff green. >> meet the real jeff greene. moved to florida two years ago, became a billionaire on wall street betting middle class families would lose their hopes. >> some of it's true, none of it matters. >> betting on suffering does matter. >> that's a power of ad. you know what, that campaign needs to break through with powerful ads because they're being outspent hand over fist. basically on a guy who's trying to buy name recognition and buy his way into the race. they need a tough ad like that. i think it's tough and effective. >> it speaks to the civil war the democratic party is currently experiencing in the primaries down there, because they have to have one because the republicans were have one. >> absolutely. it's a civil war because here you have the congressional black caucus. you know this better than i do, is complaining the president is not complaining enough. we also know that if, in fact, charlie crist wins the governorship, they're endorse him. so that's the unfortunate truth of all of this. >> for the republican party to talk about a civil wartiysburg ? >> general king is calling a time-out. we'll be right back. have you ever done anything a little crooked? pete will tell you what he's talking about on the other side. i can't wait to just sit by the pool and relax. yea. [loud music playing and yelling] with chase sapphire you always get an expert advisor immediately. man: chase sapphire, this is brian. hi, brian. we're on vacation and would love to change hotels. you call. we answer. [faint music playing] problem solved. is the music too loud? ♪ ♪ go to chase.com/sapphire. just a few minutes away from the top of the hour. let's check in with rick sanchez. >> some of the latest polls say 62% of americans aren't happy with the way things are going in afghan stap. but are they unhappy enough to want to hear the bitter truth about what's going on? afghanistan in it comes from secret documents? if it comes from classified information. we're going to be all over that on "rick's list." have you done anything embarrassing? maybe a little out of the ordinary in your life? pete donovan checking things out. >> of course, i've never been embarrassed my whole entire life, but i went to ask people if like the military and the obama and bush administrations, some embarrassing leak or moment they would like to share with us. >> i accidentally pulled down her pants. she normally wore something underneath and this day she didn't pop i' been retired for 25 years so i've never been embarrassed. >> you asked everybody in your family to dress the same? is that intentionally embarrassing? or do you always do this? >> we like to be together as a family. >> whose idea was this? >> his. >> you get sent to the board after you've been looking at the most prettiest girl across the room. >> yeah, being born. >> i'm a kin bdergarten teacher. i've heard a lot of thins about noises. >> and you're wearing flip flops. you're embarrassed with her taking pictures while you have your shower shoes on. >> so here i was, this chef trying to show them what a good cook can be and i was young and i served them raw chicken.