mark: i am mark halperin. phil: and i am phil mattingly. with all the respective president obama who had a little bit of a slip coming out of air force one today. that is nothing. ♪ on our hastily assembled and lovingly assembled program tonight, israel now and then. the press gets shunned again. and a brand-new moment of zen.

but first, indiana governor mike pence fresh off signing a so-called religious freedom act. governor pence says he is not going to change it even though gay-rights advocates and the lgbt community being open for discrimination. they say it is not about exclusion. it is about inclusion. that is according to the house speaker. what>> we were looking at inclusion of all religious beliefs, and instead what is come in is a message of eggs -- a message of exclusion and , that is not what we wanted. to the extent that it is, we are intent on righting that. phil: mark, does governor pence have to to call for changes? mark: he has got a very conservative legislator -- conservative legislature. two. there are those in their teens and 20's, another pressure point.

and third, the business community. and i think they have to try to figure out a way to change this without cashing in his principles but in a way that they can live with. phil: there are 19 states with laws similar to this. does he need full repeal for people to be backing off? mark: this is a hard thing for him to do. he has basically gone into hiding. he is going to have to move, and he is gone to have to do the legislature to move, because they are more concerned now with the balance of so-called religious liberty and a rights. -- and gay-rights. they are closer to trying to deal with the original intent. phil: if you had to weigh this

being about the policy or the time we are living in, what percentage would you give to each? mark: it is not just the timing. the legislature gave the gay-rights committee a sense a were doing this in order to try to rein in gay rights. that was their mistake. the intent people saw caused the problem, and i think he will have to make some changes, and i think he realizes that. after weeks of harsh back and forth rhetoric, some democrats are telling the white house it is time to cool your verbal jets against benjamin netanyahu. the times is saying that hillary clinton told a jewish group on sunday night that the u.s.-israeli relationship should return to constructive footing so, phil, should president obama back off of the tough rhetoric? phil: you first. that is when you hear when you talk to white house officials. prime minister netanyahu has more to do publicly and privately to earn back the white

house willingness to reopen the dialogue to better the relationship. i think this is exactly why people dislike this white house, is that they are not willing to put out the olive branch right now. mark: he already apologized to arab leaders living in israel. what more does the white house want him to do? phil: publicly down on bended knee. this is a relationship that i do not think is going to get better in a significant way until the next administration. at least from the u.s. side. i think the one actual pressure point here is when a new government forms. they are going to wait for that until any type of movement. mark: you think what hillary clinton said was significant? phil: i do not think it moves the ball forward one way or another. the administration is not operating on how they deal with israel based on what she is going to say. there is also a recognition that

hillary clinton has to say that and that will be their perspective going forward. mark: the real test comes when the united nations, france, and the other country wants to do something, and what the united states does that. i don't know what cards benjamin netanyahu has to play. phil: the last two years aside congressional democrats matter to what the white house has to say, and they will need the support of israel. they need the support of people who are supportive of israel, so their request are very real and will have an impact. hillary clinton and scott walker. they aren't regularly talking to the press right now. i'm not just saying that because they are not responding to my e-mails. but they have not given detailed

answers to questions. for hillary, about her personal e-mail use, and for scott walker, about his position on immigration. and today, walker took on a reporter's question about where he stands, and this is what he said without being super clear. mr. walker: if someone wants citizenship, they have to go back to their country of origin and go through the legal process. once all those things are done, then congress should work together. those are some pretty big steps. securing the border, forcing laws to be verified. that will take us a fair amount of time and effort. phil: are scott walker and hillary clinton starting to pay a price of the perception that they are going underground? mark: i think walker, despite what he said today, has not been clear about what he's said about what he said new hampshire and where he stands on the legal issues. it is not in irredeemable crisis.

but i think both of them are developing a reputation that when the going gets tough, they would rather not answer and hope it blows over. i do not think that is a good thing for walker, in particular, and i think hillary clinton had that reputation already. phil: on secretary clinton's side, a poll shows that her numbers are going up based upon this perception. but in all honesty, as a reporter, i would love to hear from her. but what does she have to say? what benefit does she have from talking? when we're expecting her to launch in a few weeks. mark: i think they hope things will blow over and the walker people are doing the same. what they are forgetting is that there are very skilled researchers out there. in the case of hillary clinton at the rnc, they are defining questions, and in the case of walker, there are a lot who are watching this closely. the meme they are trying to put on walker is not ready for prime

time, and not answering questions about this public policy issue plays right into that. ok, a new host of the daily show, and everyone in every office in today was googling the heck out of him to see what he is like, including us. >> you flew in yesterday? noah: yes, and my arms are tired. stewart ok -- stewart: ok. noah: no, seriously, i have been holding my arms like this since i got here. a comedian coming from africa. let me tell you monkey jokes yes? this is about russia.

what do russians like more than filming their own car accidents? stewart: land grabs? noah chess. :they have more world champions than any other country. we all remember that famous photo. mark: ok, phil. i have never heard of the guy before this. good choice, bad choice? phil: what is wrong with americans? you have john oliver now doing "lastly tonight -- "last week tonight" on hbo, and you have him taking over the daily show and you have the new late, late guy. what is this? in truth, he is a funny dude. i have been a fan of his. supersmart. it's five or six different languages, is from south africa. what i've seen so far.

mark: i looked at some youtube clips today, and i was not blown away, although he did tell one of my favorite jokes, i flew in, and my arms are tired. i am sure they did a ton of research, but i do not see the level of sophistication in his humor. if he hopes to inherit a lot of the audience of jon stewart, and what i have seen so far, good luck. phil: this is not an evil position. this is shooting guard for the bulls after michael jordan, shortstop for the yankees after derek jeter. can he make the show his own, or does he have to make it jon stewart like? mark: you are best off to inherit the audience, not build from scratch. i do not know if they're going to try to change the format. to me, they chose to go in a different direction, maybe he will be awesome, but i would be a little worried as i was running that show right now they can keep much of the audience. phil: there is a good piece on him on bloomberg politics right

now, so go ahead and check that out. funny guy. before we tease our b block in boston, political heavyweights pay tribute to senator kennedy, including president obama, senator john mccain, and come up worse, what -- and of course, what event would be complete without a tech -- a ted kennedy anecdote from vice president joe biden junior. vice president biden: he was trying to get me out of my office, get me engaged, and i remember walking into the senate gym, and like the ymca, the men walk around between the shower with nothing on, and i remember walking in and then saying, joe, i would like you to meet jack. how are you? i swear to god.

i want you to meet -- phil: it is such a high bar, and he never disappoints. biden is going to biden. mark: i enjoyed that story and all of joe biden's speech. the president's speech was great to. mccain's speech, if you have not yet, i recommend you go to see it. it is on john mccain's website. incredible speeches today inspired by the memory of a great man. all right, coming up, you're betting on whether there will be a deal with iran, we have the odds with two experts. and later, playing a game about seven dwarves. all of that and much, much, much more, after this. ♪

mark: our two guests tonight, joining us from the nuclear

talks in switzerland, our point person and david sanger, with the new york times, and both join us now from luzon. what is the headline to what has happened in the last 24 hours at the talks? guest: deal or no deal. that is the headline. it is really the major question and the only question anyone cares about at this point, and it has been a lot of comings and goings, and we had the russian minister coming in, and he took off, wait for it, to meet with the foreign minister of vanuatu and he says they are not coming back unless they are ready to make a deal. the chinese foreign minister says he sees a chance for some kind of agreement, and secretary kerry said they're going to be working into the night to try to bridge the gaps that still exist between the two sides, so i think everyone is trying to read tea leaves, comings and goings but it is hard to analyze and parse them, but i think at this

point even the negotiators themselves do not know if we're going to get a deal by tomorrow night's deadline. david: i would say it is partial deal or no deal. phil: u.s. officials have pushed back a little on that. can you explain what the state of play is on that? and what that actually means for a possible deal. david: what has happened here is as early as last year, an idea began to flow that would make sense for iran to move a lot of its fuel, and it has tens of thousands of pounds of nuclear fuels, most of it to russia, and let the russians who built their

, big commercial nuclear reactor , turn it into fuel that they could burn for the reactor. it would be a very simple solution for them because people would not be worried they can use it to race for a bomb and the iranians can they, look, we made this, and we are using it with russian help to have power and electricity for our people and it has been widely assumed since november or thereabouts that that was pretty well be -- pretty well the understanding. and then last night we had an official from iran say we are never returning this. he said that before, and we always thought it was a negotiating position, but to say it 36 hours before a partial deal is supposed to be reached seemed to take it off the table, and we made that point in the story in the times today, and the state department pushed back pretty hard, saying, no, no, there has never been any other -- been an understanding that

they would give this away, and it is ok. they can keep it in iran and -- keeping in iran if it is diluted down to a form to make it difficult or in some cases impossible to use for bomb fuel. mark: indira? indira: guys, ultimately -- i was just going to say that ultimately the idea of downblending enriched uranium, to enrich uranium to 3.5% and then downblend it again does not make any sense, so the whole solution they are talking about is one that has a lot of people scratching their heads, and as david pointed out, it is not the only gap that remains. there is a whole argument about sanctions, when they will be lifted, and an argument about research and development, what

happens after this deal, and as the german foreign minister said, iran would not only be able to break up and explode with more development of its nuclear program in year 11, so these still remain. mark: david, we have talked a lot about what the u.s. reaction would be without a deal. how would the iranians react if this ends and there is no deal? david: well, first of all, it could end tomorrow, and it would not necessarily be the end of getting a deal. this is something of an artificial deadline tomorrow. it was set by the u.s. and its negotiating partners to see if they can make enough progress in -- progress and go on to the last three months, but the temporary agreement that they have with iran that limits a runs production while this is negotiated runs till the end of june. so you can imagine the scenario where this ends tomorrow and it can still pick up the following week or the following month, and that is very possible scenario. to your question though, i think

the iranian people would be very disappointed, because they elected president rouhani in something of a surprise two years ago, because he ran on a platform that he would get rid of these sanctions. they have cut iran's oil revenues by 60%, and it has sent their currency, the real plunging, making it impossible to do international banking if you are an ordinary iranian, and it has made it difficult to travel. and so a lot of ordinary iranians, they do not want to be humiliated. they do not want to give up all of your nuclear program, but frankly, they would just like this program to go away where they can get back to a normal business life and go to the united states or europe to study. mark: all right, indira and david, thank you, and we will look at your dispatches as we approach the deadline or as david suggested, maybe no deadline at all. thanks so much.

coming up, what do grumpy, sneezy, and others have in common? ben cardin reveals all, next. ♪

mark: they say that serving in the united states senate is like a fairytale. maybe not everyone says that. he graduated first in his class at the university law school now serving as a junior senator from maryland. you were first in your class? senator cardin: it was a different time. mark: you know the senators well. what better way to get to know them then to associate them with personality traits of snow white and the seven dwarfs. your senate colleagues. which one would you associate with doc? senator cardin: al franken. he is so serious. you can never get him to do something that is funny.

mark: all right, al franken as doc. happy. senator cardin: that is easy. john mccain. a nice guy. he gets along with everybody. he never loses his temper. phil: what about senator mikulski? mark: all right, bashful. you could have done senator mccain for bashful. senator cardin: chuck schumer. mark: dopey is next on my list and that is too easy. sleepy. senator cardin: mitch mcconnell. mark: why? senator cardin: because i cannot figure out anyone. mark: all right, your thoughts on grumpy. senator cardin: i cannot choose

john mccain for 2. grumpy, ted cruz. people think he is grumpy, yes. it is hard to sort of warm up to him. mark: ok, last one. this is a tough when it will require some creativity. sneezy. senator cardin: lindsey graham is one of the nicest guys in the senate, so i might as well call him sneezy. he won't take it personally. he is easy for all of us to get along with. mark: this is what we call in major league baseball an underhand softball. who would you pick as snow white? senator cardin: senator mikulski. everybody sort of looks to her as the person that blazes the trail, that has done everything, and i am being serious.

she has really been the role model for everyone to follow, so when there is a tough issue, people look to barbara mikulski. phil: what do people not understand about her? senator cardin: she cares about these issues and is a street fighter, and what they do not know is how seriously she takes these issues. i have had intimate conversations with her about national issues and wildly -- national security issues and why we need to be concerned about issues that may not be popular. she is deeply concerned. mark: first time playing senators and snow white's posse, you did well. and we did not give you dopey. senator cardin: i would have taken that. i would have taken the hit or -- the hit for the whole team. mark: senator, thank you. you are nice to play, and we we will be back with more fun. ♪

phil: john kasich is back to south carolina and new hampshire next month. as always, check out bloomberg politics onl

♪ pimm: hello, i am pimm fox, and here is what i am taking stock of this march 30, 2015. investors bid stock prices higher around the world of the -- of the world today. the s&p 500 rises more than 1% and the dow jones posting the biggest advances since early february. stocks in your also rose more than 1%. membership has its privileges. american express chief executive got a pay raise of nearly 3% last year. the charge card company's stock traded at a record last to live -- last ju