tv NOW With Alex Wagner MSNBC April 1, 2013 9:00am-10:00am PDT
i'm joy reid, in for alex wagner, joining me michael tomazski from the "daily beast," jake sherman. rona fruhar and msnbc contributor, jimmy williams. florida senator marco rubio was the skunk at the immigration easter egg roll this weekend. hours before senators on both sides of the aisle were set to appear on sunday shows touting the makings of a deal, rubio released a letter entitled no final agreement on immigration legislation yet. he continued reports that the bipartisan group of eight senators have agreed on a legislativeropol are premature. a top opponent of immigration reform, alabama senator jeff sessions seized on rubio's skepticism writing, it is one thing to make promises, it is quite another to write a bill that actually works. despite the cold water, lawmakers still use their platform sunday to pop a little
champagne. >> i think we've got a deal, we got to write the legislation, but 2013 i hope will be the year that we pass bipartisan immigration reforms. >> with the agreement between business and labor, every major policy issue has been resolved on the gang of eight. i am very, very optimistic that we will have an agreement among the eight of us next week. >> in reality, however, any bill without rubio's support will have a hard time attracting the right wing. executive director of the center for immigration studies, marker corian told the "washington post," if rubio walks away from it, it's over. rubio's past makes it hard to know where he stands, since he's had a chekerred history with regards to immigration reform. in 2010, he opposed the dream act. but in april of last year, he urged republicans to accept a pact to legal status for young illegal immigrants. rubio had a different change of heart when it came to arizona's sb 2070, the papers please law.
he began by saying the law concerned him, and that it could lead to racial profiling. two weeks later, he told a conservative blogger he would have voted for an amended version of the law which allowed officers to ask for citizenship paperes if they were investigating another crime. rubio may still be making up his mind on immigration reform and deciding how to maintain his appeal. both in the latino community and tea party. but for now, the immigration gang of eight may want to put that champagne on ice. and joining us now is the anchor of telemundo and host of enfoques, jose diaz balart. >> i'm fascinated covering marco rubio, he's been on both sides of the immigration debate. has had trust issues with the tea party. they didn't quite trust him when he ran for senate because they suspected he may be pro amnesty and he did a lot to disprove that what is the cost/benefit analysis for him?
does it benefit him to get a deal through? or to stand with the tea party and stop it if necessary? >> such a great question, joy, and it's a question that i think we have to wait a little bit on to see how eventually marco rubio, what role he plays. in this day and age when we're seeing more and more politicians publicly come out to say they're evolving on issues, it's a popular thing we've been seeing a lot recently, it seems as though marco rubio has, indeed if you look at his record in very recent past been evolving on the issue of exactly what immigration reform he would be willing to support. but what i think is important, and is what he said. the timing of the letter? suspect. but what he said is -- listen, nothing has yet been written, as far as a specific proposal, and we have to be willing to give it the time necessary within the legislative process. for something serious to come.
now, if that's the only thing he is saying, putting aside the suspect timing of it, then i think everybody would pretty much be in agreement that yeah, well yeah, laws need to be legislated upon. and if you look at the 1986 immigration reform bill that reagan signed on the 6th of november, 1986, i was looking into this, fascinating. it was presented in the senate in may of 1985. it was passed in the senate in september of 1985. and it wasn't signed into law until november of 1986. well, most people will tell you there is not that same time period available politically right now for an immigration reform bill to be successfully passed. but if this legislative process takes a few months, i think everybody would applaud it. >> i mean it's interesting, jose, because i am curious about just your perspective on whether or not in some ways the republican party has put marco rubio in an unfair position.
because he is latino, he's expected to be the face of the republican party's evolving. either evolution with hispanic voters. he's expected to be all things to all people in that regard. even though as a cuban-american he's not necessarily sim patco with all hispanics on all things. he has to prove at the same time his bona fides to the party that got him elected. do you sense the stress on his office in terms of trying to pull both sleds? >> honestly, i don't know -- >> let's remember, there are 50.5 million latinos in this country. every month, 50,000 u.s.-born latinos turn 18. the 6th of november was one heck of a wake-up call to republicans when president obama got 71% of the latino vote.
and it had a lot to do with the semantics and how they deal with the issue of immigration reform. and if there isn't a change in the future, that 71% could be set in stone. and then let's see the republicans have a good time trying to elect a national figure, if 71% of the largest minority in the country is held-bent on opposing them. >> i want to bring in the panel. that's a great point that jose makes, because african-americans used to be where latinos are right now. in the 1960s, republicans still had a decent shot of getting a third to a 40% of the african-american vote. chris cillizza has a piece today which he talks about marco rubio and the predicament he finds himself in. the statement that marco rubio made this weekend as a an attempt to slow down the momentum on a deal on immigration. insuring if schumer's
declaration that it's all over but the shouting. at the end of the day, right, rubio is trying to insure that the constant narrative that republicans capitulate to whatever the democrats want. he's got to be the guy standing there and holding back the narrative, right? >> one republican is doing it one democrat is doing it you know what chuck schumer is doing? he's pushing the issue so that if the republicans back away he can say, i blame them. and what is marco rubio doing? he's pulling back. because then if it breaks down, he can go -- i'm blaming them. they're doing exactly the same thing, there's no difference. rubio has to do this. if he doesn't he's going to get lit up by the far right on this issue. >> he has to back away a little bit. >> he must back away to a large degree. if he doesn't, schumer is going to railroad all over him like we've never seen that before, right? >> i think it's a more complicated calculus than that. rubio has to be seen as not cutting a back-room deal.
he can't look like he's hashing some deal out with democrats and he's doing this behind the back of conservatives and behind the back of everybody else. we live in an era where members of congress, especially republicans, want to see everything done through what is called regular order. going through committees. taking this long path. not cutting deals like john boehner tried to do with barack obama. those have all blown up. so while schumer is out there saying this is done, this is done. rubio needs to say wait we need to go through the committees, the long process. >> and you haven't used the "a" word which is what jeff sessions has been calling for, which is amendments, they want the potential to kill the bill through a poison pill. >> i think rubio needs to be seen as driving this train. he wants this to be his baby. we haven't said this explicitly yet, but let's say it, he's probably running for president in 2016. and that adds a whole complicated layer of calculus, calculi to this from his
perspective. is he going to be attacked from the right for shepherding through a bill that his party doesn't like? >> i agree with jimmy that he has to stand back a little on this thinking about the difficult position that this guy is in. i was remembering the "time" magazine cover story we did on rubio a couple of months ago. the first paragraph is his mother saying please don't hang out the immigrants. i'm like, oh my god this guy's mother is -- is on the campaign trail. but actually i do think that we've come a lot farther with getting towards a bill than we might think. the fact that business and labor now have come towards an agreement in terms of visas, how that's going to roll out. yeah we have some ways to go in terms of a path for legal citizenship and what the penalties will be. but a lot has got be done the last few weeks. >> the republicans have do do something very smart here. >> absolutely. >> they have to figure out if they want the latino vote or the tea party vote. it's never going to be the same thing. >> jose, you had a point you wanted to make as well?
>> well i just everything jimmy said i agree with. and i love the "time" magazine plug. i'll tell you something, i'm going to plug telemundo, a couple of weeks ago we had senator menendez on the sunday morning show. he said the trigger issue on the border which everybody a few months ago thought was insurmountable has been dealt with. the issue now i think i'm being told, as early as today, we could have some news on it, is the agricultural jobs bill. agreement. between the yunited farm worker and big business. that's a big stumbling block, but the facility that the afl-cio and the chamber of commerce is able to deal with the low skilled job situation. it's a lot further along than it could have beenth and i think that the tea party, if they're thinking standing in the way of this, the tsunami could wash over them shortly. >> if we could talk about 9 elements of the deal, workers being able to self-petition for permanent status after a year. wages and conditions for guest
workers must be on par with the industry. workers will not be tied to a single employer. what i call the indentured servitude portion of the bill where people could actually change jobs and guest worker caps could never be below 20,000 or above 200,000. those are the elements of a deal we've never seen anything like this in a decade, that much agreement between business and labor. >> no, we haven't. and the key point that we have to always underline, it gives the opportunity, it will give the opportunity for 11 million people who have been contributing to this society and to this country, many for decades, living under the shadows and fear of deportation, 1,000 deportations occur every single day in this country. 1,000 today, 1,000 tomorrow, 1,000 on easter sunday that will stop and that will have an incredibly positive effect on the economy of the united states of america. and it will also help heal wounds that every day cause families to be destroyed. >> absolutely. i think obviously the political benefit is secondary to those human benefits. you're talking about people in
their real lives. no small part it would open the door for republicans to start having a conversation with latino voters. and i want to thank you very much, telemundo's jose diaz-balart thanks so much for being here. after the break, the chattering classes and sunday talk show pundits would have you believe that the roadblocks to gun safety reform are a case of too little, too late. except that the push for common-sense gun laws has been anything but little and far from late. we'll separate fact from fiction next on "now." with the spark cash card
from capital one... boris earns unlimited rewards for his small business. can i get the smith contract, please? thank you. that's three new paper shredders. [ boris ] put 'em on my spark card. [ garth ] boris' small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase every day. great businesses deserve unlimited rewards. read back the chicken's testimony, please. "buk, buk, bukka!" [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase every day. told you i'd get half.
happying at all. >> ignoring president obama's repeated pleas since the december 14 newtown tragedy lawmakers over the weekend gave every indication that the chances of passing meaningful gun reform are now on life support. >> we do need to strengthen the bhak ground check system, but universal background checks, i think is a bridge too far for most of us. >> a bridge too far? or just a bridge too far for jeff flake and the roughly 10% of americans who don't see the need for more robust background checks. of course, flake wasn't alone. lindsay graham actually said over the weekend that the specifics of newtown don't necessitate further action on
background checks. >> nothing we're talking about would prevent nowtown from happening. the guy did not fail a background check. >> now graham said that despite the fact that a background check forced adam lanza to walk away from a gun purchase in the days before the shooting according to the l.a. times. the "times" wrote that lanza attempted to purchase a rifle from a gun store but was turned away because he didn't want to wait for the required 14-day background check. senator chuck schumer, of the so-called universal background checks bill left off the universal part when discussing what he thought could be accomplished. >> i'm working very hard with both democrats and republicans pro nra and anti-nra people to come up with a background check bill that will be acceptable to 60 senators and be very strong and get the job done. >> still, some affected by gun violence continue to put up the
good fight. >> we do know that over 90% of americans support a universal background check and there is incredible momentum in congress and around the nation to get this done. any bill that does not include a universal background check is a mistake. it's the most common-sense thing that we can do to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from having access to weapons. >> now with some polls showing a recent drop in support for stricter gun control, one new beltway narrative gaining momentum is that gun control waited too long. >> should president obama have moved faster to bring this to a vote before the call for action began to fade? >> move it quickly, do it. don't put it together to this big thing and then start to be talking about all of these different kind of guns you're banning and having all these hearings, they failed to move quick. >> okay, so let's get this straight. the lack of progress on gun safety reform isn't the fault of
the obstructionist nra or the five republican senators threatening to filibuster gun legislation. or red state democrats who are too afraid to enact it. it's the fact that democrats acted too slowly. >> here's what milbank wrote. obama erred in trying to use newtown to build his positions on taxes, energy and immigration. he compounded the error by sending joe biden off to conduct a study. an unnecessary delay when solutions were obvious. once the president took his foot off the accelerator, no other action, not even bloomberg's ad campaign could maintain the momentum. the blame according to him lies with the white house. >> i don't buy it. legislating is complicated. it takes time and there's no more complicated legislation than gun control. there's a lot of particulars to go through and serious disagreements and the nra is
able to put up roadblocks at many, many points. i don't see that argument at all. this is a very tough thing to do. it's still possible, i think, in the senate, particularly, the house is a whole different story. in the senate i still think it's possible. tom coburn of oklahoma is the key here. my understanding is that if coburn agrees to a background checks legislation package with schumer, that enough republicans would join that, maybe to hit 60. >> maybe to hit it, but jimmy, we were talking in the break about alternative gun legislation that could be competing with the main bill, getting coburn on board. what else is going on in the senate that could throw a monkey wrench in it. >> i would rephrase that as alternative universe legislation. senator grassley has a bill. lindsay graham has a bill. the lindsay graham's bill does two things. first, it sort of any state can automatically get you if they think that you're a danger to yourself or someone else.
that's legal in all 50 states, woe narrow that down in the case of gun control. if you were quote an imminent danger if you will. not only is he restricting the gene pool of quote crazy people from buying guns. he's taking it too a much, much more stricter level for the courts to have to prove. secondly, once they get out, they under his bill, under his legislation, as currently proposed, they could go buy guns once they're out of the looney bin per se. i'm not sure that's a smart thing. so while we have these neat things happening on expanded background checks, human trafficking, et cetera, et cetera, the republicans are working behind the scenes, guess who wrote the lindsay graham bill? the nra. i know everyone is shocked by that. >> that's the issue, ron, the nra wants no bill. >> the nation has an editorial. wayne lapierre is winning, the gro group's strategy has been far smarter. initially in order to avoid an overwhelming public backlash, the nra indicated it was open to
background checks. but behind the scenes the organization has been orchestrating a two-pronged attacks, telling moderates that background checks would be ineffective against criminal considers and rallying around background checks that would require private sellers to keep records. >> there's no doubt that they're doing an amazing job lobbying as they always do. but when we think about the time that it takes to change things, a point of history, it took the right a really long time to move the dial over as far over as it is now. if you look back centuries, in the 19th century and early part of the 20th century. gun control laws were much structu structurer. >> the nra was for them. >> this isn't going to be a silver bullet thing this is the beginning of what i think will be a 10-year or 20-year process. >> there's no momentum. people are saying on tv there's a lot of momentum in congress or in washington to get this done. but that's not the reality.
if there were momentum, something would be passed. obama going around the country and giving these speeches only gins up opposition to his efforts. he sees this as what they call the constant campaign. so that angers them. and what michael said is right. there are serious disagreements here and i had a senior house republican aide tell me the other day, something like the furor would need to be something like the hurricane sandy aid for this bill to get passed. it would need to be so overwhelming for even them to take up the grassley-graham bill is a step too far for house republicans. >> if republicans, the fact of obama is stronger, is a stronger disincentive to do something, then these newtown families on television saying we want something done, if even a massacre in an elementary school is not enough to get republicans to at least give a little bit on background checks or anything, then are we at an age when the obama derangement syndrome runs washington. >> and the age when public opinion doesn't matter. i dispute the idea that momentum
is gone. you see a poll every once in a while that indicates that in general terms. but if you look at the specific measures, do you support background checks, do you support ban on assault weapons. do you support ban on extended magazines? these things all win majorities. background checks wins, the last i checked the majority is around 90% and it hasn't dropped. >> the senators who are seen as the most obstructionist on this issue, even in their states, arkansas, 84% support background checks. louisiana, 85%, where mary landrieu is being chicken on the issue. montana, 79%. >> i have to read, this is one of my favorite columns, the economist wrote about america's gun divide, they wrote the truth is that gun control is going nowhere. one reason is that the millions of americans in favor of gun control do not live in the right places. support for gun control is geographically and racially concentrated in ways that sap the momentum of political power. are we essentially at the mercy of southern states and states in
the center of the country where like four people live, where they are essentially dominating what the majority, 90% of americans want? >> two points, the economist has gotten it right once again. if you want to kill something in the senate, you wait a long, long time until after the, it's not an effect and then you kill it with 1,000 cuts, those are called amendments, that's how you kill a bill in the senate. if you want something to not happen. you act like you really care and then your actions over and over again, amendment after amendment, that's how you kill a bill. >> but what would it take for a southern senator to go along with it. >> here's the second point, you want mitch mcconnell as your senate majority lead centre i don't. i don't even know that many republicans want him as your senate majority leader. i'm all for the issue of assault weapons and background checks. and i'm southern and i own guns, i'm all for it but if you want a democratic majority in the senate to stop crazy stuff from coming over from the house or killing it at least and by the way, they would say the exact
opposite thing. you must have a democratic majority. mary landrieu goes, mark pryor goes, mark begich. kay hagen goes? guess what you have a republican leader called mitch mcconnell who is a senate majority leader and all of a sudden, barack obama is looking a lot like bill clinton going into the last two years of his term. >> some people would argue that we have a majority leader called mitch mcconnell because he is steamrolling harry reid. coming up, nothing gets the 2016 talk percolating like a front-page sunday "times" piece on hillary clinton. before the former madam secretary theoretically prepares for iowa, she has a few things to figure out.
during his state of the union address, president obama raised the hope of sol environmentalists by vowing action on climate change and energy reform. >> in congress won't act soon to protect future generations, i will. i will direct, i will direct my cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take now and in the future to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy. >> now the white house is moving ahead with that promise by introducing new clean fuel standards. but if you're looking for optimism -- don't ask the republicans. we'll talk politics and pollution, when the executive director of the sierra club joins us next on "now."
political controversy, turns on opposition groups and firing up warring factions, there's nothing like a environmental issue and the keystone excel has proved to be no exception. the pressure on president obama continued to mount this weekend, as environmentalists latched on to an oil spill in arkansas to rally against the pipeline and republicans portrayed the pipeline as a common-sense solution that would create jobs. delivering the gop's weekly address on saturday, nebraska republican lee terry renewed the push for keystone. >> the people in the congress have spoken. the experts have weighed in. now it's the time to build the keystone pipeline, no more delays, no more politics. >> now terry may not want to deal with the politics. when it comes to environmental issues, politics is the name of the game. last friday, in an effort to make the air we breathe a little
cleaner, the espn ppa proposed rules to cut the amount of sulfur allowed in gasoline by two-thirds. it would reduce ozone and other air pollution by 30% and benefit 100 million american who is live in areas with polluted air. the american lung association says the epa's proposal would be the equivalent of taking 33 million cars off the road in terms of its effect on pollution. according to the epa, the rules would provide up to $7 in health benefits for every dollar spent to meet the new standards and help prevent up to 2400 premature deaths and 23,000 respiratory ailments in children per year. now the new rules may save lives and help us to quite literally breathe easier. but the rules have drawn sharp criticism from oil executives and republicans who argue that the new rules come at too high a cost for consumers and businesses. kentucky congressman ed whitfield, chairman of the house power subcommittee called the rules another example of an
overzealous epa. you think saving lives would be reason enough to support the new rules, but this is america where even breathing clean air is political. michael bruin is the executive director of the sierra club. thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me on. >> i'm tempted to ask where have the sierra club and where have the other environmental groups been all of these years. president obama is entering his second term. one of the groups you haven't seen be active, that gay rights groups have been, have been environmentalists, despite what would seem to be the urgency of the issue. >> we put together the largest climate rally in history in washington, d.c. back in february on a very cold weekend. we had about 50,000 people there. challenging the president to use his full executive authority like he started to do on friday to make sure that we're moving beyond coal, beyond gas, beyond oil, beyond all fossil fuels in search of clean energy future so i would say the environmental future is building momentum and power. >> we talked about the president having to do this through
executive order and that's clearly because it's very tough to get this kind of thing through congress. you have a congress that is definitely oiled up when it comes to the people who give them money. and at the same time, you've got this difficult marketing message, i mean how do you convince people it would be a good idea for them to pay more for gas in the short-term, in order to save the planet in the long-term? >> most people are convinced, like the episode you had on gun control. if you look across the country, strong majorities of americans in urban areas, rural areas, men, women, we all agree we need to move beyond fossil fuels in search of, to replace it with energy that will create more jobs, clean up our air, our water. and stabilize our climate at the same time. the challenge is not to convince the american public. the challenge is to convince folks in congress and also sometimes at the white house that they have the power to do the right thing. >> i want to keep you here, but i want to bring the panel in. rona, let's look specifically at what we're dealing with. the big road block here, the big
elephant in the room is money. if you look at the critics of the epa proposals, you've got frud upton, a republican of michigan getting $210,000. and steve scalise, mary landrieu. getting $159,000. david vitter. getting a lot of money. the senate is bought and paid for by the oil and gas industry or it has to go through them or not at all. >> the oil and gas industry has been incredibly effective in lobbying. i'm in favor of the epa regulations, auto emission are a much bigger issue than keystone. but and also it's time for americans to start realizing we have very cheap gas in this country. nobody else pays as little for gas as we do. i mean you know go to europe. and you're paying four times as much as here. and i think that it actually
would help not only in terms of you know, the new standards and the emissions right away. but in terms of conservation. >> try telling that to a family that's struggling to make ends meet. living paycheck to paycheck. >> that argument sounds good if you're affluent, but a family struggling is a big problem. >> let's take what you said and what you just said and go back to mary landrieu. i'm going to play devil's advocate for a tiny second which i do a lot. why shouldn't mary landrieu protect the oil and gas industry? this is her state. her job is to represent her constituents. now, i'm not suggesting that she should say, the epa is bad and oil and gas is good. how about both? how about let's go for the epa standards, and let's drill more and drill more safely and let's put up more windmills and more solar panels and let's do all of the above and make it safe and think about our kids. can you do all of these things. i don't want people to forget, richard nixon created the epa. if the republicans were so
hell-bent and determined to get rid of it, then pass a bill to get rid of it. they're trying to shut down federal agencies all day long and we know it's stupid. my point is it does matter to the family of four. gas prices are low, they would be lower if we did other things to increase expanded types of energy. but you've got to look out for the senators in these states. >> this would benefit some states economically. they do have an incentive they've got to push for it. >> they have passed bills to fund the epa. >> not this year they haven't zwlxt not in the last couple of weeks. i think republicans think that first of all, republicans believe that the president will aprove the keystone pipeline and also at the same time recognize it will be tied up in litigation for the foreseeable future. when the president tried to pass cap and trade legislation, they dubbed it a national energy tax. everything is about raising taxes on people who are consumers of energy.
let's be honest, there's nothing that the president is going to get through this congress. but doing things like this, this executive action, is only going to put a bigger target on the back of the epa. i would guess having covered this for some time, we're going to see more bills that target the epa. so i think that's the political environment that has been created. >> and i mean michael, the equivalent, political equivalent of going nuclear by the president would be to veto keystone that would ramp up the war against the epa and the obama administration on this. >> it would and i'm not sure he's going to do that. i doubt there's a liberal constituency in the united states that's more disappointed in obama than environmentalists. maybe strict civil libertarians on national security grounds and drones and things. but environmentalists are really disappointed and they have pretty good reason to be in a lot of cases. but you know it shows just how difficult and how sui generis energy and environmental politics are, to pick up on
jimmy's point. which is that it's not just a question of party breakdown. on health care, on guns, there are some regional concerns. but basically there's an ideological party breakdown. but here the regional concerns are really real. such that you even saw the sherrod brown had a shared constituency on coal. >> it's much more complicated politics and much tougher and -- >> it's all local. >> strongly democratic congress. >> it's all local and it's all global. when you think about how complicated keystone is you have to think about the geopolitics in the middle east. pivoting from middle east to asia has been one of the foreign policy goals of the administration. >> and the idea of not turning canada into a petro-state. i want to give you a last word. is there disappointment in the environmental community that the white house hasn't done more and been more aggressive?
>> i think it's part of our job to see how much, how much progress we can make during this administration. the good news here is that over the last four years, we have actually made great progress in replacing coal, a little bit of gas and oil with clean energy. to the extent that solar, the price of solar has come down by 80% over the last five years. and the price of wind has dropped significantly at the same time. so in places like louisiana and places like north dakota, with this pipeline would go through, we're seeing clean energy coming in cheaper. than fossil fuels. so that offers a lot of promise for the work we need to do in the years ahead. >> a that hopeful note with have to be the last word. thank you so much to the sierra club's michael bruin. a new week and that means it must be time to start using hillary clinton and 2016 in the same sentence. we will examine the latest irrefutable evidence that clinton may in fact be kind of
sort of possibly running for president. i'm the world's worst cleaning lady. i'm here in your home, having a pretty spectacular tuesday. ♪ but i don't notice the loose rug at the top of your stairs. and that's about to become an issue for me. ♪ and if you got the wrong home insurance coverage, my medical bills could get expensive. so get allstate. [ dennis ] good hands. good home. make sure you have the right home protection. talk to an allstate agent.
♪ the middle of this special moment and i need to run off to the bathroom. ♪ i'm fed up with always having to put my bladder's needs ahead of my daughter. ♪ so today, i'm finally talking to my doctor about overactive bladder symptoms. [ female announcer ] know that gotta go feeling? ask your doctor about prescription toviaz. one toviaz pill a day significantly reduces sudden urges and accidents, for 24 hours. if you have certain stomach problems or glaucoma, or can not empty your bladder, you should not take toviaz. get emergency medical help right away if your face, lips, throat or tongue swells. toviaz can cause blurred vision, dizziness, drowsiness and decreased sweating. do not drive, operate machinery or do unsafe tasks until you know how toviaz affects you. the most common side effects are dry mouth and constipation.
you're outta there ! we'll e-mail your receipt in a flash, too. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz. as she prepared to depart from foggy bottom. then secretary of state hillary clinton sat down with president obama for a joint interview on "60 minutes." and of course it took all of about 120 seconds for 2016 to come up. >> there's no political tea leaves to be read here. >> we don't have any tea, we've got some water the best i can tell. >> we'll try to determine if clinton's political glass is half empty or full, next. what? customers didn't like it. so why do banks do it? hello?
departed secretary of state has not said whether she plans to run. and yet, there were already three super pacs, three supporting and one opposing. none of which have her blessing. her kmigss aide told "the new york times" that everyone's gotten way ahead of themselves and way ahead of her. the ohm sure bet is that the questions will keep coming. the atlantic wrote it's rude for her to keep us waiting so long. it hasn't been six months since the election and we still don't know what her plans are for 2016. >> it's true, she's rude, why won't she tell us what she's going to do. >> outrageous. >> what a burden for this poor woman to be carrying the hopes and dreams of american women far and wide that she will be our first woman president. how dare she keep us waiting. >> how dare she. i mean look. 65% of americans have favorable feelings about hillary clinton. i think being secretary of state is actually put her in a fantastic position. because she was able to float over the partisan politics, very
polarizing politics of the last four years. it also just puts her in a totally different place than you know, the president's wife trying to reform a very contentious issue. you know, listen, i'm pro hillary. >> you know like carrot sticks and celery. >> michael, i am struck by the fact that people are demanding an answer to the will she or won't she. when wouldn't it be the most disastrous thing for her if she were to put her hand up too early and look too eager to replace the guy who 0 hired her to be secretary of state. >> of course, she has to time this just right and she has to be a noncandidate very artfully and she has to make the steps she wants to make. i presume she probably wants to run if the circumstances are right. but she has to be coy, she has to time things absolutely perfectly. but boy, democrats don't really have that patience. because they just want it settled, because the universal assumption is if she wins, if she runs, she's going to be the president and people want that known now. >> she's keeping a lot of other
democrats in the bull pen. can't make a decision until she does. jake i'm curious as far as the other side, republicans, do they want a hillary clinton to run against? because she's a known quality quantity, or do you sense on the hill people are a little afraid of her. >> i don't think that 65% of americans like friday. so she'll be a tough person to run against. she'll have an infrastructure that she can walk into. she can walk into a campaign infrastructure with hundreds of donors who will give her tons of money if you're a republican looking at that ticket. i think it will be a difficult thing to run against. >> as democratic strategist, is she going to walk into a democratic infrastructure? david plouffe and others weren't sympatico, will she want her own apparatus? >> there was a campaign
apparatus before plouffe and axelrod. if you recall that balding white man from louisiana. apparati come and go, plural and latin. if hillary clinton run, will people be falling all over themselves to raise money for her, work on her campaign? yes, by the thousands, it will happen if she runs. i want to bring up a couple of words, biogate, vince foster, benghazi. do you think for a second the republicans, the tea partiers, if you think that the obama sort of black helicopter stuff is crazy now. wait until you bring back in a clinton. it's, it doesn't matter. because in the minds of anybody 50 and under, they remember those eight years. i remember them distinctly. ky never get them out of my head. i want her to run. i would vote for her in a skinny-second. but the republican conspiracy theories will go through the roof like you have never seen. >> it's democratic derangement syndrome. >> i think most american people
will toss all of that stuff out. it's like a better at the race track. you toss it out. except maybe for benghazi. i don't see the old stuff having any traction beyond that base at all. >> am i the only person at the table that feels kind of bad for joe biden? joe biden has been a good soldier to president obama. he's the true inheriter of the obama legacy. he negotiated a lot of deals that obama gets credit for. >> it should be clinton-biden. >> he can be vice president again? >> i think he could run for vice president. i don't think it's in the constitution he can't. can you imagine being vice president for 16 years, every two years you get to swear in all the senators and their families. "saturday night live" will be in business forever. >> somebody said being vice president isn't worth a warm bucket of spit. >> i think we just condemned joe biden to a fate worse than
death. i'm team biden, go biden. thank you so much michael jay, ranna and jimmy. i'll see you tomorrow when i'm joined by my panel and until then you can follow "now" on twitter. "andrea mitchell reports" is next. while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance
of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion.
right now on "andrea mitchell reports," is it a bluff? the world watches north korea's erratic young leader as the u.s. shows off its military might in response. with us, richard engel in seoul. and senator bob corker, just back from south korea. breakthrough on immigration. a bipartisan group of senators clears a major hurdle. former marco rubio signs on. >> with the agreement between business and labor, every major policy issue has been resolved. >> we're much closer with labor and business agreeing on this guest worker plan. that doesn't mean we've crossed