Negotiators say they are close to a deal to strengthen border security provisions in the Senate immigration bill, an agreement designed to draw more Republican votes and significantly strengthen the bill’s prospects of becoming law.

"There's still work to do but we've had a really good day," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who's been helping to lead talks on the strengthened border measures.

"I don't know what happens if we fail,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an original member of the Gang of Eight. “I know this is a key moment in the effort to pass this bill. This is sort of the defining 24-36 hours.”

The talks are aimed at winning enough Republican votes to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill with an overwhelming majority of senators – enough to pressure the House of Representatives to take action on immigration legislation.

Gregory Bull / AP

A U.S. Border Patrol agent monitors the border structures separating Tijuana, Mexico, from San Diego. Illegal immigration into the United States would decrease by only 25 percent under a far-reaching Senate immigration bill, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office that also finds the measure reduces federal deficits by billions.

"You know look, we have some people in our caucus that are never going to vote for an immigration bill, OK, I don't care if you – it's just never going to happen," Corker told reporters. "And so we realize that. And yet there are people who, with the right provisions, would, and so that's our target audience, right."

So far, the talks have centered on how to measure whether the border is secure, and how those measurements would trigger the opening of the path to citizenship, as well as whether Congress or the Department of Homeland Security would be responsible for the plan to secure the border.

Democrats have so far been reluctant to accept any changes that they believe could jeopardize the path to citizenship – including plans that would require what they call overly stringent security goals to be met before undocumented immigrants can progress to legal status or apply for green cards.

But on Wednesday, Corker pointed to a Congressional Budget Office analysis released Tuesday that showed illegal immigration would drop by only 25 percent under the bill.

"I think this added some momentum to our discussions about doing something very substantial when it comes to border security," Corker said.

Corker refused to offer details of the proposal that he's been working on with Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. They've been discussing the plan with Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York.  The provisions are intended to be more palatable to Democrats than a border security amendment being offered by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called a “poison pill.”

Corker said that the outline of the agreement was being discussed among both the Republican and Democratic caucuses on Wednesday afternoon and that negotiators could reach a final deal as soon as Thursday.

Graham described the effort as doing "something dramatic" to fix the border.

"What we're trying to do is put in place measures that to any reasonable person would be an overwhelming effort to secure our border," Graham told reporters, "short of shooting anybody who comes across the border."

NBC's Carrie Dann contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:47 PM EDT

After supporters of the Senate immigration reform bill got a boost from a new report estimating that the bill would substantially decrease the federal budget deficit over the next two decades, conservative opponents of the legislation pushed back Wednesday, saying the legislation would fail to stop illegal immigration, decrease American wages and hurt the Republican Party.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in a report Tuesday night that the bill would decrease federal budget deficits by $197 billion between 2014 and 2023 and by an additional $700 billion from 2024 to 2033.

But opponents of the bill questioned the CBO’s credibility and pointed out other less favorable data in the agency’s findings. 

“CBO doesn’t exactly have the best track record,” said Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation analyst who authored a report on the legislation’s impact earlier this spring. “CBO is the institution that told us that Obamacare wouldn’t cost us any money, and it used the same kind of tricks it’s using today.”

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas concurred in an appearance on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program. “If there’s one thing Washington knows how to do, it’s to come up with bogus cost estimates,” he said.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, another leading GOP critic of the bill, seized on the CBO’s admission that the bill would result in depressed wages and slightly higher unemployment in the short term as the labor supply increased with an influx of new workers. (The report indicated that those effects would abate by about 2025.)

“It's going to raise unemployment and push down wages," Sessions said Tuesday. “The impact will be harshest for today's low-income Americans. Meanwhile, the 21 million Americans who can't find full-time work will have an even harder time getting a job and supporting their families."

And opponents pointed out that the CBO report also estimated that, under the Senate bill, “the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25 percent relative to what would occur under current law.”

That’s not nearly enough for border security advocates who want assurances that illegal immigration will effectively end after passage of reform legislation.

A group of GOP senators are currently in talks to develop an amendment to the Gang of Eight bill that could appease Republicans on border security while retaining sufficient support from bill drafters and the Democratic majority in the upper chamber. But, with those negotiations ongoing, conservatives staunchly opposed to the immigration bill have continued making their case and directed constituents to lobby against the measure.

On Wednesday, the Senate voted down an amendment from Sen. Rand Paul that would have required Congress to certify that border security measures are being met before allowing undocumented immigrants to begin the legalization process.  The vote was 61-37. 

Cruz, during the Limbaugh interview, urged the conservative host’s listeners to contact their representatives in Congress about the Gang of Eight legislation, which he called “a disaster.”  

The Cuban-American senator from Texas also disputed the idea that Republicans must work towards comprehensive immigration reform to repair damage done to the party’s brand with the growing bloc of Latino voters, who overwhelmingly supported President Barack Obama in the 2012 election.

“After 2012, all of the Washington political consultants and all of the mainstream media came to Republicans and said ‘You’ve got to do better with Hispanics, and the way to do better with Hispanics is to embrace amnesty,'” Cruz said. “And, look, a lot of Republicans in Washington are scared.

“I think that political argument is complete nonsense,” he added.

This story was originally published on Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:00 PM EDT

Obama’s repeat performance in Berlin… President talks Afghanistan, NSA surveillance, and Syria in press conference with Germany’s Merkel… House passes abortion-ban measure… CBO says “Gang of Eight” immigration bill will lower deficit by nearly $1 trillion over 20 years… Boehner: “I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans”… And Markey, Gomez spar in final debate. 

Odd Andersen / AFP - Getty Images

President Barack Obama gives a speech on a podium in front of Berlin's landmark the Brandenburg Gate near the U.S. embassy on June 19, 2013.

*** Obama’s repeat performance in Berlin: Repeat performances of a winning act are never easy; just ask any sports team or musical group. The explanation is pretty simple: It’s difficult to replicate a smashing success, because circumstances always change after the passage of time. And that was President Obama’s challenge as he spoke in Berlin, Germany almost five years after his memorable speech in the city during the ’08 presidential campaign. (The speech also comes almost 50 years after John F. Kennedy’s famous “Ich bin ein Berliner” address.) Obama began his remarks saying, “Today, I’m proud to return as president of the United States.” Then he said: “For all the power of militaries, for all the power of governments, it is citizens who choose whether to be defined by a wall or whether to tear it down.” He emphasized curbing nuclear arms -- a subject that’s always been more popular in Europe than the United States, for obvious reasons. “So long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe,” Obama said, adding: “We can ensure the security of America and our allies … by [further] reducing [our arsenal] by up to one third.” And he once again called for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. “We must move beyond the mindset of perpetual war.”

*** Then vs. now: Of course, so much of the attention of Obama’s speech is comparing it with the one five years ago. Back then, he was an inspirational presidential candidate; now he has a record with its ups and downs. Back then, he addressed hundreds of thousands of Germans; now the audience is smaller (due to German Chancellor Merkel trying not to overly politicize it since she’s up for re-election). And back then, German elites adored him; now they’re more skeptical (though a Pew poll shows a whopping 88% of Germans say they have confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs). The hope for the Obama White House is that, hours from now, more are focused on what he said TODAY rather than what he said FIVE YEARS ago.

***Obama talks Afghanistan, NSA surveillance, and Syria: Before Obama’s speech, he held a bilateral news conference with German Chancellor Merkel, where the American president made his first remarks after the Taliban had announced peace talks but also after an upset Afghan government broke off negotiations with the U.S. regarding military cooperation. Obama said the friction/conflict isn’t surprising given that the Taliban and Afghan government have been fighting for a long time and there’s an enormous amount of mistrust. On NSA surveillance (especially on those abroad under the PRISM program), Obama said, “This applies very narrowly to leads we have obtained on issues of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction… This is not a situation where we are rifling thru the emails of German citizens or American citizens… Lives have been saved and the encroachment on privacy has been restricted.” (It’s important to note that while Merkel is sensitive to how this program has been received domestically, the Germans have their own related programs.) And on Syria, Obama wouldn’t comment on what kind of arms the U.S. has given to Syrian rebels, but he added: “What I can say is we have had a steady, consistent policy -- which is we want a Syria that is peaceful, not sectarian, legitimate, tolerant, and that is our overriding goal.” More: “We want to end the bloodshed… The best way to get there is through a political transition.”

*** House passes abortion-ban measure: By a 228-196 vote last night, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives passed a measure that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. (The bill would allow an exception if the pregnancy poses a risk to the life of the mother, or if it's the result of a case of reported rape or incest.) Per NBC’s Frank Thorp, the vote was mostly along partisan lines, with just six Democrats voting in favor (Cuellar of Texas, Lipinski of Illinois, Matheson of Utah, McIntyre of North Carolina, Peterson of Minnesota, and Rahall of West Virginia. And six Republicans voted against the legislation: Broun of Georgia, Dent of Pennsylvania, Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Hanna of New York, Runyan of New Jersey, and Woodall of Georgia.

*** CBO says Senate immigration will lower deficit by nearly $1 trillion over 20 years: Also yesterday, supporters of the “Gang of Eight” immigration legislation celebrated the Congressional Budget Office scoring of the bill, as it said the legislation would reduce federal budget deficits by $197 billion over the next 10 years (2014-2023) and an additional $700 billion over the 10 years after that (2024-2033), NBC’s Carrie Dann reports. Said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "This report is a huge momentum boost for immigration reform. This debunks the idea that immigration reform is anything other than a boon to our economy, and robs the bill's opponents of one of their last remaining arguments.” Added Marco Rubio: "The CBO has further confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayers.” And be careful what you ask for: “Conservatives had expected that an analysis of the second decade — when immigrants would begin to qualify for federal benefits — would bolster their argument that the costs of an immigration overhaul were unwieldy, but that turned out not to be the case in the economic analysis,” the New York Times says.  

*** Boehner: “I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans”:  That was the good news for supporters of immigration reform; the bad news came from comments by House Speaker John Boehner, who suggested that he wouldn’t bring any legislation to the floor without the support from a majority of House Republicans. “I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans,” Boehner said during a press briefing yesterday, per NBC’s Luke Russert and Carrie Dann. He went on to say, “I frankly think the Senate bill is weak on border security, I think the internal enforcement mechanisms are weak and the triggers are almost laughable.” If you read Boehner’s comments carefully, he left himself SOME wiggle room (“I don’t see any way…”). But there’s another way to read his remarks: It’s very possible that he believes a majority of his GOP conference COULD vote for the legislation, especially if it gets sizable support in the Senate.

*** All about midterm politics? At his news conference yesterday, Boehner also argued that Democrats really don’t want to pass comprehensive immigration reform quickly because they’d rather have it as a midterm issue. "I'm increasingly concerned that the White House and Senate Democrats would rather have this as an issue in the 2014 election rather than a result,” he said. That might be more believable if this were 2015 and we were talking about a general presidential election coming up, but not as much in a midterm. Why? One, Latino turnout in midterms is lower than in a presidential, where they can make and have made a significant impact. And two, redistricting has led to fewer swing seats and solidified many Republican districts. “I don't think it makes much sense, either,” said David Wasserman, who covers House races for the Cook Political Report. “There are only 24 House Republicans in districts where Latinos make up more than 25% of the population, and only two of them -- David Valadao (CA-21) and Gary Miller (CA-31) -- sit in districts that are remotely competitive. So Boehner's contention that Democrats aren't negotiating in good faith is more an attempt to explain why those in his party fearful of a primary are causing delay.”

*** Markey, Gomez spar in final debate: Finally, one week out before the special Senate election in Massachusetts, Democrat Ed Markey and Republican Gabriel Gomez clashed in their third and final debate last night. Per the Boston Globe, Gomez continued to hit Markey as a Washington insider. “Nothing’s going to change if Mr. Markey wins this election,” he said. “We’re going to have the same D.C. down there and the same dysfunction. The only thing we’re going to have is him moving from one building to the next.” And Markey tied Gomez to the GOP and its political priorities. The two candidates, the Globe adds, also sparred “over Gomez’s decision to campaign with John McCain, a five-term senator, despite Gomez’s support for term limits for senators. ‘Did you ask John McCain to leave the Senate?’ Markey said. ‘No, Mr. Gomez, you did not.’ But Gomez argued that he did, in fact, tell McCain he should be barred from running for another term.” Yet if you want to know how difficult it is a for a Republican to run for the Senate in the Northeast, just check out this comment that Gomez gave to ABC: “I'm ashamed that only four Republicans voted for the expanded background check.”

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

The Republican-controlled House passed legislation Tuesday that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, offering social conservatives a symbolic victory even as the bill is all but certain not to become law.

The vote was 228-196, with six Democrats and all but six Republicans voting for the measure.

But the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, has virtually no chance of becoming law, with the Democratic-led Senate certain to ignore it and the White House threatening in scathing language to veto it.

The bill, called the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," would outlaw abortions after 20 weeks, unless the life of the mother is at risk. The legislation cites studies which indicate that a fetus feels pain starting at this gestational threshold; supporters of the bill say this medical research dictates that these fetuses should therefore not be aborted.

The vote came after Republicans – facing criticism over an alleged gaffe by bill sponsor Franks - altered their strategy to argue to bill, sidelining the Arizona lawmaker as the leader of the debate in favor of highlighting Republican women who support the ban.

House leaders also added language to the legislation last week after Franks stated that “the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.” Democrats compared that assertion to one made by then-Senate candidate Todd Akin, who suggested last year that women who are victims of “legitimate rape” often experience a physical, biological reaction to the trauma, preventing pregnancy.

Under the changed bill, pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest -- and are reported to authorities -- are excluded from the ban.

The vote also comes in the wake of a murder conviction for Kermit Gosnell, an abortion provider found guilty of murder for performing illegal late-term abortions.

Responding to criticism Tuesday that the House should be focused on economic issues instead of the largely symbolic abortion vote, Republican House Speaker John Boehner pointed to the Gosnell trial as evidence that taking up the abortion ban is warranted.

“After this Kermit Gosnell trial and some of the horrific acts that were going on, the vast majority of the American people believe in the substance of this bill and so do I,” he said.

And Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., argued on the House floor that the bill would send the "clearest possible message to the American people that we do not support more Gosnell-like abortions."

While the vote offered a chance for members from socially conservative districts to flex their political muscles, some moderate Republicans grumbled about the leadership’s decision to hold a vote on a controversial measure with no chance of going beyond the House.

“I think a lot of people are shaking their heads and not understanding why we’re doing this,” said one GOP official, who added that votes on hot-button social issues don’t help the party maintain much-needed Republican seats in moderate districts.

Republican Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania bluntly told The New York Times that the vote is “a stupid idea.”

“The economy is on everybody’s minds. We’re seeing stagnant job numbers. Confidence in the institution, in government, is eroding,” said Dent, a moderate whose southeastern Pennsylvania district only narrowly voted for Romney last year after voting for President Barack Obama in 2008. “And now we’re going to have a debate on rape and abortion.”

Last year, the House considered a similar piece of legislation that achieved the same ban, but applied only to the District of Columbia and did not include the exception for rape or incest. That bill achieved a simple majority (220-154), but ultimately failed because it needed a two-thirds majority for passage.

Last week, the White House made clear that it would veto the legislation, calling it an “assault” on women’s rights and a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s rulings.

“Forty years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed a woman's constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose,” the administration said in a statement. “This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women's health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients' health care decisions, and the Constitution.”

NBC’s Jessica Taylor and Frank Thorp contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:15 PM EDT

House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday that he does not “see any way” of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that does not have backing from a majority of the House’s GOP members, calling the border security provisions in the measure currently making its way through the Senate “weak” and “laughable.” 

Comprehensive immigration reform must – in some fashion – run through the United States House, and Boehner’s statement further complicates what is already a delicate process of compromise as proponents of the bill navigate political landmines on both sides of the Capitol dome. And the willingness of House Republicans to sign on to any reform efforts remains a large question mark. 

“I don't see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn't have a majority support of Republicans,” Boehner said during a press briefing with reporters Tuesday.

“I frankly think the Senate bill is weak on border security, I think the internal enforcement mechanisms are weak and the triggers are almost laughable,” he said of the bill drafted by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Republican Sens. Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Jeff Flake. “So if they're serious about getting an immigration bill finished, they should reach out to their GOP colleagues to broaden support.” 

Proponents of the “Gang of Eight” bill currently being debated in the Senate have hoped that – if it garners a strong bipartisan vote for passage in the Senate – Boehner would be under enormous political pressure to bring it to the House floor for a vote. 

Republicans in the Senate, including Rubio, have pushed for additional border security provisions that could make their bill more palatable to the Republican-led House. But Democratic leaders argue that those attempting to make the bill’s “path to citizenship” contingent on the completion of stringent border provisions are hoping to derail the legalization process for undocumented immigrants. 

So far, the major GOP border security amendments voted upon in the Senate so far have failed to garner enough support to be adopted; a proposal by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.  to build a 700-mile border fence before undocumented immigrants can obtain green cards failed 39-54 Tuesday afternoon. 

Speaking to reporters before that vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he believes popular support for the immigration measure will prevail. 

"No matter what he [Boehner] has said, there's going to be significant national pressure on the House to do something on immigration," he said. 

But on Tuesday, Boehner accused Democrats of seeking to sabotage the legislation. 

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) meets with members of the press to answer questions at the U.S. Capitol June 12, 2013 in Washington, DC.

“I'm increasingly concerned that the White House and Senate Democrats would rather have this as an issue in the 2014 election rather than a result,” he said. 

Last week, Boehner told reporters that he would not bring a bill to the floor that violates the “principles” of the Republican Party. His harsh description of the legislation Tuesday made clear that he believes the Senate bill as written would be such a violation.

House committees are currently working through individual pieces of immigration legislation that are less sweeping than the Senate bill. The lower chamber will convene a special conference to discuss immigration reform next month.

This story was originally published on Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:06 AM EDT

Obama at the G-8: It could have been worse… Germany visit: 2013 vs. 2008… Obama on Syria, NSA surveillance, and Bernanke… McCaskill backs “Ready for Hillary” Super PAC… House to vote on abortion ban… Biden to talk gun control… Not-so Great Scott… And revenge is a dish best served … by running for office. 

*** It could have been worse: As President Obama today wraps up his G-8 meetings in Northern Ireland before heading to Germany later this afternoon, it’s safe to say that this hasn’t been a very successful overseas trip for President Obama. At least so far. He was hoping to get a big show of early support on a free-trade agreement with Europe (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), but he got some pushback (especially from France). And regarding Syria, there wasn’t much of an agreement on anything, especially from Russia. Of course, it could have been worse -- the U.S. will still host the first round of talks on the trade partnership next month in DC, and Obama’s meeting with Putin was at least cordial (yet still awkward). At least Putin didn’t make any cannibal references while sitting next to the president. That said, the White House is hoping to turn things around with a successful speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Germany tomorrow. But even that seems like an uphill climb. Der Spiegel doesn’t exactly roll out the welcome mat for Obama like they did in 2008.

Ian Langsdon / AP

President Barack Obama, left, and French President Francois Hollande attend a round table meeting of G-8 member countries at the G-8 Summit at the Lough Erne golf resort in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, on Tuesday, June 18, 2013.

*** 2013 vs. 2008: NBC’s Andy Eckhart notes:  “Germany meets the superstar" was the headline on the cover of Der Spiegel weekly before his visit during the 2008 campaign. Some 200,000 Germans cheered him on. In this most recent issue of Der Spiegel, Eckhart notes the cover features Obama in Kennedy’s shadow with the tagline, „The Lost Friend“ and then it has an „angst-ridden report about fraying ties. "Kennedy's visit to Berlin was an almost ecstatic celebration of a protective alliance," it wrote. But it said nearly 70 years after World War II and two decades after the end of European communism, "the trip of (JFK's) no-less-charismatic successor will likely be a prosaic family gathering." Commentators note that Germans, like other ardent Obama supporters, are frustrated by impasses on slowing climate change and closing Guantanamo Bay prison.“ Needless to say, expectations are a LOT lower for Obama’s reception in Germany than they were five years ago. 

*** Obama on Syria: So what did we learn from Obama’s Charlie Rose interview from last night? Well, he outlined his Syria policy (or as some argue, his non-policy) a bit more. “We know what it's like to rush into a war in the Middle East without having thought it through. And there are elements within the Middle East who see this entirely through the prism of a Shia-Sunni conflict and want the United States to simply take the side of the Sunnis,” he said. “And that I do not think serves American interests.” He went on to say, “And we have a legitimate need to be engaged and to be involved. But for us to do it in a careful calibrated way sometimes is unsatisfying, because what people really typically want is a clean solution, a silver bullet, ‘Here's what we're going to do,’ and we just move forward.”

*** Obama on NSA surveillance: In his interview with Charlie Rose, the president also commented on the controversies surrounding the NSA surveillance programs. “The way I view it, my job is both to protect the American people and to protect the American way of life which includes our privacy,” he said. “And so every program that we engage in, what I've said is ‘Let's examine and make sure that we're making the right tradeoffs.’” He went on to say, “If you're a U.S. person, then NSA is not listening to your phone calls and it's not targeting your emails unless it's getting an individualized court order.” Obama’s comments came as a new Pew poll shows that Americans are split on the NSA surveillance story, with 49% saying that Edward Snowden’s release of the classified information serves the public interest, versus 44% who say it harms the public interest. (Strikingly, younger people strongly say that the NSA leak serves the public interest, which might not be that surprisingly given that the younger generation has a greater expectation that things are more open and transparent.) Also today, the House Intelligence Committee holds an open hearing at 10:00 am ET with NSA Director Keith Alexander. 

*** Obama closer than ever to replacing Bernanke? Perhaps the biggest news that Obama made in the Charlie Rose interview was that Ben Bernanke isn’t going to serve another term as Fed chairman. Why? Because Obama spoke of his service in the past tense. ROSE: “Some people would like to see you announce that you are reappointing Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Fed.” OBAMA: “Well, I think Ben Bernanke's done an outstanding job. Ben Bernanke's a little bit like Bob Mueller, the head of the FBI where he's already stayed a lot longer than he wanted or he was supposed to.” ROSE: “But if he wanted to be reappointed, you would reappoint him?” OBAMA: “He has been an outstanding partner along with the White House, in helping us recover much stronger than, for example, our European partners, from what could have been an economic crisis of epic proportions.”  

*** McCaskill backs “Ready for Hillary” group: In 2016 news today, the group “Ready for Hillary” announced the support of Sen. Claire McCaskill, whom it says is the first member of Congress to get on board of the Super PAC that’s supporting Hillary’s candidacy (though that doesn’t have official ties with the former Secretary of State). It’s also notable because McCaskill was an early Obama supporter in ’08. This McCaskill news comes after former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has been assisting Ready for Hillary, too. One thing that was clear to us yesterday, there seems to be a concerted effort to recruit prominent Democratic women early to Hillary’s side. That said, let’s everybody take a deep breath and realize, the only “news” a top Democratic official can make now about 2016 is announcing their intention NOT to support Clinton.  At this point, announcing support for her is not exactly NEWS. 

*** House to vote on abortion ban: Remember when, right after the 2012 election, Republican establishment types wanted to move beyond abortion and the culture war? Well, months later House Republicans today hold a vote on a measure that would prohibit abortion after 20-22 weeks of pregnancy. The New York Times: “Aware of the risks inherent in abortion politics, Republican leaders have moved to insulate themselves from Democrats’ criticism that they are opening a new front in the “war on women.” Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, will manage the debate on the bill when it reaches the House floor, a role that would customarily go to the sponsor, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona. And in a last-minute revision, House leaders slipped in a provision that would allow for a limited exception in cases of rape or incest, but only if the woman had reported the crime.” Those limited exceptions come after Franks drew criticism for saying that the incidents of pregnancy from rape were “very low.” Per NBC’s Frank Thorp, the vote takes place around 6:00 pm ET. 

*** Biden to talk gun control: Meanwhile, at 1:00 pm ET, Vice President Biden delivers remarks on reducing gun violence. But after the administration’s defeat on the Senate background-check vote, Biden’s focus will be on the executive orders that the administration has pursued on guns. “Senior administration officials said the vice president will deliver a ‘progress report’ touting completion of a slew of executive actions — including writing emergency management plans for schools and churches and training police to respond to active shooters,” the Washington Post reports. “Sure, these steps might make communities safer and better prepared to respond to gun violence. But, gun-control advocates said, they are baby steps that do relatively little to prevent the next mass shooting.” More: “Biden plans to announce that the administration has completed or made significant progress in 21 of 23 executive actions first rolled out on Jan. 16, according to senior administration officials.” 

*** (Not so) Great Scott: Folks, the fact that this new Quinnipiac poll is being touted as good news for incumbent Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) shows just how endangered he is come 2014. Yes, his approval rating has increased from 36% to 43% from 36%. And, yes, he’s now trailing Charlie Crist by 10 points (47%-37%) instead of 16 (50%-34%) in a hypothetical gubernatorial match up. But those are rough, rough numbers for a politician facing re-election next year. You never want to see your approval rating below 45%, and you never want your ballot number to be in the 30s… 

*** Revenge is a dish best served … by running for office: After it became pretty clear that Senate Republicans wouldn’t allow Elizabeth Warren to officially head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Warren decided to run for the U.S. Senate, and she beat incumbent Republican Scott Brown. (It raises the question if Brown might still be in the Senate if Republicans had been willing to accept her appointment.) And now Donald Berwick -- who headed Medicare and Medicaid for the Obama administration as a recess appointee but who never even received a Senate confirmation hearing -- is following the Elizabeth Warren route. Yesterday, he announced he was running for Massachusetts’ open gubernatorial seat in 2014 as a Democrat. In addition, it’s possible that Richard Cordray, Obama’s recess appointment at the CFPB, could run for Ohio governor. As one plugged in Hill Democrat emails us, “Remember, there’s historic precedent for blocked nominees seeking revenge through future elected office.  If things had gone differently in the 80s, Jeff Sessions would currently be toiling as an obscure federal judge in Alabama, not leading the charge against the immigration bill.”   

http://is.gd/ccxyrR%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on http://is.gd/TzuR1b%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Facebook and also on http://is.gd/hkhSDT%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Twitter. Follow us @http://twitter.com/#!/chucktodd">chucktodd, @http://twitter.com/#!/mmurraypolitics">mmurraypolitics, @http://twitter.com/#!/DomenicoNBC">DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Cold  War tensions are back as G-8 summit begins… A test of Obama’s international leadership… Cheney vs. Gore on NSA surveillance… New Yorker: Everything you wanted to know about the Gang of Eight... Boehner to abide by Hastert Rule on immigration?... What does Rowhani’s win mean for the U.S.?... Poll: Markey leads Gomez by double digits… And Manchin gears up … for 2018!!!

*** Cold War tensions are back: As the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland begins today, we probably aren’t the only ones having flashbacks to the early 1980s. With Russia alone among the G-8 nations in backing the governing Assad regime, the old divides have resurfaced in dramatic ways. On Sunday, Russian President Putin publicly lectured British Prime Minister David Cameron on Syria in a joint appearance, saying, “As regards to the supplies of weapons to the Assad government, … I believe you will not deny that the blood is on the hands of both parties. ... And there’s always a question, who is to be blamed for that?” A new Snowden-leak story about how the U.S. and British intelligence agencies eavesdropped on world leaders -- including then-Russian President Medvedev -- at a London conference in 2009 is sure to add to the tensions. And if that wasn’t enough, there’s a new allegation from New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft who claims Putin stole one of his Super Bowl rings. All of this is the backdrop when President Obama meets with Putin at 6:30 pm ET.

*** A test of Obama’s international leadership: As we wrote on Friday, this G-8 summit has become a test of Obama’s second-term international leadership. Can he stare down Putin? Can he keep the Western allies on the same page when it comes to arming the Syrian opposition? Can he articulate exactly what the U.S. strategy is beyond just hoping Assad will step aside and allow a political peace process to begin? Bill Clinton’s criticism of the president’s Syrian policy wasn’t nearly as impactful domestically as it was internationally. All this comes at a time when the president appears, well, a tad smaller today than he the last time he was in Europe. Over the past month, little has gone well for the administration as it’s been nicked by several different cuts -- Syria, the NSA leaks and surveillance debate, and the IRS story. And now there’s a new CNN poll showing that Obama’s approval rating has declined to 45%. As Team Obama is fond of saying, everyone gets their turn in the barrel. And right now, the Obama folks are definitely in the barrel. The potential good for them: That situation can always change. Indeed, it was just a year ago when the Obama campaign suffered a tough spell in May and June (poor jobs reports, “the private sector is doing fine”), and that situation changed in July, August, and September. Perhaps it’s a June thing. What they have to hope it’s not is some sort of second-term pall setting over them because that can be hard to shake. Appearance or illusion of weakness only creates actual political weakness. Bottom line: Obama needs to some meaningful progress, and it must gall him that his fate, at least internationally when it comes to Syria, is in the hands of Putin.

*** Cheney vs. Gore on NSA surveillance: Here’s a fun exercise -- looking at the NSA surveillance debate through the lens of two former vice presidents: Dick Cheney and Al Gore. For starters, Cheney “told ‘Fox News Sunday’ the National Security Agency-led programs have to remain confidential to keep the information from enemies and that he and other U.S. intelligence officials were concerned about a nuclear attack. ‘It was 19 guys with box cutters and airplane tickets,’ but the next time it could have been a ‘nuclear attack,’ the 72-year-old Cheney said. He said former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposing the gathering of information on phone calls and emails has done ‘enormous damage’ to the United States' anti-terror programs and called Snowden a ‘traitor.’” And here’s Gore, via National Journal: “In a long interview with The Guardian published on Friday, Gore said that the NSA surveillance is ‘not really the American way.’ And that's not the least of it: ‘This in my view violates the constitution. The fourth amendment and the first amendment—and the fourth amendment language is crystal clear...It is not acceptable to have a secret interpretation of a law that goes far beyond any reasonable reading of either the law or the constitution and then classify as top secret what the actual law is.’” It’s time for someone to step up and moderate a debate on surveillance between these two -- we are happy to moderate!

/

President Barack Obama gestures during a speech at the Belfast Waterfront on Monday, June 17, 2013, in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

*** Everything you wanted to know about the Gang of Eight: As the Senate begins another week debating the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration reform legislation, don’t miss Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker piece. It has everything you needed to know about the politics inside the Gang of Eight -- the McCain-Schumer relationship and how it developed, the tension between McCain and Rubio, improved relations between Schumer and Dick Durbin, and even McCain taking some of the blame for the bad relationship with the White House. (Another sign the Old McCain is back?) Bottom line takeaway from this piece: This is Chuck Schumer's show, he put this team together, and he seems to be keeping them together.  

*** Boehner to abide by the Hastert Rule on immigration? But that’s the Senate. When it comes to the House, the Washington Examiner’s David Drucker reports that Speaker John Boehner won’t bring any immigration-reform legislation to the House floor if it doesn’t have a majority of Republicans backing it, according to sources familiar with Boehner’s plans. From the piece: “One GOP strategist noted that Boehner is navigating a different set of dynamics than Reid in the Senate. In particular, House Republicans are likely to suffer a greater voter backlash in the 2014 elections is they back the wrong immigration reform bill than they would if they simply did nothing on the issue. ‘There is no national crisis with an artificial deadline the president can trump up and trot out on the nightly news,’ the GOP strategist said. ‘Boehner is under no pressure to put the Senate bill on the floor.’” Make no mistake: Boehner is facing two different pressures: 1) from Republicans who are convinced that the GOP must fix its problems with Latino voters; and 2) from conservatives in his caucus who are opposed to immigration reform -- and, frankly, anything President Obama is supporting. The question is: Which pressure will win out?

*** What does Rowhani’s win mean for the U.S.? Turning to international politics, there was a PRETTY BIG development in Iran over the weekend: In a surprise, the most moderate of the actual candidates Hassan Rowhani won that country’s presidential contest. The New York Times: “But while the election of the new president, Hassan Rowhani, a former nuclear negotiator who is considered a moderate compared with the other candidates, was greeted by some administration officials as the best of all likely outcomes, they said it did not change the fact that only the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would make the final decision about any concessions to the West. Even so, they said they wanted to test Mr. Rowhani quickly, noting that although he argued for a moderate tone in dealing with the United States and its allies when he was a negotiator, he also boasted in 2006 that Iran had used a previous suspension of nuclear enrichment to make.” 

*** Poll: Markey leads Gomez by double digits: Before next week’s special Senate election in Massachusetts, a Boston Globe poll released on Sunday shows Ed Markey (D) leading Gabriel Gomez (R) by double digits among likely voters, 54%-43%. One of the reasons why Gomez is trailing is that he isn’t running up the score among independents, which a Republican candidate needs to do in order to win in deep-blue Massachusetts. “Gomez is the candidate poll respondents find more likable and he holds the lead among unenrolled voters — the critical bloc of independents whose support he’ll need to top a Democrat in Massachusetts. But that margin is only 9 percentage points. Analysts believe that for a Republican to win in Massachusetts, he must win the unenrolled vote by a 2-to-1 margin.”

*** Manchin gears up … for 2018! Are we the only ones who think Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and his political team are overreacting a bit here? After all, Manchin isn’t up for re-election until 2018!!!! “Sen. Joe Manchin, co-author of a plan to expand background checks on gun sales, is launching a TV ad to defend himself from attacks by the powerful National Rifle Association,” Politico says. “Manchin will begin running the TV ad later this week, although details on how much the West Virginia Democrat will spend on the ad buy and its content were still being finalized on Sunday. Manchin will pay for the ad out of his reelection campaign.” If you were wondering if Manchin was going to run for re-election, well you have your answer -- 5 ½ years early!

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

The United States might have been able to prevent the deadly Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington had controversial National Security Agency surveillance practices been in place at the time, former Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday. 

The former No. 2 in the Bush administration defended the NSA's ability to monitor phone and email data, and labeled as a "traitor" the analyst who has admitted to having leaked details about the classified program.

Harry Hamburg / AP file photo

Former Vice President Dick Cheney speaks at the Center For Security Policy dinner at Union Station in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2009.

"As everybody who's been associated with the program's said, if we had had this before 9/11, when there were two terrorists in San Diego — two hijackers — had been able to use that program, that capability, against that target, we might well have been able to prevent 9/11," Cheney said on "Fox News Sunday."

And Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C., a hawkish Republican who's vocally defended the NSA practices, suggested another attack is even made more likely if the monitoring is curtailed. 

"I believe we should be listening to terrorists, known terrorist emails, following their emails and following their phone calls. And if they're emailing somebody and the United States or calling a number in the United States, I would like to get a judge's position to monitor that phone call," Graham said on "Meet the Press" on NBC. "If we don't do that, another attack on our homeland is very likely."

Many of the broad surveillance practices referenced by Cheney were initiated following the 9/11 attacks, prompted by President George W. Bush, who argued for broader government powers to prevent future attacks. But revelations that the government was routinely collecting so-called "meta-data" from phone providers like Verizon and other communications companies has prompted a new debate over what limits should be put on domestic government surveillance. 

President Barack Obama has also called the NSA's practices an important tool for his administration. Asked on CBS whether Obama felt as though any American's privacy had been violated, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said: "He does not."

McDonough also suggested that Obama will endeavor to speak more publicly about the program in the coming days, and touted the administration's work to more fully brief lawmakers about the programs and build in more oversight.

Obama has also asserted that he has scaled back some practices undertaken during the Bush administration — a claim which drew a sharp rebuke from Cheney. 

"I don't pay a lot of attention, frankly, to what Barack Obama says," Cheney said. "I find a lot of it is, in other areas — the IRS, Benghazi — not credible. I'm obviously not a fan of the incumbent president."

As to Edward Snowden, the former Booz Allen analyst who has claimed responsibility for first leaking details of the classified NSA program, Cheney said it was one of the worst breaches of intelligence he could imagine.

"I think he's a traitor," Cheney said of Snowden. "I think it's one of the worst occasions, in my memory, of somebody with access to classified information doing enormous damage to the national security interests of the United States."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Ga., the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Snowden should face prosecution. 

"He needs to look an American jury in the eye and explain why he has disclosed sources and methods that are going to put American lives in danger," said Chambliss.

McDonough was far more reluctant to attach any label to Snowden, explaining that he did not want to prejudge any investigation.

Cheney, though, additionally suggested that Snowden's decision to flee to Hong Kong — where he is thought to currently reside — could mean that he was working with the Chinese government. (McDonough said he could not comment as to Snowden's whereabouts or cooperation with the Chinese.)

"I am very, very worried that he still has additional information that he hasn't released yet, that the Chinese would welcome the opportunity and are probably willing to offer immunity — or sanctuary, if you will — in exchange for what he presumably knows or doesn't know," he said.

NBC's Carrie Dann contributed to this report.

John Gress / Reuters

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton greets New Jersey Governor Chris Christie during the Clinton Global Initiative America meeting in Chicago.

CHICAGO – New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ventured into what some would consider enemy territory for a Republican on Friday evening as he bonded with former President Bill Clinton over the finer details of disaster relief in a joint appearance that also served as a tantalizing potential peek at the next presidential election.

Christie’s message Friday was one that has become a trademark for the blunt-speaking governor, at least for now: Politics, for him, take a back seat to results.

Christie was received warmly by the former president at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting. His presence, following a Thursday speech by Hillary Clinton, provided attendees a glimpse at two national figures likely to dominate the political stage for the near future. The former secretary of state was not in the room for Christie’s appearance, however.

Stepping on stage for a conversation to discuss lessons Christie learned in the wake of Superstorm Storm Sandy, which battered New Jersey last fall, the governor was praised by Clinton for his handling of the recovery efforts.

Clinton pointedly noted that the iconic image most have of Christie is of the governor touring storm damage, days before last year’s election, in his signature flannel jacket with President Barack Obama at his side. It was a nod to the reaction Christie has faced within his own party. 

“He has done a good job,” Clinton told the crowd during the closing session of the annual meeting. “You got both praise and damnation for ignoring the political differences that you had then and still have with the president and all of us who are in the other party to do something that is really important.”

For his part, Christie was clear about his position that, when natural disasters hit, there can be no “partisan lines.” 

“The one thing I will tell you is that there are no partisan lines on this one when it happens. You are reaching out to everybody you can. I was reaching out to every governor I could, Republican or Democrat, to say ‘can you urge your utility companies to send us crews, can you send some National Guard troops up to help supplement ours,’” Christie said at the “America Meeting.”

“And so I think these types of crisis breaks down a lot of those barriers as well between us and can build the kind of consensus you are referring to,” he added.

It is a consensus that might be hard to sell within his own party, however. While Christie went to Chicago to talk to the Clinton foundation, some of his potential 2016 Republican primary opponents – Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, and Rep. Paul Ryan among them – were speaking to a gathering of Christian conservatives in Washington.

Although Christie enjoys a good degree of national appeal, Ryan, Rubio, Paul and Bush each outrank Christie in terms of popularity among Republicans, a June NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found, underscoring the challenges Christie must navigate should he choose to seek the GOP presidential nomination in 2016.

A Republican governor of a heavily blue state, Christie will stand for re-election this fall. His appearance with Clinton on Friday marks the second time in less than a month that Christie has appeared with one of the nation's most high-profile Democrats.

In late May, Christie was joined by Obama on the Jersey Shore to celebrate the rebuilt portions of the state's historic boardwalk that were washed away by Sandy.

Christie's willingness to partner with Democrats at points helps explain the crossover appeal that has helped transform the pugnacious Republican into a national figure.

That same NBC/WSJ poll found that Christie has broad crossover appeal of the sort that few politicians enjoy. The poll found that 40 percent of Republicans, 41 percent of independents and 43 percent of Democrats see him in a positive light.

Clinton, in an interview on Friday on MSNBC, praised Christie's work to reach out to Democrats as indicative of his appeal.

“I think in the culture of the Northeast, if you are a Republican and want to get elected and re-elected, bipartisanship is imperative,” he told MSNBC's Alex Wagner before noting that Republicans in other parts of the country would be “creamed" by voters if they followed Christie’s example.

NBC's Vaughn Ververs contributed to this report.

Related stories:

• Clinton and Christie vie for 2016 spotlight in Chicago
• Hillary Clinton a private citizen? Not even close

This story was originally published on Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:59 PM EDT

Speaking to religious conservatives Friday, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush said that welcoming immigrants to the United States will be an economic boon because they are hard-working, family-oriented and “more fertile.”

/

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush speaks at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference on June 14 in Washington.

"Immigrants create far more businesses than native-born Americans,” Bush said in remarks to the Faith and Freedom Coalition in Washington D.C. “Immigrants are more fertile, and they love families, and they have more intact families, and they bring a younger population. Immigrants create an engine of economic prosperity."

Bush, who is mulling a 2016 bid, also argued that there are too few young people paying into a system to support a larger number of older Americans because native-born fertility rates are going down. 

While Bush’s arguably awkward phrasing earned Twitter jabs, data shows that immigrants do have a higher fertility RATE than women born in the United States.

According to 2011 data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the birth rate for foreign-born women is substantially higher than that of U.S. born women, at 87.8 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44. (It was 58.9 for women born in the United States.)

In fact, the Pew Research Center calculated that, in 2010, about 23 percent of all births in the country were to mothers born abroad, even though only about 13 percent of the total population was foreign-born. 

But it’s also worth noting that the immigrant birth rate dropped sharply  -- down 13 percent -- between 2007 and 2010.

This story was originally published on Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:40 AM EDT

What’s the endgame for Syria?... And what happens next week at the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland… NBC/WSJ poll on a war-weary public… A tale of two different conferences today: Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan speak at Faith and Freedom in DC, while Chris Christie speaks at the Clinton Global Initiative… Bill Clinton grabbing headlines and Hillary Clinton defining TBD… And House GOP to hold immigration meeting on July 10.

*** What’s the endgame for Syria? After months of internal deliberations, the Obama White House yesterday announced its first significant effort at trying to intervene in the Syrian civil war. The decision comes after the White House confirmed the Assad regime has been using chemical weapons, and it comes amid growing public pressure on the White House to do more -- from John McCain on the right to Bill Clinton on the left. But here’s our question: What is the administration’s ultimate policy toward Syria? And what’s the endgame? While this issue isn’t a domestic political problem for Team Obama, it has become an international one where its international credibility is on the line. It was striking to see the administration announce this change in policy on a conference call while the president was attending an LGBT event at the White House. Of course, with the G-8 summit in Northern Island coming up next week, it’s very likely that President Obama uses it to announce some form of an international coalition to support the opposition.

Stringer / REUTERS

Members of the Free Syrian Army run to avoid a sniper in Deir al-Zor, June 13, 2013.

*** And what happens next week in Northern Island? But the G-8 isn’t united against Assad. The old G-7 might be, but country No.8 -- Russia -- is in a different place. The end game the president HOPES is a reality is that the ramped up international effort to support the opposition in Syria convinces Russia to back off its support of Assad. But with Assad’s forces winning, can a negotiated settlement be reached? What’s the incentive? Maybe the best criticism of the president on this issue came from someone on the left, actually: former Carter NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski, who noted the lack of U.S. leadership globally in trying to force China and Russia to see this issue through the prism of the Western powers and key Arab allies. 

*** A war-weary public: The White House’s change in Syria policy comes as the American public is EXTREMELY hesitant to intervene directly in Syria's civil war. According to our NBC/WSJ poll released last week, just 15 percent of respondents said they favor U.S. military action when asked to pick a response to stop the killing in Syria, and only 11 percent wanted to provide arms to the opposition. Folks, that’s just one-in-four Americans who support the policy the White House announced yesterday. By comparison, a plurality of respondents -- 42 percent -- preferred to provide only humanitarian assistance, and 24 percent believe the U.S. shouldn't take any action. Perhaps more significantly, those attitudes cut across party lines and almost all demographic groups. "Whether you voted for Romney or Obama, they have the same opinion on Syria," said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with the Democratic firm Hart Research.

*** A tale of two conferences: Another round of potential 2016 Republican hopefuls today addresses the Ralph Reed-founded Faith and Freedom Coalition gathering in DC, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). Among yesterday’s Faith and Freedom speakers were Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY), as well as Rick Santorum. But more than 700 miles away, in Chicago, Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is speaking to a different audience -- the Clinton Global Initiative. At 5:00 pm ET, Christie shares the stage with former President Bill Clinton at a session entitled “Cooperation and Collaboration: A Conversation on Leadership.” Of course, don’t forget that Christie’s participation at the Clinton Global Initiative comes just after his recent appearance with President Obama on the Jersey Shore. Yet don’t miss Ralph Reed’s very conciliatory remarks about Christie, which were VERY different than he got from the CPAC folks who didn’t invite the New Jersey governor to their confab earlier this year. “We’re sorry he didn’t come, but Chris Christie is pro-life,” Reed said. “We’re hoping he’ll be here a year from now.”

*** Christie trailing the pack among Republicans and conservatives: But we’ll remind you of these numbers: While Christie has plenty of crossover appeal per our most recent NBC/WSJ poll, he trails other Republican 2016ers in fav/unfav scores among GOP and conservative respondents. He’s got a lot of work to do if he’s going to win the support of the voters you need these days to secure the ’16 GOP nod. No one has higher negative ratings among Republicans and core conservatives than Chris Christie. From our poll going back to December:

Among Republicans:
Paul Ryan (62%-13%)
Rand Paul (53%-6%)
Marco Rubio (49%-6%)
Jeb Bush (48%-7%)
Chris Christie: (40%-16%)
Scott Walker (21%-5%)
Ted Cruz (21%-6%)

Among conservative respondents:
Paul Ryan (58%-11%)
Rand Paul (47%-5%)
Marco Rubio (45%-6%)
Jeb Bush (44%-7%)
Chris Christie (33%-15%)
Ted Cruz (21%-6%)
Scott Walker (19%-5%).

*** Bill grabbing headlines and Hillary defining TBD: Yesterday, we wrote that Hillary Clinton -- over the past four years -- has emerged with her own brand that’s distinct and separate from her husband’s. But we certainly got a reminder how Bill Clinton can still grab headlines (on Syria), even on a day that was supposed to be about Hillary’s debut with the Clinton Global Initiative. That must have given former Hillary campaign staffers a negative flashback back to ’08, when they would constantly get frustrated at how the Big Dog could throw them off…. As for Hillary’s speech yesterday, she is starting to define “TBD.” She laid out the issues she wants to focus on (early childhood development, opportunities for women, economic mobility) And now she’s launching “Too Small to Fail,” which is her early childhood initiative.

*** House GOP to hold immigration meeting on July 10: Lastly, NBC’s Frank Thorp reported yesterday that House Republicans will hold a “special GOP conference meeting” on July 10 to discuss immigration reform. Folks, if you wanted a sign that the Gang of Eight bill is probably going to pass the Senate and that it’s likely headed to the floor of the House for a vote, it’s this House GOP meeting. The meeting is also a sign that House Speaker John Boehner is trying to telegraph to his members that they need to come up with a solution to whatever the Senate ultimately passes. Bottom line: Boehner is laying the groundwork to show membership there is no House consensus, so they might be stuck with the Senate solution.  

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower 

CHICAGO -- Transitioning into her new role as a “private citizen” and ratcheting up speculation about her future presidential aspirations, Hillary Clinton stepped back into the spotlight Thursday to begin explaining how she would apply the lessons she learned as secretary of State to make an impact around the world, focusing particularly on increasing opportunities for women, something she called the “great unfinished business of the 21^st century.”

Kicking off the Clinton Global Initiative “America Meeting” in the Windy City, Clinton told the crowd in her hometown that after visiting 112 countries during her four-year post at the State Department, she will focus on three areas in the immediate future.

She told the nearly 1,000-person crowd she will focus on “three broad areas that have been close to my heart my entire adult life: early childhood development, opportunities for women and girls, and economic development that creates jobs and gives more people in more places the chance to live up to their God-given potential.”

Speculation about another White House run for Clinton has already reached a fever pitch and her every move is scrutinized by observers for signals about her intentions. And she remains highly popular among Democrats although her overall approval numbers have slipped somewhat.

While politics was largely left out of Clinton’s speech Thursday, the crowd applauded her as she proclaimed: “When women participate in the economy, everyone benefits, this also should be a no brainer. When women participate in peacemaking and peacekeeping, we are all safer and all secure. And, when women participate in politics, the effects ripple out across society.”

Since stepping down as the highest-ranking cabinet official in President Barack Obama’s administration Feb. 1, Clinton has kept a rather low profile so she could relax after the grueling demands of the State Department. This appears to be changing.

Clinton spoke for the first time at CGI America, an organization founded by her husband and former President Bill Clinton to emphasize “solutions that promote economic recovery in the United States.” 

She joined Twitter on Monday and tweeted Thursday morning to say she received an “incredible” welcome to the social media site.

/

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at the Clinton Global Initiative America meeting in Chicago, Ill., on June 13.

And in another sign that Clinton will start being more publically involved, the foundation set up after the 42nd president left the White House has recently been renamed the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

“We are so excited and thrilled to have this be a full partnership between the three of us,” Clinton told the crowd today. “I traveled the world quite extensively over the last 4 years and one of the lessons I took away is that this model of partnerships and commitments is at the heart at what we need to do to meet the challenges of the 21^st century.”

On Friday, Clinton announced during her speech, CGI will be launching a new partnership with a goal to help parents, teachers and communities how to learn and apply the latest brain research to help early childhood learning.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will give the closing address at the Chicago conference Friday evening.

This story was originally published on Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:03 PM EDT