The “Seinfeld” special election in SC… Sanford vs. Colbert Busch is entertaining, but it means absolutely nothing for 2014 or 2016… What will decide the close race: GOP and African-American turnout… Polls close at 7:00 pm ET… A sign for 2016? Chris Christie has weight surgery… When will the budget negotiations truly begin?... Republicans vs. Republicans on immigration… Democrats vs. Democrats on guns… And Benghazi surfaces again.

*** The “Seinfeld” special election: On the one hand, you couldn’t dream of a more entertaining and colorful special congressional election featuring a disgraced politician (Republican former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford) and the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert (Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch). On the other hand, it’s a race that appears to signify, well, nothing, especially as it relates to 2014 and 2016. If Sanford wins -- in a district where Mitt Romney beat President Obama by 18 percentage points, 58%-40% -- it will be due simply to the district’s GOP tilt. And if Colbert Bush wins, it will be due simply to Sanford’s flaws and past baggage. As political observer Charlie Cook writes, “If Sanford wins by any kind of margin, it means that Republican voters simply held their noses and voted for him anyway. If Colbert Busch wins, it most likely means that a lot of Republicans chose to stay home rather than vote for either a candidate whom they thoroughly disapprove of or one with whom they thoroughly disagree.” Folks, this is the “Seinfeld” special election: It’s entertaining as heck, but it means absolutely nothing.

*** The two factors to watch: That said, the toss-up election hinges on two things. One, do Republicans and conservative voters turn out? If they do, Sanford is going to win; if they don’t, he’ll lose. Two, do African-American voters show up? “In the 2010 general election, African-American participation was about 18%. If it's that strong Tuesday, Colbert-Bush may win,” longtime GOP political consultant Richard Quinn told MSNBC’s Jessica Taylor. Polls close at 7:00 pm ET, and the congressional contest is to replace Republican Tim Scott, whom Gov. Nikki Haley (R) appointed to serve in the U.S. Senate.

Randall Hill / Reuters

Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford makes a point to the moderators during a debate with Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch in Charleston, S.C. April 29, 2013.

*** Sanford’s ups and downs: As MSNBC’s Taylor points out, Sanford’s political career “has had more ups and downs than the mountains of the Appalachian Trail.” Just consider: He was a one-time conservative star (and potential 2012 presidential candidate) bucking the Obama administration on the stimulus. Then he disappeared from the state in 2009, telling his staff he was hiking the Appalachian Trail -- only to be discovered that he was in Argentina with his mistress, whom he later called his “soul mate.” Sanford left office after paying an ethics fine for state travel. But a year later, his protégé -- Nikki Haley -- became governor. Then this year in 2013, he ran for his old House seat, winning the GOP run-off for the nomination. Afterwards, more adversity surfaced: An AP report showed that his ex-wife, Jenny Sanford, accused him of trespassing. Now? He finds himself in a toss-up contest. Later tonight, we’ll find out if Sanford truly revived his political career or if it’s officially over.

*** Christie weighing his options? New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who’s  up for re-election this year, told the New York Post that he secretly had "lap-band stomach surgery" to lose weight. From the article: "He told The Post he was thinking of his four kids and how it was time to start improving his health when he decided to have the procedure. 'I've struggled with this issue for 20 years,' he said. 'For me, this is about turning 50 and looking at my children and wanting to be there for them.'  He also insisted that, contrary to what observers may say, the effort to slim down was not motivated by thoughts of a presidential bid. 'It's so much more important than that,' he said." The Post adds that Christie checked into a surgery center on Feb. 16 -- under a false name -- to undergo the procedure.  If this isn’t a sign he’s thinking about running for president, we don’t know what is. Remember, Christie had previously said that his health was pretty good… In fact, he called himself one of the healthiest fat guys in the country. So if this is for health reasons, then he wasn’t totally forthright before. For what it’s worth, we know the issue of his weight has been discussed with him by supporters and consultants as a political issue, and that it’s something he needed to deal with in some form if he ever did decide to run for national office.

*** When will the budget negotiations truly begin? Yesterday, there were two interesting moving parts as it relates to budget debate. The first: President Obama golfed with two Senate Republicans (retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Sen. Bob Corker) who are viewed as POTENTIAL partners on a possible budget deal. The second development: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, frustrated by Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) objection to go to a House-Senate conference on the budget, called the freshman senator “a schoolyard bully,” Politico reports. “‘My friend from Texas is like the schoolyard bully,’ Reid said. ‘He pushes everybody around and is losing, and instead of playing the game according to the rules, he not only takes the ball home with him but changes the rules. That way no one wins except the bully who tries to indicate to people he has won. We’re asking Republicans to play by the rules and let us go to conference.’” And these two moving parts raise this question: When do the budget negotiations, if they’re ever going to happen, begin? At a conference committee? (Republicans, despite their demand for regular order, appear to be resisting that. Not only on the Senate side, but House Republicans haven’t exactly been aggressive in trying to get the conference started.) So does that mean there will be formal talks outside of GOP leadership? That’s the White House hope. They have targeted the Georgia and Tennessee GOP senators (Isakson, Chambliss, Corker and Alexander) as credible negotiating partners. If the negotiations are going to occur, they need to start taking place soon. It’s now May.  

*** Republicans vs. Republicans on immigration: Immigration has become a political battle … solely on the right. NBC’s Carrie Dann: “A new study from the conservative Heritage Foundation estimates that granting a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants will cost US taxpayers at least $6.3 trillion. Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector co-authored the long-anticipated study, which is sure to be cited frequently by foes of the immigration reform effort as lawmakers take up legislation to overhaul the nation’s system. But the study also drew swift criticism from Republicans supporting the reform effort, who called the Heritage Foundation's estimate politicized, exaggerated and flawed in its methodology.” In fact, check out this comment from former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R): “The Heritage Foundation document is a political document; it’s not a very serious analysis… This study is designed to try to scare conservative Republicans into thinking the cost here is going to be so gigantic that you can’t possibly be for it.”

*** Democrats vs. Democrats on guns: Is Mayors Against Illegal Guns turning into the Club for Growth, or as First Read called them back in 2009, The Club for (Democratic) Growth? Politico reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s staff has tried to persuade the Bloomberg-backed group not to target vulnerable Democrats in red states on guns because it could lead to a shrinking majority or make it easier for a Republican takeover of the Senate. “It didn’t work,” Politico notes. “Ads from the Bloomberg-funded Mayors Against Illegal Guns are going up soon in Alaska, Arkansas and North Dakota — three states with Democratic senators who broke with the White House on last month’s background checks vote.”

*** Benghazi surfaces again: And speaking of political battles, the GOP-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be holding a hearing on the Benghazi attack on Wednesday. And here’s the news that has already leaked out: “A small team of Special Forces operatives was ready to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi last year after Libyan insurgents attacked the U.S. mission there, but was told it was not authorized to board the flight by regional military commanders, according to a career State Department official scheduled to testify before Congress on Wednesday,” per NBC’s Lisa Myers. This career State Department official -- Gregory Hicks -- seems like a credible witness (though he’s represented by high-powered GOP lawyers Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing). The thing to watch on Wednesday is whether Hicks’ testimony reveals that all the attention on Benghazi is MORE than a politically motivated investigation into not only the Obama White House but also the Hillary Clinton-led State Department. At a minimum, one thing this investigation has revealed is that there was an attempt to change the initial talking points regarding what happened. Question now is who was pushing for this change at the time? Was it the White House or was it State? Seems like there is more evidence that this was a bigger issue for State than for the White House. Of course, within a few days, the talking points became out of date and moot.

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

Voters in South Carolina’s first congressional district head to the polls on Tuesday to decide whether to offer former Gov. Mark Sanford a chance at political redemption, or instead send the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert to Congress.

Sanford, the Republican former governor whose time in office ended in a scandal triggered by a nationally-publicized extramarital affair and subsequent divorce, is seeking to once again win the district that elected him to Congress for three terms. A special election was called for this solidly Republican seat following GOP Rep. Tim Scott’s resignation to become the state’s next senator.

Randall Hill / Reuters

Elizabeth Colbert Busch and Mark Sanford shake hands after the South Carolina 1st Congresional debate in Charleston on April 29, 2013.

But while Sanford entered the special election as a modest favorite, he’s run into stiff opposition from Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a Clemson University administrator whose famous sibling has helped elevate what might otherwise be a mundane congressional race into a national media spectacle.

Democrats have rallied behind Colbert Busch, who has leaned on her relationships with members of the Charleston-area district during the campaign, and stressed her interest in partnering with businesses. Her experience, combined with Sanford’s personal baggage, has transformed the campaign into a competitive contest in a district where a Democrat hasn’t won since the early 1980s.

Sanford, in turn, has cast his Democratic challenger as a handmaiden of national Democrats, particularly House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., a cardboard cutout of whom Sanford staged a debate with several weeks ago.

But the biggest unspoken variable in the campaign has undeniably been the affair that practically torpedoed Sanford’s political career, which, at the time, included presidential aspirations.

Sanford launched his campaign by acknowledging the mistakes he’d made in conducting an extramarital affair with Argentine woman Maria Belen Chapur (who is now Sanford’s fiancée). The affair was an undercurrent for much of this spring’s campaign until Jenny Sanford, the governor’s former wife, filed a lawsuit alleging Sanford of having trespassed on her property.

For his part, Sanford’s betting that stage of the campaign is behind him.

"I think that [voters] had largely moved past my personal life at the end of the runoff, because I would have never won that runoff if that was still the focus," Sanford told the Huffington Post. "I think that the whole trespassing, October surprise thing brought that all back into the forefront."

Nonetheless, the revelation shook up the campaign, prompting the National Republican Congressional Committee – the group charged with electing GOP-ers to the House – to withdraw its resources from the campaign. And Democrats, along with supportive super PACs, stepped forward to launch their own advertising blitz in support of Colbert Busch.

Those moves prompted speculation that Sanford’s bid at political redemption might come up short following today’s special election. But the former governor has sought to battle back in recent days by stampeding throughout the district (with a handful of national media members in tow) and hosting multiple events.

But Colbert Busch has also tried to sustain her momentum with the benefit of national Democrats working on her behalf, who are eager to peel a vote away from Republicans’ majority in the House.

This story was originally published on Tue May 7, 2013 5:09 AM EDT

Will Israel’s strikes in Syria spur U.S. involvement?... On that “red line” and how Libya (and other conflicts) has shaped the administration’s thinking on Syria… Recapping Obama’s Ohio State commencement speech… Mark-up time for the “Gang of Eight” immigration legislation… Wrapping up the NRA conference… WaPo poll: Cuccinelli leads McAuliffe… Remember, candidates matter… Does Sanford’s GOP base show up tomorrow?… Steve King passes on IA SEN bid… And Jessica Taylor’s early look at the Top 10 House races to flip in 2014.

Uriel Sinai / Getty Images

Israeli Merkava tanks participate in a drill near the border with Syria at the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights on May 6, 2013.

*** Will Israel’s strikes in Syria spur U.S. involvement? The Washington Post on the weekend’s biggest news: “Israel’s reported airstrikes in Syria — and the threat of a retaliatory strike by the Syrian government — are likely to accelerate the decision-making of the Obama administration, which was already moving toward a sharp escalation of U.S. involvement in the two-year-old crisis. Senior officials said the deployment of U.S. troops to Syria remains unlikely, but they have indicated that a decision will come within weeks on options ranging from the supply of weapons to the Syrian rebels to the use of U.S. aircraft and missiles to ground President Bashar al-Assad’s air power by destroying planes, runways and missile sites inside Syria.” As NBC’s Andrea Mitchell noted on NBC’s “Weekend Nightly News,” Israel used American-made weapons and most likely had U.S. intelligence support to strike those Syrian targets. And, in an interview with Telemundo while the president was in Latin American, President Obama made it clear that the U.S. supports what he sees as Israel’s right to defend itself from what could be game-changing weapons. But remember, Israel is focused on what is essentially a side conflict with Syria, and that is Assad’s support of Hezbollah.

*** Red lines (don’t, don’t do it): On Sunday, the New York Times reported that administration officials realize the president’s previous “red line” comment on Syria -- which he made to one of your authors during an Aug. 2012 press conference -- was a mistake. That’s something we’ve reported on, but the Times goes into more detail: “‘The idea was to put a chill into the Assad regime without actually trapping the president into any predetermined action,’ said one senior official, who, like others, discussed the internal debate on the condition of anonymity. But ‘what the president said in August was unscripted,’ another official said. Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the ‘nuance got completely dropped.’” Georgetown’s Daniel Byman argues that presidents should draw “red lines” that the U.S. will tolerate. “The muddle over the red line on Syria’s chemical weapons should make the Obama administration and its successors think twice before issuing similar public threats without considering what happens if the red line is breached or if an adversary continues committing atrocities that fall short of the line.

*** How Libya (and other conflicts) has shaped the administration’s thinking on Syria: The administration is leery of being pushed into doing something big in Syria too soon. Look for incremental ramping up, including direct arming of the rebels and continued diplomatic efforts to get Putin off of Assad’s side. One thing that colors the Obama administration’s decision-making in all of this is Libya. As “clean” of an operation and intervention as it was, the instability there is very much on the forefront of the Obama administration’s mind. Who fills the vacuum? Watching this administration manage the Arab Spring, don’t overlook how each event has impacted a later decision (from Iran to Egypt to Libya to Yemen and Syria). The experience in one country has colored the decision making going forward.

*** Recapping Obama’s Ohio State commencement speech: President Obama’s commencement addresses are always interesting to watch/read, because they offer additional examples of how he views U.S. government and society. They become the windows to his core ideological beliefs which, believe it or not, he rarely actually talks about in public. And his commencement address at Ohio State University yesterday was no exception -- he talked about the importance of community (over individualism) and an engaged citizenry.  “In the aftermath of darkest tragedy [in Boston, Texas, and Connecticut], we have seen the American spirit at its brightest. We’ve seen the petty divisions of color, class, and creed replaced by a united urge to help… That’s what citizenship is. It’s the idea at the heart of our founding—that as Americans, we are blessed with God-given and inalienable rights, but with those rights come responsibilities—to ourselves, to one another, and to future generations.” More Obama: “I will ask you for two things: to participate, and to persevere. After all, your democracy does not function without your active participation. At a bare minimum, that means voting, eagerly and often. It means knowing who’s been elected to make decisions on your behalf, what they believe in, and whether or not they deliver.”  

*** Mark-up time: The Senate Judiciary Committee this week is slated to mark up -- that is, add amendments at the committee level -- to the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration-reform legislation. Politico: “Foes and friends of reform are set to offer a slew of amendments to the mammoth immigration bill this week as the Senate Judiciary Committee begins to mark it up. But observers believe that between Democrats, who hold the majority on the committee, and the two Gang of Eight Republicans who wrote the bill, it will emerge from committee largely unscathed. ‘I suspect it’ll come back [from committee] with a 13-5 margin, and that’ll be a tremendous momentum going to the Senate floor,’ said Frank Sharry, executive director of the pro-reform group America’s Voice.” On “Meet the Press” yesterday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy said, “I think the so-called ‘Gang of Eight,’ four Democrats, four Republicans, across the political spectrum, deserve an enormous amongst of credit for the work they've done. I met with them many times. And I think we can get it passed.

*** Wrapping up the NRA conference: NBC’s Tom Curry wrapped up Friday’s speeches at the National Rifle Association conference in Houston. Republicans -- including Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry -- “addressed the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in Houston Friday, celebrating the defeat of gun legislation in the Senate, assailing the media, and offering a strong defense of the powerful lobbying organization,” Curry wrote. By the way, Politico reports how not a single Democrat spoke at last week’s NRA conference in Houston. The NRA -- the National Republican Association? It’s a concern some inside the organization have, and it’s why there have been so many mixed signals when it comes to where the NRA stood on certain issues, including expanded background checks. Some inside the NRA did want to work with their Democratic allies and forge some compromise (even if the NRA didn’t OFFICIALLY support it). These are folks who want the “R” in NRA to stand for “Rifle” and not “Republican.” But those folks have lost out as the NRA -- internally -- has become more partisan.

*** WaPo poll: Cuccinelli leads McAuliffe: As we and others have pointed out, this year’s Virginia gubernatorial race is a contest between two flawed candidates. But Ken Cuccinelli (R) has always had one advantage over Terry McAuliffe (D): He has a base, while his Democratic opponent doesn’t -- at least not yet. And that edge is evident in a new Washington Post poll, which has Cuccinelli ahead by five points, 46%-41%. “Among all registered voters, [Cuccinelli is] backed by 95 percent of Republicans, 73 percent of conservatives and 62 percent among white men. By contrast, compared with Obama’s win seven months ago, McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, is badly underperforming among key Democratic constituencies he would need to prevail — young voters, women, African Americans and those in the vote-rich areas of Northern Virginia.” The good news for McAuliffe? The poll found that barely 10 percent say they are following the campaign ‘very closely’ and that nearly half of the electorate says they’re either undecided or could change their minds.” Neither party is happy about its standard-bearer, but Cuccinelli is giving the GOP establishment a reason to believe since he’s executing a smart campaign so far. McAuliffe has work to do to get the Democratic establishment comfortable again

*** Another VA GOV poll coming out on Wednesday: By the way, there will be another poll coming out on the Cuccinelli-McAuliffe -- NBC/Marist surveys on Virginia and New Jersey, which we’ll unveil on Wednesday morning on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown.”

*** Remember, candidates matter: Given the Washington Post poll, tomorrow’s special election in South Carolina, and the tighter-than-expected special Senate race in Massachusetts, it’s always important to remember this political truism: Candidates and campaigns matter. In Virginia, both Cuccinelli and McAuliffe are flawed, but which one has bigger flaws and which one is running a better campaign? In South Carolina, the only reason why the contest in this GOP-leaning district is competitive is due to Republican Mark Sanford’s past baggage. And in Massachusetts, one candidate right now is getting the buzz (Republican Gabriel Gomez), while the other hasn’t run a competitive race in a LONG, LONG time (Ed Markey).

*** Does Sanford’s GOP base show up tomorrow? Speaking of tomorrow’s special election in South Carolina, the Washington Post’s Cillizza sees Mark Sanford as the candidate with the momentum. “In conversations with Democratic and Republican strategists closely following the special election set for Tuesday in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, the consensus is that the former governor, not businesswoman (and sister of Stephen Colbert) Elizabeth Colbert Busch, is the candidate gaining momentum in the race’s final 48 hours.” The question we have is whether base Republicans show up for Sanford. That’s going to be the difference between him winning and losing.

*** King passes on IA SEN race: On Friday, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) became the latest Republican to say “no” to running for Iowa’s open Senate seat. “The best tool we have now is the majority in the U.S. House which functions mostly to keep the Leftist genie in the bottle. I cannot, in good conscience, turn my back on the destiny decisions of Congress today in order to direct all my efforts to a Senate race for next year, while hoping to gain the leverage to put the genie back in the bottle in 2015,” he said in a statement. And that raises the question: Just who will Republicans get to run in a contest that’s VERY IMPORTANT to their chances of winning a Senate majority in 2014?

*** Ten House races to watch for ’14: Finally, don’t miss Jessica Taylor’s very early look at the 10-top House seats likely to flip in 2014.

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

And we’re off: Look at all of today’s (and this month’s) 2016 activity… Rubio takes incoming from the right and responds… Is Biden a 2016 long shot? Only if Hillary runs…. Hillary, Christie headline Clinton Global Initiative gathering in Chicago next month… Our weekly 2016 roundup… April jobs report: 165,000 jobs created, unemployment rate falls to 7.5% (and check out the upward revisions)… Previewing Obama’s speech in Mexico City… And a Senate race watch.

*** And we’re off: Yes, President Obama’s second term is just over 100 days old. And, yes, the 2014 midterms are still a whopping 18 months from now. But like it or not, the early jockeying, traveling, and speechifying for 2016 is now well under way. Tonight, both Vice President Biden and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) deliver remarks in Columbia, SC (Biden addresses the state Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner beginning at 7:30 pm ET, while Cruz speaks to the South Carolina GOP’s Silver Elephant event). Also today, Cruz, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and other Republicans give speeches at the National Rifle Association’s confab in Houston, TX. Meanwhile, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) finds himself on the cover of National Review (although not in a flattering way), and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is on the cover of the Washington Monthly (with the title: “Should This Man Be President?”). Then are the other 2016-related events later this month: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) speaks in Iowa (on May 10) and New Hampshire (May 20); Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker heads to the Hawkeye State (May 23); and Cruz addresses the New York Republican Party (May 29).

Jason Reed / Reuters

Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., part of the Senate's "Gang on Eight", speaks during a news briefing on Capitol Hill, April 18, 2013.

*** Rubio takes incoming from the right -- and responds: Speaking of the new National Review cover -- entitled “Rubio’s Folly” -- here’s the article by immigration-reform opponent Mark Krikorian: After the 2012 election, “the Republican establishment turns its hopeful eyes, once again, to so-called comprehensive immigration reform. The same senators who pushed such a bill in 2007, prominently including Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Democrat Chuck Schumer, are at it again. They have devised a plan that would ease the path to legality for illegal immigrants while making some gestures toward enforcement. But a new element this time around is Marco Rubio.” But the junior Florida senator has a response of sorts in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, defending the pillars of comprehensive immigration reform but also arguing that any shortcomings to the “Gang of Eight” legislation can be improved. “Since my colleagues and I introduced immigration legislation, intense public scrutiny has helped identify shortcomings and unintended consequences that need to be addressed. Many concerned citizens have gone a step further and offered specific ideas to improve it. This kind of constructive criticism is a positive force that should always be welcomed in the political process.”

*** Cover photo of Rubio edits out other Republicans: As an aside to that National Review cover of Rubio, which shows him surrounded by Sens. John McCain and Chuck Schumer, the liberal site Talking Points Memo has this scoop: “The photo on the cover appears to be stripped down version … missing some unlikely attendees at the event. Look closer over Rubio's shoulder and you'll spot anti-tax crusader and right-wing hero Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.” The full photo also includes GOP Sen. Jeff Flake.

*** Is Biden a 2016 long shot? Only if Hillary runs: Also today, with Biden traveling to South Carolina, the Washington Post runs a pretty tough piece on the current vice president. The title: “Biden ponders a 2016 bid, but a promotion to the top job seems to be a long shot.” From the article: “Biden clearly has the experience and gravitas to ascend to the presidency, but many Democrats say he may have been in Washington too long (since 1973) to win an election. He is President Obama’s governing partner yet is rarely seen as Obama’s heir apparent.” We agree that Biden is the longshot (and in fact most likely to run) if Hillary Clinton gets in the race. But if she doesn’t? It would be hard to call him a long shot, at least in a Democratic primary. Yes, Hillary’s absence would likely create a more crowded Democratic field -- with O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, and others getting into the race. Yet it would be a leap to label Biden a long shot in that competition. Who would have a stronger base than Biden (especially if Obama endorses him)? Who would have better name ID? Of course, this is the reason why so many Democrats are pining for Hillary to run in 2016: The rest of the field isn’t as strong. But it’s not a given -- at least right now -- she gets in the race.

*** Hillary, Christie to headline Clinton Global Initiative gathering: As for Hillary, Politico reports that she and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will headline Bill Clinton’s Clinton Global Initiative event in Chicago on June 13-14. “The focus of the gathering … is on speeding up the United States' economic recovery and the nation's long-term outlook. But the short-term political outlook will be equally interesting, given that Clinton and Christie top most 2016 polls in their respective parties. It marks the first time Hillary Clinton will appear at CGI America, which has become a signature event in her husband's post-White House portfolio. The event will also feature Chelsea Clinton, Clinton ally and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and a slew of business, labor and government officials.”

*** Our weekly 2016 roundup: And here’s a look at all the other 2016 news this week: Two polls showed (here and here) Hillary Clinton blowing away the competition, and EMILY’s List wants her to run… Andrew Cuomo signed a book deal to write his memoir, set to come out next year.  “This is a private book, not a government book,” he insists. But he added, “It’s going to be a book about my experiences, my thoughts, my thoughts about government and the role of government.”… Martin O’Malley signed a death-penalty repeal, making Maryland the 18^th state to abolish the death penalty…. In the Quinnipiac poll, Marco Rubio narrowly leads the GOP with 18%, followed by Jeb Bush 16%, Chris Christie 14%, Rick Santorum 9%.... National Review reported that Ted Cruz is likely to run for president… Rand Paul endorsed Mark Sanford… And Chris Christie’s out with his first ad of his reelection.

*** April jobs report -- 165,000 jobs created, unemployment rate ticks down to 7.5%: In non-2016 news, the April jobs report shows a big improvement from last month’s numbers. The AP: “U.S. employers added 165,000 jobs in April, and hiring was much stronger in the previous two months than first thought. The gains trimmed the unemployment rate to a four-year low of 7.5 percent. The Labor Department report showed the job market is improving despite higher taxes and government spending cuts. In addition to the April gains, the government said employers added 138,000 jobs in March and 332,000 in February. That's 114,000 more over the two months.” Read that February number again: 332,000 jobs.

*** Previewing Obama’s speech in Mexico: NBC’s Kristen Welker report that President Obama's speech at the Anthropology Museum in Mexico City at 10:15 am ET will be equally aimed at a U.S. audience, according to a White House official. Obama’s hope is to recast many Americans' impression of Mexico as a poor country plagued by a violent drug war. The president is expected to say that while Mexico still struggles with those problems, it is also a country that has seen major economic strides in recent years.  In addition, Obama's larger theme will be that comprehensive immigration reform will be important to enhancing both economies and will be important for US-Mexico trade, which totaled $500 billion dollars last year. 

*** Senate race watch: And via your authors and our colleague Jessica Taylor, here’s some Senate race-related news to watch: First Lady Michelle Obama will help raise money for Rep. Ed Markey May 29, in what will be her first fundraising effort after the November 2012 election… “U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii announced her candidacy for U.S. Senate on Thursday, setting up a primary showdown that almost certainly will be the state’s marquee race next year,” AP writes… Republicans are still having a difficult time finding a Senate candidate in Iowa… And in Georgia, GOP Rep. Jack Kingston became the third House member to throw his hat into the growing Senate primary, joining his fellow congressmen Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey.

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

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama (L) shakes hands with his Mexican counterpart Enrique Pena Nieto after a joint news conference at the National Palace in Mexico City May 2, 2013.

President Barack Obama warned lawmakers against erecting unnecessarily high benchmarks for a pending overhaul of immigration laws, suggesting they would excuse inaction by Congress.

The president, following a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, said that he remained “optimistic” that Congress could produce a comprehensive immigration reform law this year – an issue of particular importance to millions of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans residing in the United States.

But, responding to Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio’s suggestion that the bipartisan immigration law he helped produce might need even stronger provisions on border security in order to win the necessary votes for passage, Obama warned members of Congress.

“Frankly, we put enormous resources into border security.  There are areas where, frankly, there is more work to be done,” Obama said. “But what I’m not going to do is go along with something where we’re looking for an excuse not to do it.”

In an interview on Wednesday with conservative talker Sean Hannity, Rubio, a member of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” that authored a new immigration law, said the aspects in the law dealing with border security might need more work.

“The part we still have to do some work on is this border stuff,” Rubio said. “And as I said yesterday … this bill will not pass the House and quite frankly I think will struggle to pass the Senate if it doesn’t deal with that issue.”

Conservatives have demanded stronger border provisions as part of a broad immigration reform deal in exchange for creating a pathway to citizenship for those currently residing in the United States without any documentation.

Peña Nieto, for his part, said that the Mexican government “understands that this is a domestic affair for the U.S.” and wished its northern neighbor the best of luck in its reform efforts.

This story was originally published on Thu May 2, 2013 6:26 PM EDT

With former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waiting in the wings, a prominent Democratic group launched an effort Thursday to pave the way for electing America's first woman president.

Marshaling new polling data of voters in battleground states, the Democratic women's group EMILY's List said Americans fully believe the country is ready to elect a woman as president, pointing to results showing almost three in four Americans "expect" the nation to elect a woman as president in 2016.

The initiative, dubbed "Madam President," comes well before the next presidential election has even begun to take shape, but has clear implications for Clinton, Democrats' favorite right now to carry the party's banner.

"There is one name that seems to be getting mentioned more than others," said Stephanie Schriock, the president of EMILY's List, which supported Clinton during her 2008 bid for the Democratic nomination. "We do not know if Hillary is going to run — but we're hopeful that she may."

So intense is the early interest in Clinton's potential candidacy that even her most benign public appearances since leaving her job as secretary of state are scrutinized for signals of her intentions. The runner-up in a bitter, drawn-out primary battle versus Barack Obama in 2008, Clinton's personal approval numbers have never been higher following her stint as the country's top diplomat.

To that end, a new national poll released separately on Thursday suggested that Clinton is the overwhelming favorite of Democrats in 2016. Sixty-five percent of Democrats said in a Quinnipiac University poll conducted at the end of last month that they would vote for Clinton in a primary; 13 percent would prefer Biden, while all other contenders register less than 5 percent.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes remarks after being honored with a Distinguished Leadership Award from the Atlantic Council in Washington, May 1, 2013.

"This is a wide open race if Sec. Clinton doesn't decide to do this," Schricok said, explaining that the EMILY's List campaign was not focused on any one particular candidate. She challenged pollsters to include other Democratic women among the field of candidates they test.

Among those candidates floated on Thursday: Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

The essence of Thursday's new "Madam President" campaign involves preparing Americans to elect any of those women. EMILY's List said it would launch an online ad campaign with a six-figure price tag to target women on sites like Oprah.com, BlogHer and Feministing — and traditional outlets like the New York Times or New York Magazine.

The purpose is to lay the groundwork for any of these candidates, and in a targeted way. The campaign will also involve town hall meetings in key nominating states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which could boost or bust a candidate's presidential aspirations.

But the possibility of electing a woman seems all the more real given the polling data debuted at Thursday's event, which found that 86 percent of battleground state voters believe America is ready to elect a woman president, and 72 percent of those voters expect that milestone to be reached in the next presidential election.

Getting more into the brass tacks of politics, the poll found that a well-qualified, generic Democratic woman candidate might get a slight boost versus a male, Republican opponent — "not a gigantic difference, but it could be meaningful," according to pollster Lisa Grove.

The prospect is tantalizing for a group like EMILY's List, which has dedicated itself to electing Democratic women candidates for decades now. A more established and influential group in Washington, EMILY's List joins upstarts like the group "Ready for Hillary" in putting more pressure on the former New York senator and first lady to take the plunge — again — in 2016.

"We're still in a country that has never done this," Schriock said. "So I feel the 'Madam President' campaign is really one to ignite this national conversation about how it's going to be beneficial to all Americans to see a woman in the White House."

This story was originally published on Thu May 2, 2013 10:35 AM EDT

It takes two to make an agenda go right… Partisan gridlock is the norm during divided government… Polls: Boston bombings haven’t significantly impacted the immigration debate… Updated cabinet shuffle: Pritzker to Commerce, Froman to USTR… Under Pressure: Emily’s List unveils national campaign “to put a woman in the White House” (hint, hint, Hillary)… Tapping the brakes on the ’16 Cruz speculation… And Buzzfeed’s bomshell on Terry McAuliffe. 

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, D-W.Va., left, and Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., arrive at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 10, 2013, to announce that they have reached a bipartisan deal on expanding background checks to more gun buyers.

*** It takes two: For all the questions and scrutiny President Obama has recently received when it comes to his stalled agenda -- especially on the topics of budget and guns -- it’s important to quote the immortal philosopher MC Rob Base: It takes two to make a thing go right. And Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), who partnered with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) on the compromise background-check measure, admitted as much when explaining why that bipartisan gun-control amendment was defeated. "In the end it didn’t pass because we’re so politicized," Toomey told editors from Digital First Media in an interview published Wednesday by the Norristown Times Herald, per NBC’s Mike O’Brien. "There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it," Toomey added. That also was the conclusion a recent New York Times/CBS poll: Americans largely retreat to their partisan camps, even if they overwhelmingly support background checks or a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. “Yes, I believe the Republicans should have voted for background checks,” a respondent told the New York Times. “But it’s like marriage. You stick with your wife no matter what, and you don’t just ditch your political party on one issue.”

*** Partisan gridlock is the norm during divided government: Of course, this is hardly something that’s new when it comes to American politics. As one of us wrote yesterday, partisan gridlock -- even on what would seem the simplest of issues -- is the norm, particularly in times of divided government. The exceptions have come when at least one party has had an incentive to compromise. Think Bill Clinton signing welfare reform into law before his re-election, or the tax cuts under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush (who doesn't like tax cuts?), or maybe immigration reform this year. The exceptions have also come when it's an absolute necessity to compromise. Think the Social Security fix during the 1980s, the debt-ceiling deal in 2011, and the fiscal-cliff deal at the end of 2012. But that's about it under divided government. Conversely, the greatest legislative achievements have occurred when one party controls the White House and Congress -- usually by overwhelming numbers. In the 1930s, as Congress was passing Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Democrats held between 69 and 75 Senate seats, as well as 300-plus House seats. In 1965, during Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, Democrats controlled 68 Senate and 290-plus House seats.

*** Polls: Boston bombings haven’t significantly impacted the immigration debate: So will immigration reform be one of those historic exceptions to gridlock during divided government? We won’t find out for sure until later this summer, but two new polls show that the Boston bombings haven’t significantly impacted the debate. Per a national Quinnipiac survey, 70% of registered voters said that the bombings haven’t changed their opinion about whether there should be a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. And a separate Pew poll finds that nearly six-in-10 (58%) see the bombings as mostly a separate issue from the immigration debate. That said, the same Pew survey shows that Republicans (46%) are more likely to say that bombings should be a factor in the debate than Democrats (33%) or independents (34%).

*** Updated cabinet shuffle -- Pritzker to Commerce, Froman to USTR: NBC’s Peter Alexander confirms that President Obama will name friend and donor Penny Pritzker to run the Commerce Department and international economics adviser Mike Froman to be his U.S. trade representative. Obama will make this announcement at 10:15 am ET before he departs on his trip to Mexico and Latin America. On that trip, Obama and Mexico President Pena Nieto hold a press conference at 5:10 pm ET, and they have a working dinner at 8:15 pm ET. By the way, here is First Read’s updated look at the president’s second-term cabinet.

John Kerry at State (replaced Hillary Clinton)
Chuck Hagel at Defense (replaced Leon Panetta)
Jack Lew at Treasury (replaced Tim Geithner)
Sally Jewell at Interior (replaced Ken Salazar)
Sylvia Burwell at OMB (replaced acting director Jeffrey Zients)
Lisa Jackson at EPA (Gina McCarthy nominated)
Steven Chu at Energy (Ernest Moniz nominated)
Hilda Solis at Labor (Tom Perez nominated)
Ray LaHood at Transportation (Anthony Foxx nominated)
Commerce (N/A) (Pritzker nominated)
U.S. Trade Representative (Froman nominated)

And here are the cabinet secretaries who are remaining:
Janet Napolitano (DHS)
Arne Duncan (Education)
Tom Vilsack (Agriculture)
Eric Holder (Justice)
Kathleen Sebelius (HHS)
Shaun Donovan (HUD)
Eric Shinseki (Veterans Affairs)

*** Under Pressure: At 9:30 am ET, the Democratic abortion-rights group Emily’s List is holding an event in DC today to unveil its national campaign “to put a woman in the White House.” This campaign includes Emily’s List polling that shows battleground-state voters are ready for a female president; a six-figure digital buy to reach women on popular online sites; and a new “Madam President” video. And it all has an obvious message: Hillary Clinton -- hint, hint -- we really want you to run for president. And Emily’s List President Stephanie Schriock says as much in a CNN op-ed tied to today’s rollout. “So who will it be? There's one name on all our minds: Hillary Clinton. Voters across the country are excited about her possible run. But if she decides not to run, we still have a deep bench of incredible female leaders to choose from.” And that’s perhaps the best way to view all the Hillary-related activity, whether it’s Emily’s List or that Draft Hillary campaign. These folks are putting pressure (gently but obviously) on the former secretary of state to make a 2016 bid. And by the way, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Clinton blowing away the potential Democratic field. She gets 65% of Democratic voters, Vice President gets 13%, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo gets 4%. 

*** Tapping the brakes on the Cruz speculation: In other 2016 news, National Review’s Robert Costa yesterday wrote a piece noting that freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) “is considering a presidential run, according to his friends and confidants.” But as our colleague Mike O’Brien has noted, you might want to tap on those 2016 brakes -- given the conservative competition Cruz would face, concerns by the GOP establishment, and the fact that he was born in Canada. While Costa reports that Cruz “isn’t worried that his birth certificate will be a problem,” we’re not so sure. Here’s what the Constitution says: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Is a natural-born citizen someone who was born abroad (in Canada)? Is it someone who was born to just one parent who’s a citizen? Bottom line: It all comes down to how courts define “natural born.”

*** Buzzfeed on McAuliffe: Lastly, just after Terry McAuliffe released this warm and fuzzy TV ad showing him, among other things, in the delivery room when one of his children was born came this Buzzfeed bombshell: “McAuliffe also wrote about the birth of his children in his 2007 book What A Party, noting on one instance he left his wife at the hospital to attend a party for Washington Post reporter Lloyd Grove before the birth of his daughter Sarah.” Ouch. This has become the theme of the McAuliffe-Cuccinelli gubernatorial race in Virginia: Every day, there’s an issue that seems to hurt one of these candidates. For McAuliffe, this piece of news is hurtful, because it shows that he will have the difficult task of shaking the persona that he’s a DC-establishment operator -- something that might be easier to shake if he were running in a state without a ton of Beltway media living there.

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

A bipartisan proposal to expand background checks for gun sales failed in part due to Republicans' desire to prevent President Barack Obama from winning a victory on a major policy initiative, the gun proposal's chief GOP proponent said Wednesday.

Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who crafted a proposal with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., to extend background checks to firearms purchased at gun shows and online, said the measure failed to win the 60 votes it needed to win passage due to Republican politics.

"In the end it didn’t pass because we’re so politicized," Toomey told editors from Digital First Media in an interview published Wednesday by the Norristown Times Herald.

"There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it," Toomey added.

His comments suggest that his fellow Republicans' votes weren't governed so much by judgment of good policy so much as a desire to deprive Obama of a political and legislative victory.

It's a phenomenon to which the president himself alluded on Tuesday when speaking at a news conference about the parts of his agenda that have stalled in Congress.

"Their base thinks that compromise with me is somehow a betrayal. They’re worried about primaries," Obama said. "And I understand all that. And we're going to try to do everything we can to create a permission structure for them to be able to do what’s going to be best for the country. But it’s going to take some time."

The sentiment could infect other second term priorities of Obama's currently before Congress, like comprehensive immigration reform or a broader agreement with Republicans on taxes and entitlements.

This story was originally published on Wed May 1, 2013 3:37 PM EDT

Conservative firebrand Ted Cruz, the Texas senator whose service in office is just four months long, is considering a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, according to a report on Wednesday by National Review.

The Texas Republican has quickly won the fervent support of grassroots conservatives since his election last November by breaking with Senate convention to aggressively challenge Democrats – and some Republicans, too. Citing anonymous sources, the National Review article suggested Cruz might look to quickly capitalize on his newfound fame, and rally conservatives behind his candidacy.

But there are significant barriers to Cruz winning the GOP nod in 2016, let alone winning the White House. Here are a few of them:

Mark Wilson / Getty Images file photo

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

Cruz would face tough conservative competition
While Cruz has charmed figures ranging from conservative bloggers to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, he could encounter a Republican primary field that would hardly cede the most conservative bloc within the GOP to Cruz. 

It’s easy to conceive of a series of Republican presidential hopefuls – Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (and possibly more) – vying for the same segment of the Republican primary vote as Cruz. Any one of those candidates will almost encounter difficulty in harnessing the political power of the Tea Party, a movement that has never been particularly well-known for acting in concert.

Fantasy vs. reality
If Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s bid for the Republican nomination in 2012 taught political observers anything, it’s that being a potential candidate is always easier to execute than being an actual candidate.

Conservatives, searching for an alternative to the establishment-backed favorite, Mitt Romney, practically begged Perry to make a late entry into the primary. They extolled his conservatism and the positive jobs situation in Texas, arguing that his record, combined with a top-notch team of consultants, would make Perry the new favorite for the GOP nomination.

Of course, things didn’t turn out that way. Perry withered under the national spotlight and the scrutiny of rival Republican candidates. Recent history is littered with examples of similar primary candidates, like Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark in 2004, and former Sen. Fred Thompson’s foray into the GOP primary of 2008. Their candidacies fizzled after having won broad acclaim at their outset.

Cruz would almost certainly face stiff opposition in a Republican primary that could expose any of his flaws as a politician. Wednesday’s National Review article cited Cruz’s experience as an award-winning debater, but his performances in those contests have never been filtered through the prism of rival campaigns or the national media.

The establishment would strike back
Cruz’s path to the GOP nomination would almost certainly rely on an outside strategy in which he courts conservative activists and rails against the party establishment in Washington. But would the D.C. establishment necessarily take that kind of criticism while sitting down?

In 2012, the GOP establishment quickly rallied around Romney, if only after it became apparent that there would be no other serious contenders for the presidency available. And when it seemed as though the more conservative Rick Santorum might emerge to dethrone Romney during the primaries, there were serious rumblings that GOP money men might scramble to find an alternative candidate who they regarded as more formidable versus President Barack Obama in the general election.

Given Cruz’s conservatism, it isn’t tough to imagine the GOP establishment rallying around a candidate perceived as more electable to if a Cruz candidacy  came too close to victory.

It doesn’t help Cruz that he’s forged few alliances during his short time in the nation’s capital. He most recently derided many of his congressional colleagues as “squishes,” and spoke publicly about internal Republican debates that were supposed to remain confidential. Cruz has worked with a few fellow conservatives, but two of them – Paul and Rubio – could end up being rival candidates for the GOP nomination in 2016.

Oh, Canada!
The National Review article acknowledges that Cruz advisers are prepared for a legal challenge to his eligibility to serve as president, reminiscent of the “birther” attacks conservatives had leveled against Obama for much of his first term. 

At issue is Cruz’s birthplace. He was born in Calgary, Canada, the son of a Cuban refugee father and a U.S. citizen mother. Having been born outside the continental U.S., he would have to address questions about whether he is a “natural born” U.S. citizen, which the Constitution requires of a prospective president.

But even if Cruz is able to offer up all the evidence in the world of his eligibility, it’s not tough to imagine Democratic candidates and super PACs relishing in the chance to give a Republican his comeuppance, and turn the “birther” phenomenon back against a GOP hopeful. 

He’s barely a blip in the polls right now
Cruz could certainly raise his national profile in the next few years, but the Texas senator hasn’t yet registered as a contender for the GOP nomination in any credible poll testing the 2016 field.

A Quinnipiac University poll at the beginning of last month found that Rubio was the slight, early favorite among Republican primary voters; 19 percent of them said they would favor the Florida senator as their nominee in 2016. And while other contenders like Paul, Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell all registered some level of support, Cruz did not.

Cruz still faces the challenge of building his reputation outside of conservative, Washington-focused circles. But he still has plenty of upside, too; having been a figure on the national stage for such a short period of time, Cruz’s name ID among primary voters has virtually nowhere to go but up.

This story was originally published on Wed May 1, 2013 12:42 PM EDT

Battle lines are already drawn in Markey-Gomez race… Specter of Scott Brown hovers over the contest (and why that’s probably a good thing for Democrats)… Why Dems are favored to hold onto the MA SEN seat: Markey’s vote total (309,487) was almost DOUBLE the votes cast in the entire Republican contest (188,375)… Obama yesterday: My job isn’t to make Congress behave… POTUS on health-care implementation: It’s already taken place for 85%-90% of Americans… Newtown victim confronts Ayotte at NH town hall… And the McDonnell-Star Scientific story isn’t helpful to Cuccinelli.

*** Battle lines are drawn in Massachusetts: Well, we now have the match-up for the June 25 general election to fill the U.S. Senate seat that John Kerry vacated to become secretary of state. In the Democratic primary last night, Congressman Ed Markey easily defeated fellow Congressman Stephen Lynch, 57%-43%. And in the GOP race, Navy SEAL-turned-businessman Gabriel Gomez triumphed over former U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan, 51%-36%; state Rep. Dan Winslow got 13%. The battle lines in the Markey-vs.-Gomez contest are already drawn. Markey is out to associate Gomez -- who has called himself “an independent voice” and “a new kind of Republican” -- with the GOP and the Tea Party. "This campaign is about standing up to the special interests and the extreme Tea Party Republicans who want to stop progress and send our country in the wrong direction,” Markey said last night. Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic Super PAC, has labeled Gomez “Mitt Romney Jr.” (because of his career in private equity and because of the former Romney staffers working for him).

*** Specter of Scott Brown hovers over the race (and that’s probably a good thing for Democrats): Meanwhile, Gomez is going after Markey for his 37 years in Washington. "I want to take you back in time. The year was 1976; 37 years ago. Gerald Ford was president. Al Gore had not yet invented the Internet… That was a lifetime ago. Me, I was just playing little league baseball. And that was when Ed Markey first got elected to Congress," the Republican said last night, per NBC’s Andrew Rafferty. (The National Republican Senatorial Committee even has a web video on “Ed Markey’s Worst Hits from the ‘70s, ‘80s, ‘90s, and Today.”) For Democrats, the specter of Scott Brown -- who won the special Senate election in Massachusetts in 2010 -- is hovering over this race. But don’t forget that Brown’s victory was a perfect-storm event: It took place at the height of unpopularity over the health-care legislation moving through Congress, the unemployment rate was near 10%, and no one in Massachusetts Democratic Party circles saw Brown’s victory coming. Three years later, none of those factors have that same intensity, including the fact that Democrats won’t be taking the race for granted.

Steven Senne / AP

Republican candidate for the Senate Gabriel Gomez gives a thumbs up as he takes to the stage next to his daughter Olivia, 13, left, before addressing an audience with a victory speech at a watch party, in Cohasset, Mass., Tuesday, April 30, 2013.

*** Numbers to explain why Gomez is the underdog in this blue state: Still, here’s a little more perspective for the June 25 general election: Markey’s vote total (309,487) was almost DOUBLE the votes cast in the entire Republican contest (188,375). Heck, Lynch by himself got more votes (229,594) than the entire GOP field combined (188,375). By the way, MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown” today has interviews with both Markey and Gomez.

*** Obama: My job isn’t to make Congress behave: At his White House press conference yesterday, President Obama received questions on a number of topics -- Syria, the Guantanamo Bay detainees, the Boston bombing, and even the NBA’s Jason Collins announcing he’s gay. But to us, what stood out were the president’s comments blaming Congress at almost every turn, no matter the topic. From guns to GITMO, to health care and of course the sequester and the budget. “You seem to suggest that somehow these folks over there have no responsibilities, and that my job is to somehow get them to behave,” he said. “That’s their job. They’re elected -- members of Congress are elected in order to do what’s right for their constituencies and for the American people.” He went on to say, “The only way the problem does get fixed is if both parties sit down and they say:  How are we going to make sure that we're reducing our deficit sensibly?” And there was this: “There are common-sense solutions to our problems right now. I cannot force Republicans to embrace those common-sense solutions. I can urge them to. I can put pressure on them. I can rally the American people around those common-sense solutions. But ultimately, they, themselves, are going to have to say, we want to do the right thing.” It’s not new that the president is frustrated by Congress. The question is whether voters are in such agreement with him that they get a throw-the-bums-out mentality.

*** POTUS on health care: Implementation of the health-law has already taken place for most Americans: The other interesting answer Obama gave yesterday was on health care. Republicans have done a very good job of arguing that implementing the new health-care law is so big, so complicated. And retiring Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus only gave them more fodder when he called the implementation a potential “train wreck.” But the president tried to knock that perception down yesterday. “For the 85% to 90% of Americans who already have health insurance, this thing has already happened.  And their only impact is that their insurance is stronger, better, more secure than it was before -- full stop.  That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything else.” He added, “So all the implementation issues that are coming up are implementation issues related to that small group of people, 10 to 15 percent of Americans -- now, it’s still 30 million Americans, but a relatively narrow group -- who don’t have health insurance right now.” Until Oct. 1 (the day enrollment for health care begins), the White House and Republicans are going to be battling over trying to define the implementation. Republicans are essentially using the same playbook from 2010, but instead of attacking health care for the number of pages that are in the bill, they will attempt to stoke fear by attacking the complexities of the system. The question is whether the White House has learned their lesson from 2010.

*** Newtown victim confronts Ayotte at town hall: The town halls are back -- this time on the issue of guns and gun control. NBC’s Kasie Hunt reports on Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s town hall yesterday in New Hampshire: “Bringing the national gun debate to a tiny New England town on Tuesday, the daughter of the slain principal of Sandy Hook Elementary confronted Sen. Kelly Ayotte at the lawmaker’s first town hall meeting since she voted against expanded background checks on all commercial gun sales… ‘You had mentioned that day the burden on owners of gun stores that the expanded background checks would harm. I am just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school isn't more important than that,’ said Lafferty, whose mother Dawn Hochsprung was gunned down by Newtown shooter Adam Lanza.” While some might dismiss these town halls as nothing but activists from the outside taking over -- tell that to the Democrats in 2009 who were arguing the same thing. Grass-tops can start a real grassroots fire.

*** McDonnell-Star Scientific story isn’t helpful to Cuccinelli: Also yesterday, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) “denied any wrongdoing in his business dealings with a family friend and donor, saying Tuesday that an FBI probe into that relationship does not impair his ability to serve as governor,” NBC’s Mike O’Brien writes. “I think it’s important for the people of Virginia to know nothing has been done with regard to my relationship with [Jonnie] Williams or his company, Star Scientific, to give any kind of special benefits to him or his company or, frankly, any other person or any other company during the time that I’ve been governor,” McDonnell said on Washington’s WTOP radio. And on the allegation that Williams paid the $15,000 catering bill for the wedding of McDonnell’s daughter: “I made the determination -- and I believe it was correct -- that it was a gift to my daughter, and therefore under the current laws it did not need to be disclosed.” Folks, this isn’t good news for GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli -- due to his own ties to Star Scientific and the fact that this McDonnell/Star Scientific story isn’t going away anytime soon.

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

This story was originally published on Wed May 1, 2013 9:11 AM EDT

Frank Thorp / NBC News

Erica Lafferty, daughter of Sandyh Hook Elementary School victim Dawn Hochsprung, attends a town hall meeting with Senator Kelly Ayotte in Warren, N.H., on Tuesday.

WARREN, N.H. – Bringing the national gun debate to a tiny New England town on Tuesday, the daughter of the slain principal of Sandy Hook Elementary confronted Sen. Kelly Ayotte at the lawmaker’s first town hall meeting since she voted against expanded background checks on all commercial gun sales.

Erica Lafferty, who first met with the Republican senator in Washington earlier this month after she opposed the compromise negotiated by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., was visibly angry as she spoke into the microphone at the meeting, which drew more than 100 people who came to condemn or support Ayotte’s vote.

"You had mentioned that day the burden on owners of gun stores that the expanded background checks would harm. I am just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school isn't more important than that," said Lafferty, whose mother Dawn Hochsprung was gunned down by Newtown shooter Adam Lanza.

Ayotte responded at the Warren, N.H., meeting: "Erica, I, certainly let me just say -- I'm obviously so sorry."

"And, um, I think that ultimately when we look at what happened in Sandy Hook, I understand that's what drove this whole discussion -- all of us want to make sure that doesn't happen again," Ayotte said.

More tension followed at a larger event in Tilton, N.H., later in the day.

"Let the senator finish please!" said the moderator at the Tilton event as gun control advocates shouted from the crowd and waved signs which said "demand action to end gun violence," from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control advocacy group.

Ayotte is one of a handful of senators -- others include Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Dean Heller, R-Nev., Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., and Max Baucus, D-Mont. -- who are facing withering criticism from both sides of the debate.

Gun control proponents want the Senate to reconsider new gun laws, and pro-gun rights groups want the issue kept off the table. And they’re using ads, lobbying, and organizing at events like Ayotte’s town halls to get their points across.

Keeping center stage are the Newtown families, many of whom were on Capitol Hill for the failed gun vote, who have pledged to continue the fight for new regulations on firearms.

The senator's staff were prepared for the onslaught. Ayotte defended her vote at the top of her remarks in both towns, pointing to her background as a prosecutor. “Where we are right now, my focus has been on wanting to improve our current background check system,” she said. “Frankly, we have fallen down on actually prosecuting gun crimes and violations of our current background check system.”

She said that addressing mental health and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill were important going forward.

Outside groups are focusing on Ayotte and others from swing states where polls show background checks are popular. From the TV and radio ads to these small events, both sides are mobilizing like it's a political campaign --  Bloomberg's group circulated printed signs reading "#ShameOnYou" at both town meetings, while Ayotte supporters held the kind of mass-hand-drawn signs often spotted at presidential events.

Poll data is also a focus -- and a point of contention. Some automated polls, which NBC News does not rely on, have shown surveys claiming dropping numbers for people who voted against expanding background checks.

But in the Granite State, Ayotte's supporters are pointing to a recent survey from the University of New Hampshire that shows just the opposite: high approval ratings in the wake of the vote.

Some Republican defenders in the state say that the controversy isn't real and say it won't matter in 2016, when Ayotte is up for reelection to the Senate.

"To the extent it's a controversial issue it's a manufactured one," said Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the state Republican Party.

There's evidence to support the claim that some groups are using the issue to raise their profiles. In a yard nearby the Warren event, a local resident had placed a large, staked lawn sign with the handwritten message, "Thank You Senator Ayotte." Atop one corner was the Tea Party's preferred flag, the yellow snake with the words "Don't Tread On Me."

But others say it was a difficult decision that could have repercussions down the road.

"I think it was a tough vote. And it was a principled vote," said Jim Merrill, a longtime New Hampshire Republican strategist who worked on Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. "And I think she understood that there would be some blowback for it. Let's just remember it wasn't just Republicans who voted against it."

Ayotte is clearly feeling the pressure, refusing to answer questions from national reporters at the meetings. Aides working on the gun issue on Capitol Hill say she's made it clear that she doesn't want to vote on it again any time soon.

And the atmosphere back home was a big change from Ayotte's typical town meetings -- generally staid affairs that begin with a PowerPoint presentation on the budget. (She does a lot of them, as she's pledged to hold a town hall in each New Hampshire county.)

She stuck with the PowerPoint at Tuesday's meetings, but this time, the opening slides had statistics defending her gun vote.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America enter the office of Sen. Kelly Ayotte on April 17 in Washington, D.C.

At town halls, Ayotte typically receives notecards with the name of each questioner and their pre-submitted topic of interest. A selected moderator chooses and reads them. This time, though, that caused a stir. Right before Erica Lafferty spoke in Warren, Eric Knuffke, of Wentworth, N.H., stood and demanded to be allowed a question.

"You can't deny people the right to speak because they haven't filled out a card. I have a question," Knuffke shouted. Supporters of Ayotte shouted back at him.

As Knuffke yelled, Lafferty was sitting in the front row with her hand raised.

"Let Erica speak," said one attendee. "There's a Sandy Hook survivor here," said another.

She had submitted a question in the pile, and Ayotte made sure to let her speak. Lafferty thanked Ayotte for meeting with her the day after senators took the vote on the Manchin-Toomey before challenging her for her vote. After her exchange with Ayotte, Lafferty stood and stormed out of the town hall.

Asked afterward why she had done so, Lafferty said: "I had had enough." 

 NBC's Frank Thorp contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:05 PM EDT

President Barack Obama cautioned Tuesday against rushing headlong to take action against Syria’s ruling regime, cautioning that his administration must gather more evidence before involving itself in that country’s civil war.

The president said that while evidence suggested that chemical weapons were used in Syria – thereby crossing the “red line” Obama had established in the Syrian conflict – more details were needed, namely about who used those weapons, and when.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

President Barack Obama arrives to answers questions during his new conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House on Tuesday, April 30, 2013.

“When I am making decisions about America’s national security and the potential for taking additional action in response to chemical weapons use, I’ve got to make sure I’ve got the facts,” Obama said at his first press conference in two months.

"And if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in a position where we can't mobilize the international community to support what we do."

The situation in Syria and other issues of national security – a hunger strike at the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the government's response to the terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon earlier this month – have dominated much of the president's agenda over the past month. 

The hunger strike – the military said on Monday that 100 of 166 detainees had participated in the strike protesting conditions at Guantanamo Bay – prompted the president to renew his call for closing the prison. While the president signed an order early in his first term to shutter the facility, lawmakers in both parties have stymied Obama's efforts to achieve that goal. 

"I continue to believe that we’ve got to close Guantanamo. I think it is critical for us to understand that Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe," Obama said. "It is expensive, it is inefficient, it hurts us in terms of our international standing, it lessens cooperation in terms of our allies in counterterrorism efforts, it is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed."

Moreover, the president pledged to "go back at" the issue, adding that his administration was reviewing ways to achieve its goal of closing the prison, perhaps by returning to Congress for permission. 

The theme of international cooperation, though, recurred throughout Obama's remarks about these tricky foreign policy issues.

The president, for instance, stressed the need for the United States to act in concert with international allies in response to the situation in Syria, and said the U.S. and its partners were already “deeply invested” in trying to find a solution to the situation in Syria.

But Obama was reluctant to specify what actions his administration might take. “By ‘game-changer’ I mean that we would have to rethink the range of options that are available to us,” he said.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has expressed reluctance to making a U.S. military incursion into Syria, though more hawkish Republicans have called for targeted strikes to help cripple parts of the Syrian military and assist rebels against the Assad regime.

Obama also said he'd worked with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the situation in Syria, but also the intelligence response to the April 15 bombings at the Boston Marathon.

Amid questions about whether the government failed to heed Russian intelligence warnings about the radicalization of the suspects in the bombing, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper ordered a review on Tuesday into the U.S. government's handling of intelligence in the case. 

"When an event like this happens, we want to go back and review every step that was taken," the president explained. "We want to leave no stone unturned. We want to see if, in fact, there's additional protocols and procedures that could be put in place that would further improve and enhance our ability to detect a potential attack."

Slideshow: Syria uprising

Khalil Ashawi / Reuters

A look back at the conflict that has overtaken the country.

Launch slideshow

This story was originally published on Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:54 AM EDT