Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul continue to stoke speculation about a possible run for president in 2016 during a Monday evening speech in New Hampshire, where he said the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS was "un-American."

Paul spoke on Monday in the state which hosts the nation's first presidential primary every four years, 10 days after delivering a highly-touted speech in Iowa, the only state whose nominating contest precedes New Hampshire's in each presidential election cycle.

In the week and a half since then, Republicans have been politically invigorated by a new report condemning IRS officials' actions to single out conservative and Tea Party groups for more scrutiny in applying for tax-exempt status.

"Anybody who would use the power or abuse the power of government to go after their political opponents," Paul said Monday, seizing on the controversy, "to take that brute force, that bullying force of government, and use it against your opponents, there is something distinctly and profoundly un-American about that."

The freshman Kentucky senator joked that the IRS controversy — combined with fresh outrage at President Barack Obama's handling of last year's response to an attack in Benghazi, Libya and revelations that the Department of Justice had monitored journalists' phones and emails as part of a leak investigation — reminded him of "Old MacDonald," the childhood song: "here a scandal, there a scandal, everywhere a scandal."

On Benghazi, Paul repeated his criticism of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's handling of the matter, faulting her and State Department officials for failing to provide adequate security for the U.S. diplomatic compound that fell under attack last September.

"Benghazi should've be treated, and still to this day should be treated, like Baghdad," he said of the security that should be provided for the facility. "It should be under military control, not State Department control."

But for all of Paul's strident criticism of the Obama administration, he did seem to break from some fellow Republicans on libertarian grounds, over the prosecution of the suspect in this year's Boston Marathon terrorist attack. Though many GOP heavyweights have argued that Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the alleged bomber, should have been held for longer without criminal justice rights. Paul paraphrased a conversation of a first responder in Boston to illustrate his point.

"He said, 'What separates us from them is that when we did finally capture him … we sent the suspect to a hospital. He's going to be tried in a court of law, he's going to have an attorney,'" Paul recounted. "If this had been their country, he would have been dragged through the streets if he were an American … and beaten to death with a tire iron. We are different than they are."

This story was originally published on Mon May 20, 2013 9:06 PM EDT

The 2016 notebook includes notes, quotes, and newsworthy tidbits of what potential presidential candidates are doing and have done that could be significant to 2016. It will run occasionally on Fridays on First Read between now and when candidates actually start declaring.

Former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is more popular than almost any political figure in Washington over the past four years. And that's exactly why Democrats think Republicans are going so hard after Benghazi.

"It's obvious it's an attempt to embarrass President Obama and embarrass Hillary Clinton," Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told Capitol Hill reporters. He added, “I mean, most everyone knows, if she wants to run for president, she's going to get that nomination.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) made a similar point on CBS's Face the Nation Sunday. "This has been caught up in the 2016 presidential campaign, this effort to go after Hillary Clinton," Durbin said.

Former Obama adviser David Axelrod told MSNBC’s Morning Joe also went there. "I really view the Benghazi flare-up right now as throwing a high hard one at Hillary Clinton to try and dissuade her from running for president," he said.

For his part, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa insisted on Meet the Press Sunday that simply was not the case. "Hillary Clinton's not a target,” Issa said of his committee's investigation.

Still, there was plenty of criticism of the Clinton, the likely 2016 Democratic front-runner if she runs, from others, as First Read noted May 9. Lindsey Graham also this week said if Clinton were “in the military, she wouldn’t be promoted.” And opponents are readying a scandal-filled movie about her life.

Rand Paul, another likely 2016 candidate who told Clinton she should have been fired during questioning, said this on FOX: "It sounds like Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints are all over these talking points. And really her resignation was a beginning, but she never really accepted culpability, and I think she really needs to accept culpability for this disaster.”

Yet Clinton continues to lead in 2016 hypothetical polls. A New England College poll showed her winning a New Hampshire Democratic primary 65%-10% over Vice President Joe Biden.

In that same poll, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Paul were all in a statistical dead heat.

Clinton also beats Rubio in Virginia, 51%-38%.

Clinton is a linchpin in many ways for 2016. Democrats know they have few other choices. Biden cannot be dismissed, but it's not helpful to his cause that he continues to be a punchline for late-night comics.

“Remember in the old days when President Obama's biggest embarrassment was Joe Biden?" quipped Tonight Show host Jay Leno.

Clinton not only leads, but is up by sizable margins over potential GOP rivals. Republicans have to take notice. 

Other 2016 notes:

Speaking of Clinton, by the way, former Michigan Gov.-turned-TV-personality Jennifer Granholm lent her name to a draft Hillary group fundraising email.

Paul hit the op-ed circuit this week, going after President Obama. He went after the president in an one, calling the firing of the IRS acting commissioner “not enough. The executive branch has been aware of this scandal for nearly two years and now, only as a result of massive public pressure, the administration has found a scapegoat.”

He wrote another op-ed Thursday, in which he said, “Lincoln wrote that nearly any man can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man, give him power. I think Mr. Obama has failed that test of power. From the cover-up in Benghazi to letting the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) target the Tea Party to First and Fourth Amendment violations in obtaining records from the press, Mr. Obama has shown disregard for the Bill of Rights and his responsibilities as commander in chief.”

Paul, by the way, is going to New Hampshire Monday, headlining the first-ever -- and sold-out -- Liberty Dinner in Concord, N.H. with RNC Chairman Reince Priebus. It’s designed to merge factions of the GOP.

McClatchy looked at the preparations Biden has made to run in 2016. His 2012 financial disclosure was released. It showed that he took out a second home loan in two years, this one valued between $100,000 and $250,000. Biden’s net worth is between $239,000 and $867,000. He could have needed the home-equity line for his daughter’s June wedding reception which he hosted at his Delaware home.

And it showed he made virtually nothing -- $0 to $201 -- in book royalties.

Joked Biden during his commencement address at the University of Pennsylvania Monday: “When I did my financial disclosure as Vice President the first time, the Washington Post said ‘It’s probable: no man has assumed the office of Vice President with fewer assets than Joe Biden,’ I hope they were talking financial assets. Then there was all this discussion why I had no money. I’ll tell you why I had no money: four years at Penn, three years of Syracuse, four years at Georgetown, three years at Yale, two years at Tulane, two years at Penn, and now a granddaughter at Penn. … This is a much cheaper way to get a degree.”

Speaking of that commencement speech at Penn, FactCheck.org says he flubbed some details: “Vice President Joe Biden falsely claimed that U.S. workers ‘are three times as productive as any worker in the world.’ He’s not even close. By the standard measure for productivity, American workers ranked third in the world behind Norway and Ireland in 2011.Biden also stated that the U.S. economy is ‘two and a half times bigger than any other in the world.’ That’s close, but still wrong. Last year the U.S. economy was not quite double the size of China’s economy, which is the second largest in the world.” 

And there was the hand-written note Biden sent to a 7-year-old in Wisconsin about guns being able to shoot chocolate: “Dear Myles, I am sorry it took so very long to respond to your letter. I really like your idea. If we had guns that shot chocolate, not only would our country be safer, it would be happier. People love chocolate. You are a good boy, Joe Biden.”

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s financial disclosure was also filed (but it doesn’t show a net worth). The main source of his income was his $128,000 a year salary with some dividends from stocks.

Jindal, as chairman of the Republican Governors Association, is calling on President Obama to appoint a special prosecutor in the IRS controversy. Jindal was also in New Hampshire last weekend. "We don't need to be focused on 2016 right now,” he said. “Let's focus on the debate. Let's win the debate.”

Martin O’Malley, who got 0% in the New Hampshire poll, “signed a gun-control bill that is among the country's most sweeping legislative responses to the December mass shooting in Newtown, Conn,” the Baltimore Sun writes. “The law bans the sale of assault-style rifles, including the AR-15 used in the Newtown killing of six educators and 20 first- and second-graders. The law limits gun ownership for people with mental illness, outlaws the sale of high-capacity magazines and establishes the nation's first new handgun licensing scheme in two decades. Maryland will join five other states in requiring such licenses, a move that O'Malley said "will substantially lower gun deaths."

He also signed into law “Maryland's first gas tax increase in 20 years into law on Thursday and announced $1.2 billion in highway and transit projects,” NBC Washington reports. So if you live in Maryland, that means it’ll cost you about 4 cents a gallon more to fill up your tank.

If Clinton doesn’t run, some have floated Kirsten Gillibrand as a potential candidate. She’s taken the lead on a host of family related issues and been out front on military sexual assault cases.

Or could it be Elizabeth Warren, who proposed legislation reducing student-loan rates and she wants the Obama Justice Department to take the big banks to court.

Marco Rubio accused the White House of creating a “culture of intimidation” on MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd. He echoed that on FOX: “The president doesn’t have clean hands in this because, as I said yesterday on the floor of the Senate … this administration has created a culture of intimidation.” He added, “These are things you typically see in the Third World from unestablished republics and other places.”

Some conservatives are still hammering him for his pursuit of comprehensive immigration.

Chris Christie was showing Prince Harry around the Jersey Shore. He also went negative despite huge leads in his bid for reelection this year.

Bob McDonnell’s approval “dipped to his lowest job-approval rating in two years,” AP wrote of his 49% rating in Quinnipiac. But “few voters are aware” of the FBI inquiry into his accepting of money from a major donor for his daughter’s wedding.

Meanwhile, Jeb Bush was honored as a “Friend of Armenians.”

Rick Santorum has an op-ed with another heart-tugging story of a child who died.

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa – The immigration reform proposal pending before Congress could be a dicey proposition for Republican presidential contenders come 2016, when they visit this first-in-the-nation caucus state.

Republicans in Washington are in virtual agreement that they must do more to broaden the party’s appeal to the increasingly influential bloc of Hispanic voters. And many of those GOP leaders argue that supporting an immigration reform law that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is a good starting point.

But the party’s eventual standard-bearer in 2016 will likely have to run a gauntlet of primaries that begins with Iowa’s caucuses. And catering to the Hawkeye State’s voters could force White House hopefuls to the right – not just in 2016, but in deciding how to posture themselves toward the immigration reform law making its way through Congress this year.

Matthew Holst / Matthew Holst / AP

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks at the Iowa GOP Lincoln Dinner event, Friday, May 10, 2013, at the Hotel at Kirkwood Center, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Two senior members of the state’s Republican congressional delegation – longtime Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Steve King – have been some of the most outspoken critics of the “Gang of Eight” bipartisan immigration overhaul currently making its way through the Senate committee process. Both dished out plenty of red meat to the party faithful during speeches at Friday night’s Lincoln Dinner.

“It gives amnesty to and legalizes everybody who's in America illegally today,” King said of the Senate proposal, invoking a word – amnesty – that reflects deep conservative trepidation toward immigration reform. “This bill destroys the rule of law, and it forever produces contempt for the rule of law.”

“We can't afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. And, I want you to know, I learned a lesson, and I want you to know that I — and we — screwed up in 1986,” Grassley said. “The lesson learned: you reward illegality, and you get more of it.”

Their words amount to a caution sign for Republican presidential hopefuls with designs of competing in the Iowa caucuses in 2016.

Some Republicans, like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican co-author of the Gang of Eight proposal, probably have no choice but to embrace the legislation and its path to citizenship because of their close involvement in its creation. And indeed, Rubio and his conservative cachet might help bring some conservatives on-board with the eventual bill.

“I think that he is one of the people that's been trying to work to find a reasonable approach toward that, that would secure our borders and would find a reasonable way to deal with people who have been here a long time,” Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, R, told NBC News. “I'm going to see what Marco Rubio says about it. I trust him.”

Other would-be Republican presidential candidates can afford to be more circumspect.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one such potential hopeful who’s previously called for immigration reform, told reporters in Iowa that the Senate bill needs tougher border-security provisions, especially for it to have any chance of passing the Republican-controlled House. To that end, Paul termed himself the “bridge” between the two chambers.

“I'm the bridge between people who won't consider it at all to people who want it,” he said. “I'm in the middle such that I'll vote for it if I think it'll do the right job and it creates border security, doesn't create a new pathway to citizenship, and allows people to get in an existing line, the same way someone in Mexico City would get in line.”

“So I think there's a lot of room for me to help the bill, but we'll see,” Paul added.

But it’s also easy to imagine at least one Republican contender running to the right on the issue of immigration in hopes of outflanking his competitors in Iowa. That temptation – and its repercussions – was on full display during the 2012 primaries, when Mitt Romney used immigration to run to the right of his primary challengers. But his comments during that drawn-out primary came back to haunt him during the general election, when Romney notched a record-low performance among Hispanic voters for a recent Republican presidential nominee.

Regardless of their stance, A.J. Spiker, the Iowa Republican Party’s chairman, cautioned White House hopefuls to be ready to answer questions about their approach to immigration come 2016.

“The one thing I think Republicans agree on, absolutely, on immigration is a secured border,” he said. “After that, you really do head off in some different directions.”

He added: “So what I believe is that whatever a candidate's position is, when they come to Iowa, they're going to have to explain their position to Iowa Republicans. They're going to have to explain why they supported X; why they supported X over Y.”

This story was originally published on Mon May 13, 2013 1:42 PM EDT

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — Presidential elections start in Iowa. 

On Friday, Sen. Rand Paul put his stake in the ground for a possible run in 2016 by mocking the Obama administration and delivering a blistering critique of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The administration has been criticized for failing to provide security during the attack and for its characterization of the incident afterward.

Speaking at the Iowa GOP’s annual Lincoln Dinner, Paul questioned the initial response to the attacks and asked, "First question to Hillary Clinton: Where in the hell were the Marines?"

Matthew Holst / AP

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has his photo taken with Linda Stikle of Anamosa, Iowa, after he spoke at the Iowa GOP Lincoln Dinner on Friday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

"It was inexcusable, it was a dereliction of duty, and it should preclude her from holding higher office," the Kentucky Republican added to loud applause.

Republicans' search for a candidate to deliver their first victory in a presidential election since 2004 began as Paul used the plum speaking slot to plant the seeds for his own possible bid. And he won his biggest applause by taking on Clinton, who's seen as the early front-runner for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Barack Obama.

Paul was just elected to the Senate in 2010 and is perhaps best known as the son of the former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, whose two campaigns for president attracted a fervent, grassroots following that might translate to his son.

But the Kentucky senator has been far from shy about stoking speculation about his own play for the Republican nomination in 2016. He told reporters earlier Friday that he had not made up his mind and would not decide until 2014.

The fundraiser on Friday had unmistakable overtones of a presidential campaign, though the last one ended just six months ago. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, captured that sentiment best in his speech preceding Paul's: "The process of selecting the next leader of the free world begins in Iowa, and it's already begun."

Paul's speech doubled at times as a comedy scene, as he seemed at ease before the crowd, stepping away from the podium, microphone in hand, to project a casual demeanor. He rattled off jokes about absurd pork-barrel projects, recalling the campaign style of Arizona Sen. John McCain as he ran for president in 2008.

But Paul also used his closely watched speech to offer his own prescriptions about the path forward for the Republican Party, which has been suffering from somewhat of an identity crisis since Mitt Romney lost to Obama in last fall's election.

On no issue is that crisis more clear than immigration. A bipartisan bill has advanced in the Senate to allow undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, but King and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, both railed against the proposal in their speeches before Paul's.

Paul has spoken in favor of some kind of immigration reform, a dicey topic before this Republican crowd, and he acknowledged those disagreements. But he also tried to align himself with King and Grassley — two of the most stalwart opponents of immigration reform.

"I'm also with Sen. Grassley and Congressman King on the fact that I think we were hoodwinked in 1968," he said, referencing the last time Congress passed a major immigration overhaul. "We were promised security, and it never came."

But Paul also said there's a "chance [he] could vote for the bill" if he can add amendments strengthening its border security measures.

Paul also spoke about broadening the party's appeal, namely to Latinos, African Americans and young voters.

"We're an increasingly diverse nation, and I think we do need to reach out to other people that aren't like us, don't look like us, don't wear the same clothes, that aren't exactly who we are," he said. "We're going to have to do something."

Related stories

• Clinton remains GOP focus as administration defends Benghazi talking points
• Iowa governor to 2016 hopefuls: 'Come early and often'

On Monday, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., joined a band of Republican lawmakers arguing to “press pause” on immigration reform after last week’s Boston bombings.

“Until we can fully understand the systematic failures that enabled two individuals to immigrate to the United States from an area known for being hotbed of Islamic extremism, we should not proceed,” Paul said in a statement on his website. (The bombing suspects came to the United States as children and teenagers after their parents gained asylum, and they lived in the country as legal immigrants.)

Paul also sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, requesting a hearing dedicated to the national security aspect of immigration reform before any comprehensive effort moves forward. “The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system,” he said. “If we don't use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.”

This was the latest change for Paul -- a potential presidential candidate in 2016 -- on the issue of immigration. He has moved from opponent of birthright citizenship (that is, granting citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S.), to supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, to one who believes the Boston bombings should slow down the legislation.

Here’s a look back at Paul in his own words on immigration: 

Jan. 2011: Paul issues a press release after co-sponsoring a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

“Citizenship is a privilege, and only those who respect our immigration laws should be allowed to enjoy its benefits.”  

Feb. 8, 2013:  Paul pens an op-ed for the Washington Times, in which he says that he supports immigration reform. But he adds that, under his plan, Congress would vote annually for five years on whether border security has progressed – and only after that period would undocumented immigrants in the country receive green cards. He does, however, also reference them becoming citizens.

“Gradually, the undocumented persons would immigrate to the United States, internal immigration as they would not be asked to return home. These immigrants would not be given special privileges except that they would not have to leave the country…. I share the goal of a working immigration system, and a new approach to allowing those here in our country who want to work and stay out of trouble to stay here. Would I hope that when they become citizens, these new immigrants will remember Republicans who made this happen? Yes.” 

March 19, 2013: Paul delivers a speech on immigration reform at the U.S Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Based on his remarks, journalists begin to write that he supports a “pathway to citizenship.”

“Let’s start that conversation by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants. If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you.”

March 19, 2013: Paul holds a conference call to clarify reporting that he supports a “pathway to citizenship,” per the Huffington Post.

“Those who are here, if they want to work, let's find a place for them. If they want to become citizens, I'm open to debate as to what we do to move forward."  

April 17, 2013: Paul speaks at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast, refraining from endorsing the Gang of Eight legislation on immigration reform.

“Generally, I am for immigration reform. It’s not that I’m going to be for anything with no rules, though.”

Despite his stated support for comprehensive-immigration reform, Rand Paul, R-Ky., is not fully on board with Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and the Gang of Eight’s immigration attempt.

“Generally, I am for immigration reform. It’s not that I’m going to be for anything with no rules, though,” the Kentucky senator told reporters at a breakfast Wednesday hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

Related: As Senate's immigration 'Gang' releases text, House group speaks up

Paul said that he has not studied the details of the proposal yet, but despite the legislation’s various new border-security requirements, he’s not completely convinced. Paul said he is supportive of a path to citizenship, but not a new, separate, or special one for the millions of people in the United States illegally. He was skeptical that there was not what he called a “new pathway” for citizenship in the legislation.

“I don’t want a new pathway,” Paul said, noting that the “same pathway” would give a “better chance of passing immigration reform.” He added, "It’s important for conservatives that it’s no new pathway to citizenship,” Paul said, proposing that workers get a work visa and go to the back of the line like someone in Mexico City. “Get in the same line."

Paul said that he would insist on immigration legislation going through the House, would have at least one, and up to three or four, amendments to the bill. He wants what he calls “trust but verify,” that would include an annual report to Congress on border security with opinions of governors included that has stats on how many immigrants crossed the border and were returned to their home country. And he wants it voted on by Congress. He also wants to make sure that immigrants with work visas cannot vote and do not get social welfare benefits.

"So in order to get it," Paul said, referring to passage of the legislation, "they need to at least engage with people like me, who want immigration reform."

Early in his talk, Paul also -- unprompted -- brought up Paul Ryan, R-Wis., another possible 2016 rival, when discussing Medicare. But it wasn’t exactly to praise him. He was going through his fixes to Medicare, including raising the eligibility age gradually, means testing benefits and premiums, as well as other options.

“It’s similar to Paul Ryan,” Paul said, “but he doesn’t actually do it.”

Paul’s willingness to attempt to poke holes in the Gang of Eight proposal, something Rubio has been out front on, as well as his subtle criticism of Ryan on Medicare -- and in turn, how to tackle debt and deficits -- shows how Paul might try to carve out space for himself in a 2016 Republican presidential primary, if he decides to run. It’s something he appears to be leaning toward and openly said he is weighing.

“I want to be part of the national debate,” Paul said. “Whether I run or not, to be considering is something that gives me a larger microphone.”

He said he will continue travels to early states, hitting New Hampshire this spring and South Carolina this summer.

“We’re considering it,” Paul said. “We won’t make a decision before 2014.”

Paul accuses Obama of using Newtown families as ‘props’

Paul also weighed in the gun debate. He said he’s firmly against the compromise background-check legislation proposed by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey, deriding it as “window dressing.” And he accused President Barack Obama of using the Newtown families as “props.”

“When I see the fathers and the mothers and them testifying --  and I know they’re coming voluntarily, and they want to come and be part of this debate,” Paul said, “but it still saddens me just to see them, and I think that in some cases the president has used them as props -- and that disappoints me.”

Paul said he does not want to be seen, however, as not caring, but he believes the background check legislation will do nothing to prevent other Newtowns from happening again.

“The face I want to present is that I do care about those kids,” Paul said, adding that he’s supporting Ted Cruz’s, R-Texas, legislation to shift money to support more prosecutions.

“Make sure that the background checks we have are working,” he said, adding that people like the shooter at Sandy Hook are not deterred even by the death penalty, why would they be deterred by stricter background checks? And he claimed 90 percent of crimes committed with a gun are with ones obtained illegally.

Vice President Joe Biden, a possible candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, on Saturday made reference to two would-be Republican opponents in the next election.

At a fundraiser for Democratic House candidates in New York City, Biden brought up Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP's 2012 vice presidential nominee, in a speech to party donors.

According to a pool report, the vice president cast both Republicans as extremists but offered them personal compliments. Biden called Paul, the son of former Texas Rep. Ron Paul "a fine man ... a decent man."

Of Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman whose 2014 fiscal blueprint won approval this week in the House, Biden won laughs with his incredulity.

"The Ryan budget is absolutely -- the Ryan budget," Biden said.

The vice president has signaled that he might run for president himself in 2016 despite having twice unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination. A Biden candidacy could pit him against another alumna of the Obama administration, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, should she decide to run.

But Biden himself noted that there were a "long four years" ahead of him and President Barack Obama, during which they hoped to "get some good things done."

They both were elected in 2010 under the Tea Party banner after beating primary opponents favored by the Republican establishment. They’re both rising stars in the modern GOP, and, last weekend, they finished first and second place in a straw poll of conservatives’ pick of a presidential nominee for 2016.

And as they both maneuver to mount their own campaigns that year – or, at least, preserve the option of doing so – Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., must share the spotlight. Intentionally or not, they’re already jockeying to do so.

Both senators have carefully worked to build their national profiles following the 2012 election, using high-profile opportunities to plot slightly different paths toward the same goal.

On no issue is that more apparent than immigration.

Rubio had joined with three other Senate Republicans and four Senate Democrats in recent months to forge a bipartisan framework on a comprehensive overhaul to immigration laws that would provide undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship. The Florida senator embarked on a media tour in the weeks following the framework’s unveiling to sell the plan to skeptical conservatives, doing the legwork to build political cover for the plan (and gain valuable exposure to the Republican base in the meanwhile).

Paul made clear with a speech on Tuesday – in which he unveiled his own plan creating an eventual pathway to citizenship – that Rubio isn’t the only GOP player on the issue. 

“Immigration reform will not occur until conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution,” Paul told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. “I am here today to begin that conversation.” 

Both Paul and Rubio might support the broader goal of immigration reform; they both took strides to carve out public roles for themselves in the process. 

For her part, Rubio ally Ana Navarro said the notion of a rivalry between the two men was “overblown by the media.” 

“Rand Paul is a leader in the Republican Party, and he should add his voice to the debate on immigration. His voice can and does make a difference,” she said. “The bottom line is, this is not an issue Marco or any one senator individually can or should carry alone on his shoulders. The more people helping to carry the ball, the more likely we will cross the finish line.” 

But while the two senators might not share a formal rivalry, they are undoubtedly two of the GOP’s biggest stars right now whose utterances alone command attention.

Look no further than last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, where Paul and Rubio finished first and second, respectively, in the gathering’s closely-watched straw poll. A quarter of straw poll participants supported Paul and 23 percent threw their support behind Rubio. (The two gave back-to-back speeches on Thursday at CPAC.) The next closest finisher in the straw poll checked in at 7 percent.

The close finish between the two senators reflects all the work beyond immigration they’ve each done to burnish their profiles in 2013.

Republican leaders, of course, tapped Rubio to deliver their official response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address – a speech that was generally well received for its content, if ridiculed for the Florida senator’s awkward pause for a swig of bottled water.

Delivering the official Tea Party response to the State of the Union that very evening? None other than Paul.

Rubio has also built up his foreign policy credentials by taking a trip in February to Israel and Jordan, and delivering major policy addresses (including one about that trip abroad).

Paul, meanwhile, drew considerable attention for his filibuster of Obama’s nominee to head the CIA on March 6, a 13-hour affair that won him praise from fellow Republicans. (Rubio at one point appeared on the Senate floor to deliver his own remarks in favor of Paul’s efforts.)

"Rand has made progress with the filibuster," said Dave Carney, the chief strategist for Texas Gov. Rick Perry's presidential campaign and a political consultant based in the influential primary state of New Hampshire. "Neither one has huge advantage here as of now."

Both senators are undeniably positioning themselves with 2016 in mind. Paul is at least open about that, acknowledging his potential interest in seeking the Republican nomination (like his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas) in several interviews. The Iowa GOP on Tuesday announced that Paul would headline their Lincoln Day dinner, further stoking speculation.

Rubio’s team is quicker to downplay the Florida senator’s ambitions, dismissing any talk of a presidential campaign as far too premature, just a few months removed from the last campaign.

But as each of them jockey for pole position heading into 2016, it may fall to the differences between Rubio and Paul to distinguish themselves from each other. For starters, Paul tends to emphasize a more libertarian and cautious foreign policy, while Rubio has generally been more willing to strike hawkish tones.

Both senators’ CPAC speeches are also instructive in parsing out how they make their pitch to conservatives.

Paul made a firm appeal, for instance, to revolutionize the Republican Party, and return the GOP to its small-government, libertarian roots.

“They want leaders that won't feed them a line of crap or sell them short. They aren't afraid of individual liberty,” he said of the new generation of young conservatives, calling the current GOP establishment “stale and moss-covered.”

Rubio, by contrast, emphasized his own biography as the son of immigrants, and stressed aspirational tone in his speech to CPAC.

“We don’t need a new idea, the idea is America, and it still works,” the Florida senator said.

This story was originally published on Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:21 PM EDT

Did Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, R, endorse a pathway to citizenship in his speech before the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce this morning?

That’s what an Associated Press article previewing the speech said, as well as a report shortly before Paul’s speech published by Buzzfeed.

But the Kentucky senator made no mention of citizenship itself in his speech; he focused his remarks on the need for creating a “legal” status for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States.

And an unnamed Paul adviser subsequently disputed to the Washington Post the idea that the popular conservative senator had, in fact, backed citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

“The AP story was wrong, which spurred a lot of erroneous reports,” the adviser told the Post. “He does not mention ‘path to citizenship’ in his speech at all.”

The difference between citizenship and legal status might seem semantic, but it is an important distinction in the legislative battle over comprehensive immigration reform. Democrats believe that citizenship is an essential element of any final deal, and the bipartisan “Group of Eight” in the Senate working toward a compromise includes such a path in its framework.

The speech was good enough to win praise from Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, N.Y., a major Senate proponent of citizenship.

"The consensus continues to grow in favor of immigration reform that contains a path to citizenship," Schumer said in a statement. "While there are certainly differences between our emerging product and Senator Paul's outline, there is also a lot of common ground."

Paul explained the finer details of his plan to reporters following his speech. In essence, his plan would distribute indefinite work visas to qualified undocumented immigrants in stages, allowing them legal status in the United States. Once those workers have visas, they would then have the option of applying for citizenship – though not necessarily with any preferential or expedited pathway.

“You get in the same lines, you get in the line wherever you sign up, you don’t go to the front of any line,” he explained. “And I know that sounds silly, but front or back of the line seems to be this thing that’s really important to people. So what I would say is, you have the option to get in the line without going home. That’s the main difference from what we have now, as well as you get a work visa if you want to work.”

He also said he wasn’t necessarily comfortable with forcing those seeking citizenship to pay fines.

“And I’m not a huge fan of the fines, necessarily,” he said. “I think a lot of these immigrants are workers who don’t have a lot of money.”

A major sticking point, though, for Paul is subjecting certification of border security to a vote in Congress. In his plan, lawmakers would have an annual option to vote on an administration’s report that the border has been secured before moving forward with the visa process. He said he would try to amend the Group of Eight’s eventual legislation to include something like this.

“I want to try to amend their package, and I would likely vote for it if I could get mine on,” he said, adding that he wasn’t sure whether failing to do so would lose his support.

The conflicting comments and careful language, though, reflect the political difficulty for conservatives in embracing comprehensive immigration reform, especially if it involves a pathway to citizenship. And he took strides to quell those concerns in his speech.

“My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line,” he said.

CPAC stands with Rand.

“Torch of liberty” scion Rand Paul was the choice of the plurality of conservatives at the Conservative Political Action Conference, as Paul won the much-hyped straw poll with 25 percent. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was a close second with 23 percent.

It shouldn’t be surprising that the Kentucky senator won the straw poll. This was not a weekend of self-reflection for conservatives. It was one of standing by principles, and no one more represents standing by principles than Paul.

Paul last week further endeared himself to conservatives by going through with a 13-hour filibuster – a modern-day record – of President Barack Obama’s nomination to be chief of central intelligence. That effort by the Tea Party favorite prompted Twitter hash tags, signs at CPAC, and even fundraising emails from the National Republican Senatorial Committee by the name of Stand With Rand. 

Additionally, with 23 people on the CPAC straw-poll ballot, Paul benefitted from the deepest support for a single candidate because of young Libertarians, many of whom make up CPAC's audience. In fact, a majority -- 52 percent -- of voters were between the ages of 18 to 25, according to Republican Tony Fabrizio, who analyzed the results for CPAC and made the official announcement Saturday.

CPAC has always attracted college-age activists, but this is an even higher number than in past years, according to Fabrizio.

Paul supporters have demonstrated strong organizational skills around straw polls over the last several years, as they helped Paul’s father, ex-Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, win the 2010 and 2011 CPAC straw polls.

Rick Santorum finished a distant third with 8 percent. Popular New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who was not invited to CPAC, finished fourth with 7 percent; Paul Ryan, the 2012 vice-presidential candidate was next at 6 percent; then Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker 5 percent; neurosurgeon Ben Carson and keynoter Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, tied at 4 percent; followed by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin percent.

Related: More CPAC coverage from NBC News

Forty-four others, including write-in votes for Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Allen West, got 14 percent. 

Before anyone makes too much of the results, remember that the last person to win the straw poll three years before an open presidential election (no incumbent) was Rudy Giuliani in 2005. While Giuliani led in many national polls, he only won 1 delegate in the Republican presidential primaries in 2008. And in 2006, the winner was George Allen, the former Virginia governor, who had his 2006 Senate race sunk by his YouTube utterance of "macaca," a term he used to describe a Democratic video tracker.

Voting took place throughout the weekend, but voting closed at 1 p.m. ET Saturday. CPAC organizers said privately they expected up to 8,000 and 10,000 activists at this year's conference -- 2,930 voted.

The ballroom at the event holds 3,500 seats, and up to 4,000 people when standing room is included. All voting took place electronically, either through kiosks at the site in National Harbor, Md., just outside Washington, D.C., through an app, or online.

This story was originally published on Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:49 PM EDT

It was split personality Thursday at the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference, where panelists who favored immigration reform shared the same stage with conservatives who continued to question the Obama administration's explanation for Benghazi.

The conservative movement's reformists got their time in the spotlight, but so did figures who continue to hew to Republican orthodoxy — a display of the identity crisis that has plagued the GOP following successive losses in two presidential elections.

Take, for instance, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's speech early this afternoon, in which he said conservative principles "still work."

"Our challenge is to create an agenda," he said, "applying our time-tested principles to the challenges of today."

The speaker immediately following him, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (who, like Rubio, is thought of as a contender for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016), struck a different note.

He told conference attendees that "the GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered," suggesting that the party was ripe for re-invention. (It's new direction, Paul said, involved "going forward to the classical and timeless ideas.")

Nonetheless, their speeches were symptomatic of the identity crisis from which the conservative movement is currently suffering.

The same conference that hosted a panel on offering undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship — regarded as a politically forward-thinking proposal for Republicans — featured another rehashing the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic post in Libya, dwelling on conspiracy theories about the Obama administration's response to those attacks.

The CPAC scene was no less full of its knocks on the media, or vendors peddling radio shows or magazines for conference attendees.

The first day of CPAC saw a movement being beckoned toward the future, but with its heels dragging firmly in the past.