A top GOP critic pushed back Sunday on charges that Republican efforts to investigate last year's Benghazi attack are designed to inflict political damage on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"Hillary Clinton's not a target," said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa on NBC's Meet the Press. "President Obama is not a target."

Issa,  who heads a panel probing the assault on the diplomatic outpost that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, said he will seek depositions from Benghazi review board heads Ambassador Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  

The interagency process of modifying talking points in the wake of the attack scrubbed the fact that the incident was "a terrorist attack from the get-go," Issa said Sunday. 

"The American people were effectively lied to for a period of about a month," he charged. "That's important to get right."

Issa's committee held a high-profile hearing last week on the Benghazi attack. The California Republican claimed Sunday that Pickering - the man who led an independent review of the attacks on behalf of the State Department - refused to testify at that hearing.

Pickering flatly denied that he was unwilling to appear.

"I said the day before the hearings I was willing to appear, to come from the very hearings [Issa] excluded me from," Pickering told NBC's David Gregory. "We were told the majority said I was not welcome at that hearing; I could come at some other time."

Issa said he was unaware of Pickering's late notice, which the ambassador said he communicated through the White House, but added that a private deposition - which he intends to formally request Monday from the ambassador - is the more appropriate way to begin the inquiry.

"The fact is we don't want to have some sort of a stage show," Issa said.

Issa spokesman Frederick Hill said in a statement that Oversight committee Republicans never received a request for Pickering to testify. 

"We challenge him to name the White House official who he was in contact with and the White House official whom he falsely says relayed his interest in testifying to Chairman Issa," Hill said. 

Republicans have been dogged in their questioning of the administration's response to the attack, with leaked documents revealing last week that officials at the State Department suggested edits to talking points that erased references to terrorist groups.

While Hillary Clinton has stated publicly that she was not involved in that editing process, criticism of the former State Department chief and much-discussed possible presidential candidate has been a strong subtext of the Benghazi debate.

Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, said on Meet the Press that Issa's panel has deliberately put Clinton's ambitions in its crosshairs.

"My concern is when Hillary Clinton's name is mentioned 32 times in a hearing, then the point of the hearing is to discredit the Secretary of State, who has very high popularity and may well be a candidate for president," Feinstein said.

Likely 2016 Republican candidate Sen. Rand Paul excoriated Clinton in a speech Friday in key campaign state Iowa, saying her role in the Benghazi episode "should preclude her from holding higher office."

"I think that's nonsense," Feinstein said of Paul's claim. "And I think the American people will think that's nonsense." 

This story was originally published on Sun May 12, 2013 11:28 AM 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'

Continuing questions over the Obama administration’s handling of the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi are prompting a fresh round of scrutiny aimed at the State Department and its former head Hillary Clinton, with critics questioning Clinton’s leadership and involvement in the administration’s public response to the violence that left four Americans dead.

On Friday, NBC News confirmed that the White House, with input from State Department officials, had edited talking points about the Benghazi attacks 12 times in the hours following the incident. Those edits included a scrubbing of references to terrorist warnings as well as to the al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia.

The changes were suggested in part by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland; administration officials with knowledge of her role told NBC News that Nuland raised “legitimate procedural concerns” intended to prevent prejudging of a fluid intelligence situation.

White House press secretary Jay Carney on Friday sought to clarify the administration’s response to the talking points, and decried efforts to “make something political out of this.” He added, “But the problem with that effort is that it’s never been clear what it is they think they’re accusing the administration of doing, because when it comes to who was responsible, we were very open about what we knew, what we thought we knew , what we did for a fact know, and the fact that it was an ongoing investigation.”

Congressional sources tell NBC News that over about two hours on March 18, 96 emails regarding the interagency response to the attacks were available for review to congressional investigators. The highest ranking official on the email chain was then-CIA Director David Petraeus, who sent one email that was reviewed at the end of the talking points process. Nuland and White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes also specifically weighed-in on requested changes.

After the first edition of talking points referred to an al Qaeda-linked group, Nuland wrote "Why would we want the Hill fingering al Ansar al Sharia when we aren't doing that ourselves until we have an investigation result?"

Nuland also expressed concern that references to previous terror threats “could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned."

The administration officials with knowledge of Nuland’s role told NBC News that she was concerned because the original talking points could potentially “prejudice the investigation,” and possibly encouraged “a blame game before the investigation was complete.”

“She did not make changes to the points,” the officials added. “Rather, she asked for higher level interagency review, which the White House agreed was necessary. She played no further role in the handling of these points."

The new reports are sure to spark additional calls from Republicans for further investigation, with a focus on the role of Clinton – Nuland’s boss – in managing the fallout from attacks.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul, whose 2016 ambitions are in the spotlight during a high-profile trip to Iowa on Friday, took a direct swing at Clinton – a possible Democratic White House rival – suggesting bluntly in an op-ed that her response to the attacks should disqualify her from a presidential run.  

“The evidence we had in January already suggested that Mrs. Clinton ignored repeated requests for more security in Benghazi,” he wrote in the Washington Times on Friday morning. “The new evidence we have today — and that continues to mount — suggests that at the very least, Mrs. Clinton should never hold high office again.”

Clinton said at a Jan. 23 House hearing that she did not participate in the drafting of the talking points.

“I wasn't involved in the talking points process,” she said. “As I understand it, as I've been told, it was a typical interagency process where staff, including from the State Department all participated, to try to come up with whatever was going to be made publicly available, and it was an intelligence product"

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a leading Republican questioning the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attacks, said this week Clinton should return to Capitol Hill to testify, perhaps under subpoena, about the new revelations.

Conservative group CrossroadsGPS publicized a web video Friday highlighting testimony from self-described “whistleblowers” at a congressional hearing earlier this week and asking if Clinton was “part of a coverup.’

Democrats continue to dismiss the complaints as politically motivated.

Former White House senior adviser David Axelrod tweeted Friday that the furor over Benghazi is motivated by those hoping to undercut her presidential chances.

Can't help but feeling that If (former secretary of the interior) Ken Salazar were the front runner for '16, the House GOP be holding hearings on the BP oil spill,” he wrote.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell contributed to this report

This story was originally published on Fri May 10, 2013 5:17 PM EDT

GOP shifts its focus to Hillary…  Beyond  the politics of yesterday’s Be nghazi hearing…  Deep in the heart of Texas: Obama heads to Austin, TX to talk jobs, manufacturing, and technology at 2:05 pm ET and 5:40 pm ET… Census: African Americans had a higher turnout rate in 2012 than whites did… The editing of the Senate immigration bill begins… GOP brand -- is it struggling or improving? Some mixed numbers…  A Democrat enters SD SEN race, but it’s not a top-tier candidate... And Jessica Taylor looks at the seats Dems have to defend to keep their Senate majority.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

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

*** GOP shifts its focus to Hillary: Wednesday’s congressional hearing probing last year’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi revealed this political development: Key parts of the conservative movement are turning their attention from President Obama to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “I find it stunning that four and a half months after the attack, Secretary Clinton still has the gall to say it wasn’t us,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said at yesterday’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Added Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): “Tell me, who is Cheryl Mills?... She is the fixture for the secretary of state; she is as close as you can get to Secretary Clinton.” In addition, for the first time since Feb. 2008 (when Obama overtook Hillary in the Democratic presidential contest), Republican groups inundated our inboxes with emails about Clinton. The GOP oppo organization American Rising: “Benghazi Hearing Raises Serious Questions About Clinton.” The Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads: “Hicks told Clinton at 2am it was terrorism.” Here was Citizens United’s David Bossie (who was behind the “Hillary: The Movie”): “The Need For A Select Committee Is More Evident Than Ever.” And Drudge’s front page for most of yesterday looked like a time warp to when the Clintons were the constant focus of conservative attacks.

EDITOR'S NOTE: NBC's Lisa Myers reports that Hicks never told Clinton at 2 am that the attack was terrorism. He said in his testimony that he had previously told that to the State Department and said it was not necessary to say it again. "I had already reported that the attack was -- had commenced and that twitter feeds were asserting that Ansar Sharia was responsible for the attack," former Benghazi Deputy Chief of Mission Greg Hicks told Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa Wednesday during testimony. Issa asked, "You didn't have that discussion with her only because it was assumed that, since you had already reported that the cause of the attack was essentially Islamic extremists, some of them linked to al- Qaida?" Hicks responded, "Yes." Myers followed up with Hicks' attorney who affirmed that Hicks did not tell Clinton personally that this was a terrorist attack.

*** But underneath the politics: Before wiping away yesterday as entirely a political exercise (and a LARGE part of yesterday had the feel of politics), don’t overlook what was discovered and what is clearly a very credible whistleblower in Greg Hicks. Ironically, what yesterday’s House hearing “revealed” was something that was already uncovered by the Pickering-Mullen report on Benghazi: systemic mistakes at the State Department when it comes to the issue of diplomatic security. The “coverup” charges appear to be an overreach, but what’s not an overreach is the focus on the failures at State and the apparent attempt by some at the White House to help State buy time before having the fingers pointed at its failings in the initial hours and days of the attack. And this happened on Clinton’s watch, pure and simple. If she is going to be running for president, her time atState is going to be an issue -- the good, the bad and the ugly. And it doesn’t take a political media genius to use Hicks’ description of his phone call back to State and resurrect Clinton’s famous 3:00 am phone call TV spot. Benghazi probably won’t haunt Clinton in 2016 in a big way, but it’s not going away, either.

*** The “vast right-wing conspiracy” is back: Yet as Democrats prepare for Hillary’spossible political comeback, so are Republicans and conservatives. Consequently, the GOP’s shift in focus shouldn’t be surprising, especially with 2016 on the horizon. But what’s striking is how sudden the transition seemed yesterday. Also striking is that it comes at a time when Clinton is enjoying her highest polling numbers, even among Republicans. In the April NBC/WSJ poll, 56% of respondents had a favorable view of her, including 23% of Republicans. (Compare that with Obama’s 8% among GOP respondents in the same poll.) Make no mistake: That Republican number is going to change for Clinton if she runs for president. So mark May 8, 2013 on your political calendars. That’s the date when Republican Party returned to what was its favorite pastime for a good part of the last 16 years (from 1992 to 2008): going after the Clintons. Folks, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” is back…

*** Deep in the heart of Texas: Turning from yesterday’s Benghazi hearing to today’s top political event… President Obama heads to Austin, TX to kick off his new “Middle Class Jobs and Opportunity Tour.” Per a White House official, the president today will announce launching a promise he made in his State of the Union to establish “three new Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, which are partnerships among business, universities and community colleges, and government to develop and building manufacturing technology.” Obama also will call upon Congress “to take action on his proposal to create a one-time $1 billion investment to create a network of 15 manufacturing innovation institutes across the country.” As the AP wrote earlier this week, “President Barack Obama is launching a series of quick jaunts around the country to remind Americans he’s still got jobs and the economy on his mind.” As our own recent NBC/WSJ poll showed, the public seems frustrated that Washington isn’t focused on the economy anymore. The White House is attempting to respond to that. We’ll see if they can sustain the effort -- something they’ve been unable to do before. Here’s Obama’s schedule today in Austin: He delivers remarks at Manor New Technology High School at 2:05 pm ET, and then he speaks at Applied Materials Inc. at 5:40 pm ET. 

*** Census: African Americans had a higher turnout rate than whites did in ‘12: With Obama today in Texas -- where whites make up a minority of all residents -- perhaps it’s only fitting to relay this U.S. Census data from 2012: “About two in three eligible blacks (66.2 percent) voted in the 2012 presidential election, higher than the 64.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites who did so… This marks the first time that blacks have voted at a higher rate than whites since the Census Bureau started publishing statistics on voting by the eligible citizen population in 1996.” The New York Times has more on this data: “The overall turnout rate nationwide was 61.8 percent in 2012, a decline from 63.6 percent four years earlier. Researchers cautioned that their estimates might overstate how many people voted across all categories, because they are based on surveys in which people were asked whether they had voted — a ‘socially desirable’ activity. Some researchers cautioned against treating 2012 as a watershed moment for the black vote. For example, Michael P. McDonald, an associate professor at George Mason University — using the same data but with a slightly different calculation — determined that black voters first turned out at a higher rate than whites in 2008.”

*** Let the editing of the immigration bill begin! The Senate Judiciary Committee today begins marking up the “Gang of Eight” bipartisan immigration bill. NBC’s Carrie Dann: “With the Gang of Eight’s immigration measure coming under the legislative magnifying glass this week, senators on a key committee are sharpening their red pencils in preparation to edit the 844-page bill. The 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have proposed 300 amendments to the legislation, ranging from protections for gay couples, to border-security fixes, to efforts to dismantle the bill’s central goal of creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.” More Dann: “While observers do not expect that the bill willundergo dramatic changes in the committee process -- with bipartisan proponents of reform on the panel likely to stick together to resist substantial changes to their core legislation -- the high-profile debate is sure to elevate the often-dull ‘markup’ process to must-see TV for anyone with a dog in the immigration fight.”

*** GOP brand -- is it still struggling or improving? After the 2012 election, the Republican National Committee embarked on a soul-searching mission to see what was wrong and deliver recommendations for how to fix them. The result was a 97-page reportwith suggestions on issues ranging from women, Hispanics, blacks, Asians, gays, and young voters. Yet beyond that report – and besides about half of the Republican Party working to pass comprehensive immigration reform – how is that re-branding effort going? Well, there are mixed numbers. Yesterday, our NBC/Marist poll found the Republican Party’s fav/unfav rating at 37%-53% among registered voters in Virginia – a state Republicans need to win in future presidential contests. Also yesterday, a Pew poll found respondents blaming Republicans by 20 points (42%-22%) for failing to better work with President Obama on key issues. On the other hand, the Pew poll showed the Republican Party either even or slightly ahead of Democrats on top issues like guns (GOP 42%, Dems 39%), the economy (GOP 42%, Dems 38%), and immigration (GOP 38%, Dems 38%).

*** Democrat enters SD SEN race, but it’s not a top-tier candidate: So the first Democrat has announced he’s running in South Dakota’s open Senate contest: two-time Housecandidate Rick Weiland. The Hill: “According to the Argus Leader, Weiland already has the support of his former boss, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D). The two spoke prior to Weiland's announcement and, Daschle said, ‘I encouraged him with great enthusiasm.’” Weiland told the paper that he had also spoken with U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson (D) — son of retiring Sen. Tim Johnson (D) — before announcing his plans, and Johnson had indicated he was unlikely to enter the race. ‘He’s focused on his job. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t feel that Brendan (wasn’t) going to get into this race,’ Weiland said.” The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee says that this DOES NOT mean that former Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD) is passing on the race. But if Weiland is the only Dem candidate, it’s hard to think that Democrats will have a puncher’s chance in South Dakota in 2014.

*** Democrats on defense: And speaking of the 2014 Senate races, MSNBC’s Jessica Taylor looks at the seats Democrats have to defend to hold on to the majority.

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 Thu May 9, 2013 9:06 AM 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’s nice work, if you can get it.

On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton begins what will likely be the most lucrative part of her life – so far – as she gives her first paid speech in Dallas, Texas. She’s expected, like her ex-president husband, to command a whopping $200,000-plus for each appearance.

Marc Bryan-Brown / AP

This image released by Women in the World shows former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaking at the Women in the World Conference on Friday, April 5, 2013, in New York.

To put that in perspective, Clinton’s salary as secretary of state, where she logged more frequent-flyer miles than any American envoy ever, was a paltry-by-comparison $186,600.

That means if she gives just 10 speeches this year, she’ll take home a cool $2 million -- before she pays taxes to Uncle Sam, of course.

Clinton’s speech Wednesday at the posh Four Seasons Resort and Club in Dallas will be before the National Multi Housing Council and is conveniently located just 25 minutes from Southern Methodist University, the site of the George W. Bush presidential library, which opens Thursday. Clinton and husband, Bill, are expected to attend, as will the Obamas.

Clinton’s remarks are closed to the press, but speculation abounds about what the potential 2016 frontrunner might say. In particular, people will be looking for any clues about a future White House run for the former first lady, who would be a favorite to become the first woman president.

Clinton’s won’t be the only speech delivered Wednesday by a potential White House hopeful. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, brother of the 43rd president, is also speaking in Dallas before The World Affairs Council of Dallas-Fort Worth, promoting his book.

George W. Bush -- who has stayed on the political sidelines over the last four years, tending to a painting hobby and making paid speeches of his own -- told Parade magazine Sunday that he hopes his brother does run and doesn’t think his last name will hurt him.

“I would hope that people would judge [him], if Jeb were to run, on his merits and his track record,” Bush said, adding, “So I hope he will run.”

Clinton, who routinely tops polls as the most admired woman in the world, stands to make tens of millions of dollars, potentially hundreds of millions, as one of the mostly highly coveted speakers on the globe.

She’s signed up with the Harry Walker Agency, the same group that represents Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Dick Cheney, as well as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Shaquille O’Neal, Martin Sheen, and Bono.

Bill Clinton has reportedly earned some $89 million in paid speeches since leaving office, including $13.4 million from 54 speeches in 2011, according to the most recent financial disclosure form his wife filed as secretary of state. That’s an average speaking fee of more than $248,000.

There is risk, however, in all this potential cash for the former secretary of state and New York senator. As reporters and campaign-opposition researchers follow the money, she will need to pick her speeches wisely, if she is indeed considering a 2016 bid.

Presidential candidates are required to file financial disclosure forms, and in them, they’re expected to detail -- among other things -- their paid speeches. Political opponents will comb through for any potential conflicts of interest or payments from groups -- or countries -- that might be considered unsavory.

Rest assured, opponents will leave no stone unturned. While Clinton currently enjoys sky-high favorability ratings – 56 percent positive, 29 percent negative in the April NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll – she will quickly become a target for the right if she jumps in. Opponents already are circulating, for example, a Republican House committee report going after Clinton for her role in the handling of the run up to the attacks on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

They’re all things Clinton will have to consider before jumping back into the deep end of the presidential pool -- as she banks her millions.

This story was originally published on Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:25 PM EDT

In the early jockeying for the 2016 presidential race, one of Sen. Marco Rubio’s, R-Fla., major selling points is that he brings diversity and can expand the party’s influence with Hispanic voters, especially after the shellacking the GOP took with the demographic group in 2012.

Unlike other Republicans, Hispanics view Rubio more positively than negatively -- 23 percent viewed him favorably while 12 percent viewed him negatively, according to an oversample of 300 Latinos in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Telemundo poll. Another 40 percent either did not know him or had no opinion.

Of course, elections are choices, and a potential major obstacle for Rubio in 2016 could be Hillary Clinton, if she decides to run. The former secretary of state, New York senator, and first lady of a popular former Democratic president, was the most popular politician among Hispanics in the poll.

Barack Obama is still very popular with the group -- he has a 62 percent job approval, for example, when Americans at large gave him just a 47 percent rating. And he has a sky-high 64 percent positive, 19 percent negative rating with Hispanics.

But Clinton is even more popular. She’s viewed positively by 65 percent of Hispanics with just 13 percent giving her a negative rating.

In the Sept. 2012 NBC/WSJ poll, Mitt Romney was also viewed positively by 23 percent of Hispanics, but he had a 53 percent negative rating. He wound up losing 71 percent of Hispanics, one of the fastest-growing groups in the country who made up 10 percent of the electorate in 2012.

That was the worst showing by a Republican presidential candidate since Bob Dole in 1996 -- and Hispanics were half the size of the electorate than they were last year.

Hispanics are largely undecided about Rubio, but he starts off positive, and there’s room to for him to grow.

“Senator Rubio has impressive name identification for a first-term U.S. Senator with roughly six out of ten Hispanic/Latinos who recognize his name and a solid 23% positive versus 12% negative rating,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the survey with Democrat Peter D. Hart. “Among Hispanics 40-years-old and older, his positive/negative numbers improve to 32%/13%. Compellingly, he maintains a modest net positive even among Hispanic Democrats (18% positive/15% negative).”

Still, the conservative Florida senator who speaks Spanish fluently and is a son of Cuban immigrants, faces some obvious challenges.

Hispanics, though somewhat socially conservative, tend to be economically liberal, view the Republican Party negatively, and largely line up with Democrats on a range of issues, from guns to immigration.

On immigration, Rubio faces a tricky test in the next few months. He is helping to shepherd comprehensive legislation through Congress with a principal task of selling it to conservatives, especially when it comes to a path for citizenship for immigrants in the United States illegally.

Many conservatives, especially in the House and in the grassroots rank and file, are staunchly opposed to a path for citizenship.

Four-in-five Hispanics, on the other hand, are in favor of one. So, as Rubio tries to make the sell to conservatives and get something through they can support, he’s also going to have to convince Latinos, who are closely watching the immigration debate, that what he pushes for will be strong enough.

It’s also not clear how Rubio’s Cuban heritage would play or if it would matter – 51 percent of Hispanics in the poll said they were of Mexican descent versus just 4 percent who said they had Cuban roots. Another 16 percent said their families hail from Central and South America, and 8 percent were from Puerto Rico.

By the way, former President George W. Bush’s time away from the spotlight has done him some good with Hispanics. But he is still overwhelmingly viewed negatively (44 percent negative versus 29 percent positive). But both numbers are improvements from 2008 at the tail end of his presidency. In September 2008, just 21 percent of Hispanics had a positive impression of him versus 68 percent, who had a negative one.

On the issues, Hispanics continue to be more in line with Democrats than Republicans -- 56 percent identified as Democrats and just 20 percent identified as Republicans.

On gun restrictions, Hispanics are more liberal than other Americans with 70 percent believing laws on guns sales should be stricter. Just 55 percent of all adults believed the same.

On the budget, about half of Hispanics -- 49 percent -- think the sequester will have no impact on them or their families, lower than the 58 percent of all Americans who said so.

More Hispanics -- 41 percent -- said they believe the sequester cuts will hurt the economy rather than help. But, interestingly, three-in-10 think the spending cuts are a good thing and would help the economy. That’s nearly double that of all adults who said the same -- 16 percent.

Some interesting demographic notes:

- 56 percent of Hispanics identified as Democrats and just 20 percent identified as Republicans.
- Yet, just 23 percent identify themselves as liberal and 38 percent identify as conservatives, which is similar to the split among all Americans – 25 percent liberal, 26 percent conservative.
- Of all Americans, 44 percent identified as Democrats, 35 percent as Republicans.
- 51 percent of Hispanics say they have at least some college education versus 72 percent of the rest of Americans.

The oversample of 300 Hispanics or Latinos was conducted as part of the larger NBC/WSJ poll from April 5-8. It has a margin of error is +/- 5.7%.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images file photo

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

In a video posted on the website of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton comes out in favor of gay marriage.

These are her first comments backing gay marriage since leaving the State Department, and they could potentially hint at her 2016 ambitions. (After President Obama, Vice President Biden, and other Democrats have endorsed gay marriage, it's likely that the future Democratic nominee -- in 2016 and beyond -- will have to back it.)

"I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples," Clinton says in the video. "I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law embedded in a broader effort to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and for all Americans."

She continues, "Like so many others, my views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights, and the guiding principles of my faith."

It turns out that the president’s recent meal with Republican senators wasn't the only dinner party he's held this month with famous folks in Washington.

The president and the First Lady dined at the White House with former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week, the White House confirmed Friday.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest characterized the March 1 get-together as a “private dinner” but declined to offer further details about what was discussed.

While Obama’s former presidential rival Hillary Clinton has been taking time out of the spotlight after her departure from Foggy Bottom, former president Bill Clinton made headlines this morning with an op-ed advocating for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage act, which he signed in 1996.

The dinner was first reported by POLITICO.

This story was originally published on Fri Mar 8, 2013 1:18 PM EST

It is polls like this that supporters of Hillary Clinton hope will drag the popular former secretary of state into the 2016 presidential race.

In a Quinnipiac poll out Thursday, the ex-New York senator beats all comers in the 2016 presidential field in hypothetical match ups against several top rivals.

The poll tested Democrats Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo individually against Republicans -- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, who ran as Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick in 2012 against President Barack Obama.

Clinton was the only Democrat to beat all three Republicans, and Christie, who was not invited to next week’s conservative confab CPAC, showed the most strength for the GOP.

Clinton beats Christie, 45-37 percent, Ryan 50-38 percent, and Rubio by an even wider 50-34 percent.

By contrast, Biden would lose narrowly to Christie 43-40 percent. Biden, however, defeats Rubio 45-38 percent and Ryan 45-42 percent.

Cuomo -- son of ex-Gov. Mario Cuomo, who had been urged to run for president in 1988 and 1992 -- loses badly to neighboring state governor Christie, 45-28 percent. He also loses to Ryan, 42-37 percent and would tie with Rubio at 37 percent.

Clinton left her job as Obama’s secretary of state with sky-high favorability ratings -- 56 percent viewed her positively, while just 25 percent viewed her negatively.

Of course, if she were to throw her hat into the presidential arena, her image would likely take a hit, as partisans retreat to their corners. During the height of the Democratic primary in March 2008, for example, Clinton’s favorability was just 37 percent positive, 48 percent negative.

But as the primary campaign ended, and she was able to take on the statesman role of secretary of state, her image has been rehabilitated. 

This story was originally published on Thu Mar 7, 2013 8:57 AM EST

Updated 4:32 p.m. - Hillary Rodham Clinton left the State Department on Friday"confident about the direction that we have set," handing off the secretary of state's job to former Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Kerry took the oath of office, administered by Supreme Court Jusice Elena Kagan, late Friday afternoon. The private ceremony was closed to reporters. 

The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee takes over for Clinton, who resigned her position hours earlier after a four-year term as America's top diplomat.

In remarks at the diplomatic agency's Foggy Bottom headquarters, Clinton waxed about the familiar atmosphere at the State Department during her four years as secretary, an environment she said would extend to Kerry.

"Next week, I would expect that all of you will be as focused and dedicated for Secretary Kerry as you have been for me, and that you will continue to serve President Obama and our nation with the same level of professionalism and commitment that I have seen firsthand," she told throngs of department staff gathered for her remarks.

Clinton leaves office at the height of her popularity, and amid intrigue about what her political future might hold. She remained as coy as ever about her future intentions, making no reference toward that, and focusing her remarks instead on the diplomatic corps.

"I will be an advocate, from the outside, for the work that you continue to do here, and at [US]AID," she said.

"I am more optimistic today than when I was when I stood here four years ago. Because I have seen, day after day, the contributions our diplomats and development experts are making," she also said, later adding: "I leave this department confident about the direction that we have set."

Kerry was set to be sworn into office in a private ceremony later on Friday afternoon, and he'll inherit a number of complex foreign policy issues when he does.

Included among those vexing issues is the apparent terrorist attack against a U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey on Friday. Clinton, in her valedictory remarks, said that she had spoken to the ambassador to Turkey, and acknowledged the loss of "one of our foreign service nationals" in the attack.

Slideshow: A political life

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Hillary Clinton's life has taken her from first lady to senator to secretary of state.

Launch slideshow

As John Kerry prepares to take his place Friday in the long line of leaders -- including Thomas Jefferson, Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton -- who have served as secretary of state, he and President Barack Obama will face some familiar overseas challenges from the past four years:

• Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions;
• North Korea’s erratic nuclear-armed behavior;
• China’s growing economic power and its potential leverage as a holder of U.S. Treasury bonds;
• The horrific civil war in Syria which threatens to spill over into neighboring countries.

And there’s always the specter of a sudden, unexpected international crisis.

But there are also new and developing challenges for the administration and for Kerry, who will be sworn in Friday afternoon, such as the U.S. role in a country that few Americans have heard of or could find on a map: Mali, in north central Africa.

There, the Obama administration has broadened the post-Sept. 11 struggle against jihadists by sharing intelligence with the French, as well as providing them airlift and re-fueling support, to facilitate the French military intervention against Islamists.

This military assistance underscores again why the United States remains -- to use the well-worn phrase Clinton used in a farewell speech Thursday -- the “indispensable nation.”

When the U.S. or its allies seek to intervene in a place such as Mali, only the United States has an adequate fleet of C-17 cargo planes and KC-135 tanker aircraft to make such an exercise of power possible; the French wouldn't be able to conduct the Mali operation by themselves.

This week the Obama administration also signed a "status of forces" accord with Mali’s next-door neighbor, Niger, allowing U.S. troops to operate in that country and suggesting a new chapter in U.S. engagement in Africa even as Obama is moving to withdraw most U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

The Mali operation is in part an outgrowth of the “lead from behind” U.S. role in the NATO operation to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Professor Michael Mandelbaum of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and author of “The Frugal Superpower” said last October, “In order to get the full benefits of tyrant removal, it may be necessary to put American troops on the ground and that we’re not going to do.”

But with Gadhafi removed from power, his weapons depots were “liberated” and his arms proliferated all over North Africa, including to jihadists in Mali and Algeria, where earlier this month a group of militants attacked a natural gas plant, killing dozens of hostages.

The Pentagon will be Chuck Hagel’s problem (upon confirmation as defense secretary) not Kerry’s, but the new secretary of state is especially worried that America’s role as military enforcer has been hurting its standing in the eyes of other nations.

Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in his confirmation hearing that “American foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployments alone. We cannot allow the extraordinary good we do to save and change lives to be eclipsed entirely by the role we have had to play since Sept. 11, a role that was thrust upon us.”

He also knows that the traditional U.S. role as a preacher of open economies, free trade and dependable sovereign credit is being undermined by its undisciplined fiscal policy, threatening, he said last week, “my credibility as a diplomat -- and our credibility as nation.”

Kerry’s role as a diplomat and international coalition builder will be difficult for another reason. In the past, when there was a specific threat, American leaders were able to form multinational coalitions to defeat that enemy, as in 1990, when Saddam Hussein’s armies invaded Kuwait. 

But two new threats are more diffuse and can’t be attacked on a battlefield:

• Demographic pressure in the developing world: A surging younger generation in developing countries spurs conflict and unrest, particularly in the Middle East where those citizens have played a large role in the so-called “Arab Spring.” In his confirmation hearing, Kerry noted that in his visits over the years to Syria, “President Assad said to me, I have 500,000 kids who turn 18 every year, and I don't have a place to put them; I don't have jobs for them.”
• Climate change: How could Kerry persuade the Chinese to agree to enforceable commitments to curb greenhouse gas emissions that might cause disruption in an economy that demands job growth? All Kerry could offer last week is a hope that he and the leaders in Beijing “can find a better sense of the mutuality of our interests and the commonality of goals” so that they could work towards an international accord on greenhouse gas.

Related:

Senate votes to confirm Kerry as secretary of state