“We think it’s essential that this not be a ‘mission accomplished’ moment,” Jannuzi says.

President Obama with President Thein Sein in Yangon in 2012.

Via: Jason Reed / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Human rights advocates are raising questions about President Obama's visit with President Thein Sein of Burma on Monday, the first visit of a Burmese head of state to the White House in nearly 50 years, because despite the country's moves toward democracy, human rights abuses there haven't abated.

"Amnesty International is not against high-level engagement with the government of Myanmar," said Frank Jannuzi, the head of Amnesty International's Washington office. "But we think it's essential that this not be a 'mission accomplished' moment. There is enormous work to be done in Myanmar to address continuing human rights violations and build the rule of law, transparency, and accountability. We hope both presidents will focus on the work ahead, rather than patting themselves on the backs for a job well done."

Burma — the name preferred by the military junta is Myanmar, and the White House referred to the country as such in its announcement of the visit despite a policy against using the name — has made some democratic reforms recently, including the release of over 400 political prisoners. But the country still represses religious freedom, and military forces reportedly engaged in some of the gruesome violence last year against the Rohingya ethnic group, who are Muslim and have not been granted citizenship in Burma. A Human Rights Watch report from April alleges that "The Burmese government engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya that continues today through the denial of aid and restrictions on movement" and that 125,000 Muslims have been displaced and unable to return home.

But as Burma becomes more democratic and prosperous, its strategic value in the region from a U.S. perspective increases.

"There's a strategic dimension to the Obama admnistration's outreach to Burma," Jannuzi said. "That motivation cannot trump a commitment to human rights. Myanmar will not be much of a friend to the U.S. if it continues to violate the human rights of its own people."

Jannuzi said he had met with the Burmese president at a small dinner hosted by Johns Hopkins' Center for Strategic and International Studies on Sunday night, and that Thein Sein had "seemed receptive and aware of these challenges. The tricky thing for him is in addressing the tough ones — the tough challenges are those around accountability and justice. Many in the armed forces have been responsible for gross human rights violations over a period of decades."

Jannuzi had a warning for those looking to invest in Burma, as well.

"There were lot of businesspeople in the room last night," he said. "Amnesty International has emphasized that it's incumbent upon those who seek economic opportunity in Burma to go in with their eyes wide open and to focus on transparency as a guiding principle for any investment in Burma."

The meeting with Obama has so angered the U.S. Campaign for Burma, an advocacy group based in Washington, that they staged a protest in front of the White House on Monday.

A spokesperson for the group said they had about two dozen protestors and were hoping to attract more. In a press release, the group expressed "dismay" over the visit and accused Obama of ignoring "Thein Sein's role, as head of state, in the abuses against the Rohingya, Muslims, escalating military campaigns against the Kachin, Shan, and Karen, and the government's extensive land seizures to secure lucrative foreign investment deals."

In an op-ed in The New York Times on Monday, José Ramos Horta, the head of the UN peacekeeping office in Guinea-Bissau; Muhammad Yunus, the Bangladeshi Nobel Peace Prize winner; and Benedict Rogers, a human rights advocate and author of a book on Burma, all urge President Obama to press Thein Sein on the many reforms the country has yet to make.

"In his discussions with Thein Sein, President Obama has a long list of issues to raise. If democracy is to take root, he must emphasize an end to ethnic and religious conflict and respect for human rights. These can only be achieved by a concerted and sincere effort by Thein Sein's government," the authors write.

On the same day of the meeting, the State Department has put out its annual religious freedom report, which criticizes Burma for its treatment of religious minorities.

"Religious activities and organizations were subject to restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and assembly," the report wrote. "The government continued to monitor the meetings and activities of some organizations, including religious organizations. Societal abuses and discrimination based on a mix of ethnicity and religious affiliation, belief, or practice occurred."

The messaging contrasts oddly with the White House announcement of the visit from last week, which lightly touched on Burma's problems: "The President looks forward to discussing with President Thein Sein the many remaining challenges to efforts to develop democracy, address communal and ethnic tensions, and bring economic opportunity to the people of his country, and to exploring how the United States can help."

Bravo’s Andy Cohen gets political. A big fan of the first lady, Cohen talks about hosting a Democratic LGBT fundraising event next week — and how he hopes to get married.

Via: Ben Gabbe/Getty, Kevin Winter/Getty, Chip Somodevilla/Getty

When First Lady Michelle Obama speaks to Democratic donors in New York next week, the Democratic National Committee's LGBT Leadership Gala, hosted by Bravo's Andy Cohen, will itself be a sign of the changed times.

Two years ago, the same event was the scene of some high-dollar heckling of the first lady's husband, who had not at that point announced his support for marriage equality. The room, full of New Yorkers in the midst of their own legislative fight for marriage equality, was at times tense, and President Obama faced fallout from the event.

At this year's gala, to be held at the posh 583 Park Avenue venue on May 29, the night likely will be less controversial and more celebratory. New Yorkers have marriage equality, Obama supports marriage equality, and the momentum is on supporters' side.

And with the host of Bravo's Watch What Happens Live at the helm, the night could go anywhere. Although best known for his pop-culture sensibilities — he wrote the book Most Talkative: Stories from the Front Lines of Pop Culture — he's also up for pushing politics.

"When you go to a gay wedding, there won't be a question in your mind about whether this should be legal or not," Cohen told BuzzFeed — adding that he'd be open to meeting his future husband at the gala.

In addition to the first lady and Cohen, the event is also slated to feature Jason Collins, the newly out, and first out, NBA player — another cause for celebration among the event's attendees.

Talking with BuzzFeed about his hosting duties, Cohen discussed the marriage momentum — and how he hopes to get the first lady on his show someday.

Why are you doing this event?

Andy Cohen: I'm just a great fan of the first lady, as well as the president. I just think the first lady is great, and I'm happy to be involved with this event that she is headlining. I think the president has been a strong advocate for LGBT Americans, and so I'm happy to put my hat into the ring here.

What do you say to people who might not know of your political interests?

Cohen: I think, as a gay American, this is an event for the LGBT community. As a gay American, I care about gay issues. I like this first lady, she's a Housewives fan, and she supports our community, so it's like a perfect storm.

Do you plan on putting her on the spot about her favorite Housewife?

Cohen: I would like to get into it a little bit. I think she's a lot of fun. I would love for the first lady to come on my show. I think there's a side to her that we don't get to see very much. I get the sense that she has a wicked sense of humor. And she seems a lot of fun to me. I can just tell that there's a lot going on in her head.

Obviously the event took on another dimension when Jason Collins came out and got added to the program.

Cohen: I think it's great. I love that he came out. I think the first is always the toughest, and hopefully there will be more to follow behind him. And, I loved it, that the president called him and the first lady was tweeting about him. I think little acknowledgments like that along the way go a long way.

With the Supreme Court decisions coming up, what do you see as things that need to be focused on going forward?

Cohen: I think it's going to be interesting to see what happens with this immigration bill and whether gay couples are included. That seems like a big issue. To me, marriage is it. I think the Defense of Marriage Act has to go and gay marriage needs to be legalized. I think just the headway that's occurred, the momentum in the last year since the president has come out and said he supports it, to all of these Republican lawmakers publicly standing up and voicing their support, it seems like that's where we're headed.

All of these high-dollar donors coming to this event, what is it that you hope to surprise them with?

Cohen: What do I hope to surprise them with?

Well, they've got Andy Cohen coming to the event, something's gotta happen.

Cohen: You know, you're making me realize, I need to play a game with the first lady and I haven't given it any thought. I think, since I played "Plead the Fifth" with the president, I'm hoping that I could maybe get the first lady to play. You just inspired me.

We're coming up on the second summer since New York had marriage; now Minnesota has marriage. What is your experience with these changes?

Cohen: It's phenomenal. I have now, in the last year, attended three gay weddings. It's something that I never — you know, frankly, it's something that I didn't realize how important it was to me until I attended a gay wedding. And then, when I did, I saw it play out in front of me amongst people I love. I just thought, How could this not be? How could this not be legal everywhere? When you go to a gay wedding, there won't be a question in your mind about whether this should be legal or not.

For me, it's just having gone and seen it myself — now I want to get married. I never thought about getting married. It just never seemed like a possibility at all, and now it's real and it's something that I aspire to as well.

Is there a Mr. Cohen on the deck right now?

Cohen: There's not, but there needs to be. Maybe I'll meet someone on the 29th.

What is the perfect Mr. Cohen like?

Cohen: Oh my god. That's a good question. Someone, I think someone kind of strong and independent, who's got something going on for himself. I don't know. I think it's all about the connection when you meet someone. Right?

I hope so.

Cohen: Yes, yes.

Speaking of couples, can we expect to see a gay housewife any time soon?

Cohen: I do not know. There almost was, there almost was a couple seasons ago. And then, at the last minute, it didn't happen. You never know. It could happen.

Anything else you need to let the world know before the event?

Cohen: No, just that I'm really excited, and now you've inspired me. I need to call the DNC and get a game of "Plead the Fifth" on the [agenda for the event]. The president submitted last year, so I think it's time now for his wife to join the fun.

“So nobody’s gonna ask me about Myanmar?” Carney asks reporters. Another rough press conference after the administration fails to change the story.

View Video ›

WASHINGTON — Jay Carney is back under the hot lights.

The White House tried its hardest to get rid of three stories that threaten to derail President Obama's second-term agenda last week, but the daily briefing Monday was the latest sign that effort hasn't exactly stuck.

Carney, the White House press secretary, wanted to talk about the historic visit from Thein Sein, the president of Myanmar. The country is an important one in Obama's presidency — he became the first sitting president to visit the Asian nation last year — and Carney wanted to tout the visit to the White House.

Reporters were not interested. They peppered Carney with questions about the latest revelations in the IRS scandal (that senior officials inside the White House knew about the upcoming IG report on conservative group targeting in April) and a new story of the federal government reading the emails of a Fox News reporter.

A frustrated Carney tried to change the subject after the two stories were brought up again and again. The White House visit appeared to be off the menu.

"So nobody's gonna ask me about Myanmar?" he asked. No one did.

“Be the best husband to your wife, or your boyfriend, or your partner.”

President Barack Obama delivered the commencement speech at Morehouse College on Sunday in Atlanta, Georgia.

Via: Jason Reed / Reuters

He looked at the 2013 graduating class and urged the men to, "Be the best husband to your wife, or your boyfriend, or your partner."

Source: youtube.com

The crowd at the commencement ceremony buzzed and whispered loudly when Obama addressed the gay men in the audience directly.

Via: Jason Reed / Reuters

He raised a finger for silence before he continued:

Source: youtube.com

View Entire List ›

A slight change in the language, but a significant change in meaning. Instead of a veiled reference to same-sex couples, Obama made the language direct.

Via: Jason Reed / Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Obama addressed the graduates of the all-male, historically black Morehouse College on Sunday, sharing with them his views about what it meant to be a good man — a vision that included gay men.

Obama told the graduates, "Be the best husband to your wife, or your boyfriend, or your partner." The line was powerful and immediately noticed by the students, who stirred, leading the president to raise a finger and seek silence. Once the audience quieted, he added, "Be the best father you can be to your children. Because nothing is more important."

The words, spoken by the first black president to an overwhelmingly male and black audience at a school that prides itself on its history and understanding of black masculinity, answered an era of unfair stereotypes in the negative.

Obama later went on to tell the graduates of Martin Luther King Jr.'s alma mater that the "sting of discrimination" that many of them have felt was shared by "gay and lesbian Americans," who feel that sting "when a stranger passes judgment on their parenting skills or the love that they share."

What's more, the line that stirred the crowd wasn't even supposed to be as strident as Obama made it. In the prepared remarks released by the White House before Obama gave the speech, the line as written was, "Be the best husband to your wife, or boyfriend to your partner, or father to your children that you can be."

The slight change, about which the White House gave no comment, made explicit what had been written as, perhaps, a veiled reference to gay relationships. Directed at the male graduates, Obama referenced "your boyfriend." In the prepared remarks, only "your wife" and "your partner" — a gender-neutral wording — were mentioned.

Although the White House had no comment about the changed language, Human Rights Campaign spokesman Michael Cole-Schwartz told BuzzFeed the change was "slight but meaningful," adding, "And in a larger sense, it is wonderful that in such an important speech President Obama recognizes and validates various family structures."

Obama's Prepared Remarks:

American Bridge’s top fundraiser told the group not to attack Mitt Romney’s firm — and threatened to quit if it did. “Could Mary Pat be OK with this?”

A scene from an American Bridge advertisement, which does not mention Bain Capital.

Source: youtube.com

A top liberal SuperPAC in the 2012 election had undisclosed financial ties to the private equity firm Bain Capital — something that some people close to the group say interfered with its core mission of attacking Bain veteran Mitt Romney's business record.

American Bridge 21st Century PAC was launched in 2012 as part of a multi-pronged Democratic effort to define and defeat the Republican nominee, a project of David Brock, a former conservative reporter best known as the founder of the liberal media monitoring group Media Matters. By last January, it had amassed a vast store of opposition research, most of it focused on Romney's tenure at Bain Capital — and on the hard-edged private equity practices that would help define the Republican as an out-of-touch millionaire.

But in January, as Romney's nomination — and the line of attack — became clear, American Bridge's top fundraiser took a stand. In a series of meetings through the first half of 2012, several people close to the group confirmed, fundraiser Mary Pat Bonner demanded that the group avoid any public attacks on Bain. That's because, two sources said, two top Bain executives are key contributors to the network of organizations maintained by Brock and Bonner, which includes Media Matters and American Bridge. And some familiar with the group's work say it deliberately pulled public punches against Bain — though not against Romney — through much of the year.

"Anything that was discussed doing publicly in regard to Bain, even if it were just a quote piling on, was either shot down immediately, or there was a question, 'Could Mary Pat be okay with this?' And the answer was always no," said one person privy to the group's internal conversations. The group's political staffers were "unhappy" about the conflict — but accepted it and tried to work around it, the source said.

People close to the group's current leadership do not deny that Bonner fought to keep Bain out of the line of fire — and that she in fact at one point threatened to quit if Bridge put Bain at the center of the Romney story. But while some sources close to the group described her objections as a major drag on Bridge's ability to attack the Republican nominee, the group's current leadership describe it as a minor and ultimately insignificant issue that didn't get in the way of the group's efforts to spread opposition research behind the scenes.

A review of American Bridge communications paints a nuanced picture of a group struggling to attack Romney without smearing Bain. The group made passing mention of the company in 23 of the more than 200 press releases it sent this reporter in 2012, but generally maintained a just-the-facts-ma'am tone in relation to the company, a sharp contrast with the broad critique of "vulture capitalism" being advanced even by Romney's Republican opponents. Even as Priorities USA, its most aggressive ally, made Romney and Bain synonymous with predatory finance, Bain made it up to the subject line of just one American Bridge email, a forwarded Huffington Post story on January 17.

"American Bridge was at the forefront of educating the public about Mitt Romney's record at Bain," American Bridge president Rodell Mollineau said in an e-mailed statement. "We spent a year producing more than 2,000 pages of original Bain research and worked with our progressive partners to determine the most strategic way to use it. Our Bain-related content was featured in more than 40 print, television and online stories," he said.

The group provided BuzzFeed what it said were 14 instances of its "publically engaging" Romney on his time at Bain, which include a contribution to Politico by Mollineau responding to a question about whether attacks on Bain were legitimate. The response, which is in the affirmative, does not use the word "Bain."

The group also considered, and rejected, the idea of creating a website to be a hub of research about Romney and Bain. One source said Bonner helped kill it; another person close to the group said that no donor objected to the idea of such a site.

American Bridge officials also argue that those public forays were never their main goal. As a group focused on opposition research, American Bridge was prolific source of tips on Romney's record at Bain to news organizations (including BuzzFeed), much of it provided on the condition the group not be credited, some of it provided with credit. They were also a key source of research to other liberal groups, said several progressive leaders prompted by the group to contact BuzzFeed .

It's impossible for an outsider to arbitrate whether the group's decision to operate largely behind the scenes was driven by Bonner's relationship with Bain capital, as some people close to the group charge; or whether it was a purely strategic decision on the merits, as the group's leaders forcefully argue. There is no dispute, however, that the group produced reams of research, much of which made its way into the slashing attack ads produced by Priorities USA.

"As someone who was an avid daily consumer of their research, I don't think they pulled any punches," said Paul Begala, a top adviser to Priorities and one of a few top Democratic figures who contacted BuzzFeed at the prompting of American Bridge to praise its work. Another Priorities USA official, Bill Burton, and Greg Speed, the executive director of America Votes, also contacted BuzzFeed to tout American Bridge's research on Romney and Bain.

Begala also said, however, that his group had sought the support of the same two left-leaning Bain executives tied to Bonner, Jonathan Lavine and Joshua Bekenstein — and said that they declined to support Priorities USA because of its plans to attack the private equity industry in general and Bain in particular.

"For our PAC it actually made sense for [the Bain executives] not to give, because we were very critical of Romney's business practices, most of which occurred while he was at Bain," Begala said.

The battle inside American Bridge offers a rare glimpse behind the curtain of money in politics — and an illustration of how much more complicated the question of political money is in practice than in theory. Even as campaign finance reformers denounce the role of billionaires in politics, fundraisers and operatives struggle to cater to the financiers' perceived whims — often at great cost to their cause. Even as American Bridge's political staffers pushed to overcome the fundraiser's objections to Bain attacks, Republican donors with conflicting strategies and agendas were drowning out Romney's own attempts to project a clear message.

The fact that Bain executives would double as major liberal donors also complicates the portrait of the group as a conservative bastion of high finance. One person familiar with the internal conversations at American Bridge said Bonner, battling "donor fatigue" from donors being tapped for Media Matters, American Bridge, and other groups, was particularly concerned about two men. The attacks could "ruin her relationship" with two big donors, the person privy to internal conversations said Bonner warned: Lavine, a Bain Capital managing director who was also a major fundraiser for President Obama's reelection campaign in 2012; and Bekenstein, another top Bain executive who also contributed more modestly to Obama's campaign. Because American Bridge and Media Matters keep their donors secret, public records do not show either man's contributions and BuzzFeed was unable to determine who had given to which group, and how much. Neither Bekenstein nor Lavine responded to e-mail inquiries.

There is also no evidence that Bekenstein and Lavine directly participated in internal conversations at American Bridge, though Bonner was taken internally to be their proxy. American Bridge paid her Bonner Group $641,094 in 2012, about 5% of the $12.5 million it raised overall, according to federal filings. Bonner didn't respond to a voicemail seeking her version of events.

Current and former staffers varied in their characterization of what one referred to as the "shadow" cast by Bain, with some saying it was merely a minor irritant, and others arguing that it distorted the group's work. Senior aides have also told associates that they successfully worked around the uncomfortable bargain, though they denied to BuzzFeed that there was any discomfort at all.

Two senior aides, communications staffer Ty Matsdorf and a former Democratic National Committee research director, Shauna Daly, also departed American Bridge during the election. Matsdorf said he left solely because he wanted to work on the election's front line in Nevada; Daly declined to comment in response to several emailed questions.

It's also unclear what, if any, contact there was between Bonner and American Bridge staffers on one hand and the Bain executives on the other, or what amount they gave to American Bridge.

A source close to the organization, and speaking for the group, declined to disclose the names of its donors, but said that he found it "hard to believe anything Mary Pat said would have stopped a program from moving forward."

"We have more than 300 donors and raised more than $40 million in the last cycle and we've never had a donor who has ever given us reason to think their donations were in jeopardy based on anything we did or didn't do. No donor concern has ever led us to compromise the integrity or effectiveness of our work," the person said.

People close to the group also said that the concern waxed and waned, and that by the end of the cycle, the balance had tilted away from Bonner and toward more aggressive political staffers. On October 28, American Bridge released the sort of searing public attack that many had expected from the start, an a Priorities USA Action ad featuring an interview with a worker who begins, "Romney and Bain Capital shut this place down."

The American Bridge version uses a portion of the interview that does not include the words "Bain Capital."

“Maybe now that Fox is involved, more [Republicans] will pay attention,” Graham said.

Via: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Sen. Lindsey Graham is hopeful revelations that the government spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen will finally draw Republicans into the fight with the Obama administration over it's targeting of journalists as part of the White House's war against leaks, the South Carolina Republican told BuzzFeed Monday.

The Department of Justice has targeted at least two news organizations — Fox and the Associated Press — as part of Obama's crackdown on executive branch leaks. Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and some Democrats have expressed outrage so far, Senate Republicans have been timid in their response.

"Maybe now that Fox is involved, more [Republicans] will pay attention, but it didn't make a difference to me," Graham said.

The affidavit against Rosen, reported on Monday by the Washington Post, stunned Graham, who is co-sponsoring a media shield law with Sen. Chuck Schumer in response to the DOJ's investigation into the AP.

Pointing to DOJ claims that Rosen was a 'co-conspirator' in a crime for working to obtain classified documents, Graham said "I was shocked, when I think of Rosen I don't think of a co-conspirator. From what I can tell Jim was just gathering the news. This is getting out of hand."

"Our bill has a national security exception; I think it's just a little more scrutiny to protect people in your business ... The media shield law has more resonance now than ever," Graham added.

Graham may have his work cut out for him: there wasn't much anger over the case to be found on Capitol Hill Monday as lawmakers returned from the weekend. In fact, Sen. Marco Rubio published the only statement on the story as of Monday night, according to a Legistorm database. However, since the first day of the week is a travel day for lawmakers, increased attention could come soon.

"I am very concerned by reports the Obama Administration targeted a FOX News reporter for possible criminal prosecution for doing what appears to be normal news-gathering protected by the First Amendment," Rubio said. "The sort of reporting by James Rosen detailed in the report is the same sort of reporting that helped Mr. Rosen aggressively pursue questions about the Administration's handling of Benghazi."

Rubio has not taken a stance on the shield law legislation.

Many Senate Republicans, while suggesting that perhaps the DOJ was too broad in it's probe of the AP, have stopped short in calling it a scandal. The fear in rushing to judgment, according to GOP members and aides, is that too many on their side of the aisle have called for investigations into leaks coming from the Obama administration.

Others have condemned the DOJ's actions, but wouldn't support a new shield law.

"As a former newspaper man, I'm totally outraged," said Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts of the DOJ's affidavit against Rosen. "We don't need a shield law, the 1st amendment is the shield law."

According to the 2009 affidavit, the DOJ tracked Rosen's comings and goings at the State Department, seized emails and phone records and said that Rosen "an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator in the crime" for attempting to get classified documents from a source at the State Department. Rosen was never charged.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters that he would not comment on any specific case, but the President was a "strong defender" of the 1st amendment but "we need to make sure that leaks are not tolerated." Carney has said the President would support the Graham-Schumer bill.

Meanwhile, the issue could be gaining some traction in the House, where conservatives and liberal Democrats are banding together: Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a South Carolina conservative, has introduced a bipartisan bill that would prevent federal agencies from seizing phone records without a court order. Republican Justin Amash along with Democrats Zoe Lofgren and Jared Polis co-sponsored the legislation.

"Everybody is satisfied that what the Justice Department did was legal, and there in lies the problem," he said. "Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. And to the extent that the law can be improved to grant additional protections than we'll do that."

The HBO film about Sarah Palin’s disastrous run for vice president was a buzzy award winner. Can it be topped?

Via: The Associated Press / AP

Danny Strong and Jay Roach keep up with the news, even when it's not going to serve as fodder for one of their movies.

Speaking with BuzzFeed at the Peabody Awards on Monday, the writer and director of last year's HBO film Game Change, which chronicled Sarah Palin's troubled bid for the vice presidency, tapped into one of several scandals broiling in Washington in service of a quick laugh.

"Danny and I are both being audited by the IRS because we had a fair [number of] mentions in our emails of 'Tea Party' and 'Patriots,'" Roach joked, nodding to the current controversy over the federal agency's recent admission that it targeted conservative organizations for extra scrutiny. "We're having tax troubles now," he added with a laugh.

The duo, who won Emmys last year for the film and were on hand to collect Peabodys for the effort as well, showed they could be bipartisan when it comes to gentle antagonism, but their next collaboration may be another tale of Republican drama. Just a month after the 2012 election, HBO announced that it was developing a film based on the forthcoming chronicle of the campaign by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, the authors of the book on which Game Change was based. Roach and Strong hedged when asked whether they would return for the sequel, but given their long, successful relationship (they also collaborated on HBO's 2000 election film Recount) and chatter around the project, it's not a bad bet that they'll be back in the saddle for the premium cable network.

In fact, they're willing to openly speculate about possible storylines that the movie could follow.

"The Republican primary, pre-Iowa caucus, was pretty amazing," Strong said. "Just all those debates and all those characters. You had Herman Cain, Michele Bachman — it was the most amazing group of characters. Donald Trump, Rick Perry. You had a new hero of the week each week. As I was watching it, it was incredibly entertaining and pretty fascinating."

Strong added: "And then the Iowa caucus came, and then it kind of wiped out the colorful, fringe candidates and was pretty much more just the serious people that had long careers in government. It got a little less entertaining, but I still enjoyed it."

Roach was quick to point out that the Obama campaign had its "fascinating" moments as well, and they would wait to see what dirt Heilemann and Halperin produced for their book. In the meantime, he was willing to at least speculate what it would take to cast a Mitt Romney who could match up to Julianne Moore's Emmy-winning portrayal of Sarah Palin.

"It's interesting, performance does a lot of it, but the looks are important too," the director said. "We would probably spend a ton of time, like we did with Sarah Palin, Photoshopping the hair, and you really have to sit and study people and make sure they can pull it off. Because they audience wants a little bit of verisimilitude on top of good performance."

If Anderson Cooper loves breaking news so much, why doesn’t he marry it?

"Breaking News" with Anderson Cooper: September 2012 - May 2013

View Video ›

“You face a long road ahead, but you will not travel it alone. Your country will travel it with you,” the president said.

Via: Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

WASHINGTON — President Obama told the nation Tuesday that the federal government is fully engaged in dealing with the aftermath of Monday's deadly tornado strikes in Oklahoma.

In an address from the White House, Obama said federal officials are coordinating with their state counterparts in Oklahoma. Obama dispatched the FEMA administrator, Craig Fugate, to the scene of the storms to oversee rescue and cleanup operations.

A White House official said the president was briefed through the night Monday as details on the deadly storms emerged. Obama said the federal government will stay on the scene in Oklahoma as long as is necessary.

"Our prayers are with the people of Oklahoma today, and we will back up those prayers with deeds for as long as it takes," he said.

View Video ›

After more than a week of silence, WHCA president Ed Henry finally weighs in. Updated

Via: Jacquelyn Martin / AP

WASHINGTON — As news outlets and press advocates pile on the Obama administration for the Justice Department's long-term spying operations against the Associated Press and Fox News, one group has remained conspicuously absent from the debate: the White House Correspondents Association.

The WHCA, considered the primary organization representing reporters and news outlets covering the executive branch, has so far resisted pressure to challenge the DOJ and White House on its investigations into the AP and Fox reporter James Rosen, several sources familiar with the situation said.

WHCA president Ed Henry, also a Fox News correspondent, did not respond to queries about whether or not the organization will take a formal stance on the administration's treatment of reporters in the wake of recent revelations. Additionally, past WHCA presidents either did not respond to a request for comment or declined to comment on the record.

Some observers say the WHCA, best known for the annual dinner it hosts for press, celebrities, and the political establishment, tends to avoid formally engaging in controversies like this one. A former WHCA president suggested it might be too early for the organization to comment while the focus is still on DOJ rather than the White House in particular.

But the WHCA's unwillingness to comment on what many in the press consider a clear case of overreach could raise questions about the organization's function and purpose.

Incoming WHCA president Steve Thomma, a reporter with McClatchy, deferred questions about a formal protest to Henry. But he said the Rosen story in particular raised red flags.

"Speaking only for myself, it's very troubling that the government is doing this. A reporter, this reporter, is not a criminal," he said. "If I read the Constitution correctly, reporters serving as a constant check on government is not a crime, it's our patriotic duty."

WHCA member reporters, including Henry, haven't shied away from the press controversies in the daily briefings with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. Tough questions about the Justice Department media investigations have dominated the televised questioning recently. But the WHCA's resistance to a formal complaint is particularly noteworthy given the fact that groups representing congressional correspondents on radio, television, photography, and daily and periodical publications have spoken up on behalf of the journalists. In a letter to DOJ last week the Standing Committee of Correspondents, Radio and Television Correspondents Association, Executive Committee of Periodical Correspondents, and Standing Committee of Press Photographers slammed the DOJ's investigation into the AP and questioned its constitutionality.

Likewise, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 51 news organizations wrote DOJ earlier this month, arguing that its targeting of AP raises questions about "the very integrity of Department of Justice policies toward the press and its ability to balance, on its own, its police powers against the First Amendment rights of the news media and the public's interest in reporting on all manner of government conduct."

And while Henry has not weighed in on the DOJ's tactics in his capacity as WHCA president, Fox News executive Michael Clemente called them "downright chilling," and pledged, "We will unequivocally defend [Rosen's] right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press."

Update: Henry told Politico Tuesday afternoon that the WHCA stands in "strong solidarity" with AP and Rosen.

Sen. Chris Murphy announced he’d take the same food stamp challenge Cory Booker made famous on Twitter last winter. Rough goings so far: “Couldn’t afford butter or cream cheese.”

Via: Jessica Hill / AP

Sen. Chris Murphy took to Twitter and Facebook Monday to announce that he would undertake what's known as the "SNAP Challenge" — to live for one week on meals provided by a food stamp budget.

Until Friday, the freshman Connecticut Democrat will spend no more than $4.80 on food each day, the average benefit for Connecticut residents enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Via: facebook.com

Murphy's stunt comes as the Senate considers a farm bill this week that would cut food stamps by $4.1 billion over the next decade.

View Entire List ›

The White House press secretary has had a bad couple weeks.

View Entire List ›

A faith-based appeal from more than 150 clergy against the Keystone XL pipeline. “We pray for you as you make your decision…”

Via: Sue Ogrocki / AP

A letter to President Obama signed by more than 150 religious leaders made the case Tuesday that a controversial tar sands pipeline project should be rejected on moral grounds "for future generations and to care for God's Creation."

Rev. Sally Bingham, president of the religious climate change group, Interfaith Power and Light, organized the letter on behalf of 174 reverends and religious heads from across the country.

"As people of faith," the message reads, "we share your conviction that we are commanded by God to care for our planet and that the failure to respond to the threat of climate change would betray our children and future generations."

The letter, also recast as a full-page advertisement running Tuesday in the print edition of Politico, warns the president that the environmental impacts of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would pose "an unnecessary risk to the communities along the nearly 1,000 miles through which the pipeline would pass."

Obama may not announce his decision on the TransCanada pipeline project until next year, after the State Department concludes a final review.

The appeal from Interfaith Power and Light is the latest of heightening cries from the environmental community for the president to reject Keystone. Earlier this month, a group of 150 Democratic donors sent a similar letter to the White House, comparing the president's ruling on Keystone to the decision to end slavery.

"Building this pipeline is the exact opposite of the course we must take to safeguard our climate and move towards a clean energy economy," Bingham said in a statement.

Via: interfaithpowerandlight.org

Interfaith Power and Light's full-page ad, running Tuesday in the print edition of Politico:

View Entire List ›

Facing questions about the recent slate of scandals to hit the White House, the press secretary invokes birtherism.

Carney: "We could go down the list of questions. We could say what about the president's birth certificate, was that legitimate?"

Source: youtube.com

When it comes to the question of whether same-sex couples will be included in immigration reform, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy “is going to make that decision,” Majority Leader Harry Reid says.

Via: Mark Wilson / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — All eyes were on Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy Tuesday as all sides of the immigration debate sought to use the congressional rumor mill to force Leahy's hand on whether same-sex couples should be included in comprehensive immigration reform.

Leahy has long been a supporter of providing same-sex couples with the same immigration rights as opposite-sex married couples. But as the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" senators' carefully crafted immigration measure works through his Judiciary Committee, the Vermont Democrat has not said whether he would force a vote on amendments to accomplish that aim.

That silence set off a fierce round of "will he/won't he" on Capitol Hill Tuesday, with all sides trying to pressure Leahy, the most veteran lawmaker in the Senate, into tipping his hand — including one report that the White House was pressuring him to drop the issue for now.

Leahy filed a pair of amendments addressing same-sex couples' immigration rights — one of which would allow immigration rights for same-sex couples with permanent partners and one of which would allow immigration rights for married same-sex couples.

Republicans in the Gang of Eight, however, have said inclusion of gay couples in the bill will kill reform efforts.

The question now is whether Leahy will introduce the filed amendments during the ongoing markup and whether he will call for a vote on either or both of them. With a final committee vote expected this week, the relevant section of the bill when Leahy will be forced to decide could come up at any moment.

Sen. Chuck Schumer is one of the Democratic members of the Gang of Eight, which crafted the initial legislation without including the gay rights provision. Schumer, unlike most Democrats, has refused to take a position on whether same-sex couples should be included in the bill, saying, "Look, this one is something, you know, I worry about all the time. I'm a good sleeper but I wake up in the morning thinking of these things."

Politico reported last week that unnamed Senate Democrats were "turning to President Barack Obama for help" in keeping gay couples out of the bill, and the Associated Press reported early Tuesday, "Two people familiar with the Senate immigration deliberations say the White House has suggested to Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy that it would be best to put off a controversy over gay marriage until a bill goes before the full Senate."

The White House has refused to comment on the report, but Leahy told Politico last week that Obama hadn't pushed him to keep the provision from coming to a vote, saying, "He hasn't suggested whether I should or shouldn't do it because he knows I'll make up my own mind."

Steve Ralls, Immigration Equality spokesman, told BuzzFeed, "There is no pro-LGBT position to take in this debate other than full support for the Chairman's amendments ... You can't say you support equality and then work to delay or derail it."

All of the comments, though, are aimed at encouraging, pressuring, or threatening Leahy to take the various speakers' positions on whether to hold a vote on either or both of the amendments.

As even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday afternoon, though, "Sen. Leahy is going to make that decision, not me."

UPDATE: Laying preemptive blame if the amendment is not offered, Immigration Equality spokesman Steve Ralls told BuzzFeed Tuesday afternoon:

"If the amendments are not offered for a vote, there will be bipartisan blame: On Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Jeff Flake for making threats and bullying colleagues to abandon our families; and on Senator Schumer, for refusing to stand up, in the face of that bullying, for his own constituents who desperately need him to cast his vote in their favor."

McCain, Graham and Flake have said the inclusion of protections for gay couples in the bill would kill it.

Asked Tuesday afternoon if he would be bringing either or both of the amendments to a vote, Leahy told BuzzFeed, "Well, you want to come and watch what we do." The Judiciary Committee is considering amendments, with Leahy saying the committee would be working into the evening Tuesday.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (right) questions a panel of witnesses as the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on immigration reform.

Via: J. Scott Applewhite / AP

“I don’t want to be the senator who asks Americans to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country,” Leahy says. Four Democrats on the committee said they would not support the amendment.

Via: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Sen. Patrick Leahy withdrew his proposed amendment to the comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have recognized the marriages of same-sex couples for immigration purposes on Tuesday night, after several Democratic members of the committee stated that they would not be supporting it.

A little past 7 p.m., Leahy said, "It is with a heavy heart … I will withhold the Leahy Amendment 7 at this point."

Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, offered the amendment a half-hour earlier, saying, "I don't want to be the senator who asks Americans to choose between the love of their life and the love of their country."

He added, "Discriminating against people based on who they love is a travesty," noting that he wanted to hear from members of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" senators about why they didn't include protections for gay couples in the initial bill.

Sen. Lindsey Graham went first, saying he opposed the inclusion of gay couples' protections in the bill, despite noting his respect for Leahy's "passion" is support of marriage equality.

"If you redefine marriage for immigration purposes [by the amendment], the bill would fall apart because the coalition would fall apart," Graham said. "It would be a bridge too far."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein cited Graham's comments, then, saying of Leahy's amendment, "I think this sounds like the fairest approach, but here's the problem ... we know this is going to blow the agreement apart. I don't want to blow this bill apart."

She cited the fact that the Supreme Court could strike down the Defense of Marriage Act provision that prevents same-sex couples from having equal immigration rights in coming months. She also noted the a bill she is sponsoring to repeal DOMA is holding in the Senate, concluding, "I would just implore to hold up on this amendment at this time."

Sen. Jeff Flake, another Republican in the Gang of Eight, said, "It certainly would mean this bill would not move forward."

Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democratic member of the Gang of Eight, then spoke up, praising Leahy's leadership, but concluding, "I believe that this is the wrong moment, this is the wrong bill."

Sen. Chuck Schumer went last of the four members of the Gang of Eight on the committee, saying, "This is one of the most excruciating decisions I have had to make in my [time] in Congress. ... Not to do this is rank discrimination."

He then said, however, of opponents of inclusion, "They've made it perfectly clear that if this provision is included ... they will abandon [the bill.] ... If we make the effort to add it to this bill, they will walk away. ... The result: no equality, no immigration bill, everyone loses. ... Much as it pains me, I cannot support this amendment if it will bring down the bill.'

"I will be here," Schumer said to the LGBT community, to work on the issue in the future. "This is far from our last battle together."

Sen. Al Franken, likewise, joined in the decision not to support the amendment, saying, "This is the definition of a Hobson's choice. ... It's wrong to discriminate against people, but I do not want the LGBT people who would be hurt by this bill not passing, this whole bill not passing, to be hurt by this falling apart."

Chairman Leahy's Statement:

View Entire List ›

“We really do appreciate his efforts and we admire his stamina,” Oren says.

Kerry steps off his plane in Muscat, Oman on Tuesday.

Via: Jim Young / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The chorus of voices greeting Secretary of State John Kerry with a mixture of boredom and pessimism on his latest trip to the Middle East does not include Israel's Ambassador in Washington, Michael Oren.

In an interview with BuzzFeed on Tuesday before flying overseas to meet up with Kerry, Oren said he had high hopes for this visit in which the U.S. is hoping to inject new life into the decrepit Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

"You can take the same arguments that people use — why there shouldn't be any reason for optimism and why the horizons look very dark — you can take those same arguments and turn it around," Oren said. "Turning that around, you say okay, because the situation is so uncertain so flammable and so fluid, we have to work on the one thing that we actually can impact. Here's something we can impact and we can actually bring about a result which is positive for everybody involved and get a little bit more control on the situation and a little more security."

Oren declined to comment on whether or not recent actions, like Israel's decision to legalize new settlements in the West Bank, could block progress on peace talks this time around like they have in the past. Kerry reportedly called Oren last week to protest the move.

On Tuesday, Oren implied that all parties involved were edging towards finally tipping over into full-fledged talks.

"The focus will be how we actually get into negotiations," Oren said. This is now the fifth or sixth round of talks with the secretary. And we are now talking about how to get into discussions with the Palestinians."

Oren rebutted coverage that has been less than flattering to Kerry's ability to bring the unwieldy moving parts of the Middle East peace process to heel; Israeli paper Haaretz's Barak Ravid, for example, described Kerry's approach to the peace process as being like "a naive and ham-handed diplomat who has been acting like a bull in the china shop of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

"We really do appreciate his efforts and we admire his stamina," Oren said. "We are committed to working with him."

"He's a great listener. And he processes information quickly and very intelligently. I think he has a good understanding of the issues," Oren said of the Secretary of State, who he has known for years. "There's almost nobody he hasn't known for a long time [in Israel]. These are longstanding relationships."

Kerry visited the Gulf state of Oman on Monday, where he had talks with the sultan. He then went on to Jordan, and is continuing on to Israel. Much of the trip is focused on Syria though a large focus will be on bringing Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table, which hasn't happened in nearly four years.

E.W. Jackson is the Virginia GOP candidate for lieutenant governor and has a history of making controversial statements. “I’m not going to comment on him,” said Rep. Frank Wolf.

Source: s3-ec.buzzfed.com

WASHINGTON — The Republican candidate for Virginia's Lieutenant Governor, Rev. E.W. Jackson, is getting a decidedly cool response from his state's Republican establishment in Washington, who weren't eager to associate themselves with the conservative firebrand's history of anti-gay and anti-abortion statements.

Republicans have largely, and happily, lined up behind Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the GOP's candidate for governor. But Jackson's surprise win at the state's nominating convention last weekend immediately had Republicans fretting about his effect on Cuccinelli's bid against Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

So just how toxic is Jackson, who once said homosexuals were "very sick"?

"I'm not going to comment on him," said Rep. Frank Wolf of Jackson. "I endorsed Ken Cuccinelli, I think he'll do a great job. I've worked with him on prison reform, and he's a very good candidate."

But Jackson?

"No, I'm not saying anything."

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who also had endorsed Cuccinelli — and even appeared at an event with both men in Roanoke on Monday — did not return repeated requests for comment.

Rep. Rob Wittman speedily walked away from a reporter when asked about Jackson. Subsequent, repeated calls to his Capitol Hill office went unreturned.

Jackson beat out six other candidates to win the party's nomination at the convention and is a favorite among grassroots activists in the state. But with his nomination almost immediately came the unearthing of his past statements: he has compared Planned Parenthood to the Klu Klux Klan, once wrote "Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities," and said he believed the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell was a "disaster of historic proportions."

Jackson defended his comments to a Fredericksburg paper on Tuesday and said they were a part of his religious beliefs.

"I'm a Christian. It's not because I hate anybody. But because I have religious values that matter to me. So attacking me because I adhere to those principles is attacking every churchgoing person, every family that's living a traditional family life, everybody that believes we all deserve to live," he said. "I don't have anything to rephrase or apologize for. People should not paint me as one dimensional."

But even those that were willing to give a tacit endorsement to Jackson did so more out of party loyalty than personal support.

For instance, Rep. Morgan Griffith said "sure" when asked if he would endorse Jackson.

"There's no think to it, he's the Republican nominee," Griffith said in an interview with BuzzFeed. "He has to defend his statements on his own. At the same time he is not a political person of long standing and so he's going to say things that aren't the way people in the political elite might want them said. But he's a hard working man, who came up and fought and scratched and clawed and he's making something out of himself. Anyone who wants to attack that does so at their own peril."

Through a spokesman, Majority Leader Eric Cantor said he was committed to helping keep the Governorship in GOP hands.

"The Congressman is eager to help Republicans win in Virginia in November and will work hard to that end," said spokesman Rory Cooper.

When pressed, Cooper said the Congressman will not be defending any of his past statements.

Even Cuccinelli, a social conservative himself, wouldn't comment to the Washington Post about views Jackson has held.

"I am just not going to defend my running mates' statements at every turn," he said. "They've got to explain those themselves. Part of this process is just letting Virginia voters get comfortable with us, on an individual basis, personally."

Outgoing Lt. Governor Bill Bolling, a moderate Republican who withdrew his bid for governor late last year, came out harshly against Jackson's statements.

"These kinds of comments are simply not appropriate, especially not from someone who wants to be a standard bearer for our party and hold the second highest elected office in our state," he told Politico.

The marriage equality bandwagon had only one member Tuesday, after Democrats abandoned their push to include gay and lesbian couples in immigration legislation. “Shameful,” says an activist.

Via: Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Democrats left Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy standing alone Tuesday night in support of gay and lesbian couples, a stark departure from Democrats' public face in support of marriage equality in recent months.

A little more than a month ago, marriage equality was the talk of Capitol Hill. Politicians, in Chief Justice John Roberts' words, were "falling over themselves" to support same-sex couples' marriage rights.

The current limits to that support were made apparent by 7 p.m. Tuesday, when Leahy withdrew his amendment to the pending immigration bill that would have allowed married same-sex couples to be treated the same as married opposite-sex couples for immigration purposes.

Leahy introduced the bill just a half-hour earlier, but then, as Immigration Equality executive director Rachel Tiven told BuzzFeed, "I was shocked — and I suspect he was too — that not a single member of that committee joined him in saying, 'These are immigrant families, too. I care about these families.'"

Leahy received expected opposition from Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake to the provision, but the introduction also was opposed by four Democratic senators — Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer and Al Franken.

Although they all reiterated support for marriage equality and the substance of Leahy's amendment, all said they were opposing the amendment because they believed Republicans' protestations that its inclusion would kill the bill.

"If we make the effort to make [the protections] part of this bill, they will walk away," Schumer said. "They've said it publicly. They've told me privately. I believe them."

Feinstein noted her sponsorship of the bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, but then explained her opposition to the amendment, saying, "I don't want to lose Sen. Graham's vote. Because Sen. Graham's vote represents and can be used for the rational for dozens of other votes who will not then vote for the immigration bill."

Likewise, Durbin said to Leahy, "I believe, in my heart of hearts, that what you're doing is the right and just thing, but I believe this is the wrong moment, and this is the wrong bill."

Even after Leahy withdrew the amendment, other Democrats on the committee expressed understanding about the decision not to include same-sex couples' protections in the bill.

After the committee sent the full immigration bill to the floor on a 13-5 vote, Tiven, who attended the committee session, she was incredulous at what had just happened.

"I think that the scapegoating of LGBT people as the 'bridge too far' for this bill — unchallenged by Democrats — and that Democrats leaned so hard on Sen. Leahy not to offer the amendment and then deserted him when he put it out on the table is shameful," she said.

Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin took aim primarily at Republican opposition in a statement, saying that "it is deplorable that a small number of Senators have been able to stand in the way of progress for lesbian and gay couples torn apart by discriminatory laws" and calling out Senators Graham, Flake, John McCain and Marco Rubio for "threaten[ing] to derail the entire immigration bill to appease a small but vocal group of anti-gay social conservatives."

Even Griffin, however, noted, "We are extremely disappointed that our allies did not put their anti-LGBT colleagues on the spot and force a vote on the measure that remains popular with the American people."

Unsurprisingly, the activist group Get Equal — best known for organizing protests at the White House during the debate over "don't ask, don't tell" repeal — was more harsh in its assessment.

"Today it became clear that our so-called 'friends' don't have the courage or the spine to stand up for what's right, and are content to buy into the false choice that Republicans created — holding a sorely-needed immigration bill hostage in order to cement inequality into law," Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez, the group's co-director said in a statement.

Even when acknowledging the Republican opposition, Tiven focused on the Democrats.

"There is plenty of shame for both parties, but, really, to hear what Sen. Durbin, Sen. Franken had to say — the disregard for LGBT immigrant families — was startling," she said. "And the silence from quite a few others, including people who have spoken beautifully in the past, so clearly someone wanted them to be quiet."

President Obama — whose administration was reported by the Associated Press earlier Tuesday to have told Leahy "it would be best" not to offer the amendment in committee — provided no mention of Leahy's decision in a statement about the committee's vote.

The closest Obama came to mentioning the decision not to include same-sex couples was a note that "[n]one of the Committee members got everything they wanted, and neither did I."