Clinton has tiptoed around a series of major national security developments, even as Republicans have targeted her record. “It’s a challenging position.”

Olivier Douliery / MCT

In the last year, as crises overseas have tested U.S. foreign policy — from Egypt to Syria to Ukraine — the nation's former top diplomat has responded with restraint and, sometimes, silence.

Hillary Clinton has yet to comment on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a situation that escalated Saturday when 6,000 troops moved into the province of Crimea. Even as Republicans have criticized the former secretary of state for her implementation of Obama's "reset" approach to Russia in recent weeks, Clinton has stayed quiet. Her spokesman did not respond to an inquiry on Monday about the still shifting conflict.

Late last year, Clinton did tweet twice about ongoing Ukrainian protests, which she said she was watching "with alarm." And at a speech in Florida last Wednesday, before tensions in the region escalated, Clinton advocated for a "unified Ukraine" and predicted Putin would "consolidate the position of Russia in eastern Ukraine."

But since stepping down from her post as secretary of state last February, Clinton has shown caution in choosing what and when to respond to unfolding national security developments. In the months that followed, Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sisi assumed control of Egypt; President Obama pushed for military intervention in Syria; and negotiations over Iran's nuclear program began, subsequently launching a sanctions debate on Capitol Hill.

Clinton's twin status as a possible presidential candidate and a onetime cabinet member of the current administration has created a tenuous political balancing act.

After a chemical weapons attack in Syria last summer, Obama announced on Aug. 31, a Saturday, that he would ask Congress for the authority to retaliate with military action. That Tuesday, amid calls that Clinton weigh in, an anonymous Clinton aide gave a statement to Politico that backed the president. It wasn't until the following Monday, Sept. 9, that Clinton addressed the topic herself, during a previously scheduled appearance at the White House.

On issues like the civil war in Syria, and now the Russian actions in Ukraine, Clinton has been careful to stay out of the fray. She has largely deferred to the president's strategies, taking her time to comment on breaking news abroad.

The strategy, foreign policy hands say, is the only one that makes sense for Clinton.

John Bradshaw, executive director of the National Security Network, a left-leaning think tank, noted that any former cabinet official active in political debate runs the risk of undermining or upstaging his or her successor.

"Most secretaries have tended to be very careful about weighing in on their successors' policies," said Bradshaw, pointing to the uproar caused by a candid memoir published in January by former defense secretary Bob Gates.

"In the case of Clinton, everything she says will be read through a political lens," he said. "It makes it hard for her to engage on these issues in a helpful way."

"If she says anything, people are going to jump to say she's trying to overshadow Kerry or advance herself at Kerry's expense," said Philip Seib, the director of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. "If she does say anything, it's going to be a general statement of support of Obama's foreign policy."

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state under George W. Bush, was similarly reticent to weigh in publicly after leaving her post at Foggy Bottom. (Though Rice did push for U.S. intervention in Syria more recently.)

"Former secretaries of state as well as former presidents stay away from commenting on foreign policy developments," said Joe Trippi, the veteran Democratic strategist. "You don't see George Bush commenting either."

Clinton is also more likely to be vocal on debates pertaining directly to her legacy at the State Department. Earlier this year, when Congress considered whether to impose new sanctions on Iran, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan wrote to Clinton to ask for her guidance; 10 days later, she sent him a lengthy reply that backed Obama but also highlighted her work to lay a foundation for Iranian nuclear talks.

"As Secretary of State," she wrote to Levin, "I spent four years sharpening a choice for Iran's leaders: address the international community's legitimate concerns about their nuclear program or face ever-escalating pressure and isolation."

"She is weighing in on issues where she feels the administration is building on her legacy as secretary of state," said Bradshaw.

Clinton may shy from the conflict in Ukraine, as Republican lawmakers and pundits have already targeted the former secretary as the face of the administration's attempt to "reset" relations with Russia five years ago. On her second trip abroad as secretary, Clinton memorably presented Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, with a button bearing the wrong word for "reset." (Peregruzka, the word Clintons aides mistakenly printed on the yellow and red button, means "overcharge.")

Sen. John McCain invoked the slip-up in an interview with the Daily Beast last week. Echoing the words Lavrov spoke to Clinton that day in Geneva — "You got it wrong" — McCain told the website, "Of course she got it wrong."

Paul Saunders, a former State Department official and the executive director of the Center for the National Interest, said Clinton will have to grapple with her critics or answer for her relative quiet on these developments two years from now, should she ultimately run as the leading Democratic contender for the White House.

"There will be a number of Republicans who, if she doesn't say anything, will during a general election campaign say, 'There was a crisis in Ukraine and Secretary Clinton was silent,'" Saunders said. "It's a challenging position."

Clinton, whose next memoir is set for release this summer, will have an opportunity, either in its pages or on book tour, to stake out more nuanced positions in both domestic and foreign policy debates ahead of her possible campaign.

"Eventually," said Bradshaw, "she is going to have to weigh in on all of these issues at some point, whether it's Ukraine or Syria."

Shifting ground on a hot issue.

WASHINGTON — The state of Kentucky, through the office of Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear, will appeal the recent federal court ruling ordering the state to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples performed outside Kentucky.

For a few moments, though, it looked like there would be no appeal. The state's chief lawyer, Attorney General Jack Conway — also a Democrat — announced that he had decided not to appeal the decision, citing in part the changing landscape for marriage equality.

Conway announced Tuesday that he would not be appealing a ruling against the state's ban, leaving many to think that the case would be over and that couples could have their marriages recognized, perhaps immediately.

"From a constitutional perspective, Judge Heyburn got it right, and in light of other recent federal decisions, these laws will not likely survive upon appeal," Conway said in a news conference.

Moments later, though, Beshear announced that his office will file its own appeal of the recent ruling to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"I understand and respect the deep and strong emotions and sincere beliefs of Kentuckians on both sides of this issue, but all Kentuckians deserve an orderly process that will bring certainty and finality to this important matter," the governor said.

Asked what involvement Conway would have with Beshear's hiring of counsel, Conway spokesman Daniel Kemp told BuzzFeed, "The Attorney General will not be involved. The Governor will hire his own counsel to represent the state in this case."

As Attorney General, I have vowed to the people of Kentucky to uphold my duty under the law and to do what is right, even if some disagreed with me. In evaluating how best to proceed as the Commonwealth's chief lawyer in light of Judge Heyburn's recent ruling, I have kept those promises in mind.

When the Governor and I were first named as the technical defendants in this lawsuit, my duty as Attorney General was to provide the Commonwealth with a defense in the federal district court, and to frame the proper legal defenses. Those who passed the statutes and the voters who passed the constitutional amendment deserved that, and the Office of Attorney General performed its duty. However, it's my duty to defend both the Kentucky Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

The temporary stay we sought and received on Friday allowed me time to confer with my client and to consult with state leaders about my impending decision and the ramifications for the state.

I have evaluated Judge Heyburn's legal analysis, and today am informing my client and the people of Kentucky that I am not appealing the decision and will not be seeking any further stays.

From a constitutional perspective, Judge Heyburn got it right, and in light of other recent federal decisions, these laws will not likely survive upon appeal. We cannot waste the resources of the Office of the Attorney General pursuing a case we are unlikely to win.

There are those who believe it's my mandatory duty, regardless of my personal opinion, to continue to defend this case through the appellate process, and I have heard from many of them. However, I came to the inescapable conclusion that, if I did so, I would be defending discrimination.

That I will not do. As Attorney General of Kentucky, I must draw the line when it comes to discrimination.

The United States Constitution is designed to protect everyone's rights, both the majority and the minority groups. Judge Heyburn's decision does not tell a minister or a congregation what they must do, but in government 'equal justice under law' is a different matter.

I am also mindful of those from the business community who have reached out to me in the last few days encouraging me not to appeal the decision. I agree with their assessment that discriminatory policies hamper a state's ability to attract business, create jobs and develop a modern workforce.

I prayed over this decision. I appreciate those who provided counsel, especially my remarkable wife, Elizabeth. In the end, this issue is really larger than any single person and it's about placing people above politics. For those who disagree, I can only say that I am doing what I think is right. In the final analysis, I had to make a decision that I could be proud of – for me now, and my daughters' judgment in the future.

May we all find ways to work together to build a more perfect union, and to build the future Commonwealth in which we want to live, work and raise all of our families.

General Conway has advised me that he will no longer represent the Commonwealth in Bourke vs. Beshear. The State will hire other counsel to represent it in this case, and will appeal Judge Heyburn's decision to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and ask the court to enter a stay pending appeal.

The question of whether state constitutional provisions prohibiting same sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution is being litigated across the country. Here in Kentucky, Judge Heyburn has ruled that Kentucky's constitutional provision does so to the extent that same sex marriages legally performed elsewhere are not recognized in Kentucky. Judge Heyburn also currently has under consideration the broader question of whether Kentucky's provision prohibiting same sex marriage in Kentucky violates the U.S. Constitution, and I anticipate that decision in the near future.

Both of these issues, as well as similar issues being litigated in other parts of the country, will be and should be ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in order to bring finality and certainty to this matter. The people of this country need to know what the rules will be going forward. Kentucky should be a part of this process.

In every other appeal currently in process, a stay has been entered maintaining the status quo until a final decision is reached on appeal. The reason is obvious. Without a stay in place, the opportunity for legal chaos is real. Other Kentucky courts may reach different and conflicting decisions. There is already a lawsuit underway in Franklin Circuit Court, and other lawsuits in state and federal courts are possible. Employers, health care providers, governmental agencies and others faced with changing rules need a clear and certain roadmap. Also, people may take action based on this decision only to be placed at a disadvantage should a higher court reverse the decision.

I understand and respect the deep and strong emotions and sincere beliefs of Kentuckians on both sides of this issue, but all Kentuckians deserve an orderly process that will bring certainty and finality to this important matter.

Get off my turf, bitch.

hillsquotes.tumblr.com

...had totally gotten the best of President Obama on the world stage during the Syrian crisis.

Via hillsquotes.tumblr.com

But since then, relations between the two had stabilized.

Via hillsquotes.tumblr.com

View Entire List ›

The Illinois Democratic senator was speaking to the Ukrainian community in Chicago over the weekend when he said Secretary of State John Kerry told him Vladimir Putin’s 90-minute Saturday phone call with President Obama was “ominous, worrisome.” He added, “There were no commitments made by Putin.”

View Video ›

Koch is pronounced like “coke,” which is a reference to “cocaine,” which Merriam-Webster defines as “a bitter crystalline alkaloid C17H21NO4 obtained from coca leaves that is used especially in the form of its hydrochloride medically as a topical anesthetic and illicitly for its euphoric effects and that may result in a compulsive psychological need.” The Senate majority leader continues his war on the Republican mega donors Charles and David Koch.

View Video ›

LINK: Why Democrats Won’t Stop Saying “Koch Brothers”

Tim Donnelly, a California assemblyman and candidate for governor in California, compared President Obama’s stance on gun control to a slew of international villains on Tuesday. A call to Donnelly’s campaign was not immediately returned.

Via Twitter: @electdonnelly

“[M]arriage is strengthened … by providing access to civil marriage for same-sex couples,” the officials argue.

WASHINGTON — Several prominent Western-state conservatives and Republicans — led by former Sen. Alan Simpson — urged the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday to strike down bans on same-sex couples' marriages in Utah and Oklahoma.

Modeled after the briefing at the Supreme Court last year, the brief filed Tuesday aims to convince the court that the marriage equality cause is supported by people all along the political spectrum.

The brief states that the signers believe that "there is no legitimate, fact-based reason for denying same-sex couples the same recognition in law that is available to opposite-sex couples. To the contrary, [the signers] have concluded that marriage is strengthened and its benefits, importance to society, and the social stability of the family unit are promoted by providing access to civil marriage for same-sex couples."

Asking the court to act to advance that access, the brief states, "It is precisely at moments like this — when discriminatory laws appear to reflect unexamined, unfounded, or unwarranted assumptions rather than facts and evidence, and the rights of one group of citizens hang in the balance — that the courts' intervention is most needed."

Full list of those signing:

Read the brief:

While others characterize Putin as “unhinged,” the Obama admininstration still sees the Russian leader as someone they can do business with.

Ria Novosti / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The White House doesn't think Russian President Vladimir Putin has lost his mind, a senior administration official said.

Despite the continuing tensions in Ukraine that have strained relations between the United States and Russia and left some observers thinking Putin is "out of touch with reality," the Obama administration sees consistent, if misguided, motivations behind his actions. The administration is prepared to mount unilateral sanctions to punish Russia for its invasion of Crimea, but the White House doesn't expect the ongoing tensions to affect ongoing negotiations with Syria and Iran — negotiation efforts that include Russia.

The characterizations came at a "deep background" briefing Tuesday meant to characterize White House thinking on Ukraine.

A 90-minute call between Obama and Putin was characterized as respectful but based on two sets of facts on the ground in Ukraine. Putin expressed a belief that ethnic Russians are being persecuted in Crimea following the fall of the pro-Russian Ukrainian regime. The United States and its allies have repeatedly said there's no evidence that persecution is taking place.

The White House sees Putin's actions as based in domestic politics, rather than a desire to conquer new territory. The administration's thinking is that Putin is worried the popular uprisings like the one that overthrew the Ukrainian regime could affect his own position and has consistently opposed them because of it.

Administration officials said they could see future calls with Putin and have offered a way out of the situation that basically consists of Russian troops returning to their bases in Crimea. The additional troops Russia sent into the region could also stay, provided their numbers are below the agreed upon cap of 11,000 in Russia's base agreements with the Ukraine.

Supporters of marriage equality are filing briefs to buoy case against Utah and Oklahoma marriage bans.

On Tuesday, several states supported marriage equality in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is hearing the appeals of the Utah and Oklahoma marriage cases. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia filed the brief:

The Associated Press

ag.state.mn.us

View Entire List ›

Clinton draws a parallel between the Russian government’s issuing passports in Ukraine and pre-World War II actions taken by Germany. The comments are Clinton’s first since Putin’s troops entered Ukraine on Saturday.

Olivier Douliery / MCT

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the ongoing crisis in Ukraine at a fundraiser in California on Tuesday, comparing Russia's decision to issue passports in the Crimean region to the "population transfers" carried out by Nazi Germany before World War II.

Clinton made the remarks at a $1,500-per-plate fundraiser for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach at a law firm downtown, Keesal, Young & Logan.

The comments were Clinton's first known public statement about the still-shifting situation in Ukraine, where an estimated 16,000 Russian troops have been mobilized in the Crimean region since Saturday. Clinton, since leaving the State Department, has been cautious about how and when to weigh in on national security developments.

"Mrs. Clinton talked at length on the situation in the Ukraine," said one attendee, Harry Saltzgaver, the executive editor of a group of newspapers in Long Beach.

Both Saltzgaver and a second fundraiser attendee, who requested to speak without attribution, described Clinton's parallel between the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler, who resettled tens of thousands of ethnic Germans in Eastern and Central Europe to Nazi Germany before the war.

"She compared issuing Russian passports to Ukrainians with ties to Russia with early actions by Nazi Germany before Hitler began invading neighboring countries," Saltzgaver said. "She said, however, that while that makes people nervous, there is no indication that Putin is as irrational as the instigator of World War II."

"She talked about how what Putin is doing now is similar to what Hitler did, essentially providing these ethnic Russians in the Crimea region access back to Russia," said the second attendee. "And that it was destabilizing."

According to the Long Beach Press Telegram, whose reporter attended the event, Clinton told attendees, "Now if this sounds familiar, it's what Hitler did back in the 30s," she said. "All the Germans that were ... the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying they're not being treated right. I must go and protect my people and that's what's gotten everybody so nervous."

Saltzgaver said Clinton also offered background about her experience as secretary of state and the current crisis in the region, "both regarding Putin's attitude of wanting to put Mother Russia back together, and the pressure put on the Ukrainian president not to sign agreements with the European Union," Saltzgaver said.

Putin is a man "who believes his mission is to restore Russian greatness," Clinton said, according to the Press Telegram report. "When he looks at Ukraine, he sees a place that he believes is by its very nature part of Mother Russia."

The second attendee said Clinton did not speak to what the United States should do moving forward, but did mention that Secretary John Kerry had traveled to Kiev.

"She mentioned that Kerry is trying to come to an amicable solution, and that Putin is trying to assert his power in a way that is dangerous," the person said.

A third attendee said Clinton described the crisis as "very worrisome."

Kerry traveled to Ukraine on Tuesday, where he affirmed the White House's pledge of a $1 billion aid package, as a show of support for Ukraine's interim government.

Clinton, the second attendee said, also spoke to the audience about her work at the Clinton Foundation, the importance of women in business, and the gender gap.

As secretary of state, Clinton was one of the faces of an attempted diplomatic "reset" with Russia. During the 2008 election, however, she spoke bluntly about Putin. "He was a KGB agent. By definition, he doesn't have a soul," she said that January.

A Clinton spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

The fundraiser for the Long Beach Boys and Girls Club was Clinton's first event on a two-day swing through Southern California. She is set to deliver UCLA's annual Luskin Lecture on Wednesday afternoon before heading to Canada later that night for a speech before the Vancouver Board of Trade.

Update: This article has been updated to include quotations from a Press Telegram report published online late Tuesday night.

Although she calls a court ruling granting immediate marriage equality in Cook County, Ill., “persuasive,” Attorney General Lisa Madigan avoids telling clerks in other counties what to do now. Update: Gov. Pat Quinn says Madigan’s guidance means the state will accept marriage licenses issued by any county.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan speaking at a rally for marriage equality at the state capitol Oct. 21, 2013.

Tony Merevick / BuzzFeed

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan clarified Tuesday where her office stands on several issues relating to marriage equality there, but she did not answer the ultimate question county clerks face about whether to offer marriage certificates to same-sex couples immediately.

A Feb. 21 federal court ruling granting immediate marriage equality in Cook County, Illinois does not bind other county clerks in the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, she wrote in a letter to Macon County Clerk Stephen Bean, but the decision could be used to achieve similar rulings if other counties are sued.

Bean asked Madigan whether county clerks outside Cook County should issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples under the ruling. The letter to Bean are the first comments by Madigan on the impact of the ruling outside Cook County.

Madigan made clear her view is that the Cook County ruling in the case of Lee v. Orr does not apply to the state's 101 other counties. "As a general matter, a court decision is not binding on persons who were not parties to the case," she wrote, adding the none of the exceptions to that rule apply to other county clerks here.

At the same time, however, Madigan also stated that additional lawsuits likely would lead to the same result throughout the state, writing, "[W]e expect Lee to be persuasive to other state or federal trial courts addressing the same questions." If such lawsuits come about, she noted, the Attorney General's Office likely would intervene to support the couples — a move it had taken in the Cook County case.

Madigan did not, however, state whether other clerks have the legal authority, under the Cook County ruling, to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples prior to the June 1 start date of the state's new marriage equality law.

"Even though the ruling in Lee is not binding on you, the protections guaranteed by the Constitution must exist without regard to county lines, and the Lee decision, along with the federal court decisions noted above, should be persuasive as you evaluate whether to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples," she wrote in the letter.

By not stating whether those "persuasive" decisions constitute a legal basis for granting marriage certificates immediately, Madigan has left the decision in the hands of the "separately elected" county clerks like Bean — who sought her advice on that very question.

Since the Cook County ruling, two county clerks have already decided to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and a third plans to do so as soon as late this week.

Champaign County County Clerk Gordy Hulten announced Feb. 26 his office would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and the next day, the office of Grundy County Clerk Lana Phillips issued a marriage license to a same-sex couple — the first and only one so far, Phillips told BuzzFeed.

As for Bean, his decision on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is forthcoming — he plans to sit down with his county state's attorney Wednesday to have another conversation on the matter in light of Madigan's letter.

More than 250 same-sex couples have received marriage licenses in Cook County — which includes Chicago — during the first week after the ruling, Feb. 21 to 28, according to Cook County Clerk David Orr. Of the 258 couples, 31 traveled from other counties.

Update — 9:15 p.m.: Gov. Pat Quinn's office described Madigan's letter as "provid[ing] guidance to every county clerk in Illinois that marriage equality should be the law of Illinois effective immediately."

In the statement, Quinn said:

"Nobody should have to wait for equal rights when it comes to love. I encourage every county clerk in Illinois to quickly follow the Attorney General's guidance. Following this guidance, the Illinois Department of Public Health will now accept all marriage licenses issued by any county clerk in Illinois."

Equality Illinois issued a statement saying that Madigan's statement gives a "green light" for statewide marriage equality.

"We agree with the Attorney General that the recent federal decision knocking down restrictions on marriage equality as unconstitutional should be the determining factor in clerks' decisions to issue the licenses before the June 1 effective date of the Illinois Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act," said Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois.

Read Madigan's letter:

“I think people in this town are paying a lot more attention to Ukraine than the people out there on Main Street. I think folks on Main Street are much more worried about the minimum wage than they are about Ukraine,” Sen. Chris Murphy said.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — As the crisis in Ukraine is taking up the majority mental energy on Capitol Hill, President Barack Obama will head to Connecticut on Wednesday to once again push for a federal increase in the minimum wage.

"Oh, that's a good idea. In the middle of this crisis?" scoffed Republican Sen. John McCain, who this week criticized Obama's foreign policy as "feckless." "You can't make this up."

Despite expected Republican criticism, congressional Democrats say the president is doing exactly what he should be doing, and traveling to Connecticut is exactly the right move. And while his minimum wage message might get lost this particular week in a very crowded news cycle as the situation in Crimea unfolds, they say the president's domestic policy message will eventually resonate.

"When you're talking about Ukraine, when you are talking about Crimea, when you are talking about Russia — the international issues — clearly it's a somewhat crowded marketplace of ideas right now," said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer told reporters on Tuesday.

"There's a lot going on. The trick is we don't just have to say it today, we can say it next week and tomorrow. It's something we think is very important we'll continue to focus on," he added.

Democrats have focused on the minimum wage and extending unemployment insurance as key pieces of their 2014 policy agenda and strategy. And they are convinced that the public is ultimately on their side. House Democrats have been collecting signatures for a discharge petition — a rarely successful effort — to force a vote on the minimum wage on the floor.

Even without a foreign policy crisis, there's a slim-to-none chance that Republican leadership would bring up a raise of the federal minimum wage. Which is why, Democrats say, it's important for the president to continue to talk about it.

Sen. Chris Murphy, who as the chairman of the Senate's Europe subcommittee has been heavily involved in the calls for Russian sanctions and economic aid to Ukraine, applauded the president for "keeping his eye on the ball."

"I think people in this town are paying a lot more attention to Ukraine than the people out there on Main Street. I think folks on Main Street are much more worried about the minimum wage than they are about Ukraine. That's the reality of it," he told BuzzFeed. "I think they are interested in Ukraine but I think they'd much rather have us spend a billion dollars on their behalf than a billion dollars on Ukraine despite the importance of that expenditure."

House and Senate leaders are preparing to move very quickly on both sanctions and aid — lightning speed for a Congress that really doesn't do much. As the same time, Majority Leader Harry Reid will try to pass an extension of unemployment insurance again soon.

"We were elected, whether you are the president or a member of Congress, to walk and chew gum at the same time," said Rep. Eric Swalwell. "That's why the president has a secretary of state who is in the region…while people in Ukraine are standing up for democracy, people here are hungry and want to work. Those two are not mutually exclusive. We have to be able to do both."

So groovy.

“The biggest hurdle to reaching settlements in Vegas is the new costs imposed on our health plan by Obamacare,” Unite Here President Donald “D” Taylor said.

aijohn784

WASHINGTON — Contract negotiations are stalled for thousands of workers at casinos on the Strip and in downtown Las Vegas to the point where they may go on strike — and the sticking point is Obamacare.

On Feb. 20, thousands of housekeepers, porters, cooks, cocktail servers, and others represented by Nevada's largest union, the Culinary Union Local 226, voted to end a contract extension the workers agreed to last summer. The union wants to maintain its current benefits — including health care coverage at no cost to workers, pensions, and guaranteed 40-hour workweeks.

Rising health care costs due to provisions in the Affordable Care Act could put those benefits in jeopardy, the union says.

"The biggest hurdle to reaching settlements in Vegas is the new costs imposed on our health plan by Obamacare," Donald "D" Taylor, president of Unite Here, the parent union of CU Local 226, told BuzzFeed in a statement. "Even though the president and Congress promised we could keep our health plan, the reality is, unless the law is fixed, that won't be true."

On March 20, workers will have the opportunity to decide whether or not they would want to walk off the job at several hotels, including the Stratosphere, the Riviera, and the Plaza.

The vote wouldn't necessarily start a strike. A successful vote would merely give the union the right to authorize a strike. But once a motion to strike passed with a simple majority, workers could walk off the job at any time.

Union leaders have long voiced concern over the health care law's effect on their Taft-Hartley plans, which are collectively bargained plans maintained by multiple employers and a labor union. Under the Affordable Care Act, Taft-Hartley plan recipients (like the members of CU 226) are not eligible for tax subsidies. That makes some union employees more expensive for employers who provide health care, making employers less agreeable when it comes time to foot the bill.

Taylor has been outspoken about his displeasure with President Barack Obama's signature health care law for some time, going as far as meeting with one of his top critics, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, earlier this year. This is a far cry from how most union leaders have handled their Obamacare grievances — often toeing the line between admitting the law needs changes and actually criticizing the administration.

"You can't just order people to do stuff," Taylor told the Washington Post in January. "If their health plan gets wrecked, why would they then go campaign for the folks responsible for wrecking their health care?"

In response to the contract situation, CU Local 226 has already worked out a deal with MGM Resorts and Caesars Entertainment, which covers another 35,000 workers. The deal includes free health care coverage for all workers, as well as other provisions the unions say protect workers. Similar health care plans at other non-union hotels cost between $300 and $400 a month, according to internal union documents.

CU Local 226 represents approximately 55,000 workers overall.

Yvanna Cancela, political director for CU Local 226, said with rising health care costs due to Obamacare, employers have started to say they can no longer afford to pay for their health care. In some situations, companies have asked workers to also pay into an HMO.

According to Cancela, negotiations are ongoing, and some are further ahead than others. A deal was struck as recently as early Wednesday morning with the Tropicana Hotel, in which workers will keep their benefits, including free health care and a pension.

But the March 20 vote still looms.

"I think members will make a decision based on where they're at in negotiations, and considering how negotiations are going, I think workers will likely give the union authority to call for a strike," Cancela said.

The last time a similar strike happened was in 1991, when workers from five different unions walked off the job for six years, four months, and 10 days before the dispute was worked out.

"Hopefully we reach a settlement and never get to that point," Cancela said.

A testy committee hearing.

House Oversight ranking member Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings did not take kindly to Darrell Issa ending a hearing investigating the IRS target of conservative groups. Cummings called it "absolutely un-American."

View Video ›

For this, Committee Chairman Darrell Issa accused him of slander.

View Video ›

Cummings then said he had "only in this committee" seen a chairman say to "shut it down" and end a hearing abruptly.

View Video ›

Seven Democratic senators break with White House in first post-filibuster defeat for Obama.

Vice President Joe Biden attends the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton, Thursday, Feb. 6, 2014, in Washington.

Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press / MCT

WASHINGTON — The Senate Wednesday narrowly defeated President Obama's pick to head the Justice Department's civil rights division in a shocking rebuke of the administration.

Despite having Vice President Joe Biden on hand in order to break a potential tie vote on Debo Adegbile's nomination, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Majority Whip Dick Durbin were unable to muster enough Democratic support to approve his nomination.

In the end seven Democrats — Sens. Mark Pryor, John Walsh, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Robert Casey, and Chris Coons — broke with party leadership, even after Biden's intense personal lobbying of several during the vote.

Adegbile has become a political lightening rod in the Senate over the last week as Republicans successfully used his involvement in defending Mumia Abu-Jamal — a homeless activist on death row for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer — to split Senate Democrats.

The defeat of the nomination is the first since Reid used the so-called "nuclear option" to eliminate filibusters of most nominations, and underscores the politically tricky nature of that decision. In the past, Democrats who have opposed Obama nominees have been able to use GOP filibusters as cover for their own efforts to block them. But with the shield of a partisan filibuster now lifted, Democrats were forced to scuttle the nomination on their own.

The Florida senator has become a conservative golden boy again after a 14-minute speech he never meant to give.

WASHINGTON — On the afternoon of Sunday, Feb. 23, Marco Rubio sent a short email to his staff: "Let's get floor time tomorrow and let's get two or three blowup exhibits of the most iconic pictures out of Venezuela."

The next day, his aides set about the routine Capitol Hill tasks of scheduling speaking time for their boss on the Senate floor and printing out poster-board photos of the crisis in Venezuela, while Rubio jotted down a few notes on his flight from Miami to Washington National Airport. The expectation on Rubio's staff was that he would give a straightforward foreign policy speech on an issue that mattered deeply to a distinct swath of his constituents — and that the rest of the country was prone to ignore.

But when Rubio arrived at his office around 4:30 p.m., he looked at the TV and saw Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin standing behind a podium, reciting a cheery travelogue of his recent trip to Cuba, where he toured a local block party and marveled at the country's health care system. It was the sort of box-checking speech a politician gives when he wants to justify his "fact-finding" trip to a tropical island in January, and it was unlikely that anyone outside a small handful of C-SPAN obsessives would notice it. Rubio saw a slow-moving target.

Shortly before he was scheduled to appear on the Senate floor, a gaggle of senior staff and foreign policy advisers assembled in his office.

"Why is everyone here?" Rubio asked.

"We're going to talk about the speech," an aide responded.

"No, I know what I want to say."

With that, Rubio made his way into the Senate chamber, stepped up to the podium, and proceeded to deliver a scathing senatorial takedown. Alternating between biting sarcasm and righteous indignation, Rubio spent 14 minutes excoriating his colleague for heaping praise on a country that has aligned itself with corrupt regimes across the globe.

"You want us to reach out and develop friendly relationships with a serial violator of human rights, who supports what's going on in Venezuela and every other atrocity on the planet?" Rubio, a Cuban-American, demanded. "On issue after issue, they are always on the side of the tyrants. Look it up. And this is who we should be opening up to? Why don't they change? Why doesn't the Cuban government change? Why doesn't the Venezuelan government change?"

Largely ignoring his scant notes, Rubio described a world in which failing communist states, from Cuba to Venezuela to North Korea, have linked arms in a corrupt campaign to inflict mayhem on people all over the world — and he called on America to stand firmly against them.

Watching the remarks from their office, Rubio's team was taken aback. "We were a little surprised because we were expecting a speech on Venezuela, but it ended up being much bigger than that," said one aide. They scrambled to post the C-SPAN clip to YouTube and transcribe the remarks.

With the help of a well-placed Drudge link, the speech quickly went viral on the right, drawing upwards of 300,000 YouTube views so far, and becoming a talk radio sensation. Right-wing websites like Breitbart, which spent much of 2013 waging a frenzied campaign of misinformation against Rubio's immigration efforts, showered him with happy headlines. The Blaze urged readers who may have missed the "amazing" speech to "fix that right now." Even Townhall's Conn Carroll, one of Rubio's chief antagonizers during the immigration battle, declared him the "2016 frontrunner" on Twitter this week.

"I have been very critical of Rubio's efforts to pass [the immigration bill]," wrote Carroll. "But 2013 was a long time ago and will feel even more distant when White House hopefuls start debating in 2015."

Alex Conant, Rubio's spokesman, attributed the viral spread of his boss's speech to a widely held concern for human rights abuses in parts of Latin America.

"Even though the media doesn't give it a lot of attention, a lot of Americans do care about the tyranny we see in Cuba and Venezuela," Conant said. "America is a beacon of hope for millions of repressed people around the world and I think people appreciate Sen. Rubio clearly making the case for American leadership."

It also helped that in the days following Rubio's remarks, Russia's invasion of Ukraine unleashed a flood of commentary comparing Vladimir Putin's actions to Soviet-era tactics. Cold War communism is top-of-mind again on the right, and many conservatives are eager to frame political debate about Ukraine as a choice between Rubio's articulate tough talk and the weak-willed hedging and confused-grandpa muttering of President Obama and Harkin, respectively.

Of course, with Republicans still philosophically divided over foreign policy, it's less clear how that message might translate to a concrete agenda in regard to Russia. Rubio's eight-step proposal to punish Putin's regime, for instance, has been welcomed with respect on the right, but not with the same fawning his Cuba speech inspired.

Meanwhile, as Rubio once again enjoys 2016 hype, his senior staff remains clear-eyed about how media narratives can work. One aide said he expected the backlash to the Rubio comeback story to materialize within weeks. Still, his allies contend that the senator's ability to recapture the imagination of the movement with a single impromptu performance illustrates why he's too talented to be written off for good.

“I’m not making a comparison certainly, but I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before.”

View Video ›

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred Wednesday to Russian President Vladimir Putin as "a tough guy with a thin skin." Clinton was speaking at UCLA where she added she supported the Obama administration's efforts to reach a diplomatic solution in Ukraine.

Clinton reiterated comments she made at a fundraiser in California on Tuesday afternoon, where she compared Russia's decision to issue passports in the Crimean region to the "population transfers" carried out by Nazi Germany before World War II.

"The claims by President Putin and other Russians that they had to go into Crimea and maybe further into Eastern Ukraine because they had protect the Russia minorities," Clinton said Wednesday, "that is reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930s when Germany under the Nazis kept talking about how they had to protect German minorities in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere throughout Europe. So I just want everybody to have a little historic perspective. I'm not making a comparison certainly, but I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before."

Clinton addressed Putin and her knowledge of his world view at the event, as well.

"As for President Putin, I know we are dealing with a tough guy with a thin skin," Clinton said. "I've had a lot of experience — well, not only with him but with people like that — but in particular with President Putin. I know that his political vision is of a greater Russia."

"I support the administration's call for Russia to respect its obligation and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Ukraine," Clinton added.

LINK: Hillary Clinton Compares Russia Moves To Nazi Aggression

The current state of untested rape kits is “simply unacceptable,” says Attorney General Eric Holder.

AP Photo/Susan Walsh

Vice President Joe Biden urged Congress on Wednesday to approve a $35 million grant program to improve sexual assault investigations, including providing police training on sexual assault trauma, bolstering communication between law enforcement departments, and ending the backlog of untested rape kits nationwide.

The program is part of President Barack Obama's 2015 budget proposal — meaning it is subject to Congressional approval and may or may not actually become reality.

"None of us are pleased with the bipartisan deal cut in November," Biden said on a call with reporters on the issue Wednesday. "But there are certain problems that cannot wait: one is violence against women in America."

Attorney General Eric Holder emphasized the point, saying, "We cannot allow and will not allow budget cuts to come at the dispense of survivors of sexual assault."

The administration's push comes about a month after Obama announced a new initiative to address sexual assault on college campuses.

Biden specifically highlighted the need to address the backlog of these untested kits, stressing that they were key in arresting serial offenders whose DNA may be found in multiple kits.

"Studies show that law enforcement officials don't prioritize testing rape victims because they don't realize how valuable they can be," said Biden. "You might have a guy pleading guilty on to case, and then you look at his DNA and it turns out he's raped five other women."

Biden specifically cited the problem in Detroit, in which after police tested 1,600 rape kits that had been sitting on their shelves, they found that there were 87 serial rapists. Their DNA was tied to cases in 22 other states, including Washington, D.C.

The Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice would spearhead the movement to end the significant backlog of rape kits in crime labs, said Attorney General Eric Holder.

"This grant program is going to provide vital support to help prevent violent attacks and improve our response to violent assaults whenever they occur," said Holder, arguing that we needed to "move into the 21st century" by closing research gaps, ending rape kit backlogs, and giving support to those who need it the most.

The proposal would also include funds for cold case detective and prosecutors who can track down rapists and put the kits together, and counseling for victims of sexual violence.

"When a victim is raped her body is part of the crime scene," said Biden, noting that the DNA left behind by an attacker needed to be put in a rape kit and indexed immediately.

"This is a national problem," Biden said. "By testing these rape kits we can find serial rapists, put them behind bars, and get victims closure."

LINK: States Begin To Address Thousands Of Untested Rape Kits

LINK: Rape Survivor Sues Memphis For Failing To Test 15,000 Rape Kits

View Entire List ›

“That’s how it always is: You fight it out. You figure out what works. You come together. Then you win,” Ryan will say.

Mary F. Calvert / Reuters

WASHINGTON — In a speech to be delivered Thursday morning at CPAC, Rep. Paul Ryan will celebrate the "messy and noisy" debate currently consuming the Republican Party, and cast the infighting as a necessary step to shape a fresh conservative agenda for the country.

"The way the Left tells it, the Republican Party is in a civil war," Ryan will say, according to a transcript of the speech obtained by BuzzFeed. "It's Tea Party versus establishment — libertarians versus social conservatives. There's infighting, conflict, backbiting, discord. Look, I'm Irish — that's my idea of a family reunion."

He will go on to compare today's intra-party squabbling to the beginning of the Reagan revolution, when a "battle of ideas" — waged vigorously by Ryan's mentor, Jack Kemp — gave way to a long period of conservative dominance in American politics.

"We're figuring out the best way to apply our principles to the challenges of the day," Ryan will say. "Sure, we have our disagreements. And yes, they can get a little passionate. I like to think of it as 'creative tension.'"

But, he will add, "That's how it always is: You fight it out. You figure out what works. You come together. Then you win. It's messy and noisy and even a little bit uncomfortable. But the center of gravity is shifting. We're not just opposing a president. We're developing an agenda."

The tone and substance of the speech aligns with Ryan's post-2012 efforts to build a "conservative reform agenda" that addresses issues like poverty, education, and infrastructure. Earlier this week, the House Budget Committee, which Ryan chairs, released a 200-page report critiquing America's 50-year "War on Poverty," and this spring he is expected to introduce new policies to replace the ones he believes are failing.