Former Marine Corps Commandant Jim Jones, the president’s first National Security Adviser, is testifying at a Senate hearing on the Keystone pipeline Thursday. But he’s not doing it at the request of Democrats.

WASHINGTON — Former White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones, now a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, will testify Thursday at a Senate Keystone pipeline hearing at the request of Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, committee sources told BuzzFeed Tuesday.

Jones is expected to testify in favor of the pipeline project at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on whether or not Keystone is in the "national interest." That's the central question for an ongoing State Department review of the KeystoneXL proposal related to the project, which will cross the Canadian border into the United States.

Though he was President Obama's first National Security Adviser, Jones is testifying at the request of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee minority, led by Corker. The Tennessee senator is a strong proponent of Keystone and Jones' testimony is expected to support the views of Keystone supporters.

"As a respected former national security official in the Obama administration with more than 40 years of distinguished public service to his credit, Gen. Jim Jones is an appropriate person to discuss the importance of approving the Keystone pipeline based on core national interests of the United States," a minority aide to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said. "We're hopeful his testimony will provide useful evidence for the State Department and the president to approve the project, which will benefit our economy and enhance both our national and energy security."

A call placed to Jones' Virginia-based consulting business about his planned testimony was not returned.

In addition to his work for the American Petroleum Institute, Jones has been a paid lobbyist for the Chamber Of Commerce, another Keystone proponent.

Staff for Rep. David Scott, who’s been ripping President Obama over a pick for the federal bench in Georgia, calls Obama’s latest pick for the court “a step in the right direction. Signs the White House is trying to mend fences.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The recent icy relations between a Democratic representative and President Obama over a nominee for the federal bench in Georgia are starting to thaw after Obama announced Leslie Joyce Abrams, an assistant U.S. attorney and the sister of a prominent Democratic state lawmaker, as his pick for another empty slot on the Georgia district court.

"She should be fine and a step in the right direction," said a senior aide to Rep. David Scott, the Democrat locked in a war of words with the White House over another Obama nominee to the Georgia court, Michael Boggs.

If approved by the Senate, Abrams would be the first African American woman on the federal bench in Georgia.

Abrams' sister is Stacey Abrams, the leader of the Democrats in the Georgia state House. Her nomination was announced late Tuesday afternoon and the aide to Scott said the representative hasn't had "a lot of chance to vet" her.

But the initial take is positive, and there are signs the White House is trying to get Scott back on the president's good side. The aide to the representative said the White House gave Scott "a little heads up" on the nomination before it was announced.

The aide said Scott had no role in Abrams being selected.

Scott has been the most vocal opponent of Boggs, a former Georgia Democratic lawmaker singled out by progressives, LGBT rights groups, civil rights advocates, and NARAL for his political positions in the state legislature.

The fight between Scott at least and the White House has become pretty nasty, with the representative accusing Obama of "disrespect" with the Boggs nomination, leading the Obama administration to offer up White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler for a rare interview to defend the pick.

It's not clear if the other critics of the Boggs nomination share Scott's sentiments about Abrams. NARAL, the leader of the progressive coalition opposing Boggs in the Senate, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Site visits are around a third higher than yesterday at the same time,” says a source. “Not saying the video did that, just stating the fact.”

Handout / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration Tuesday night defended its initial claims that the President's appearance on Between Two Ferns had led to a surge in web interest in Obamacare, insisting that traffic to HealthCare.gov was indeed up — though not necessarily because of the extraordinary presidential appearance.

"Site visits are around a third higher than yesterday at the same time," said a person knowledgeable about HealthCare.gov numbers who declined to be named. "Not saying the video did that, just stating the fact."

The Department of Health and Human Services raised eyebrows Tuesday afternoon when it announced 3 million views of Obama'a appearance on Zach Galifianakis' improv interview parody show resulted in 19,000 referral visits to HealthCare.gov, which was featured prominently in the video and was linked to both from the Between Two Ferns video player and across the Funny or Die website that hosted it.

At 7:20 p.m. ET, HHS updated the totals in a tweet. "Hourly traffic up from yesterday," read the tweet. "@funnyordie video referrals at 32k and 575k site visits as of 6pm."

The White House was thrilled with the results of the video Tuesday afternoon. An official at the HHS said that click-through traffic wasn't the only way to measure the success of the Funny or Die clip.

"That number [19,000] represents only a fraction of the people who came to HealthCare.gov separately after seeing the video online or on television, and indeed we saw substantially increased traffic to the site overall," the official said. "About 95% of these referrals were new visitors to HealthCare.gov."

Outside observers said it's hard to determine whether the click-throughs from the Between Two Ferns proved the video was a success or not. But the buzz it created was a success for the White House and Affordable Care Act supporters, they said.

"At best and worst, I'd say in terms of direct visitors, it is inconclusive," said a well-known producer of viral content for Democrats who asked not to be named because he is not directly involved in HealthCare.gov. "In terms of generating earned media and roping in second level engagement (people seeing the video off Facebook, Twitter shares, or reading about it on sites like The Verge) it appears to have performed beautifully."

LINK: White House Declares Mission Accomplished After Obama’s “Between Two Ferns” Appearance

The Democratic senator from New York wants to bring like-minded women to office — and is helping raise major money for them. “I haven’t seen anyone, quite frankly, who’s as aggressive not only in fundraising but in how those dollars are used.”

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — If 2012 was the year that Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand proved her chops at fundraising and 2013 was for proving her legislative skill, the senator is hoping 2014 is the year she cements her role as a true power player in Democratic politics by bringing in a coalition of like-minded lawmakers to Washington.

The 47-year-old junior senator from New York is hoping to turn her political prominence into a full-blown political machine, pouring millions into House and Senate campaigns, gubernatorial races, and other efforts aimed at bringing more women to Congress.

"To me it's a call to action. It's asking women to participate in politics. To vote to become advocates on the issues they care about, to run for office [and] if they don't want to run for office to find women candidates they share values with that they can support," Gillibrand said of her political efforts in an interview with BuzzFeed on Tuesday.

In 2012, Gillibrand first made a splash on the political money stage, raising huge sums of money for female candidates in tough primary races like Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and longshot reelects like Sen. Claire McCaskill.

Over the last 18 months, the New York Democrat has taken on the Pentagon, McCaskill, and the leadership of both parties in pushing for a massive reorganization of how the military handles sexual assault cases. Although the effort faced a big blow last week with a failed vote, Gillibrand transformed what some considered a quixotic policy fight into a closely contested, substantive fight that split the Senate along bipartisan lines.

And now it's time for midterm elections in a critical year for Senate Democrats.

So far in the 2014 election cycle, Gillibrand — who in 2012 raised and spent more than a million dollars for Democratic candidates largely through her extensive email list — is well on her way to exceeding her goal of doling out $2 million to Democrats.

Through her Off the Sidelines PAC, Gillibrand has raised and donated more than $320,000 this cycle for candidates across the country, ranging from House hopefuls like Nassau County, N.Y., District Attorney Kathleen Rice to Sen. Kay Hagan to Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis.

Gillibrand's joint fundraising events in New York — a target-rich environment for fundraising — and other places has also netted $228,000 so far this year, and she's helped bring in $275,000 at events she's headlined, according to aides.

But it is Gillibrand's extensive email list that is the backbone of her fundraising efforts. Gillibrand uses the list to send direct fundraising pitches to Democratic voters across the country on behalf of her chosen candidates. So far this year it's resulted in $604,679 in donations going directly to candidates.

"It's very active, and people really respond," Gillibrand acknowledged, adding that she's had significant success in turning a national list into an asset for races in districts that may not get top-tier attention from the media.

"Nobody is going to have an opportunity to go to Hawaii to meet Tulsi Gabbard … [but] they love knowing about these candidates. So they'll send $10 dollars. They'll send $15 dollars. They'll stay engaged," she said.

All told, that puts Gillibrand just under $1.5 million more than seven months before Election Day.

Gillibrand's largesse doesn't just extend to women — according to an aide, she's maxed out her donations to most of her male colleagues facing serious reelection challenges in the Senate this year.

Additionally, Gillibrand has donated to a number of other male Senate candidates, including Rep. Bruce Raley in Iowa and Gary Peters in Michigan. Gillibrand has also maxed out to Sen. John Walsh — who was appointed to former Sen. Max Baucus' seat earlier this year — and last week sent a fundraising pitch to her email list for his campaign to permanently replace Baucus.

But for Gillibrand, who has made women's issues a central policy priority, bringing like-minded women to the House and Senate is a clear priority: Over the last two cycles she's helped 16 women Senate and 31 House candidates.

Gillibrand hasn't limited her efforts handing out cash, however.

Rice, who's running to succeed Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, said of Gillibrand, from helping her staff, up to fundraising and providing simple practical advice about the ins and outs of campaigning, there are "few people who have been tangibly more helpful to the campaign and to myself."

Gillibrand has also been willing to take risks on primary races and candidate recruitment.

So far she's inserted herself into a number of primaries as well, including backing Rice — a decision that was instrumental in pulling her into the election. "I'm not sure there was anyone who was made a stronger, more compelling pitch" than Gillibrand, Rice said in an interview.

Unlike some lawmakers who stay out of the primaries, Gillibrand has used her fundraising prowess consistently to help those she identifies with and has been aggressively recruiting women to run in the House and Senate.

"I will reach out to people I think might consider running who I think can win and urge them to run. Answer questions about what it's like to be a woman in Congress, answer questions about what it's like to be a mom in Congress … so far, we've had a really good track record," she said.

Her most notable success is Gabbard, who despite her underdog status Gillibrand backed early on in her primary race over her staff's objections.

"When I talked to Tulsi, I was so excited when I met her. Because I saw in her this passionate young woman … I saw a little bit of myself in her and I thought to myself, I have to help her the way that Hillary [Clinton] helped me. So I immediately said we were" despite misgivings of her staff, she said.

Gabbard ultimately became the lead sponsor of Gillibrand's military sexual assault bill in the House, and Democrats said she also helped lobby Senate members, using her military experience as a selling point.

"Hillary Clinton was one of my biggest and best supporters," Gillibrand said Tuesday. "She was really a mentor for me … she had extremely good advice. She just always encouraged me. During that conversation she said 'Kirsten, if you decide to run, we'll be there for you.' And she did. She did fundraisers for me. She did rallies. She asked Bill Clinton for her birthday present to her for him to come to my district and stump for me the day before Election Day, which he did. And it made a difference."

"So I just learned from her experience that when you encourage someone to run helping them really does make a difference," she continued.

That sort of loyalty stems at least in part from Gillibrand's aggressiveness in supporting candidates once she decides to back them.

"She has walked the walk and talked the talk in a place where talk is cheap," one lawmaker who Gillibrand supported in 2012 said. "To varying degrees there are women primarily active in the House or Senate … [but] I haven't seen anyone, quite frankly, who's as aggressive not only in fundraising but in how those dollars are used," this lawmaker said.

"There's a lot of people in politics who will say 'I'll do this or that when you get in the race' … [but] its hard to find people who actually back that up," Rice said bluntly.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein tore into the CIA in a blistering — and widely covered — floor speech on Tuesday. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough met with the senator after her speech.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Diane Feinstein (left) meets with top intelligence officials during a September 2013 hearing.

Jason Reed / Reuters

WASHINGTON — White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough hastily appeared on Capitol Hill Tuesday to meet with Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein after the powerful Democrat attacked the CIA for spying on Congress in a blistering floor speech that sent reverberations throughout Congress.

Feinstein has long been one of the fiercest defenders of the intelligence community, refusing to join with Sens. Ron Wyden, Rand Paul, and others who have roundly criticized the various intelligence operations for spying on Americans.

Although Feinstein's office declined to comment, multiple sources saw McDonough enter the Hart Senate office building Tuesday, shortly after the chairwoman had completed her speech on the House floor. Obama's chief of staff then met with Feinstein to discuss the burgeoning scandal, according to these sources.

In the past, however, Feinstein has acknowledged she has discussed the CIA's programs with McDonough.

Top officials at the White House did not return requests for comment. But the fact that Obama dispatched his top aide to the hill — even as CIA Director John Brennan was publicly denying his agency had spied on the Senate — underscores the seriousness of the issue for the administration and the turning point it is facing in its relationship with Congress' oversight committees.

Feinstein's reluctance to criticize the intelligence community made her floor speech Tuesday all the more notable, a fact the California Democrat was clearly aware of.

"Let me say up front that I come to the Senate floor reluctantly," she said in the speech. "Since Jan. 15, 2014, when I was informed of the CIA's search of this committee's network, I have been trying to resolve this dispute in a discreet and respectful way. I have not commented in response to media requests for additional information on this matter. However, the increasing amount of inaccurate information circulating now cannot be allowed to stand unanswered."

She then laid out evidence that the CIA has been spying on her committee's efforts to oversee CIA detention and interrogation activities over the last several years.

"This [is] a defining moment for the oversight of our Intelligence Community," she said in the speech. How Congress responds and how this is resolved will show whether the Intelligence Committee can be effective in monitoring and investigating our nation's intelligence activities, or whether our work can be thwarted by those we oversee."

Amy Louise Brown paints the scenes of war most Americans don’t get to see.

army.mil

en.wikipedia.org

army.mil

View Entire List ›

The king of cable news has still got it.

Via foxnews.com

LINK: President Obama Appears On Between Two Ferns

LINK: Administration Defends Two Ferns Web Traffic

“Anything that I post up there [I] truly believe to be true. I’m not trying to lie to anyone.”

Via wordpress.com

With more than 6 million followers since its inception in 2011, UberFacts is one of the most widely followed accounts on Twitter. On Facebook, UberFacts' page has more than 283,000 likes. It even has its own website.

But many of its facts, while delightful, aren't actually factual, something noted by a BuzzFeed reporter in a tweet last December.

In this case, this fact was briefly true, during the debt ceiling debate in July of 2011, but UberFacts recycled the tweet numerous times, tweeting it on Feb. 6, 2012, Feb. 12, 2012, March 3, 2012, March 13, 2012, May 8, 2012, and June 19, 2012, as well as tweets in August 2012 and December 2012.

The tweets about Apple now read, "for a brief period of time in 2011, Apple had more money than the U.S. government."

When UberFacts was pressed over Twitter about the prevalence of false information coming from the account, BuzzFeed received an apparent response from Kris Sanchez, the founder of UberFacts. In December, he emailed to suggest unfollowing the UberFacts Twitter page instead of complaining about the validity of the facts. (Sanchez more recently denied sending the email, and suggested his email was hacked.)

Hey Andrew,

I'm Kris, and I'm the guy behind the UberFacts page on Twitter. It's been brought to my attention that you don't seem to be such a huge fan of the page! While, I guess that is unfortunate (although millions of other people love it) I wanted to let you know that you always have the option to unfollow the page. That would probably be the most logical thing to do instead of wasting your valuable time complaining about it. I'm pretty sure your thousands of followers on Twitter would like to read something more interesting… I know my MILLIONS of followers do. If you have any other ideas, feel free to tweet me @KrisSanchez. Happy Holidays!

Best,
Kris Sanchez

View Entire List ›

Twelve years of pent-up gubernatorial aspiration means a crowded field in the race to succeed Jan Brewer. Brewer announced on Wednesday she will not seek reelection .

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who is not seeking reelection.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters / Reuters

LOS ANGELES — This November something will happen that hasn't in 12 years: Arizona will have an open governor's election, and more than 10 people say they want the job.

The lineup of declared candidates includes everyone from the former CEO of Coldstone Creamery, a former Go Daddy executive, and a mayor.

"Anybody in the political class who wants to be governor is running," Doug Ducey, the former Cold Stone Creamery CEO and current state treasurer who announced his candidacy in February, told BuzzFeed.

The last open election was held in 2002 and won by Janet Napalitano. When she was tapped to head the Department of Homeland Security in 2008, Arizona's line of succession called for its secretary of state, Jan Brewer, to become the new governor.

Brewer, who confirmed Wednesday she would not seek reelection, was elected to a full term in 2010 on a campaign that emphasized the state's strict laws on undocumented immigrants. She currently holds a 42% approval rating in the state.

Entering the void is a slate of Republicans of varying backgrounds and just one Democrat, Fred DuVal.

Those familiar with the race offered various explanations for the disparity between the number of Republicans and Democrats, generally citing two: the lack of a deep Democratic bench and the national divisions within the Republican Party playing out in the state.

"I think there's some pent-up demand to run for office," said Bill Scheel, a spokesman for the DuVal campaign. "I think you also are seeing some issues that we're seeing nationally between the tea party and corporate interests and rich self-funders. All of the cast of characters, we have a microcosm of that in Arizona."

The Republican candidates range across the conservative spectrum — and are spending a lot of time trying to distinguish themselves. Ducey, the state treasurer, has positioned himself as a CEO with real-world experience. The campaign for Mesa Mayor Scott Smith characterizes him as a turnaround artist who can manage budget deficits. Former GoDaddy executive Christine Jones is gunning for a different kind of voter: She's voiced support for the polarizing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpiao. Her spokesman emphasizes the second amendment events she likes to attend.

Meanwhile, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett's spokesman described the candidate as a "mainstream" and "pragmatic" Republican.

"Ken's not a fire-breathing candidate," said Kyle Moyer, Bennett's spokesman. "He's not the one who throws red meat to the crowd."

A Public Policy Polling poll released March 4 showed Bennett leading the race with 20% support. Rodolfo Espino, an assistant professor at Arizona State University, said he saw Bennett as the likely Republican to emerge.

"Ken Bennett has been more pragmatic compared to the rest," Espino said. "With so many far-right candidates, they're going to have to compete with each other."

But the race will ultimately come down to resources, Espino said — an area where Bennett's falling short, according to the latest campaign finance filings. Bennett has raised just $17,492, according to the most recent filings. Conversely, Ducey has amassed more than a million dollars for the primary alone, and spent less than $200,000. Jones reported more than $500,000 in funding (including a nearly half-million loan from herself to her campaign) — she also spent more than $500,000.

Ducey's polling numbers don't reflect his campaign's hefty wallet, however. The former CEO carried only 6% support in the PPP poll, behind DuVal, Jones, and Andrew Thomas, a former Maricopa County attorney who was disbarred for ethical misconduct in 2012. "It's early," Ducey said. "We're just getting started."

The disparity between campaign cash and early polling numbers signals a wide-open race, said Brian Seitchik, Jones' campaign manager. "This race has a long way to go and it's very early," he said.

Seitchick pointed to Jones' social media presence — she has more likes than the other candidates — and how she's polling better than "more established politicians" as proof his candidate is a serious contender. "She's not a politician and I think that's resonating with folks." Those familiar with the race also mentioned Jones' personal wealth as an asset to her campaign.

Although Arizona tends to lean right — the GOP has a majority in both houses of the state legislature and Romney won the state with 53% of the vote in 2012 — its gubernatorial races have been historically close; Napalitano won in 2002 by less than 1%.

"There really is this history in Arizona of looking at these governors races in a very non-partisan way," said Scheel, the spokesman for DuVal.

Changing demographics could make races even closer. According to U.S. Census data, Arizonans identifying as Hispanic or Latino have increased from 25.3% in 2000 to 30% in 2012. "If you look back within the past 12 years, I don't think there was any discussion about [Latino voters] being in play, said Gabriel Sanchez, a spokesman for Latino Decisions, a political opinion research group. And Latino voters tend to be younger. The median age of Latino voters in Arizona is 25, versus 45 for white voters, he said.

But Republicans don't seem worried.

"The reality is people have been saying for 20 years there's this sleeping giant," said Tim Sifert, communications director for the Arizona Republican Party, about whether demographic changes would dramatically alter the election. "Time and time again, the results show that that doesn't happen."

Sifert said voters would be energized by their opposition to Obamacare, and argued the large number of Republicans running against each other was an asset, because voters would be more familiar with them.

"There's a number of legitimate Republican candidates who are running in the primary," he said. "Those Republicans are crisscrossing the state. What's happening on the Democratic side is nothing."

This post has been updated to Jones reflect fundraising totals.

LINK: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Announces She Won’t Seek Third Term

Friends Of The Earth: “We cannot understand why someone who served our country for so long as and for so well is now serving foreign oil interests.”

WASHINGTON — Opponents of Keystone are calling on former Obama national security adviser Jim Jones to reveal his list of lobbying clients before he testifies at a Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing on the project Thursday at the request of committee Republicans.

Leadership at Friends Of The Earth, an opponent of Keystone, are taking a hard line with Jones, a former Marine Corps commandant. In an attack campaign reminiscent of MoveOn's infamous "General Betray Us" effort from 2007, Friends Of The Earth is accusing Jones of abandoning his military legacy in his new role as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute and the Chamber of Commerce. Both organizations support the Canadian oil pipeline project.

"We cannot understand why someone who served our country for so long as and for so well is now serving foreign oil interests," said Ross Hammond, senior campaigner at Friends of the Earth. "Gen. Jones needs to come clean with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about who exactly is paying him to advocate on behalf of this dirty, dangerous pipeline and how much he is being paid."

Friends Of The Earth plans to send a letter to Jones Thursday ahead of his testimony, formally calling on him to reveal his client list ahead of his Senate testimony.

The group began distributing an "infographic" aimed at Jones featuring the Marine Corps motto "Semper Fi."

A lot is happening as courts across the nation rule on same-sex couples’ marriage rights. Here’s where things stand as of March 12.

John Gara/BuzzFeed

With a rush of court filings since the Supreme Court ruled this past June striking down the Defense of Marriage Act's ban on federal recognition of same-sex couples' marriages, lawyers and organizations have been racing and fighting to get a marriage case back to the high court. Trial court decisions started coming down on Dec. 20, 2013, and they haven't stopped since.

BuzzFeed will be updating this post as developments happen.

Virginia: In February, a U.S. District Court struck down Virginia's amendment that banned same-sex couples from marrying in the state. That ruling was challenged and now the 4th Circuit court will hear the case. The opening briefs in the appeal are due March 28. Responses are due April 11, with the reply due April 30. Oral arguments: Tentatively set for the week of May 12.

View Entire List ›

The deep divide that never went away. Splits within both parties as the administration tries to plan for what’s next in a post-Karzai Afghanistan.

President Barack Obama shakes hands with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File

WASHINGTON — The most closely watched race on Capitol Hill next month isn't in the United States. It's the presidential election in Afghanistan.

Who replaces Afghan President Hamid Karzai will carry deep consequences for the U.S. troop presence in the country, where Karzai has been in office for more than a decade. But where Congress will ultimately stand on the matter is anyone's guess.

Thirteen years after the United States invaded Afghanistan, lawmakers in both parties are bitterly split on how many U.S. troops should be in the country, how long, and for what purpose. With the U.S. mission in the country set to expire at the end of this year, and the administration trying to figure out what's next, the debate over what America should be doing in Afghanistan is ramping up again.

A coalition of liberal Democrats and libertarian-infused Republicans believe it's long past time to return all troops to the United States. That, more hawkish Democratic and Republican lawmakers believe, would undermine progress made in the last decade.

"I don't think people understand what a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan means in the long run," argued Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a Republican who served as an Air Force pilot in Afghanistan and Iraq. He's worried about what he calls "kind of this brand of isolationism creeping into our party."

"It's about regional stability," Kinzinger said. "Thousands of Americans have died to bring freedom to oppressed women, to oppressed people, in a very bad part of the world. It's been fairly successful and there's a lot more stability."

Kinzinger's view contrasts sharply with those of Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, who has long forcefully and vocally opposed staying in Afghanistan any longer — and is also a Republican.

"I join with Democrats on this often quite frankly, who believe as I believe, why in the world would you stay when you have spent $1.2 trillion in two wars?" Jones said. "And what do you have to show for it? More bombing? More death? It's crazy."

"Thirteen years later, nothing," he continued. "What is says to me is that we've never had a foreign policy that is realistic. I can dream and dream that we can make everything better but sometimes dreaming won't get you anything. I think our policies in Afghanistan are nothing but a pipe dream."

Alongside those longstanding tensions, many on Capitol Hill are in "watch-and-wait" mode until the Afghan election. The next president of Afghanistan — and whether he is seen as a trustworthy negotiator — will likely determine the fate of the bilateral security agreement (BSA).

The Obama administration has focused on reaching a BSA, which would establish the number of troops to remain in country post-2014 to Afghan forces with security training. But those negotiations have repeatedly hit dead ends with Karzai refusing to sign the agreement. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced last month that the United States would prepare a so-called "zero option" to withdraw all troops left in the country should a BSA not get signed.

On the Hill Wednesday, U.S. Gen. Joseph Dunford testified before a Senate committee that a full withdrawal would be devastating for the progress that has been made in Afghanistan.

"Withdrawal in my mind means abandoning the people of Afghanistan, abandoning the endeavor that we've been on for the last decade and providing al-Qaeda space within which to begin again to plan to conduct operations against the West," Dunford, a top commander, said.

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who chairs the foreign relations subcommittee on the Middle East, said he had spoken with Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari, who "regrets" not entering into a security agreement with the U.S and said the country was an example of why a BSA with Afghanistan was so essential.

"I think the administration has accepted the practical reality that the bilateral security agreement is necessary, but they aren't going to get there with Karzai so we have to wait until after the elections," Kaine said. He thinks that, once the elections are over, the goal is a structured agreement that balances training for Afghan forces "with the kind of protections we need."

"As a practical matter we just need to let the elections take place and work to find that agreement. If we can't find an agreement we'll do what we did in Iraq. That's not the desired outcome," Kaine said.

That question — whether the administration is serious about a full withdrawal — is playing heavily on the minds of both camps.

Rep. Peter Welch, a liberal member from Vermont, took Hagel's announcement as a tacit acknowledgement from the administration that a BSA might never get signed, hopeful as the administration might be that Karzai's successor will be willing to sign one.

"What you have is many advocates saying there's got to be a residual force and there's legitimacy to that argument, but when practical ability to implement it is zero, it's time to pull the plug," Welch said. "Whatever theoretical validity there is to talk about a residual force, there's no practical ability to have one that depends on the cooperation of Karzai or in all likelihood his successor."

Some Republicans who believe a BSA is essential say Hagel's "zero option" comments came too soon — and they are banking on the outcome of the presidential election.

"My argument has always been then perhaps we should wait until we have a new president we can negotiate with," said Rep. Michael McCaul. "I mean don't announce plans for a complete withdrawal until then. "

"The problem is it's sending a message to the Taliban and al-Qaeda that the U.S. is not determined to stay. This public disagreement that is going on is emboldening the enemy," Kinzinger said of Hagel's "zero option" planning. "I wish the administration would have maybe waited to make the comment until the new president is elected."

Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Kansas Republican, predicted that if the administration moved to bring all of the troops home, there would be "a great deal of pushback from Congress."

"A number of members of Congress will come out and make clear this is an unacceptable way for America to proceed," he said. "We've lost thousands of Americans in Afghanistan, and we saw what happened in Iraq when we didn't support them."

President Obama’s approval rating has hit a record low in the United States, but Kenyans still feel positively about the president.

Wednesday's Ronan Farrow Daily included a segment on President Obama's low approval ratings, currently at a record low of 41%.

MSNBC

Farrow soon moved the conversation in a different direction by saying, "Out in the wide world, there is one place he can always call home if they have anything to do with it.”

MSNBC

"Obama is our son from Kenya. We love him."

MSNBC

"He's a good person. He helps the needy people."

MSNBC

View Entire List ›

BREAKING NEWS: There are no new developments in the story.

That's just 17 minutes less than MSNBC spent covering the Chris Christie bridge scandal in the first 24 hours after that story broke.

CNN had everything from computer recreations...

... to Bill Nye "The Science Guy."

View Entire List ›

“Speaker Boehner, I just want to ask you why you want to break the dream of the DREAMers, of the students.” It’s the second time in several months Boehner has been approached while eating breakfast.

House Speaker John Boehner was approached by activists Thursday morning about immigration policy while waiting for his breakfast at a Capitol Hill diner.

The description underneath the video identifies the speaker as a "TIRRC Participant." TIRRC is a Nashville-based activist group called the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition.

"Speaker Boehner, I just want to ask you why you want to break the dream of the DREAMers, of the students," the activist said. "Can you please express your opinion about that? One second. Just one second. I really want to know why you have broken the dream of the DREAMers."

"Whoa, whoa, whoa. That's not very nice," Boehner said.

In the video, multiple people then tried to get the activists to stop questioning the speaker or leave; eventually Boehner got up, walked behind the counter, and exited the diner.

Boehner was also confronted at Pete's Diner in November of last year about his stance on immigration.

LINK: After Backlash, Congressional Hispanic Caucus To Hit Obama Harder On Deportations

View Entire List ›

No matter what, it’ll take some cooperation from the White House. “Let’s not spend 90 minutes pissing on Obamacare,” one AFL-CIO leader said at a recent New York event on health care.

zimmytws/zimmytws

WASHINGTON — A couple dozen of New York's top leaders from labor and health care sat at a roundtable late February in a room near the top of the New York City District Council of Carpenters building to discuss one thing — how to fix the Affordable Care Act.

The mood was upbeat and forward-looking at the six-hour conference. But there was also a sense of uneasiness about what may still lie ahead, the consequences of the plan many of them once so ardently supported.

"Let's not spend 90 minutes pissing on Obamacare," warned Gene Carroll, the moderator for the event's final roundtable talk and co-director of the New York State AFL-CIO Cornell Union Leadership Institute.

It was meant as a joke, but wasn't completely in jest. Though the several dozen invited guests generally agreed Obamacare was a good first step, they all wanted to see changes.

The height of union disagreement now stems from the so-called Cadillac Tax, which is a 40% excise tax that, starting in 2018, that will be imposed on plans exceeding a certain threshold. Union plans can exceed these thresholds and employers who are required to foot the bill are worried it'll bite into profits, according to union sources.

According to several union leaders, those worries are starting to play out at the bargaining table, or employers have warned them it soon will.

"We're used to fighting big fights over wages, or pensions, or other terms and conditions of work. But we've always been pretty well successful on finding the accommodations on health care," International Association of Machinists President Thomas Buffenbarger said.

"Now some of the biggest employers in the country are saying, 'We are prepared for war,'" he added.

National union representatives have met with officials from the White House, Department of Labor, the Treasury Department, and others on several occasions to try to make their case for changes to the health care law but so far haven't had much traction.

"Although the agencies have declined a number of requests from unions, discussions continue about ways to address union concerns," one union health care official told BuzzFeed.

The official did not specify what requests have been denied.

In a statement, a White House official acknowledged that a "variety of stakeholders" have met with officials about the health care law, but declined to elaborate on what those discussions have entailed.

"We have met with a variety of stakeholders, including labor leaders to talk about issues important to working families, including how the Affordable Care Act is making health insurance more affordable and accessible for workers and employers alike and will continue working together to help more Americans gain access to quality, affordable coverage," the official said.

Union tensions with Obamacare have been on the rise as negotiations with the administration have remained unfruitful and employers have become more reluctant when it comes time to renegotiate health benefits.

While the White House hasn't yet appeased any union demands, it has made changes. That includes the recent delay of the soon-to-be canceled plans considered substandard by the new law until well after the midterms and the end of Obama's tenure. And labor leaders have taken notice.

"It's clear they have chosen not to use what I believe is the same administrative authority and executive authority to address some of the issues that we have been pointing out that they have found basis to use for other areas," International Association of Fire Fighters General President Harold Schaitberger told BuzzFeed.

Unions last year demanded their Taft-Hartley health care plans be eligible for individual tax breaks on the marketplace, as well as the tax break they already receive for being an employer-provided plans. Late last year the Treasury Department issued a letter stating that it did "not see a legal way" the plans could receive the additional break.

Others argue that employers are simply using Obamacare as an excuse, and that health care conditions aren't much different than they would've been had the law not been instated.

"It appears that employers are using the ACA as an excuse for try [sic] to accomplish a lot of things that they've hoped to do for some time – make further cuts to benefits," Wayne Ranick, communications director for United Steelworkers International, told BuzzFeed in an email. "So yes, the ACA has created some new twists and challenges at the bargaining table, but it's more like variations on a theme than wholesale new concepts that we've never seen before."

Labor officials believe employers are starting to bring up the Cadillac Tax now, four years before it goes into effect, for one of two reasons.

One is that many employers don't yet fully understand the tax, and want to hedge on costs now before they get blindsided by them in a few years. The other, like Ranick argued, is that employers understand exactly what's going on but want to use the still murky and confusing tax to shift health care costs to workers.

To at least try to quell that first worry, a union health care official said they are hopeful that the Treasury Department, along with the Internal Revenue Service, will release guidelines to employers for dealing with the Cadillac Tax.

But while several delegates at the event in New York had plenty to say on the downsides of Obamacare, others were insistent that they focus on the root of the problem.

"Why aren't we all on the same side against the high cost of health care?" Mitra Behroozi, executive director of Benefit and Pension Funds for the local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union, asked at the roundtable.

As of now, many labor leaders are on the fence — torn between continuing support for a law they once helped campaign for, and protecting their members from the consequences they believe the law might lead to.

"We're just on the political merry-go-round," said Schaitberger, the IAFF general president.

“After reading the transcript of yesterday morning’s interview, it is clear that I was inarticulate about the point I was trying to make,” Ryan says.

Mike Theiler / Reuters

Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan sought Thursday to tamp down controversy surrounding recent comments he made about inner-city poverty.

On Bill Bennett's Morning in America radio show Wednesday, Ryan lamented a "tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work."

The remark, which was first reported by the liberal site ThinkProgress, drew fire from critics who argued urban poverty couldn't be dismissed as merely a cultural issue, while some complained that the remarks were racially loaded.

In a statement sent to reporters Thursday, Ryan said the comment was "inarticulate" and went on to make the case that multigenerational poverty has been the result of society's decision to "isolate or quarantine the poor."

Ryan's full statement is below:

"After reading the transcript of yesterday morning's interview, it is clear that I was inarticulate about the point I was trying to make. I was not implicating the culture of one community—but of society as a whole. We have allowed our society to isolate or quarantine the poor rather than integrate people into our communities. The predictable result has been multi-generational poverty and little opportunity. I also believe the government's response has inadvertently created a poverty trap that builds barriers to work. A stable, good-paying job is the best bridge out of poverty.

"The broader point I was trying to make is that we cannot settle for this status quo and that government and families have to do more and rethink our approach to fighting poverty. I have witnessed amazing people fighting against great odds with impressive success in poor communities. We can learn so much from them, and that is where this conversation should begin."

Ryan has spent much of the past year and a half traveling the country and meeting with community advocates for the poor, and plans to release new policy proposals this spring aimed at at addressing poverty.

“I want folks to think seriously about how slavery really works.”

Jim Brown is an Arizona business man and a candidate for Arizona's 2nd Congressional District.

Via scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net

"It is my sincere belief that over entitlements are a means of em- slaving [sic] the people by robbing opportunity while taking care of basic needs," Brown said.

Via Facebook: permalink.php

View Entire List ›

As the Catholic Church celebrates the one year anniversary of Francis’ papacy, House Speaker John Boehner urges the Pontiff to bring his message of “protection of the most vulnerable among us-the ailing, the disadvantaged, the unemployed, the impoverished, the unborn” to Congress.

Pope Francis has his skull cap removed by a child during an audience with children assisted by volunteers of Santa Marta institute in Paul VI hall at the Vatican December 14, 2013.

Giampiero Sposito / Reuters / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Speaker John Boehner Thursday invited Pope Francis to address a joint session of Congress should he visit the United States, saying the address "would also offer an excellent opportunity for the American people as well as the nations of the world to hear his message in full."

"The Holy Father's pastoral message challenges people of all faiths, ideologies and political parties. His address as a visiting head of state before a joint meeting of the House and Senate would honor our nation in keeping with the best traditions of our democratic institutions," Boehner, a devout Catholic, said in a statement.

Addresses to a joint session of Congress are a rare event, and are typically reserved for the President or visiting heads of state. If Francis accepts Boehner's invitation, sources said it appears his speech would mark the first by a religious leader.

Although the Vatican has not announced a trip to the United States, Francis is reportedly considering coming the U.S. next year and Boehner's invitation would be an open ended one.

Since his ascension to the papacy last year, Francis has sent jolts through the Catholic Church by focusing on poverty and equality issues.

"Pope Francis has inspired millions of Americans with his pastoral manner and servant leadership, challenging all people to lead lives of mercy, forgiveness, solidarity, and humble service. His tireless call for the protection of the most vulnerable among us-the ailing, the disadvantaged, the unemployed, the impoverished, the unborn-has awakened hearts on every continent," Boehner noted in his statement.

"His social teachings, rooted in 'the joy of the gospel,' have prompted careful reflection and vigorous dialogue among people of all ideologies and religious views in the United States and throughout a rapidly changing world, particularly among those who champion human dignity, freedom, and social justice," he added.

The new deal has five Republican co-sponsors, which should be enough to overcome a GOP filibuster.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — The Senate has reached a bipartisan deal to extend expired unemployment insurance benefits for five months, breaking a months long deadlock over the expired program.

The agreement, between five Republican and five Democratic members, should make it possible for the bill to clear the 60-vote threshold needed to avoid a filibuster. They include Sens. Dean Heller, Susan Collins, Rob Portman, Lisa Murkowski, and Mark Kirk.

The proposal will extend unemployment insurance for five months, retroactive to Dec. 28 when the program expired. The roughly $9.7 billion cost of the proposal will be paid for by a combination of offsets, which include "pension smoothing" from the 2012 highway bill and extending customs user fees through 2024.

The proposal also includes a provision that would make anyone who made $1 million or more in the preceding year ineligible to receive UI. According to a press release, .03% of people who filed for unemployment benefits earned more than $1 million and actually received some form of UI.

"We're not at the finish line yet, but this is a bipartisan breakthrough," Sen. Jack Reed, a Democratic co-sponsor said. "I am grateful to Senator Heller for his leadership and for my many colleagues on both sides of the aisle who worked constructively to find a way forward."

Even if the bill passes the Senate, it's fate in the House remains unclear.